The Press. — London, England, 1856-06-28 00:00:00

:; t r NE 28, 1856. Troct6in g s in ariianicnt. HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY, JUNE 23. OATH OF ABJURATION BILL. Lord LYNDHURST, in moving the second reading of this bill, said it was extremely difficult to understand what valid objection there could be to a measure of this description, seeing that the words in the oath, " on the true faith of a Chris tian," the retention of which was advocated by the opponents of the bill, were never intended for the purpose to which they had been made subservient. It this bill were rejected, every one of their lordships and every member of the House of Commons would be obliged to swear that no descendant of the Pre tender had any right or title to the crown of these realms ; and in the present day to compel a perscn to take an oath of that description was an act not only of oily but of impiety. Adverting to the bill to be introduced by Lord Derby in the event of the pre sent measure being rejected, Lord Lyndhurst sub mitted the only result would be that the bill would be passed by their lordships and then go down to the Commons, by whom it would be rejected, and the question would just remain where it was. Lord Lyndhurst then proceeded to review the history of the oath of abjuration, maintaining that it was origi nally framed to meet the case of the Roman Catholics, although, since the passing of the Catholic Emanci pation Act, no Roman Catholic was bound to take it, and t e oath might therefore be abolished without one single Catholic being affected by the change. He reminded the house that the oath which Roman Catholics were obliged to take did not contain the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and there fore those words had been practically abolished so far as they were concerned. Irrespective ot these considerations, he contended as a fundamental prin ciple of the Constitution that no British-born subject ought to be disfranchised, unless by some legislative provision intended to be directed expressly against him, not by one against the class or body of which he was a member. He cited the opinions of Lord Somers, Lord Chancellor Talbot, and Lord Chief Jus tice Raymond to show that, during the reign of William 111., the Jews were precisely in the same condition as any other natural-born subjects of the Crowfri ; and he submitted that it would more befit the cha racter of Parliament to exclude them by direct legis lation than by the construction of words never in tended to apply to them, and inserted into the oath for a very different purpose. He asked for this con cession to the Jews as a right and not as a favour. On a subject affecting the composition of the other House of Parliament, to insist on the retention of a passage in an act ot Parliament which had become obsolete he submitted was inconsistent with sound policy and the principles of the Constitution, and called upon the house, as an act of simple justice to a meritorious class of their fellow-subjects, to tear from the statute-book an enactment which excluded them from a privilege open to every other member of the community, and thus perfect a principle founded upon reason and justice. Earl STANHOPE moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He thought it important that there should be a cer tain bond of union among the various religious sects of Parliament. With the Jew there was no such communion, and it would be impossible to admit a member of that persuasion without throwing open the door of Parliament to Malioinetans anti Pagans indiscriminately. He denied that there was anything exceptional in the exclusion of the Jews. The Con stitution had appointed various qualifications as essential to the privilege of sitting in the Legisla ture. Minors, aliens, or persons not possesse of landed property wor th 3001. a year, were thus dis qualified, and the profession of Christianity might justly be included among other requisites. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the bill, maintaining that religious distinctions formed no rea Boilable cause for the denial of political rights. Lord RAYENSWORTH entreated their lordships, by accepting the bill, to close the long-pending conflict which bad existed between the constituencies and the House of Commons, or between one house and the other. Lord DUNGANNON feared that the nation would forfeit the favour of Providence, if by a national act abjured its Christian character. The Earl of Sr. GERMANS supported the bill. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE insisted upon the right of the Jews, who contributed to the burdens and performed all required functions of the State, to enjoy also political privileges. The house then divided, and rejected the bill by a majority of 32-110 to 78. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. FORTESCUE rose to submit his motion on the subject of national education in Ireland, intended to everse the vote given on Tuesday week in favour THE PRESS. tit Mr. Walp ol e's motion for an address sanctioning certain essential alterations. Mr. Fortescue moved : That this house has observed with satisfaction the pro gress made in the instruction of the poorer classes of her Majesty's Irish subjects, under the direction of the Com missioners of National Education, and is of opinion that, in the administration of that system, or in any modifica tion of its rules, there should be maintained a strict and undeviating adherence to its fundamental principles, securing parental authority and the rights of conscience to pupils of all denominations, by excluding all com pulsory religious teaching, this house being convinced that no plan for the education of the Irish poor, however wisely and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effectual operation, unless it be explicitly avowed and clearly understood, as its leading principle, that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomi nation of Christians. Mr. KIRK seconded the motion. Mr. WALPoLE said two grave questions were raised by the resolution ; one materially affected the relations of that house with the Crown ; the other related more particularly to the merits of the mo tion. With regard to the first, he was of opinion that when an address was voted to the Crown the house should not lightly recur to the subject until it had received an answer to the address, and this was the ordinary rule. A contrary proceeding would piece the house in a false position, unseemly as re garded the Crown. The resolution rested upon two grounds—first, that the address weed to on Tues day last, if adopted as it was, would subvert the national system ; secondly, that the nesessary con sequence of the address was to substitute a new sys tem of education in Inland which would have the effect of enabling persons to proselytise children of another faith. As to the first, he defied any one to point out in the terms of the address, or in the observations he made, any intention to subvert the national system, which his object was to supple ment, by giving to every class and portion of the com munity a share of the grant, of which they should not be deprived by any regulation which interfered with conscientious scruples. With respect to the second reason, that he desired to substitute for a rule of the National Board another rule of the Church Education Society, which would facilitate prose lytism, this argument proceeded, he said, upon the false assumption that he entertained such intention, whereas he had never made an observation that could lead