The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

THE PRESS, J.IY 3, 1858.

Lord NAAS agreed that the report of the commis-
sioners did disclose a most extraordinary state of
things in relation to the endowed schools, but in
considering the remedies great difficulties presented
themselves, he observed, on account of the difference
of opinion among the commissioners upon essential
points. It was impossible yet to say how the Go-
vernment proposed to deal with the question. If a
solution could be found, it would be one that could
be only arrived at after much consideration, and the
subject would occupy their serious attention during
the recess.
Mr. Greer, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Lefroy, Mr. Dobbs,
and Mr. Hassard continued the discussion, which
embraced the whole subject of education in reland.
Mr. KIRK withdrew his motion.
ORANGE CONFEDERATION.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD called attention to the address
of the House of Commons to his late Majesty, of
the 2/th of February, 1836, and his Majesty's
gracious answer thereto, and to the recent appoint.
ment of Mr. Cecil Moore, Grand Secretary of the
Tyrone Orange Lodge, to the office of Sessional
Crown Prosecutor for the county of Tyrone, and
moved the following resolution :

That the appointment to offices connected with the ad-
ministration of the criminal law of members of the Orange
confederation, or of any other political confederation
founded on principles of religious exclusion, inculcating
secrecy on its members, and acting by means of delegates
or representatives, and of affiliated branclirs, tends to
create well-founded jealousy and suspicion highly detri-
mental to the ends of justice, and ought to be discouraged.
He described the motion as one of great practical
importance. After drawing a picture of the
character, objects, and effects of the Orange confede-
ration, and referring to the circumstances under
which the Address of 1830 had been adopted by the
house, he observed that his object was not to sup-
press the confederation by force, but that the Go-
vernment should not give encouragement to what
the late Sir R. Peel had characterized as a dangerous
association, which had been condemned by that
house, and which professed to have dissolved itself,
but the society was reorganized in 1845, the rules
being, he said, essentially the same as those of 1821
and 1830, and there being no substantial distinction
between the societies of those dates. He adduced
evidence to show the mischievous effects of these
societies ; that the course of justice was defeated,
and that when Orangemen were charged with heinous
crimes the funds of the society were applied to their
defence. He dwelt upon these effects, because they
applied to the administration of criminal justice, and
consequently to the subject of the motion. He had
not one word to say against Mr. Moore, who was
fully competent to the duties of his office; the only
objection was that he was a member of the confe-
deration, which it was the bounden duty of the
Government to discourage.
Mr. WHITESIDE complained that Mr. Fitzgerald
should have chosen a time when the attention of
Parliament was occupied with matters of importance
for a motion which was ill-calculated to insure peace
and tranquillity in Ireland. He had attacked the
Orange Association, he said, as if the Government
had taken it under its protection, or had declared by
some unequivocal act that its administration was to
be conducted upon the principles he had indicated ;
confessing, at the same time, that the gentleman who
had been appointed to an office of 1401. a year was
eminently qualified to discharge its duties. He
( Mr. Whiteside) admitted that the Orange Associa-
tion was reorganized, owing, as the resolutions stated,
to "the circumstances of the times," to maintain the
Union, the Protestant religion, the monarchy, and
the British Government against the designs of Mr.
O'Connell, who desired to revolutionize Ireland. He
deprecated such motions as this, founded, he said,
upon scraps of newspapers and exploded tales, as
being calculated to excite had passions, inflame re-
sentments, and revive forgotteu animosities. In
justifying his appointment of Mr. Moore he produced
a testimonial in his favour signed by deputy-lieute-
nants, magistrates, gentry, and clergy, including four
Roman Catholic priests, and mentioned that Mr.
Moore had anted as Sessional Crown Prosecutor
under Mr. Fitzgerald himself when Attorney-
Generel for Ireland. He added that Mr. Moore did
not hold the office of Grand Secretary of the Orange
Lodge, which he had resigned last October, and that
when he made the appointment lie was not aware
that Mr. Moore had ever held an office under the
association.

