The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-04-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

the HMIS OF LORDS, April 23, the Earl of Dueraven
.12alleci attention to the distress prevailing in several parts of
Ireland, tend moved a resolution to the effect that the Rouse,
While desiring to impress upon the Government the necessity
of securing sufficient rell, f for the suffering population, was
of opinion that a large scheme of emigration was desirable to
Prevent the recurrence of distress.
The Marquis of Lansdowne described the condition of the
_ewer class of tenants as one of chronic misery, and urged
ewe Government to afford increased facilities for emigration
end a relaxation of the limitation to .£5 of the aid to be given
to each person emigrating.
Lord Carlingford agreed that emigration would afford the
leest remedy for the congested and.poverty-stricken state of
Hie western districts, but he wished it to be understood that
Ling not the desire of the Government to force it upon the
• veopie„
lier genie observations by Lord Monteagle, Earl Forte acne,
en the Earl of Donoughenore, the motion was withdrawn,
and
eePeome other orders having been disposed of, their Lord-
'ell's adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.
_ln the HOUSE Or CoMbioNS, in answer to a question from
21:r Chaplin, who wished to know whether there was any
;:ence of seeing the Tenants' Compensation Bill introduced
fore Whitsuntide, Mr. Gladstone said it depended entirely
" the progtess of the debate on the Affirmation Bill, the
tellond reading of which would be the first business until the
eacuse had disposed of it.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. e
„. The Attorney-Genera!, in moving the second reading of th
Sarliamentary Oaths Act Amendment Bill, said that the
'douse, when it had to deal with questions of this kind,
°Wet to take no course that would deprive constituencies
et their due rights. Every constituency had an undoubted
, right to elect whomsoever it thought fit, provided the
Person elected was not disqualified ; and after the disqualiti-
iton the constitueacy ought to have due notice of the fact.
filter this notice had been given the constituency ceased to
LAY() the right to elect the disqualified person, otherwise the
enetiktiency might again return the disqualified mem-
eer to the House, and the lieuse might throw him back on
etle Constituency; but in the absence of any such notice,
lee held that there was nothing to interfere with the free-
awn of choice of the electors. It was an accepted princi-
: Ple then that a constituency might elect any one it chose,
Provided that the member sleeted was not known to be
Wl:qualified. At the present moment no disqualification
' was known to exist on account of religious beliefs; very
• tuunerous statutes imposed disqualification for various
teasons, but none of them did so on the score of the
iteligious belief of the elected member. Without men-
- "wing all these statutes seriatim, it would be sufficient
t
"him to state the broad fact that disqualification on
the ground of religious belief was not imposed by any of
*Elem. If hon. members would refer to an authority who
Wax not likely to err in such a matter, they would find it
aPeeially stated in Blackstone's Commentaries that
every subject of the realm was eligible to the right of
election. This absence of disqualification, however, was
tot confinteito members of Pe House. There was no ells-
qualincation on religious grounds which would prevent a
, Deer of the realm from taking his seat in the other House.
Peer might be summoned who was known to hold views
. Sot entertained by the Christian community, and, if he
those to take his seat, could do so without hindrance.
111 the same way, as no such consideration could affect the
rieht of a peer to take his seat, so there was no office,
with a few exeeptions, for which a peer could be die-
- Vilified by his religious belief. Again, in the reformed
rarliament of the year 1833, when an Act was passed
tegtilating the affairs of India, the House, after considers-
:, teen, added the following declaration That no native
• of the said territories, nor any natural subject of His
Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his
_religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them,
lee disabled from holding any place, office, or employment
'ander the said company." Now, there was, as,he had
?tatted, a general right of election, and the House, though
4 might unquestionably impose conditions precedent to
• it member's taking his seat, ougheanot to impose each son-
ditions as amounted to a disqualiffeation. The disqualifies-
On should be direst, and direct notice of it should be
Siren to the constituency; but the Rouse had no right to ad-
alit the legal freedom of election, and then to interpose
tti indirect barrier between the elected member and his
• !eat That had never been the intention of the Legis
41,...1itnre when changes of the law were proposed and made
__,4wee had been proposed for political objects, and not as reti-
M e ous tests. (Hear.) In Saxon times there was an oath of
fealty, and in pre-Reformation times an oath of allegiance.