any one to infer that he would willingly interfere with parental authority or the rights of conscience, or compel particular religious teaching; on the contrary, he held that such an attempt ought not to be made, and if his proposition could not he carried into effect without those consequences, he would be the first man to say the address ought not to stand. But there was nothing in it which led to that conclusion. With respect to Mr. Fortescue's resolution, he believed it quite harmonised with the address, though he could not consent to it if it amounted to a recision of the address; but, believ ing that it amounted only to a revision of it, he was willing to adopt the resolution, in order to remove any doubt as to the intention of the address. He took the address and the resolution together, and considered them as embodying one proposition, that it was most unjust to deprive any part of the corn. munity of a share of a public grant, while no attempt should be made to interfere with parental authority or invade tne rights of conscience, laving to the National Board the duty of framing the regulations by which these principles should be carried out. Mr. LLSOUCHERE believed that the resolution would satisfy the public mind in Inland, and he rejoiced that Mr. Walpole had consented to sup port it. Mr. CAIRNS said, the house bad now before it a resolution which, in the opinion of many members who had voted for the address, militated in no respect against the address. The node lord at the head of the Government said there were three reasons fshich led him to conclude that the house would rescind the address,—first, that the subject was one of the greatest importance ; secondly, that the decision was most mischievous; and, thirdly, that the address would, in its consequences, subvert the wtiole system of education in Ireland. Did the noble viscount mean, in the first place, to say that every resolution which was of importance ought to be reconsidered? With regard to the second reason, every address that left the Government in a minority was no doubt considered by that Government to be most mischievous. The third reason, that the effect of the address would be to subvert a system of long duration and of infinite importance, surely made it the duty of the Government to subvert the address. Why then did they not propose to rescind the ad dress in toto ? Fur himself he agreed with the re solution, which he contended was consistent with the address, which did not propose to overturn the na tional system. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished that the resolution had been more direct in reversing the vote of Tues• day. He trusted the Government would permit no change in the rules of the National Board. Mr. NAPIER maintained that the Protestants of Ireland were merely asking what the Protestant• of Englund demanded, and which Lord John Russell had publiely conceded to he their right—namely, that education should be based on religion. Could a system be called national to which the Protestants of Ireland objected? Mr. HORSMAN pointed out the inconsistency of adhering to an address which set up the plan of the Church Education Society, and adopting a resolution which affirmed the existing system of the National Board. The result of the former, he observed, would be to establish in Ireland denominational schools, instead of national, and the attempt would introduce inequality and confusion. The only persons hostile to the existing system was a section of the estab lished clergy of Ireland; but the resolution, to which all sides of the house assented, affirmed that that system had been successful, that its principle was a sound one, and that it ought to be supported. Mr. GROGAN moved to add at the end of the reso lution the following words : But that, consistently with these principles, the house is of opinion that no school should be disentitled to receive aid from the funds of the board because the rules of such school require that a portion of the Scriptures should be read each day by each child, as part of the general instruc tion of the school. Mr. G. A. 1 - I.AumioN supported this amendment. Lord BERNARD moved that the debate be ad journed._ Lord PALMERSTON objected, and, upon a division, this motion was negatived by 331 to 50. . . . . Mr. VANCE then moved that the house do ad journ. - This motion was supported by Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Grogan, and Mr. George, who complained that the Government bad not declared what were their intentions if the resolution should be agreed to. Lot'd PALMERSTON hoped the house would come to a decision that night. As to the sense of the re solution, the Government understood that if it should be affirmed it would be the opinion of the house that no change should be made in the regula tions and practice in administering the public grant for education in Ireland. The house bad to deter mine whether the system of education which had conferred so much benefit upon that country was to continue or be abandoned—whether religious peace should be established, or religious war be declared. Mr. DISRAELI said it was and had been his in tention to vote for the resolution to support on its fundamental principle the system of national edu cation in Ireland as it at present existed ; but he was open to agree to all moditicat►ons consistent with that principle. The motion for adjournment was negatived by 328 to 30. The house then divided upon Mr. Grogan's amend ment, wh►ch was negatived by 282 to 93. The original resolution was then agreed to. SARDINIAN LOAN BILL. This bill passed through committee on Lord PAL MERSTON, in reply to Mr. Bowyer, explaining that the policy of her Majesty's Government in respect to Sardinia was to support the Sardinian Government in that enlightened and liberal course which it had so honourably pursued : If that which was not the case at present should occur the Sardinian Government should be animated by schemes of aggression, the British Government would use all the influence it possessed to dissuade it from such • course. Such interference was quite unnecessary as long as the Sardinian Government was animated, as at present, by moderation, wisdom, and enlightenment. COUNTY COURTS ACTS AMENDMENT Sir J. PAKINOTON gave notice that when it went into committee he should move that the salaries of the County Court judges should be equalised at 1,5001., instead of 1,2001., as the bill now stood. HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY. DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. Lord LYNDHURST laid on the table the report of the select committee on the Divorce and Matrimo nial Bill, and gave notice that on Thursday he should move that the report be referred to a committee of the whole house. The Joint-stock Companies Bill passed through committee. OATH OF ABJURATION AMENDMENT BILL. The Earl of DERBY moved the second reading of this bill, which is limited to the amendment of the existing statute so far as regards the abjuration of the descendants of the Pretender. Lord CAMPBELL regretted that the bill, instead of amending the existing statute which imposed the oath of abjuration, di.l not repeal it altogether, as it was a disgrace to the statute-book. The Earl of DERBY said that he had been induced to put his bill in its present shape by a desire to avoid a conflict with the other House of Parliament. Had he adopted the course recorn.---- ' _ _ noble and learned lord (Lord Campbell), "on the true faith of a Christian" would, a desire to Pat - Haman'. tided by the , the words I, in all pro.