The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-02 00:00:00

THE OATHS BILL.

The Bad of DERBY said,—Before my nob'e and
learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) :ism to move the second
reading of the bill of which he has given notice, perhaps
your lordships will allow me, though not strictly in
order, to say a few words upon the position in which
the house stands with regard to the three bills which.ate
to-night to bUconsidered. Bat before I do so I feel it
my duty in a single sentence to express to your lord-
ships, and more especially to noble lords opposite, my
grateful thanks for the forbearance, and courtesy with
which they have submitted to my very involuntary ab-
sence, in consequence of an illness, from which I am
now only imperfectly recovered,. (near, hear.) I mu i 4
also express my hope that no material public inconven-
ience has Arisen or will arise from the postpouetnent
until I should be attic to attend of eoene diecussione front
which I should be very sorry to be absent. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the question which is about to be brought
under your lordships' notice, a bill passed through the
House of Commons, and was submitted to your lord-
ships, for the alters' ion of certain oaths now required t
be taken by members of both Houses of Pariiameot, and
a clause was intrcdteced in that bill, as it cause up to
your lordship, Which diepeosed with certain words of
one of the oaths. Those clausee were struck out by your
lordship, and the-hill so amended was sent down to the
other house. Tee House of Commons retuned the bill,
objecting to your lordships' amendments, and stating
their reasons. Upou the second discu-siou of this hitt
in your lerdslaipe' house my noble and gallant friend very
unexpectedly gave notice, on the day before the Whit-
suetids bolyiays, of his intention to move an emend-
meht, without statiug the usvure or character of that
amendment. Oa the first day after the holydaye my
noble and gallant friend (the Earl of Teem') ;tie net
a resolution subetztet'elly to tees etiact,—that the
other hon,e ease the power, by' Act of Par-
liaLaida, to cispense, by a resolution of the house,
with the words " on the true faith of a Christian," in
the case of members of the Jewish per uasion. That
amendment took me and most cf your lordships by
surprise. My noble and gallant friend having only
given notice of his intention on the day before the
recess, and tiari g brought leeward hi• resolution ea the
first day after the holy:tap, it vine for any
pr.vate communicetioe to tatter Ideate beeweetnutentletrs
sinter on one side or the other, and we came to the
discus ion of an important amendment a ithout the pos.
ability cf pro. iuus consultation or deli'.eratioo. Under
thesacireumstaeces I took upon myzelt to suggest to
your lordships that the qiiestiun crought forward try my
noble and gallant friend wa-, one of too much importance
to be decided on in en accidental discussion of an
amendment iu the last stage of a bill. I suggested to
your lordships that, if my noble and gal'ant friend in-
tended to prapose hie azuendmneht, it would be better
done by a separate bill than by a• mere amendment. I
confess that in my opinion it would have been more
satisfactory to your Lordships and to the caur.try if my
noble and gallant friend hail been satisfied with the ex-
preesion of his own opinion—with throwing out a sue-
gestion that such a modification was required, and had
then left the other House of Perliatnent to send back
the bill with the amendments so introduced, to which
your lordships might then have given your assent. But
the course winch has been pursued is the; two bille here
been iromeht. in—one by my noble and gallant friend
(the Eerl of Lucan) and another by my noble said
learued friend (Lord Lyndhurst), than whom no one is
more ereetted t ► ce heard on a subject ter which he has
devoted so much time and attention. (Cheers.) Upon
looking at the two bills there does not appear to be
much difference in their provisions, but in the framing of
his bill my noble and learned friend permits what rosy
be considered an irregularity in the course f Path n
mentary proceeding, because a bill has passed through
all its stages here, and must neceseariiy be communi-
cated to the House of ()amnions, with the final decision
of your lordships upon it. The bill of my noble
and learned friend, however, takes' steps to re-enact
all the clauses that have been already pa-sed in
the bill that has been before both Houses of
Terlianient. The bill of my noble and gallant friend,
on the coetrary, takes a different course, and deals
only with the single question of enattling the House
of Commons to deal by .way of resolution with the
question. and to dispense with some words in this per-
ticular oath. I confess that I am disposed to view with
every favour the suggestion of my noble and gallant
friend to send down* such an enabling power to the
House of Commons, and I think such a C3IITBO prefer-
able to that pureued by my noble and gallant friend. I
think it would be far better to send down the fist bill as
it stands, and then to send down the bill of my noble
and gallant friend, dealing with the case of the Jews as
a separate measure. I confess, wy lords, that I have
not altered my views in regard to the policy or inexpe-
diency of admitting the Jews as members of a Chris.ian
Legistaturenbut, having carefully and anxiously consi-
dered the subject, I see that the proposal of my [ruble
and gallaat friend is the only possible solution of 011
difficulty whick has existed fur a period of ten yeare.
see tio other practical chance of bringing the two Houses
of Parliament int r agreement. Toe measure propreed
by my noble and gallant friend is one that certainly
maintains the principle adopted by your lordship in
dealing with this measure. It in detains the dignity of
your lordships' house with regard to that portion of the
question which is more immediately subject to your
juritdiction. It maintains the law as it stands at the
present moment, but it enables the House of Commons,
upon a question that specially relates to persona taking
their seats in that house, to dispense with the words
which stand in the way of what appears to be the decided
wish 'of that house. Tins solution appears to me to
1 afford a practical and not nit reatonable mode of settling
a difficult and complicated question. And however
much I regret the detertniiiation taken by the House of
Commons, and the impossibility ef maintaining invio-
late the principle for which your lordships' house has
ever contended, I confess I think there is less difficulty
and less practical inconvenience and danger arising
from giving a limited consent to the views of the
House of Conetnune, as embodied in the proposition
of my noble and gallant friend, than in persisting iu
an opposition which all practical experience proves
cannot be pushed beyond a certain limit between
the two houeee. While, therefore, on the one
hand, I object to the bill of my noble and learned
friend, and while I canna. say that the frill of my noble
and gallant friend is not susceptible of and may not
iudeed require some amendment, I shall be atified, if it
come to a question of divtdiog upon the secold reading,
to give my support to the bill f my noble and gallant
friend. My lerds, it is with this greittest regret I feel
that I may differ upon this que,tiori from many of those,
with whom I have agreed fur twiny years. If upon
this occasion tin se a ho Lane honoured nee with their
confidence find it impossible to adopt the course which
I have recommended, I wit' only say for ray own part
that, c'etiming from them that justice which I am ready
to give in return, I tak e the course which I have adopted
from no other feeling than a desire to see an amicable
settlement between the two houses with regard tda
question of grave interes, and with respect to which I
see no other solution. (Cheers.)
Lord LYNDHURST—The course recommended by
my nob'e friend has taken me by eurprise. Before I
give an auswcr to the considerateurre which he has sug-
gested it is neceseaey to wake some explanation. When
this subject was last before your lordships I listened
with great attention and satisfaction to the speech of my
noble friend, who with that readiness of illustration and
clearness of statement by which ho is characterise!),
shaped out the course which he said must be pursued iu
order to put an end to the difference between the houses

