The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL

lAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the following
bills were read a second time :—Clay Cross Water ;
Gloucester Gas ; Swansea Vale Railway ; Ceylon Rail-
way ; Epsom and Leatherhead Railway ; Lutoo, Dun-
stable, and Welwyn Railway ; Sittingbourn and Sheer-
ness Railway.

The folls‘ving bills were read a third time and passed :
—Wandsworth and Putney Gas ; Eastern -Union Rail-
way ; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway ; Yar-
mouth and Haddiscce Railway.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES' BILL.

Their lordships then went into committee on this bill.
Lord CAMPBELL approved of the bill, so far as it
went to consolidate the statutes relating to Joint Stock
Campanies. He hoped the bill would do no mischief,
as he felt it would not confer the benefits which it was
expected it would. It was right the experiment should
be made, and he hoped no danger would ensue,
but he must say he did not expect much good would
arise.

Lord OVERSTONE protested against the principle
of the bill, as it was based upon the principle of limited
liability. The bill had been hastily got up,
and pressed forward with indiscriminate speed. Its
promoters had taken upon themselves to interfere with
the difficult and very complicated subject of commercial
transactions. He begged to ask the noble lord how
banking companies were to be dealt with by the bill I
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said banking com-
panies had been exempted from the operations of the
Joint Stock Companies' Act, which act this bill was in-
tended to amend, and he intended to exempt banking and
assurance companies from this bill. He was not called
upon to make any further distinction than previously
existed between such banking companies from other
companies, and he did not think any more difficulty
would be felt under this act than under the former one.
Lord MONTEAGLE contended that the bill would
occasion much confusion as far as banking companies
were considered.

Clauses up to 13 were agreed to.

On clause 14 being read,
Lord OVERSTONE objected to this clause, which
referred to the liability of directors, and asked whether
the Government had seriously considered the effectof this
clause, and whether they were willing to take upon
themselves the responsibility of passing such a clause ?
Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said the clause
was not in the original bill, but had been introduced in
the other house. If the noble lord moved the
emission of the clause he should not oppose the motion;
After a short discussion the clause was agreed to, as
were clauses down to 16.
On clause 17,

Lord PORTAIAN suggested that a copy of the re-
gistry of shareholders should be deposited in some
public office ready to be produced in the
event of the registry kept at the offices of the companies
being destroyed for fraudulent purposes.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the sugges-
tion should be duly considered.
The clause was then agreed to, as were the other
clauses of the bill, with a few verbal amendments, and
it was reported to the house.

FACTORIES BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 4, _ .

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY thought that words
should be added to this clause for continuing to men
above the age of 18 the protection which they enjoyed
under the existing law.
The Earl of DERBY said that the noble earl's sug-
gestion would really end, if adopted, in making this bill
apply to machinery as wed as mill-gearing. The bill af-
forded all the protection that was required, and there
was to be compensation in case of accidents. The bill ex-
tended to mill-gearing the penalties which applied to
machinery only under the existing act. By one of the
clauses referring to the non-fencing of mill-gearing it was
provided that the penalty should be enforced even though
no accident had arisen from the want of fencing.
The clause was then agreed to.
On sauce 6, providing for arbitration,
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said he was afraid there
would be great difficulty in obtaining suitable arbitrators.
The clause was then agreed to, and the bill passed
th

rough committee.
POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL.
On the report of this bill being brought up with amend-
ments,
The Earl of PO WIS suggested the addition of a clause
giving a committee of justices sitting de die 'in diem
power to remove constab!es whom they considered to
have rniQcondoete(l thenwelves.

Lord WROTTESLEY concurred in the suggestion.
Lord PANMURE thought the introduction of such
a clause would tend to create confusion in the manage-
ment of the police, and that the magistrates in quarter
Cessions would soon wish to have it revoked.
The report was then received.
SLEEPING STATUTES BILL.

