The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-28 00:00:00

-aIPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock.
Lord LYONS (late Sir E. Lyons) took the oaths and
his seat as a Baron of the 'United Kingdom. His lord-
ship was introduced by Lord Foley and Lord Byron.
COMMUNICATION WITH IRELAND.
Lord CLANRICARDE begged to ask the noble duke
what steps were being taken to improve and facilitate
the communication between London and Dublin?
The Duke of ARGYLL stated that propositions bad
been made to the united railway and steam-boat com-
panies, and a letter had been received by the Govern-
ment from the proprietors, with the conditions for the
performanee of the service, and the money required.
That letter had been referred to the Post•ofsce authori-
ties, and was now under consideration. He had before
stated the conditions required by the Post-office to be
• fulfilled, namely, that the journey should be
()Wormed in eleven hours, and that the
departure of the mail should not take place later than
half-past seven in the morning. He did not think there
was anything extraordinary in the conditions, as Capt.
Huish of the North-Western It iilway bad stated some
time ago that the journey could •be performed in the
time mentioned. He could only assure the noble earl
that at present the subject was receiving the utmost con-
sideration, with a view of bringing the negotiation to a
successful termination.
DULWICH COLLEGE BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read-
ing of this bill. It was another of the bills founded on
the recommendation of the Charity Commissioners. He
wished the bill to pass this evening with the understand-
ng that it should he referred to a select committee.
FACTORY BILL.
On the motion of Lord DERBY, this bill was read a
bird time and passed.

- POLICE BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a third time,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH complained that this bill
was not to corns into operation until December. Such
a circumstance, he considered, would involve a loss
of time. It was his opinion that it would be desirable
to appoint a chief constable before December, and that it
would be wise to introduce a clause in the bill calling upon
the magistrates of the several counties to meet in Octo-
ber next for the purpose of electing a chief constable.
Lord PANNIURE said he would not object to the
introduction of a clause to the effect started by the noble
earl into the bill.
The bill was then read a third time.
OATH OF ABJURATION BILL.
Their lordships then went into committee on this bill.
Lord LYNDHURST objected to the bill, both in the
form and substance. The noble earl took the oath f
abjuration and struck out lines here, and inserted wards
there, till all identity with the original oath was lost.
Under these circumstances he did not understand how
the oath was to be administered. Was the clerk at the
table to take the oath of abjuration in his hand, arid
strike out with his pen certain passages ? The noble
and learned lord here repeated his description, given on
a former evening, of the circumstances under which the
objectior able passages were originally inserted in the
oath of abjuration, and continued. The oath of alj na-
tion was to meet the fact of the existence of another
family having claims upon the crown. That fact no
longer existed. Why, then, should the oath itself exist ?
Would it not be the logical conclusion for their lordships
to come to, that it should be abrogated altogether ? (Hear.)
After all, what were these oaths worth ? Who ever sup-
posed them to have any effect in times of difficulty ?
(Hear, hear.) They had never prevented a revolution.
(Hear, hear.) His noble friend (Lord Stanhope) had the
other night addresed their lordships very strenuously in
favour of the retention of one particular form of oath.
He would, however, venture to cal their lordships' at-
tention to a passage which occurred in the works of that
noble lord. He thought their lordships would, like him-
self, concur in the observations of the noble lord. Speak-
ing of the Jacobites, he said they still retained all their
former opinions, and the oath, however it might trouble
their conscience, did not influence their conduct. Such
is, I fear, the inevitable result of every oath enforced by
any government for its security. Examples of this are
hut too common in all countries. Swearing allegiance to
King George did not shut out ad Jacobites from Parlia•
ment : swearing allegiance to King Louis Philippe did
not shut out all Cerlists from the chambers. He (Lord
Lyndhurst) quite agreed with his noble friend. And
what said another very eloquent writer on the subject ?
Mr. Macaulay said, speaking ou the subject of oaths :
"Donut flatter yourselves that the ingenuity of legis-
lators will ev, r devise an oath which the ingenuity of
casuists will not evade. Among the many mem nies
which the troubles of the last generation have left :us,
none are more plain than those which tell us that; no
form of words, ho, e •er precise, will save a government
from destruction. Was not the solemn league and ceve-
nant burnt by the hangman amidst the buzzes of tens of
thousands who had slit 'Abed it ?" He (Lord Lynd-
hurst) himself recollected that on one occasicn it was
made a subject of merriment among several noble lords
that they had broken many of these formal oaths. An-
other objection which he had to this bill was, that it
embodied an insult to the Protestants of this country.
The oath, it should be remembered, applied to Protes-
tants, and not to Catholic'. It respired them to state
t at they made the declaration therein contained with-
out evasion or mental reservation. He should like to
know at what period of our history it was ever supposed
that Protestants were guilty of such mental reservations.