In the reign of Elizabeth for the first time the oath of
' lisPremacy was introduced, in order that there should be
some assertion made by those who accepted office that
Elizabeth
supported the power of the Crown. In the 3rd of
calzabeth that obligation was imposed with a political
Object, but not as a religious test. In the reign of James 1.,
after the gunpowder plot, there was a further oath of
allegiance imposed; but no one could say that these two
oaths of supremacy and allegiance, though directed against
ißoman Catholics were directed against the doctrines of
their Church, but only against their own political action.
As time went on loyal 'Roman Catholics took oaths of
allegiance and supremacy, and sat in Parliament without
the
to their feelings. But in the reign of Charles 11.
euee declaration against Transubstantiation was intro-
muced, the object of which was directed against the
political action of the Roman Catholics of the time. Then,
tn the reign of William 111., when there was a necessity
supporting the Protestant succession, a third oath was
• 1-otroduced—the oath of abjuration—namely, abjuration of
the Stuarts. Every member of Parliament who took his seat
• nad to take these oaths, the oaths of supremacy and elle-
Owes twice over, first before the Lord Steward and
again at the table of the House; also the oath of abjure-
„
"Pug the property qualification oath imposed in the reign
of George 11., and the oath against Transubstantiation.
• That was the unhappy position of a member coming to
take his seat. He now came to a happier time, when the
• Relief Bill of 1829 was passed. lip to that period fall
cake was given to the constituencies that if they elected
,A Roman Catholic he would have to declare his disbelief
..eu the tenets of his Church, and, therefore, he was prac-
' ‘l4slll disabled from sitting in the House. When
Connell was first elected for Clare the constituency knew
VIM he could not sit in their House. No petition could
el'e_presented against a member on the ground of religious
cella. The terms of the declaration against Transub-
stantiation formed the only barrier which prevented a
• Rernan Catholic from taking his seat. The Act of 18e9 of
%urge repealed the statute of Charles It., which made it
5550e55a17 to make the declaration against Transubstan-
tiation. The oath of supremacy was in a certain form
retained, but every obstacle to Roman Catholics entering
the House on the ground of religious belief was removed.
e•oraing now to the only Oaths Act at present affecting the
"trance of members into that House—namely, the statute
cf 18643—he had to ask what was the test imposed by that
statute. There was, of course, now no recital of the
We ores "on the true faith of a Christian." The oath
eed ceased to be any test of Christianity. Those who
Were not Christians could take it. Hon. gentlemen could not
but remember the argument which was used when it was
!proposed to admit Roman Catholics namely, that if
*hat were done they would destroy the Protestant character
.of the House. In the same way, when It was proposed to
admit Jews, it was said that the Christian character of
the Howe would be destroyed. There was now no test
either of the Protestantism or of the Christianity of the House.
They had reduced it to a test of Theism alone —ln con-
tinning, the Attorney-General said that the Speaker had ruled
that no inquiry was to be put with regard to the religious
belief of any member coming to the table to take the Oath,
and a Select Committee had reported to a similar effect. The
Oath, in fact, added nothing to the effect of a mere declara-
tion. The right hen. gentleman (Sir R. Cross) who had given
notice that he should move the rejection of the Ballad himself
declared that the question required legislation, and under the
circumstances the Government found that they could take
Wo other course than propose to legislate in the direction of
the Bill. If that was not the legislation the right hon. gen-
tleman desired, the only other legislation was by a Bill to
4iselaalify the member who did not take the Oath; and he
ohallenged him to say it he would venture to introduce a
Measure like that.
Sir R. Cross moved the rejection of the Bill, which he de-
scribed as having been introduced solely and expressly for
the purpose of securing that Mr. Bradlaugh should take his
seat. After tracing the various changes in the Ministerial
ftetion, he asked why the law should be changed because one
constituency, with full notice, had elected a member who
Could not take the oath. As to the public demand for the
-2111, he showed that up to the end of last week 3,700 pelt-
"ems had been presented against the Bill, signed by 513,000
ct all classes and creeds. The right hon. gentleman
concluded a speech of considerable length by saying—' He
trusted the House would throw out the Bill, and that
tette Prime Minister would be arrested in his reckleia course
clemembers of all creeds and political parties in every
Sutter of the House. The right hon. gentleman would
ilnd out at last, though it might be late, that the divisions;
that had taken place during the three years of this contra
"IsY had been but the expression of honest and earnest
.wienions, which were the result of solemn convictions. He
re. weileved that those opinions were now strengthened, and
e that the convictions were firmer than they ever were before.
