The Press.
London, England, 1857-07-25 00:00:00

THE P tt-E SS, JULY 25; 185 t

self. I hope, however, that if the House of Commons
should order me to be taken to Newgate or the Tower the
people will rise in my defence. Ido not think that the
House of Commons can suppose that the people will
quietly see the judges dealt with in so arbitrary a manner,
but I am prepared to do my duty if the attempt is made.
I have, however, great confidence in those who now direct
the deliberations of the House of Commons. I have had
the honour to sit with two of the most distinguished
leaders of that house, and I shall be very much mistaken
if they give their sanction to the passing of such a resolu•
tion. I have, indeed, read of a resolution that certain
members of the other House of Parliament are said to
have come to, in which the Prime Wnister is pressed and
urged and almost compelled to agree to such a resolution ;
but 1 have great confidence in the firmness of the present
Prime Minister, and I believe that he will give them a
very courteous but very decisive answer, that such a pr.).
cee ling would be contrary to the law and constitution of
the country.

The Loan CHANCELLOR replied that the ease had
been deferred from time to time on the petition of
both parties. It would now probably stand over till
next year, as the session was too advanced to allow
of its being heard.
Lord BROUGHAM spoke strongly against the pro-
posed resolution or the House of Commons.

TRANSFER OF LAND.
Lord Sr. LF.ONARDS called attention to the mea-
sures proposed for facilitating the transfer of land,
and entered into a lengthened !explanation ,with
regard to the subject, which from his peculiar pur-
suits he believed he understood better than any
other noble lord. He pointed out the difficulties
that were experienced in the conveyance of landed
property, and the expense incurred, and referred to
the proposition to supply a remedy by the establish-
ment of a general registration. He was perfectly
satisfied, however, that a general registration would
lead to more expense and to less advantage than to
leave the law in its present state. The report of the
commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject,
he admitted, exhibited learning, knowledge, and
ability, but he described their proposition as one
which would oblige the Government of the country
to open an insurance office for titles. Now, he
Lord St. Leonards) proposed by his bill to render
titles more simple, and to afford facilities for the sale
and purchase of land. Amongst the provisions was
one by which it was enacted that a man who honestly
buys land, shall, after twentyfive years' occupation,
be held to be in secure possession of his purchase.
By another provision it was enacted ►hat any man
who shall sell an estate and wilfully conceal any
settlement, for the purpose of inducing a purchaser
to accept the title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour,
and the person damnified may bring an action for
the damage sustained. He also proposed that after
an estate shall he bond fide sold no judgment or
other matter of that sort on which execution has not
issued shall bind the estate. In conclusion, the
noble and learned lord laid his bill upon the table.
After considerable discussion, in which the LORD
CHANCELLOR, Lord BROUGHAM, and Lord CAMPBELL
took part, the bill was read a first time.
Their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMON.S-TUESDAT.
MALDON ELECTION.

Sir J. TROLLOPE reported from the select corn-
mittee appointed to try the merits of the petitions
against the return for the borough of Maldon that
Mr. T. S. Western and Mr. J. B. Moore had been
duly elected burgesses to serve in the present Par.
liament for the said borough.

BOROUGH OF LISBURNE.
The SPEARER acquainted the house that he had
received a letter from certain petitioners who had
complained of an undue return for the borough of
Lisburne, stating that they did not intend to prose-
cute that complaint.
The clauses of the B ktiKING Btu., after much dis-
cussion, were reported without amendment.

OATHS AMENDMENT DILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the Act Ist and 2nd Victoria, chap. 105,
intitled "An Act for removing Doubts as to the
Validity of certain Oaths." His object, he said, was
to bring in a bill declaratory of what he believed to
be the general principle of the law of this country,
and to apply it to the High Court of Parliament.
That principle, established in the case of " Omichund
v. Barker," was that oaths were to be taken in the
form and manner binding upon the conscience of
those who took the oath. In the Oath of Abjuration
the words, " on the true faith of a Christian," it was
clear, from the origin of the oath, were not a test of
the Christianity of the person taking the oath, but
of his loyalty; and the practice of Parliament, in
the case of Quakers, showed that those words were not
of the substance, but of the solemn form of the oath,
to make it more binding upon Roman Catholics. It
appeared to him that, with the concurrence of the
Government, and with a large majority of the House
of Commons in its favour, the other house would not
reject dr- bill. Looking to the course taken by the
House of Lords in the case of Lord Wensleydale, he

