The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-04 00:00:00

.T7pp.Ay.

Their Lordships sat-sifi
The Hose having reso tood itself into a Committee on
the Oaths Bill,
The Earl uf WICKLOW moved the omiasion of the
words denying juriediotion, power, or authority, Goole.
elastics' or spiritual, to any foreign prince, prelate, or
potentate, within this realm.
Lord LYNDRURPIT thought if the alteration proposed
by the Earl of Wioklow were adopted, it would give
rise to greet diffioulties when the Bill went back to the
other OUlle. _

After a few words from Earl GUANVILLK and Lord
CAMPBKLL,
The Earl of WICKLOW withdrew hie amendment.

Clauses 1,2, 3, and 4 were passed. On clause ii being
nreset..4lll:l CHANCELLOR rose to move it. omission.
He contended that the words of the oath proved that
the Legislature never contemplated the recognition of
any other religion than the Christian. The civil rights
conceded to the Jew. did not include the right of sitting
In the Legislature. Jews were members of municipal
corporations, but in that position they were acting under
the authority of the law, and were responsible to the law
for their conduct. But as members of the Legislature
they would be supreme ; they would have no law but
their oonscience. But if they passed this law, the tie of
• common faith that bound the Legislature together
would be loosened, and it would cease to be Christian,
because a Christian test could no longer be applied to it.
If • Jew were sincere, if he were what he was repre-
sented to be, he must N animated by hostility to the
Christian religion; and the clause would place in the
governing body those who were hostile to it, highest
principles.
Lord LYNDHURST thought it useless to disguise the
position in which they were placed by the fact that this
Bill had been sent up to them year after year by con-
tinually increasing majorities. The Legislature of this
country was a species of problem ; it worked satiafaa-
torily only by mutual concessions. The House of Lords
should check any hasty, rash, and inconsiderate legisla-
tion by the House of Commons but it was never under-
stood that the House of Lords should make a firm, deter-
mined, and persevering stand against the mature opinion
of the other House of Parliament, backed by the opinion
of the people. If it did make such a stand it ought to
stand on a rock, not rely on a fragment Of an Act of
Parliament diverted from its original purpose. The
rule with regard to oaths was, that they should be
tamed in the manner most binding on the consciences
of those who took them. Therefore the words "on the
true faith of a Christian" in the oath were proposed to
be omitted when administered to a Jew. But it was
said if this were done it would admit Jews into Parlia-
ment. And whey not admit them? Were they not fel-
low-subjects, natives of the realm, and entitled to equal
privileges, as their birthright? The oath that excluded
them was part of an Act of Parliament intended for a
different purpose, and never applied to the Jews at all.
It was argued that the country was Christian, but it was
not exclusively Christian ; part of the population were
Jews, and Parliament was supposed to represent the
country. Were not the inhabitants of the British
colonies fellow-subjects, and entitled to protection
against the unehristianizing spirit that had been referred
? Yet the House had sanctioned constitutions for
Canada, Australis, and Now Zealand, by which Jews
were admitted to their Legislatures. Were those bodies
now unchristian bemuse Jews were members of them,
which was the case in Lcflrert'anada and Australia?

...
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH supported the omission
of the clause. . . . .

Lord STRATFORD DR RRDOLIFFR advocated the great
principle that every man was entitled to all the rights of
• subjed unless there was something in his religion that
made it necessary to exercise the power of excluding
him. He could not understand what there was to bring
the Jew under the exception. There was nothing in
his position that disabled him from taking part in the
legislation of his eountry. He had been engaged in ob-
taining from the Government of Turkey ooneessions in
favour of the Christians, and had been met by the Sultan
and his Ministers with much liberality.
The Duke of RUTLAND opposed the clause.
Lord Sunmcr of Atmentur thoughts continued op-
position to the expressed opinion of the House of Com-
mon., so long and NO frequently repeated, would give
rise to great ineonvenienees.
Lord DuNos•No• protested against the repetition
of these uneonstitutional references to oonsequenees.
The Bishop of CANHRL said he respected the Jews,
but eould not vote for a measure that might admit them
into that House. He believed no good Jaws would wish
to enter it, as they would not enter the judgment-seat of
the Romans lest they should be defiled.
Their Loiliships then divided there appeared for the
clause Content
:
Non-mutant „. 119
Majority against the elms ... 89
The Bill went through committee, and their Lordships
adjourned.