-------
Mr. FITZGERALD, in his reply, declared that he was
nor cognizant cf Mr. Cecil Moore having acted as
Sessional Crown Prosecutor under him, or of his
having ceased to be Grand Secretary before his
appointment.
Lord PAuterts-ros said he. had felt considerable
pain at the revival of animosities connected with a
state of things which one would have hoped had
cease". or was on the verge of ceasing. Being led
to that influences of Government might
be exerted to induce by persuasion those who had
reorganized this association to feel that the time had

passed for such societies, he recommended that the
question should not be pressed to a division.
Lord J. RUSSELL adverted to the circumstances
under which the resolution of 1836 was adopted, and
asked whether it was now desired to overturn and
repudiate that resolution.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after cen-
suring the motion, denied that there was anything
either in the motion or the answer to it which jus-
tified the suggestion of . Lord John Russell. The
policy of Government with regard to Ireland would
be one entirely adapted to the changed circumstances
of the country, generous and conciliatory, not recog-
nizing any difference of creed or patty.
After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK, who said he
could not vote for the motion, which would be a
direct and undeserved censure upon Mr. Whiteside,
the motion was negatived.
The orders of the (lay were then gone through,
and, after some other business, the house adjourned
at twenty-five minutes to two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
The adjourned debate on going into committee
upon this bill was resumed by
Mr. LYGON, who moved to defer the committee for
three months. The bill, he said, differed in many
important particulars from the bills of 1849 and 1855 ;
it opened large questions, and bad hitherto received
very little discussion, and, considering the lateness
of the session, lie thought it would be better to post-
pone legislation upon the subject.
After a short conversation, upon a division, the
amendment was negatived by 99 to 58, and the houso
went into committee upon the bill, the clauses of
which were agreed to alter a warm discussion, occu-
pying nearly the whole of the sitting.
Mr. DEEDES moved the second reading of the
Protection of Female Children Bill, sent from the
House of Lords, where, he said, it bad received the
sanction of the Lord Chief Justice.
The bill was read a second time.
Mr. HUNT moved the second reading of the
Members' Freedom from Arrest Bill, urging that the
reasons for the privilege bad ceased, and that its re-
tention was unnecessary.
Mr. BOUVERIE opposed the bill. Mr. Hunt, he
said, had misconceived the nature of this privilege,
which was not the personal privilege of members,
but the privilege of constituencies and of the house
itself. He moved to defer the second reading for
three months.
This amendment was supported by Mr. CAM/MED
and Mr. H. BERKELEY.
Upon a division the amendment was negatived by
129 to 75, and the bill was read a second time.
The other orders wore then gone through, and the
house adjourned at six o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS—THURSDAY.
CHURCH PATES.
In presenting petitions for the abolition of church•
rates, the Earl of DERBY stated that he totally dis-
sented from the prayer of the petitioners, and when
the hill on the subject came on for discussion, if no
other peer did so, he should move that it be read a
second time that day six months.

OATHS BILLS.

The Earl of DERBY said :

Before my noble and learned friend ( Lord Lyndhurst)
rises to move the second reading of the bill of which he has
given notice, perhaps your lordships will allow me, though
not strictly in order, to say a few words upon the position
in which the house stands with regard to the three bills
which are to-night to be considered. But before Idoso I
feel it my duty in a single sentence to express to your lord-
ships, and more especially to noble lords opposite, my
grateful thanks for the forbearance and courtesy with which
they have submitted to my involuntary absence, in con-
sequence of an illness, from which I am now only imper-
fectly recovered. Hear, hear.) I must also express my
hope that n) material public inconvenience has arisen or
will arise from the postponement artil I should be able to
attend of some discussions from which I should be very
sorry to be absent. ( Hear, hear.) With respect to the
question which is about to be brought under your lordships'
notice, a bill passed through the House of Commons, and
was submitted to your lordships, for the alt-ration of
certain oaths now required to be taken by members of
both Houses of Parliament, and a clause was introduced
in that bill, as it came up to your lordships, which dispensed
with certain words of one of the oaths. Those clauses
were struck out by your lordships, and the bill so amended
was sent down to the other house. The House of Commons
returned the bill, objecting to your lordships' amendments,
and stating their reasons. Upon the second discussion of
th s bill in your lordships' house my noble and gallant
friend very unexpectedly gave notice, on the day before the
Whitsuntide holidays, of his intention to move an amend-
ment, without stating the nature or character of that
amendment. On the first day after the holidays my noble
and gallant friend ( the Earl of Litcsn ) moved a resolution
substantially to this effect,—that the other house should
have the power, by Act of Parliament, to dispense, by a
resolntion of the house.. with the words " no the true faith
of a Christian," in the case of members °Rite Jewish pet-
suasion. That amendment took me and moat of your
lordships by surprise. My noble and gallant friend having