Such imputations had no doubt been made (wt e .her
rightly or wrongly he would not stop to inquire) against
the Catholics ; but as yet he was unaware that they
had ever been hinted at in the case of Protestants. Nay
more, the words " on the true faith ofa Christian," whiela
were inserted in this oath, were uncalled for. Die they
add anything to the binding form of the oath ? If a Pro-
testant swore that he bore true allegiance to Queen Vic-
toria, did it add one iota to the force of that oath when
he declared that he took it on the true faith of a Chris-
tian? He had, he confessed, heard it said of a noble and
learned friend of his that the oath of allegiance was too
meagre, that it was the modicum of an oath. He had
the greasest possible rsspect for that noble friend, but to
his opinion he would oppose the opinion of Lord Hale.
Lord Hale considered that oath to be simple, polio,
easily understood, and yet embodying the whole duty of
subject and sovereign. But, after all, as he understood
the true object of this bill, it was a bill levelled agaiuet
the Jews. (Hear.) It was to exceole the Jews from Par-
liament, it could have no other object, nor could it an-
swer any other purpose. But eet the house mark in
bow different a position the Jews would stand after
the passin; of this bill. They were now on the de err-
sive ; they could not come into the other house' of Par-
liament it was admitted, but this bill would go further,
it would actually exclude them. If the bid passed, what
became of the argument that the Jews were kept out of
the House of Commons by a mere pretext ? In answer
to that argument it would be said, " There is now the
vote of the two Houses of Parliament solemnly affiraii*
that form of oath under which tl e Jews are excludede"
(Hear, hear.) Now he put it to their lordships to con-
sider whether it was possible, after what had taken peter
in the other house, that this bill could be read a second
time there. Would nut that house, considering whet
had passed, think it extraordinary that they should be
asked to consent to such a bill ? He would not go Me-
ther, and say It might be thought an insult. Taking,
theretereethese views of the bill, he should in committee
move amendments, and especial), he should ask their
lordships to ceneent to the omission of the concluding
words of tho oath cornmsnciug " without evasion," and
going to the end, inclusive of the words "on the true
firth of a Christian."
The Earl of DERBY regretted that his noble frond
had not been present at the second reading of the bill,
as then he would have been better aware of the subject
which-he-(Lord Derby) had in view. As it was, he must,
with all respect for his noble and learned friend, say that
it had never tell to his lot to hear the object of a bill so
misrepiesentedas the object of this bill had been by his
noble friehd. His noble triend charged him with bringing
forward this bill for the purpese of excluding Jews from
the other House of Parliament. He called upou h
in
to show how, supposing this measure bscsene law, the
Jews would bo pieced in a worse position than that in
which they then stood. The object of this bill was to en-
act as law that portion of the measure which had re•
usntey been before them in which both parties concurred.
saving on one side that: question, Mich really was not
material to the exact question before them, he pro-
posed merely to embodyand las law the conviction which ex•
fisted; both there elsewhere, that
hsosmuch of the
oath as rela...ed to the extincteew
discarded. He (Lord
oLotrdepteurhirts might
with proprieteebe
however, sympathise with his noble(4rie d in theY) could,i
a stalking horse which the. alteration of n the oath (oralelf-
juration would cause to him. Re could conceive that h.B
noble friend would find a greater difficult in ur 'nl
their lordships to consent to any measure for the atiisg-
Rion of the Jews to the other house of Parliament than
he felt at the present time. The measure which he had
brought forward was intended by him as a measure of
conciliation ; he hoped it would not be thought necessary
for the House of C01111110(.113 to insist upon any alteration
in the form of words in the oath. But supposing that
should be the case, supposing the House of Commons
should take that course, which he must beg to say he
should consider an ill-advised one, then those who
bad charge of the bill in that house would proceed
with it no further, or if it came before their lord-
ships, it. would give rise again to a discussion simi-
lar to that which had already taken place. Into a
discussion upon the value of oaths he should 'not fol-
low his noble friend, further than to say, if the objet-
.irons which he had urged upon that subject had any
weight in there, they applied qui:e3 as much to the mea-
sure which the noble lord himself brought in as they did
to the bill then before their lordships' house.
Lord LYNDHURST pointed out that this bill, if
passed by both houses, would have a very prejudicial ef-
fect to the cause of the Jaws • inasmuch as it would be
urged against them as a deliberate expression of opinion
by the Legislature.
Lord CA.NIPBELL pointed out that the title of this
bill involved an absurdity when taken in consideration
with the bill itself. It was called a bill to amend the
" 0 rth of Abjuration," but in the form of oath contained
in it, all mention of abjuration and renunciation was
taken out. It was an oath of abjuration, which abjured
nothing.
The Earl of EGLINTON Peiefed out that the main
object of the bill was to get rid of so mach of the existing
oath as had become obsolete from lapse of time.
Lord DEN NIAN suggested that the oath should be
called an oath' of fidelity. This would get over the ab-
surdity pointed out by the noble and' learned lord.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH saw no objection to
the bill, which merely left the Jews where they were.
Thera he certainly always desired to see them. (Laughter.)
He based his objection to the admission of the Jews to
the other House of Parliament simply upon this—that