Earl FORTESCUE moved the second reading of
this bill. Tile noble lord said that the bill had for its ob-
ject the repeal of certain obsolete statutes, and it had
passed through tha other House of Parliament without
opposition.
Lcrd CAMPBELL supported the bill, observing that
by the civil law whenever a law fell into desuetude it
ceased to be a law, and could not be enforced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had been asked
by a noble marquis whether he intended to move that
this bill be referred t.o a select committee, to which he
replied in the negative. The bill was, with small excep-
tions, prepared by the Statute Law Commission, with
the view of being introduced together with several other
measures which were in preparation, and which he hoped
would be brought forward before the end of the present
session. The reason why the Government did not in-
troduce it some time ago was that it was desired to
ascertain whether there might not be some other sta-
tutes, or portions of statutes, which it was desir-
ale to include in the bill; but the task of examination
seemed so very difficult that it was thought best not to
enter upon it. He thought a reference to a select com-
mittee would be an entire waste of time.
The Marquis of SALISBURY thought the bill should
net be pressed forward without the production of the
documents or report on which it was founded.
Lord MONTEAGLE supported the bill. He hoped
that a similar measure would be introduced for Ireland,
to repeal tho corresponding statutes in that country.
The bill was then read a second time.
BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The report of the amendments to this bill was received.
The Annuities Redemption Bill and the Transfer of
Works (Ireland) Bil►. passed through committee.
The West India Loans Bill was read a third time and
passed.
THE OATH OF ABJURATION AMENDMENT
BILL.

The Earl of DERBY, in moving the second reading
of this bill, said that in the then state of the house he did
not consider any discussion probable, and he would
merely present the hill, as be did not anticipate any oppo-
sition to the second reading. The object it had in view
was one in which their hardships were all agreed ; they
had the night before rejected a bill intended to effect
that object, because in it that object was inseparably
connected with another intended to lead to a result to
which they had severel times refused to assent. He had
sonic time since read a book in which it was stated that
some descendants of the Pretender were still alive in
Scotland, but he did not apprehend any rivalry of the
crown on the part of these gentlemen ; but, in point of
fact, all the legal descendants of the Pretender were ex-
tinct, and it had become a mere mockery to declare by
a solemn oath that they renounced and abjured all their
pretensions. As the oath had become unnecessary, it
was most desirable it should be got rid of. It appeared
to the consciences of many noble lords that the oath was
not only unnecessary, but blasphemous. The object of
the bill was to provide that in all ca,es where the oath of
abjuration was administered, the part of it applicable to
the descendants of the Pretender should be omitted.
Lord CAMPBELL did not intend to oppose the bill ;
on the contrary, he would lend every assistance to the
noble earl to pass it, for he considered the oath of ab-
juration to be a disgrace to the statute book. Since he
became Chief justice he had suffered particularly from
it, as it was his duty to see it administered to the judges
and other officials. Within the last twelve months a
most distinguished judge, Mr. Justice Willes, had to
take the oath in open court. When he reached the pas-
sage referring to the Pretender he became dumb. He
(Lord Campbell) told him he was not taking the oath ;
he replied he abjured in his heart ; but he (Lord Camp-
bell) was obliged to tell him that was not sufficient, as the
statute required that it should be spoken. He thought it
better while the law existed to enforce it, and show its
absurdity. He believed no oath was necessary but the oath
of allegiance, which had been found sufficient for centu-
ries. He thought the oath of abjuration ought to be en-
tirely abolished, but if that could not be accomplished, he
was content to have it re-modelled. If the noble earl wished
to give his bill any chance of
Passing, he must alter the
form of it, for as it now stood, it was the greatest botch
ever sent out of that house. On all former occasions when
a change was made in the oath, the old oath was repealed
and a new form enacted ; but the noble earl proposed to
enact that a clause should be left in one place, a few
words in another, and a couple of words added in a third.
If the bill passed, it would be impossible for any officer to
tell what form of oath he was to administer. He hoped
the noble earl would propose such a form of oath as he
thought ought to be preserved, and send it down in such
a shape as the House of Commons would agree to.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE could not allow the
bill pass without expressing his dissent. He objected
entirely to the bill, for whatever might be its merits,
the manner in which it was introduced placed their lord-
ships in a most offensive attitude to the House of Com-
mons. At a future stage he would move the rejection of
the bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW approved of the principle of
the bill.
The Earl of DERBY said he proposed the bill in its
present form to avoid any chance of a conflict with the
House of Commons. If he had adopted the course Bug-
gested by the Lord Chief Justice, and, repealing the
existing oaths, had proposed a new one, retaining the
words " on the true faith of a Christian," he would have
thrown a direct challenge to the House of Commons
but the course he had adopted would enable them to get
rid of an objectionable and unneccessary oath without
calling the attention of the other house to the particular
words on which the difference arose. He was sure he
only did justice to the House of Commons in thinking
that they would not volunteer a second contest in the
course of this session, and would not reject a bill which
all desired.
The bill was then read a second time.
Their lordships adjourned at twenty minute lt to eight;