•

only given notice of his intention on the day before the
recess, and having brought forward his resolution ou the
first day after the holidays, It was impossible for any
private communication to take place between members
either on one side or the other, and we came to the dis-
cussion of an important amendment without the possibi-
lity of previous consultation or deliberation. Under these
circumstances I took upon myself to suggest to your lord.
ships that the question brought forward by my noble and
gallant friend was one of too much importance to be
decided upon in an accidental discuss•on of an amendment
in the last stage of a bill. I suggested to your lordships that,
if my noble and gallant friend intended to propose his
amendment, it would ha better done by a separate bill than
by a mere amendment. I confess that in my opinion it
would have been more satisfactory to your lordships and
to the country if my noble and gallant friend had been
satistied with the expression of his own opinion—wah
throwing out a suggestion that each a modification was
required. and hal then left the other House of Parliament
to send back the bill with the amendments so introduced,
to which your lord-hips might then have given your assent.
But the course which has been pursued is the•. two bills
have been brought in—one by my noble and gallant friend
(the Earl of Lacer)) and another by my noble and learned
friend (Lord Lyndhurst), than whom no one is more
entitled to be heard on a subject to which he has devoted
so much time and attention. (Cheers.) Upon looking at
the two bills there does not appear to be much difference
in ticir pro% Wont, but in the framing of his bill my noble
and learned friend permits what may be considered an
irregularity in the course of parliamentary proceeding,
because a bill has passed through all its stages here, and
must necessarily be communicated to the House of
Commons, with the final decision of. your lordships upon
it. The bill of my noble and learned then f, however,
takes steps to re-enact all the clauses% that have been already
passed in the hill that has been before both Houses of
Parliament. The bill of my noble and gallant friend, on
the contrary, 'ekes a different course, and deals only with
the single question of enabling the House of Commons to
deal by way of resolution with the question, and to dispense
with some words in this particular oath. I confess that I
am disposed to view with every favour the suggestion of
my noble and gallant friend to send down such all enabling
power to the House of Commons, and I think such a
course preferable to tha► pursued by my noble and learned
friend. I think it would he far better to send down the
first bill as it st inda, and then to send down the bill of my
noble and gallant friend, dealing w.th the case of the Jews
as a separate measure. I cowess, my lords, that I have
lint altered my %iews in regard to the poltcy or expediency
of admitting th Jews as members of a Christian Legisla-
ture, but, having carefully and anxiouly considered the
subject. I see that the proposal of my noble and gallant
(Hein% is the only possible solution of the difficulty which
has existed for a period of ten years. I see nn other
practical chance of bringing the two Houses of Parliament
into agreement. The measure proposed by my noble and
gallant friend is one that certainly maintains the principle
adopted by your lordships in dealing with the measure. It
maintains the dignity of your lordships' house with regard
to that portion of the question which is more immediately
subject to your jurisliction. It maintains the law as it
stands et the present moment, but it. enables the House of
Commons. upon a question that specially relates to
persons taking their seats in Una house, to dispense with
the words which stand in the way of what appears to be
the decided wish of the house. This solution appears to
me to afford a practical and not unreasonable mode of
settling a difficult and complicated question. And how-
ever much I regret the determination taken by the House
of Commons, and the impossibility of maintaining inviolate
the principle for which your lordships' house has ever
contended, I confess I think there is less difficult and less
practical inconvenience and danger arising from giving a
limite I consent to the views of the House of Commons,
as embodied in the proposition of my noble and gallant
friend, then in persisting in an opposition which all pr re-
tical experience proves cannot be pushed beyond a certain
limit between the two houses. While, therefore, on the
one hand, I object to the bill of my noble and learned
friend, and while I cannot say that the bill of my noble and
gallant friend is not susceptible of and may not indeed
require some amendment, I shall be satisfied, if it come to
!question of dividing upon the second reading, to give my
support to the bill of my noble and gallant friend. My
lords, it is with the greatest regret I feel that I may differ
upon this question (tom many of those with whom I have
agreed for many years. If noon this occasion those who
have honoured me with their confidence find it impossible
to adopt the course which I have recommended, 1 will only
say for my own part that, claiming frotn them that justice
which I am ready to give in return, I take the course, which
1 have adopted from no other feeling than a desire to see an
amicable settlement between the two houses with reg.n•d to
a question of grave interest, and with respect to which I see
no other solution. (Cheers.)

Lord LYNDHURST expressed his surprise at the
course taken by Lord Derby. When the subject was
last discussed Lord Derby had clearly stated his
view of the course necessary to take to put an end to
the difference between the two houses. Those
suggestions he had made the foundation of his bill,
and he had every reason to suppose Lori Derby
w.ntild hive supported it. He was sorry he had been
!lwappointed in that expectation ; but he had no ob-
.lomtion to the principle of Lnrcl Lucen's measure.
lie had no personal object in the matter; if the
public purrme could be attained, whether it Wel by
Inc hill or the other was to him a matter of perfect
indifference. There was a defect of detail in Lord
Ltican's bill. It dealt only with part of the goes-
ton; the abjuration of the descendants of the Pre-
tender would still remaia. Tbat might be remedied