The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-03 00:00:00

II N.

- •

IMPERIAL PARLIAMKTVIv.:----

• .-•
HOUSE OF LORDS—arESTERDAY* ;
Their Lordships met at five o'clock. ~1
The Earl of CARLISLE presented petitiour: t•-•>
/
Bolton, Worcester, and other places against thetzo44 [ s L,
intoxicating liquor on Sunday. The noble lord *also "1-'3.a°
mentioned that on a former evening he had omitted to
give the name of General Sacon as one of the captains-
general of Cuba who had abstained from sharing in the
profits of the slave trade.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from an in-
dividual complaining `of the enormous (amount at present
levied in the county courts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said his attention was
alive to the subject.
CHANCERY SUITORS' FUND.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that, in conse-
quence of the fall in the funds, he had revoked the order
which he had formerly made respecting the conversion
of South Sea Stock held by suitors in Chancery.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH postponed the
notice which he had given of a motion for certain
papers, in order to give an opportunity to their lord-
ships to animadvert on the measure proposed by her
Majesty's Ministers for the government of India, from
the 6th to the 13th of June.
COMMON LODGING-HOUSES BILL.
On the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY, this bin was
read a third time and passed.
ALTERATION OF OATHS BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that, distaste-
ful as it was to him to oppose any course proposed by
the noble and learned lord the mover of this bill, he was
forced to oppose the further progress of the bill. He
did not see that it would confer any security to the
House of Hanover, but he saw very clearly that it must
give some advantage to the House of Israel. (A laugh.)
He had no objection to an alteration of the oaths, be-
cause he considered that the present oaths which their
lordships took at the commencement of each session,
were nothing but a mockery. and a mummery. They had
had, however, princes of the House of Hanover, and not
very lately either, who considered that the oath of supre-
macy and abjuration were the title deeds to their thrones.
He objected strongly to the form of oath proposed to
be substituted. He thought it was not desirable to call
upon any to swear to the contents of an act of Parlia-
ment which was not recited in the act. He thought
that in any oath which might be taken, the Protes-
tantism of the Crown and the Christianity of Parliament
ought to be put prominently forward. He thought
the words " on the true faith of a Christian" ought to
be put first. Had this bill come up from the other
house, he should have been willing to Consider it favour-
ably ; but as it had to go down to the other house, he
thought it not improbable that it might be amended by
that house in such a manner as to give further facilities
to the Jews for bringing forward their claims than they
otherwise would have. He thought Jewish gentlemen
had knocked often enough at their doors—had their
lordships owed them money they could not have knocked
oftener. He should, therefore, move that the bill be
committed this day three months.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that the noble lord
had delivered the strongest possible speech in favour of
the bill. He could not conceive how any noble lord be-
lieving that the present oaths were a mockery and a mum-
mery
furtherrycou pgldrroecroenss of a bill
cileitwistubehh as this.
his conscience to oppose
the
The Earl of DERBY said he was reluctantly obliged
to agree in the motion of the noble earl near him. Be-
sides the possibility of being perverted to the purposes
of the Jewish claims, if sent down to the other house,
it might also be amended there so as to do away with
the oath at present taken by Roman Catholic members.
He must certainly object sending down this bill to the
other house at this time of the session.

