The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-04-27 00:00:00

Entperial Varliammt.
HOUSE OF LORDS.-MONDAY.
_ .

Their EM:ciships met at 5 o'clock.
Lord WINSLICYDALI asked if the Government in•
tended to refer the ease of the seizure of the Cagliari to
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council He be- I
tiered it would be the best possible mode of obtaining an
opinion on the subject.
The Earl of MALIIHRBURY would consider the sugges-
tion made by Lord Wensleydale, but could not give a
definitive answer. The question of the seizure of the
Cagliari was divided into two distinct parts; the first
had an exclusively English interest, being the detention
and imprisonment of the two engineers. On that point
the law officers of the Crown were unanimous in their
opinion that the imprisonment of those two English
subjects was illegal, and that the Government might de-
' mend compensation for what they had suffered. On
that opinion the Government had acted; a demand for
such compensation from the Neapolitan Government
had already been made. On the second question, the
legality of the capture of the Cagliari, the law officers
were divided in opinion, two of them deciding that the
capture was legal, one that it was illegal.
On the motion of the Duke of Noarout, an address
was agreed to for copies of correspondence between the
Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund and other parties
relating to the case of Mrs. Rosins. Bennett and her
children. .

In the discussion on the subject Lord COLCHEEITREL
and Lord Sr. LEONARDS defended the Commissioners
from the imputation of partiality in administering the
fund.
Lord CAMOTEI admitted that in the explanation of the
Cominissioners the charge had been completely and
satisfactorily answered.
The Customs' Bill went through committee.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

TUESDA.Y.
Their Lordships met at 5 o'clock.
Lord MONTEAGLE inquired whether the Government
intended to ley before the House the resolutions to be
moved in the House of Commons relating to the recon-
struction of the Government of India?
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH stated that the Govern-
ment (lid not intend to lay any resolutions on the subject
before the House of Lords. . . .

The Customs' Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH, in presenting a petition
from householders in the districts of Belgravia and
Bindle* against the nuisance of barrel organs in the
streets, addressed the House on the subject, pointing out
the sufferings of the inhabitants of those districts from
the evil, and the difficulty of finding a remedy for it,
either from the police or the law, if the law was appealed

to.
Lord DUNGANNON oould not linderstand why the
matter was brought before the House; their time ought
not to be occupied by such • trival subject.
On the motion of Lord RILDESDAL6, it WU ordered
that no Bill be read a second time after the 27th of July,
except Bile of Supply, or such Bills as the House may
specially exempt from the order.
Their Lordships then adjourned.
THURSDAY.

Their Lordships met at 5 o'clock.
The Earl of MALWERBURY laid on the table additional
papers relating to the capture of the Cagliari.
Lord LYNDHURST moved the second reading of the
Oaths Bill. He explained that the objection formally
made to • similar measure by the Earl of Derby, that
the question of the Oath of Abjuration and that of the
removal of the disabilities of the Jews were mixed up
together, was obviated in the present measure. The two
questions were separated, and stood by themselves.
On each of them the House could come to a distinct
vote. The portions of the Oath of Abjuration referring
to the supposed descendents of the Pretender were can-
celled, and the remainder of it, referring to the succes-
sion, supreinacy, and allegiance, formed one oath, to
which the words "on the true faith of a Christian"
were annexed. The question of the disability of the
Jew was raised on the fifth clause, by which it was pro-
vided that on the oath being administered to a Jew the
words "on the true faith of • Christian" might be
struck out. In committee on the Bill it would be com-
petent for any noble lord to move the omission of the
sth clause, and thus the whole question of the Jewish
Disabilities would be distinctly raised. He thought any
discussion till the next stage of the Bill would be unne-
cessary.
The Earl of DERBY saw no objection to modifying the
existing form of the oaths, and omitting those portions
of them which had become obsolete. He should not,
therefore, object to the second reading of the Bill. But,
as to the clause removing the disabilities of the Jews, he
had heard nothing to change the opinion he had formerly
expressed ; and lie must say, with some regret, but with-
out hesitation, that he could not take • different course
as to the present meuure. If the =minion of the sth
clause were moved in committee, he should support the
motion.
Earl GREY reminded their Lordships that the House
of Commons had several times during the last quarter of
a century declared itself against continuing the exclusion
of Jews from Parliament. The opinion of the nation
on the subjeat was conclusively made up, and to that
opinion it would not be dignified in the House of Lords
to oppose an obstinate resistance. It could not per-
manently close the doors of Parliament against the Jews,
and it should not take up • position it could not main-
tain. If the clause were rejected, the results would tea
series of conferences, adverse votes, and an open rupture
between the two Houses, and finally the House of Com•
moons would carry out its decision without their Lord•
ships' assent. He recommended the Earl of Derby to
follow, with regard to this question, the example of the
Duke of Wellington on the repeal of the Test and Cor-
poration Acts.
The Bill was then read a second time, and their Lord-
ships adjourned.