Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-08-05 00:00:00

TILE OATHS BILL.

Lord John Russell moved the nomination of the com-
mittee on the oaths taken by members of parliament—
Lord Palmerston, Sir George Grey, Mr. Disraeli, Mr.
Walpole, Sir John Pakington, Lord John Russell, Sir
James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, the Attorney-General,
the Solicitor-General, Sir F. Thesiger, Sir F. Kelly, Lord
Stanley. Mr. Horsman, Mr. Henley, Mr. Roebuck, Mr.
Malin., Mr. Headlam, the Attorney-General for Ireland,
the Lord Advocate, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Napier, Lord
Robert Grosvenor, Mr. Whiteside, and Mr. Cobbett. '
Sir F. Thesiger stated that he should not be able to
attend upon the committoe, and asked that his name
might be omitted and another substituted.
Lord John Russell assented, and, Sir F. Thesiger's name
was accordingly struck out, upon the understanding that
a substitute would be, at a future time, proposed.
Sir F. Thesiger then moved that the name of Sir F.
Kelly should be omitted, and that of Mr. Rolt substituted.
Mr. Roebuck thought the motion unnecessary, as all
members of the long robe were to be included in the
committee.
The motion was agreed to after a brief conversation.
Sir F. Thesiger said he had no intention of further
opposing the constitution of the committee.
Mr. Bowyer inquired whether the committee was to be
confined to the consideration of the act 5 and 6, William
IV.
Mr. Newdegate offered some general observations upon
the object of the committee, condemning the departure, in
this case, from the usual practice of the house. His
complaints were—that a candidate had been recom-
mended to a seat in parliament, because he contracted
for a government loan ; that a parliament had been
held on the subject out of doors, ovEr which Mr.
Horsman, who was to be one of the members of
the committee presided. That though a question of
religion, the bill of Lord John Russell had not been
introduced in a committee; and lastly that, contrary to
the principles of the constitution, it was attempted to
admit Jews into Parliament by a resolution of the House
of Commons.
On the motion of Lord John Russell, It was ordered
that the committee should have power to send for
persons, papers, and records. He also moved that three
be the quorum. (Laughter.)
Mr. Henley ridiculed tt,e proposition of Lord John
Rus. ell, and suggested that the usual praetice should be
followed, and the quorum be fixed at about one-third of the
whole number ef members, and moved as an amendment
• that nine be substituted.
The amendment was agreed to without a division.-

VIE DIVORCE BILL

On the motion for going into committee on the Divorce
Matrimonial Causes Bill,
Mr. Warren moved as an amendment, that the bill be
committoed that day three months. He deprecated the
haste with which a measure of such importance
was being pressed through the House, which he
confessed ho was at a loss to account for. The Session
was now drawing to a close, tha energies of members were
beginning to flag, and their numbers were gradually
thinning, and, under the circumstances, he contended that
the question of divorce could not receive that consideration
which its magnitude and importance demanded. The hon.
gentleman then proceeded, at considerable length, to
cAebat the arguments in favour of the principle of the
measure ; quoting authorities in support of the indis-
solubility of marriage, and urged the House not to take
this dangerous step which it would be found difficult to
retrace.
Mr. M. T. Baines appealed to the Rouse to allow the
till—the principle of which had sanctioned after a full
discussion by a large majority—to go into committee with-
out further discussion. The onestions as the dissolubility
or indissolubility of marriage, and the re-marl-lags of
divorced persons might be raised in committee, and he
urged members to take that course if their object was not
to defeat the bill by delay.
Mr. Stuart in supporting the amendment remarked that
upon the second reading of this important measure not more
than one moiety of the numbers of members of that house
He argued in support of the doctrine of the
had voted.
indissolebilitye9f marriage, dan in srlpport of his argument
quoted the opinion; of Lord liKilvoleydale and Lord Coke.
-