The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-17 00:00:00

THB CONSERVATIVE PEELS AND THE OATHS BILL.

The Timm, while accepting with pleasure as an
Judaea) of legislative progress the abandonment of oppo-
sition to the Oaths' Bill in the House of Lords, remarks
that it is nerartheless obvious that whatever force there
may have been in the objections urged last year
remains unaffected by the considerations which Lord
Derby gave as influencing him in his present retreat.
It is often politic, as well as generous, to leave a oonve-
nient bridge open for a retreating opponent, and the go-
vernment has acted judiciously upon this principle, but
nothing could justify the abolition of these parliamentary
tests except a deliberate conviction of their injustice or in-
expediency. The history of our legislation on these sub-
jects shows the folly of supposing a final settlement of
great questions can be positively arrived at. Each suc-
ceeding generation must deal with them as they arise for
itself. The Times adds that without the clause in the
oath by which the subscriber swears he will maintain and
support the anceamion to the crown as established by the
Act of Settlement, the oath would certainly be imperfect ;
for, as lard Derby reminds us, it is conceivable that a
reigning sovereign might renounce the protestant faith
after his accession, in which case his subjects would be
absolved from the allegiance promised in the first clause.
The Daily New is happy to record that a party meeting
has meant in the present instance—not a party fight, but a
party retreat, though, perhaps, some liberals will feel
a little disappointment at the unexpected discretion of
the tory chief. It is so much Lord Derby's custom to say
something damaging to his own cause and followers at the
most unfavourable moment, that his bitterest political
adversaries are apt to regard him as one of the surest
auxiliaries in an extremity.
The Post applauds Lord Derby and the conservatives for
assenting to the bill. Although it is admitted to be impos-
sible to introduce into the proposed oath any acknowledg-
ment of the royal supremacy which will please all parties,
the Earl of Derby conceives that there would be no oh.
jection to introducing into the act some formal recognition
of the sovereign's supremacy : and the Post thinks it is
not improbable when the bill comes to be considered in
committee that some such modification may be proposed.
The Tekgrup# sees in this unwonted amiability of the
conservative peers, who are accepting a measure in the
teeth of their own arguments, their own protests, their
own action, merely a party move. They are straining
every nerve to defeat the Franchise Bill under
cover of an amendment which commits them
to no course ; and were these tactics accom-
panied by open hostility to every other liberal mea-
sure, the real character of the opposition to the Reform
Bill would be too manifest for concealment. Were the
tories to give mortal offence to those Irish members whose
support has on more than one occasion been bought so
dearly, they would have to dismiss even the slight hope of
defeating the government which they at present cherish.
No one imagines that, but for the debate on the extension
of the franchbo, Lord Derby would ever have assented to
the second reading of a bill which he had previously as-
sailed with all the bitterness of party hate. Nor does any
one suppose that the tories, if once more seated on the
Treasury bench, would carry out that series of reforms of
which the Oaths Bill constitutes but one link.
The Star looks upon Lord Chelmsford's addition to be
proposed in committee as merely the enunciation of a
harmless platitude, which, if it pleases him and his friends,
can give political offence to nobody.