of Parliament. I urniidered /nest carefully the stiggsS-
tien made by my noble friend, and I took it as the foun-
dation t f the bill I have brought, in. If your lordships
will look t.) the .cranes you aiil find that they corre-
spond with the s uggeroiers of my noble friend. By the
bill I have brought in, if a member of either house come
to CLlO:side to he sworn, anti says ihe he cac not con-
scientiously make the declaration on the true faith of
a Christian, those words are to be struck out of the oath,
and the taking of the oath with that omission will
he a sufficient taking of the oath. That, my fordo,
is the main clause of the bill that I have brought
in. My noble friend, it is true, did not pledge himself
to support a bill fin drover', but he exaremeel him-
e lf errongly ia favour rf rseh a rocareir e. I will read to
your lordships a report of whs.:fell from my noble friend,
which accords exactly with toy own reeellen.;Cona of what
took place. Wnat lam now stating is said in my own
justification, in pr esenting the billin the form in which
it now appear?. Ido not read this in any controversial
spirit, but in explanation. My noble, friend, speaking
of the atoendment of my noble and gallant friend, esz.
pressed himself in these terms :
"I could better understand it (the amendment) had in
iutrod aced into the latter portion of the clause the same
provision which is to be found in the first part, and pro-
vide.' that in the care of city person presenting himself at
the table (for I can't see why the restriction should only be
remove t in the case of Jews), and having been duly
elected, declaring that he was willing to take the prescribed
oath., but that the words `on, the true f ith of a Chris-
tien' were not binding on his conscience, each house should
be empowered to omit those words, and to allow the sub-
stantive oath to be taken in the form which might be most
binding. Ido not pledge myself to that view, but there
is much to be said in its favour, and that by adopting it it
is possible to a great extent to get rid of the very pa'nfol
subject of difference between this and the other house. In
voting against the latter portion (of the amendment) I de-
sire to reserve to myself, and those with whom I act, the
opportunity of cousidering upon some future occasion
whether any compromise, framed according to such prin.
ciple as I have mentioned, may not be adopted to termi-
nate the in conveuiences axial og from, I fear, the permanent
difference of opinion between your lordships and the other
house."—