'YPY

thought it was somewhat grating to the House of
Commons, and even humiliating, to be told that it
had notthe power to permit a member elected by the
city of Loudon to take his seat in that house :

Now, I contend, sir, that the majority of the House of
Commons wha have affirmed this principle of religions
liberty ought not to allow themselves to be so baffled. Be
the measure of redress what it may—be it by such a bill
as that which the Government brought in, be it by such a
bill as the one which I now propose, or be it by resolution
am not saying in what way it should be done—but I
am convinced that it behoves the dignity of this house—
that it deeply affects the public privileges of this house—
that it concerns the dignity and privileges of this house
even more than religions liberty itself, but it also con-
cerns religious liberty—that we should not allow ourselves
to be so blffle.i. I think, sir, it cannot be d -nied, so
little is the progress that is male by any argument that
can be adduced—by any weight of public opinion as shown
by the votes of this house—that there is no chance that the
next ten years, if we proceed in the same course, will be
spent more profitably than the last ten years, or that at the
end of that period we shall see the Jews nearer to admis-
sion or more relieved from disabilities than at this moment.
Sir, conceiving this question to be a very serious one, I
have wished to interpose a measure which might not
partake of the apathy of resting content with what has
been done, and should yet avoid the extreme of a resolution
of this house by which would be incurred the risk of a
conflict with the House of Lords. If the Government are
prepared to support strenuously such a bill as I now pro-
pose to bring in—if they are inclined to give it a better
chance in the House of Lords titan their late bill had—if
they are inclined to take up this measure which I propose,
I think, sir, we might look to an end of this contest. But
if they are not so prepared, it is not my intention by
introducing the bill to mislead the house by telling
them that such a bill, depending only on my own
efforts, is likely to receive the approbation of the House of
Lords.

Mr. WALPOLE argued that the course proposed by
Lord John Russell was not the proper course for
attaining the obj.ict ha had in view, and that it
involved a danger of bringing about a collision with
the House of Lords, which would cause a greater
degradation and humiliation than the noble lord bad
anticipated :

There dropped from the noble lord a moat ominous
sentence. He said he thought this house ought not to be
left in a state of humiliation, and that it ought to take some
steps immediately, be it by bill or be it by resolution, to
settle this question. (Cheers.) If I understand aright these
cheers it is high time we understood each other. The noble
lord made sundry remarks about the power of Parliament,
and he quoted a passage from Chief Justice Fortesene as to
what that power was. Rut the power of Parliament is a
totally different thing from the power of the House of
Commons. If we are to understand by the power of Par-
liament the power of the House of Commons, the sooner
that is avowed the better. The oath taken at that table is
contained in an act passed, not by the House of Commons
alone, but by the two Houses of Parliament, and by the
authority of the Crown ; and if any member shall sit in
this house without taking that oath be is liable to penalties.
Csn this house relieve him from penalties imposed by Act
of Parliament and the Crown ? Is the house going to enter
into a conflict, not merely with the House of Lords, but
with the courts of law ? Are you going to set yourselves
above the judicial tribunals of the country? There was a
time when a king of this country attempted to dispense
with our laws, and it produced a revolution. There was
also a time when the House of Commons attempted to
legislate without the House of Lords and without the Crown,
and of itself to make laws for this country. Let me point
out to yon what followed. I have extracted from the
Journals three resolutions then passed, which I will read
to the house. The first resolution was dated January 4,
1646, and was as follows :

Resolved,—That whatever is enacted or declared for law by the
Commons iu Parliament assembled hath the force of luw, and all
the people of the nation are concluded thereby, although the
concurrence of King or house of Peers be not had thereto.
( A Member : The Commonwealth.) Yes, the Common.
wealth, and anybody who sets up this House of Commons
above the House of Lords and the Crown establishes a
Commonwealth. Then on February the Bth, HUH, I find
the following, and you will see that the House of Commons
had taken a rapid start :

Resolved,—Tnat the House of Peers is useless and dangerous,
and ought to be abolished, and that an act be brought in for
that purpose.

Again, on the 7th of February, 16&R,;1 find the following
resolution :

Resolved,—That the office of King In this realm, and that the
powers thereof in a single person, is nunesessary, burdensome,
and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and good of the people, and
that it ought to be abolished.
Then we are told that this was at the time of the Common-
wealth. It shows what kind of commonwealth you will
arrive at if you once set aside the laws. I would rather
that you let fifty Jews into Parliament in a regular way
than that for the purpose of introducing one you should
break through the Constitution.