TETJESD
The Earl of Atmssomtm presented 6 petition from
Manchester end Salford, praying that the King of Oude
be restored to his throne. Though he (the Earl of
Albemarle) did not approve the policy thM led to the
annexation of Onde, yet he could not support the
prayer of the petition.
Earl GRANVILLII &eked, in reference to the despatch
recommending clemency and discrimination in the pu-
nishment of the Indian mutineers, why it had been
mint to the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors,
es it was not eddreased to any of the native chiefs or
prince.; and whether this was the legal and usual
course . . . .

,
The Earl of ELLINDOROUGH stated that the oourse
taken was strictly legal. It would have been most in.
oonvenient to make the subleot.matter of that despatch
public before the fall of Luoknow.
Lord LYNDHURST inquired whether the Government
intended to extend the proclaim; of the Divorce Bill to
Ireland . . .

.....—.. ,
The LORD CRANCILLOR said it was not the intention
of the Government to introduce any measure having

that object. As the compensation paid to proctors by
the Act was very large, the question of expense must
be considered before applying a similar law to Ireland.
The Earl of WICKLOW observed that the into Govern-
ment had promised that an Act of the same kind would
be introduced for Ireland.
Lord OIIANWORTH confirmed the statement.
The Marquis Of WEN'IIIEATH MOVCd the second read-
ing of the Bill for the sUppression of barrel organs.
The motion was negatived and the Bill thrown out.
The Earl of MALMEEIBURY stated that the condemna-
tion of the Cagliari by the Neapolitan Conlin was not
yet completed; the despatch of the Marqnis D'Areglio
of the 22nd March had been answered. He could not
discover that the Finglish Government had ever made
any promise to co-operate with that of Sardinia in this
question. From the merely English point of vie*, their
connexion with it was extremely slight, consisting only
in the accident of two English engineers being on board
the Cagliari. Her Majesty's Government had obtained
their liberation, the opinion of the law officers of the
Crown being unanimous that their detention was illegal;
the Government had also demanded from Naples an
indemnity for their imprisonment. The feeling in Sar-
dinia with regard to the capture of the steamer was very
strong—so strong as to create a risk of war between
the two Italian States. To prevent the occurrence of
hostilities so dangerous to Europe, Her Majesty's Go-
vernment had offered its good offices to Sardinia by
supporting its endeavour to obtain the restoration of
the Cagliari; and if it failed, he had advised Count
Cavour to have recourse to the mediation of some
friendly Power, according to the principle laid down
in the Convention of Paris, before proceeding to any
measures of hostility.
The Earl of CLARENDON remarked that the action of
the Government throughout this question had been
hampered by legal doubts. He heard with satisfaction
that Her Majesty's Government had demanded an in-
demnity for the two engineers.
After some further discussion the matter dropped.
—..__ . • ..

The Duke of ARGYLL, in moving for the pi:-orduction
of the report of the Directors, to the general Court of
the East India Company, on the two Bills relating to
the Government of India, criticized the provisions of the
Bill of the present Government, condemning the system
of election of members of the Council of India, a system
he believed the Government itself did not approve, as
the Earl of Ellenborough had declared his opposition to
it in 1853.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH defended the measure.
Ile had endeavoured to connect India, by the system of
election in its home government, with the great repre-
sentative powers of the country, and to give that sta-
bility and influence to the Council which could alone
prevent jobbing and remedy the mistakes of Parliament.
The state of India would not allow of any delay in de-
ciding upon its form of government.
Earl GREY believed the dangers of delay much less
than those of taking a false step that might be irre-
trievable. It was evident the public mind was not pre-
pared to deal with the question; the importance of the
reconstruction of the home Government of India had
been much exaggerated by all parties. It only affected
the manner in which the Cabinet acted on the Indian
authorities ; to the natives of India, who knew no one
but the Governor-General, it was of little importance.
After a short conversation the return was ordered and
their Lordships adjourned.

FRIDAY.
Their Lordships met at live o'clock.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH stated that a Department
of Audit had been established by the Government of
India in December, 1857. A full inquiry into the Ad.
ministration of the revenue of India would be made by
a commission to be Bent from this country, consisting of
one person from the Board of Trade, another from the
Customs, and another from the Treasury ; each of them
would be accompanied by a secretary taken from the
revenue department of India. These commissions would
act at first independently of each other ; they would
inquire into the whole system of revenue and accounts
In India, and make a report upon it, which might guide
the Government in any further measures.
The Oaths Bill, as amended, was read a third time.
The Exchequer Bills (E 20,911,500 Bill wont through
committee.
Their Lordships then adjourned.