The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

' The noble earl talks of his inability to meet an amend-
ment. Why is the noble earl unable to exercise the same
power in opposing amendments that he did in opposing
' the bill rejected by himself and his friends the other day.
At all events, he has the power, which has been used
more than once, of enforcing a majority in this house,
by means of proxies. (Hear, hear.) Only the other
night, in the last division, the noble earl had a greater
number of proxies on his side than were used by her
Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) He may it he
choose—if his friends find it convenient to attend to
their duty in this house—he may have recourse to the
same means again. At all events, I decline to give any
pledge ; I decline to fetter my discretion in dealing with
any amendments which may be made in the bill of my
noble and learned friend. As the bill stands I cordially
support it ; and as it stands I have no doubt her
Majesty's Ministers will join with me in supporting it.
The Earl of CLANCARTY approved of that part of
the bill which related to the oath of abjuration, but ob-
jected to the removal by a side wind of the security given
to the Protestant Church by the Catholic Relief Bill.
Lord REDESDALE said, feeling that the oaths re-
quired amendment, he w;:s prepared to assent to the
second reading of this bill ; but, considering that no
assurance was given by the Government as to what
would be done, in case the bill came back
from the other house in an altered shape, he did not think
it would be safe for their lordships to let it go beyond a
second stage. Those of their lordships who felt strongly
on the question of the admission of Jews to Parliament
must be cautious how they permitted that question to
be carried against them indirectly at a late period of the
session. (Hear, hear.) He could not see any impera-
tive necessity for haste with regard to this bill. The argu-
ments for it were just as good at the death of the Archbishop
of York as they were at this moment. From that period
the descendants of James had been extinct, and the ab-
surdity of declaring that none of them had any right or
title to reign in this land, was just as great forty years
' ago as it was now. There was, he believed, no disposi-
tion on the part of their lordships to adhere to what was
objectionable in the existing oaths ; but, while there
could be no objection to affirm the principle, he thought,
that considering the time at which it was introduced,
it should not be allowed to pass a further stage.
. _ _

Lord CAMPBELL said he rose to state for the infor-
mation of their lordships and the public, that Jul autho-
rity likely to have weight with those who were least dis-
posed to support this bill, might be quoted in its favour.
Lord Eldon's opinion was recorded to the effect that the
oath of supremacy was superfluous and improper. In
the year 1824 a bill was introduced by Lord Holland,
to enable the Duke of Norfolk, who was a Roman Catho-
lic to exercise the office of Earl Marshal oz taking the
oath of allegiance ; for he could not take the oath of
supremacy as it was not then framed. That bill had
passed and received the royal assent. A violent protest
was afterwards made against it. The language of this pro-
test was supposed to be rather unparliamentary, and was
brought under the notice of the house, on which occasion
Lord Eldon said, " With respect to the oath of allegiance
to be taken by the Earl Marshal, I must say, as a lawyer,
that it contains in it everything included in the oath of
supremacy, and that the oath of supremacy was in fact
added as an explanation of the oath of allegiance." He
(Lord Campbell) hoped that the oath of allegiance would
soon be the only oath required to be taken in either
house of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM said, on this subject, he did not
intend to trouble their lordships at any length ; and for
this reason, that after the inimitable, and he would add
unanswerable speech—(cheers)—of his noble and learned
friend, it would be impertinent and superfluous for him
to add a word. One word, however, with regard to the
fate of this bill. The noble earl asked the Government,
as the condition of his abstaining from opposing the bill
in its future stages, to pledge their word that at some
period, necessarily uncertain, when the bill should
come back from the other house with some alteration,
of which they were at the present moment necessarily
ignorant, the Government would oppose the amend-
ment which had been so introduced. How was it pos-
sible for the Government to pledge themselves as to
what their conduct would be in this most hypothetical
of possible cases ? (Hear, hear.) He hoped this bill
would receive the assent of their lordships in all its
stages, thereby removing a great blot from their legisla-
ture, not merely in a civil but in a religious point of view.
The Earl of DERBY said that he did not ask the
Government to pledge themselves, or to state what
course they intended to pursue at some remote period,
and with respect to an indefinite object. What he
asked was this, that as there was reason for supposing
that an attempt might be made by means of this bill at
reversing the decision to which their lordships had come
in the present session, thereby altering the object and
character of the bill, her Majesty's Government would
give them an assurance that they would use their in-
fluence in the other house of Parliament for the purpose
of preventing a specific amendment being carried—
(hear, hear)—that if an amendment were proposed in
the other house to undo what had been done in their