The oath in question had been enac..ed by the
two Houses of Parliament, and one of his three
objections to the motion was that the bill must
inevitably Wing about a collision with the House
of Lords.

Mr. DILLWYN desired to avoid a collision with the
House of Lords, but thought that house should not
be allowed to sit in judgment upon the proper prvi-
leges of the House of Commons. At the same time
he had a 4 3ubt as to the expediency of the course

718

proposed to be taken by Lord J. Russell, though he
should support his motion.
Mr. Palk, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Packe, "and Mr.
Liddell opposed the motion. Mr. Gilpin, Mr.:Cox,
and Mr. Ayrton supported it.
Lord PALMERSTON said :
I think it is well to speak frankly on the subject, and
therefore, though I concur entirely in the object of the bill
which my noble friend desires to bring in, I must reserve,
till we see more clearly what its provisions are, expressing
any more decided opinion, assuming at the same time that
the bill shall be such as f and my colleagues may feel It
consistent with our views of the case to support at the
other stages. Yet, in the present state of the session,
with many important bills pending, and considering the
short period which we have to give attention to these bills,
I could not undertake to postpone Government business
for the purpose stated by the hon. member below the gang-
way (Mr. Ayrton), that of pressing this measure forward.
With that explanation of my intentions I beg to say that I ,
cordially concur with my noble friend iu his motion for
bringing in this bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he was not prepared to forego
confidence in the House of Lords, and if that house
withheld its assent from any particular measure
nothing hut the highest necessity should induce the
House of Commons to interfere. As to proceeding
by resolution, very great objections offered themselves
to this course, which might render a bill of indemnity
necessary. With respect to the bill of Lord John
Russell, he did not consider it as a substantial repe-
tition of a proposition already carried up to the other
house. It did not propose to confer upon Jews a
right of admission to either House of Parliament by I
a modification of the oath, but to give a discretion to
the authority called upon to administer the oath to do
BO in a form binding upon the conscience of the party
taking it.
Mr. WHITESIDE observed that if the exposition
given of the bill by Mr. Gladstone was correct
members would be admitted to that house, not
according to the fixed law of the land, but according
to the particular order which the house at) any par-
ticular time might give its officers as to the
administration of the oath. He deprecated pro-
ceeding by resolution, which would, he said, bring
the house into direct collision with the courts of
justice.
Lord J. RUSSELL repeated the statement ho had
given on Friday of the general purport of the bill ;
and, adverting to the remarks of Lord Palmerston
with reference to the state of public business, ob-
served that he could hold out no hope that it
would be in his power to carry the measure
through Parliament this session, but he had done
his duty.
Upon a division, the motion was carried by:246 to
151, and leave was given to introduce the bill.
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
Mr. CAIRD, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
to provide for the collection of agricultural statistics
in England and Wales, observed that it differed
materially from the measure of Government ; that
it was not compulsory, and that its machinery would
be not that of the poor law, but of the Registrar-
General.
Leave was given.
Mr. J. A. Slum moved for leave to bring in a bill
for discharging claims of the New Zealand Company
on the proceeds of sales of waste lands in New
Zealand.
Sir J. TRELAWNY objected ; but, upon explana-
tions given by Mr. LADOUCHERE and Mr. Shunt, the
motion was agreed to.
Upon the motion of Sir J. RAMSDEN, the Select
Committee to prepare Estimates of the Charge of
the Disembodied Militiaot Great Britain and Ireland
for the year ending 31st ➢March, 1858, was nomi-
nated.

The Oxford University Bill was read a second
time ; other bills were forwarded a stage, and the
house adjourned at ten minutes past one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-WEDNESDAY.

A largo portion of the time appropriated to private
business was occupied in the discussion of a clause
inserted by the House of Lords in the Great Northern
Railway (Capital) Bill, declaring the liability of the
dividends of the preference shareholders equally
with those of the ordinary shareholders for the losses
arising from the frauds of Itedpath. It was urged
among other grounds of objection to this clause,
especially by Mr. Lowe, that its insertion was beyond
the jurisdiction of the committees of both houses,
and that the courts of law should be left to decide
the question of liability upon a construction of the
legal instruments by which each class of shareholders
held their rights.
The house ultimately resolved to disagree with
this amendment of the Lords.