The Prime Minister would find that they could not force this
Wieasure upon an unwilling House in defiance of the religi-
cs' instincts and the deep convictions of the majorite of the
People." (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman concluded by
inwrilig that the Bill be read a second time that day six
Month&
, Torrens seconded the amendment, and urged that if
leßislation on the subject were desirable it should be in the
toren of a general Bill dispensing with oaths. While, how-
ever, oath' were required in courts of law the Legislature
,Ought not to disparage their sanctity.
Mr. Baxter supported the Bill, and expressed a desire to
see oaths and declarations abolished altogether.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Dalrymple, Mr.
O'Sullivan, and Mr. A. Egerton, who opposed; and Mr.
Rinde Palmer and Mr. Shield, who supported the Bill.
ellsron H. de Worms and Lord Elcho also took part in the
uebatee
Sir W. Barttelot, and Mr. R. N. Fowler spoke in favour of
the amendment, while Mr. Firth and Mr. Webster sup-
Ported the Bill.
Sir R. Giffard denounced the measure as striking a serious
blow at the religious profession of the country.
On the motion of Sir H. D. Wolff the debate was ad-
burned.
The other business having been disposed of, the House
adjourned at five minutes to one.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, April 24, Lord Camperdown asked
Whether any further information had been received with
regard to the encroachments upon Zulu territory by subjects
Of the Transvaal state, and what action the Government
Intended to take in the matter. In putting his question, he
Pointed out that in 1881, when the Transvaal was reconsti-
tuted as an independent State, the boundaries of its territory
Were fixed by agreement. Since then encroachments had
lie
made by the Boers on the Zulu territory. Of that,
ne Contended; there could be no doubt; but when a,
representation was made last year to the Transvaal Govern-
Ment on the subject of encroachments it gave an answer
Which was in direct violation of the terms of the Conven-
tion entered into by it with this country. He hoped
ria,.er Majesty's Government would act with flrinness in
___`4ll2 matter, because it would be contrary to good
eencY and to the traditions of England not to assist,
,clirectly or indirectly, the people whose territory had
peen encroached upon. No expedition was neceseary
for this purpose. We might withdraw our Resident from
l'Tetoria. Certainly England could not afford to be beaten
this matter, and he helped that firm language would be
ne,,?11 by herNiajesty's Government to the gentleman now in
‘nle country who was understood to be in a position to re-
rtacnt tht views of the Government of the Transvaal.
Lord Derby, in reply, observed that it was perfectly true
that the answer given by the Transvaal Givernment last
_Whiter was by no means of a conciliatory character, but a
l'eply had been received to a further remonstrance, which
pitted that while the Transvaal Government did not aamit
the correctness of the representations made by our agent, it
had directed inquiries to be made, and had forbidden all en-
' ftnechments. There was in England a gentleman who, though
UOt ea accredited agent of the Transvaal Government, re-
ectented its opiLious, and he had had an oppottunity of
7-Lating to that gentleman the views of Her Majesty's
raernment. In the representations on this point her
ettY's Government expected to derive much assistance
hi
ona the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. The Cabinet
Tr.ere ready to consider the question of modifying our rela-
y_ons with the Transvaal, but he did not think that the with-
t73sar, al of our Resident at this moim nt would be calculated
~,,,treProve those relations. As to the neutral territory
~_"lch at the time of the rectification of the frontiers was
tn:cluded in the Transvaal State, the Government of the
I,ansvaal had raised the question who was to pay compensa-
tion to the people of that territory.
Lord Camperdown was glad to hear that the answer which
I:ad been received from the Boer Govenment was of a more
.!ttisfactory character, and, as regarded the migratory por-
:Len of the intruders, there was some probability that
“-enflements might be made. Bat another question had
,„.
nsoggested. The Transvaal Government had raised the
~"
yeaunu as to by whom the compensation should he paid.
~_e _could not understand how there could be any question
to the authority which ought to pay In the first place,
itc7encroachment was originally the encroachment of the
.„ere_,llPon the Zulus; and in the next place, after the Zulu
w
"`„,, we boundaries were expressly tired by the Boers.
Earl of Derby was understood to say that he had only
ni_ntioned the fact that the Transvaal Government had
471,,,(1 the question, without stating that Her Majesty's
On ernment had admitted that there was a question.
_thoe motion of Lord Longford, a return was ordered of
ato'7l° ,1 of the Rules and Regulations of the Commis-
ereof National Education in Ireland.
lordships adjourned it halt-past fire o'elook.