The Earl of ABERDEEN said he thought their lord-
ships must admit that this was the first time they had
ever been called upon to proceed to legislate on such
grounds as those propounded by the noble earl. (Hear.)
They were grounds which he (the Earl of Aberdeen)
would venture to say were neither respectful to the
House of Commons, nor creditable to themselves. Their
lordships had this bill before them, they admitted its ex-
pediency, and the only objections urged were precisely
those which might easily be remedied in committee.
Objections there were, some grammatical, some more or
less important, but all were capable of a complete and
easy remedy ; and yet they must decline to undertake
to amend the bill, because, forsooth, it was possible that
the House of Commons might further amend it in a mode
which their lordships did not think proper. Now, he
said that it was not respectful to the House of Commons
to reject a good measure merely from an apprehension
that they (the House of Commons) would exercise their
lawful privilege of amending it according to their own
views ; nor did he think it altogether creditable to their
lordships to reject a measure of which they approved for
the reasons which had been urged by the noble earl.
With reference to the particular objection made by the
noble earl, namely, that the bill being sent down to the
Commons at the present period of the session, might be
returned to their lordships at a period when they would
not be able to deal with it; for himself he could only say,
although he could not pledge himself as to what any
member of the House of Commons might do, that no de-
lay should take place which it was possible for the Go-
vernment to prevent. (Hear.) The noble earl was en-
tirely mistaken in his description of what had taken
place between the noble lord the member for London, and
the deputation from the Jewish body. His (Lord Aber-
deen's) noble friend was at the time as entirely ignorant
of the nature of the noble and learned lord's bill as he
(Lord Aberdeen) was himself. The bill had not been
printed, nor had his noble and learned friend communi-
cated its contents ; and, in fact, he (Lord Aberdeen) had
been under the impression that it was a bill for the re-
moval of Jewish disabilities. His noble friend the mem-
ber for London had very naturally said, "Let us wait
until we see this bill before we deliver any opinion."
He (Lord Aberdeen) was not inclined to give any pledge.
He looked upon the bill as a matter in the ordinary
course of business, and said that their lordships were
bound in common reason to proceed to the committee,
in which it was admitted they could remove every objec-
tion. That was the simple course he should recommend,
one to which he had heard no noble lord object except
from an apprehension of what might happen after they
had amended the bill according to their own judgment.
He had already said that so far as the friends of Jewish
admission in that house were concerned no attempt
would be made to introduce the obnoxious amendment,
and therefore be submitted that according to all prece-
dent and rational modes of proceeding there was no
objection to going into committee and amending the bill.
The house divided—
Content
Non content
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Lord BERNERS, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said that it contained only one enacting clause,
providing that no justices of the peace should have power
to remove paupers on grounds of settlement. This was
a principle which to some extent had been strengthened
by successive committees of their lordships' house.
He felt satisfied that the greatest boon that could be
conferred on the poor was the abohtiea of the law of
settlement and removal.

69

84-15

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said this subject
was under the consideration of the Government. No
person had hitherto proposed to go so far as did the
noble lord. Merely to abolish the present law would
be to throw a heavy burden on all the populous towns
and districts in the country, and any alteration in the
law of settlement must be accompanied by a new mode
of assessment. He hoped the noble lord would not
press the bill, as it dealt with only a part of the ques-
tion.

Lord CAMPBELL believed that the passing of this
bill would introduce universal confusion, and be a source
of misery to paupers and of ruin to landowners. The
area of settlement might no doubt be enlarged very
beneficially ; but all that this bill did was to entitle the
poor to relief in whatever place they might happen to
have settled.
The Earl of HARDWICKE felt that there was no
1 question more worthy of the consideration of Parlia-
ment, but did not believe that either that house or the
country was prepared for the alteration now proposed.
The present law of settlement no doubt inflicted great
hardship on many parishes, and injured the labourer by
confining him to a very narrow area ; but he would sug-
gest to his noble friend to withdraw the bill, in full con-
fidence that the time was not far distant when the sub-
ject would be dealt with by the Government. •
Lord BERNERS said that if her Majesty's Govern-
ment would give that house a pledge that they would
bring in a measure on the subject at the earliest period
of next session, he should be most happy to withdraw
his bill.
Lord BEAUMONT said the effect of this bill would
be to enable the pauper to squat down wherever he
pleased. He entirely agreed with the noble lord that
some alteration was necessary.
The motion was then withdrawn.
ermalov report
dporfot rofretthue returns rcelelasitasinfica to
commissioners. Their lordships were
AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
T
gen
the accounts Earl
ofin POWISthe
aware (said the
noble lord) that some years ago'the eccl • esi!lical corn.
missioners were empowered to alienate
of the estates entrusted to them. Undercertain portions
Parliament the borrowed from Queen Anne's the sanction of
sum of 600,000/. for the s •
special purpose
it in aid of the annual grants for the e of employing
poor benefices. The power was to augmentation o
certain definite plan ; but the different be exercised on a
been so mixed up together that erent accounts had
sible to arrive at any precise it was almost impos-
sible
carrying out the object result. The period fixed
peared that in November, IwBas 20 years ; yet it ap-
peared
commencement, no 52, only nine years from
less than 444,0001. had been
taken, a sum far more than equivalent to the 30,0001.
a year which was to be the limit
the diminution was 90,0001.1
H.
elnthtohue last
rast.t two years
ingly desirable that the proceedings should ldbeexicneadede-
more intelligible on the face of the gs
accounts. Then the
sale of estates, which was an item that related to pro-
perty, was mixed up most improperly with the ac-
count of annual receipts and payments. The ac-
counts of capital and income were mixed up in a
manner that was most exceptionable. Whether
these accounts came before the Government he
did not know, but if they passed the Government
audit, he did not think that such an audit would
give much security to railway shareholders, for he would
venture to say that no railway board in existence would
go on for tent years without attempting to show a ha.
lance sheet of their capital account.
The Earl of CHICHESTER hoped that the noble earl
would wait till next year, when the returns would be