lordships' house, the Government would use their influ-
ence to prevent that object being effected by a side wind.
Lord BROUGHAM said that there was more than
one course which might be pursued. There were two
ways of proceeding, so different that a person might
consistently approve of the one and consistently disap-
prove of the other. An amendment might be moved
either for leaving out the words "on the true faith of a
Christian," or the words "on the true faith of a Chris-
tian," might be postponed after the words " So help me
God." A man might consistently vote for the one and
oppose the other,

The Earl of WICKLOW was glad that a case which
had truth and justice on its side had fallen into the able
hands of his noble and learned friend. He thought the
noble earl opposite (Earl Derby) had pursued so extra-
ordinary and unconstitutional a course in asking the
Government to state what they would do if a certain al-
teration had been made in the other house, that he was
not surprised at the answer he received. The noble earl
objected to the time at which the bill was brought for-
ward. He (the Earl of Wicklow) did not think that the
last day of May could be called a late period for the
second reading of a bill which all considered to be neces-
sary and expedient. (Hear.) If the measure had been
introduced at an earlier period the noble earl would have
objected that there was a bill before the House of Com-
mons relating to the oath to be taken by the Jews. No
one objected to the present measure as it stood, and all
would agree that it was absurd not to remove from the
oath now taken words which were a mockery and im-
piety in the form in which they were now used. (Hear.)
The Earl of HARROWBY, after putting a question
to the Earl of Aberdeen, the answer to which was not
heard, said that it was quite clear that there was a desire
on the part of the House of Commons to admit the Jews
to Parliament, and this bill might be easily adapted to
to that purpose—(hear, bear)—and no circumstance
could be more favourable for effecting that object than
postponing this bill to a period when their lordships
would be dispersed in different places. It was idle to
say that their lordships ought to be in the house, when
it was very well known that they would not be there.
He had no wish to oppose the noble and learned lord's
bill, but he thought it ought to be postponed until next
year.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE hoped the Go-
vernment would not give any pledge whatever on the
subject. Nothing was more inconvenient than to give
pledges on certain conditions, and it would not be fair
to independent members to give any such pledge. They
were all agreed that the present oath required altera-
tion, and they had to consider the best oath to be taken.
Under these circumstances nothing but respect for the
noble and learned lord who introduced the subject pre-
vented him from making a motion to amend the bill in
such a way as would admit Jews to sit in Parliament.
He should be sorry if the bill were defeated by such an
amendment, but the opportunity was a most excellent
one for basing the oath on the true and constitutional
grounds, so well explained by the noble and learned lord.
He did not see why their lordships should not sit dur-
ing August if necessary to discuss the subject. (Hear.)
Lord ABINGER thought it would be higlaly disin-
,

genuous to take advantage of a bill introduced for one
purpose in order to effect another, and a different ob-
ject ; and if the bill came up from the other house of
Parliament with another object added to it besides that
which it had now, he could not regard it as a possible
contingency that her Majesty's Government would ac-
cept it that altered form. If, however, it were pos-
sible, he trusted that their lordships would be there, as
on a former occasion, in such numbers as to defeat the
bill. (Cheers.)
The bill was then read a second time.
Lord LYNDHURST said that if it suited the noble
earl, he would move the committee on the bill on Thurs-
day. He wished to know what amendments the noble
earl had to suggest.
The Earl of DERBY said that he did not suggest any
amendments. What he apprehended was that amend-
ments would be made elsewhere which would alter the
character of the bill.
SALES OF BULLION BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
The house adjourned at a quarter to eight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. )
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The South Staffordshire Waterworks Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The following bills were considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—East Grinstead Railway ; East
London Waterworks ; Lands Improvement Company
(No. 2) ; Leominster Markets and Fairs ; New River
Company.