Your lordships must see that the bill which I framed
was foueded eh the statement ef my nebie friend. Ido
cot say that my coble friend was absolutoly bound to
eupport the hill as I have framed it, but I had every
reason to Islieve, front the canner in which he ex-
pressed himself and from his stating tLat touch was to
be said in favour of a bi:l so :lute a out, that it would
have the entire concurrence of my eoble friend. (sear,
hear.) In that, however, I aue so ey to say, I have
been diseppoin, rd. (Hear, hear.) I bare nut in point
of principle aey objection to the bill of my noble
and gallant friend. I have no per:onal ohject in this
matter. (Hear, bear.) I have nothing but a public object
lo view, and, if that ohjec; is carried, whether it be ace
cernpliehed by my bill or by the bill of my node and
gallant fiisnd is to me a matter of perfect indifference.
(Hear; he he) I have no persocal vanity to gratify.
(Hear.) I have been too long engaged in public lite to be
influenced by any f,elings of that descriptioo. (dear,
hear.) lam desirous to acc. tuplish the olject and to
attain the ecd. I bay., iu view, and by whomsoever it
.nay be promoted, and by whitte%er measure, it will i ay
my heerty concurrence and support. (hear, hear.) My
noble friend has :eat d that there is an objection in point
of f ,rro to the bill I haze introduced, but he is eutirsly
trisinfor e.e:l on that m Ater. In the first place, the two
bi:is which have been introduced are not identical—the
one is imperative, the o her discretionary. But Ido
not rely on that. I will state distinctly the rule of yOUr
lordships' house on the rut ject, and which is also the
rule of the ether Louse of Perliainent. When a binds
brought from the other househand is rejected by your
lordships, then a bill fdr the same object cannot be
introduced during the same session into the house where
the bill originated. But so long as a bill is depending in
the house another bill, baring precisely the same. object,
may be brought in and passed. It depends entirely on
the question whether the former bill is or is not de-
pendicg. (Ilear, Lear.) No man will say that the bill
which was brought up from the other house relative
to tie Jews is not now pending before your lordithips.
It is not only on our tables, but stands on the parer
for to-night, in so far as regards the answers we are to
give to 0, G30..11100? for the course we have taken with
reference to it. When those answers go down to the
house of Commons, that house may again cend the
hill up for our re-coueicieretion. (Hear, hear.) The
rule is, that while a bill is depending, and until it
is completely disposed of, there is nothing whatever
to prevent another bill for the same object being
introduced. (1.1.ar, hear.) At this very moment
there are two or three bills directed to the same object
before your lordships' house ; and in the other house of
Parliament—tor the rule is the same in both bouses—
there are two bills depending for regulaticg the Govern.
anent of Indite (Hear.) I think these statements are de-
cieive as regards the objection to my noble friend;
but another rule exists, from which there can be no
doubt whatever, and that is, that when a bill comes
from the other house of Parliament and is rejected
in your lordships' house, you may in your house in-
troduce another bill having the same .itie ..r; ,e„„ivd.
to the same ohjerit, and 1. uuwi, to the house
w!.lcL the other bill proceeded. (Hear, hear.)
That is a rule which has been established among the
general orders of your lordships' house, so that even
bad the former bill been rejected—if it had been en
tirely out of your lordships' house—it would still have
been compe•ent for us, that bill having originated in
the other 1,013 e, to produce another bill with the
same title and directed to tie .came object. (Hear.)
I did not think it r4lll to rely entirely on my own
view of this case. but I applied for iofercuation to an
eminent officer of the other house, whose name I shall
uct tnectien, but who is perfectly acquainted with the_
rules ef.Paheiseeeut, and Li • answer to my application
was as follows

" My dear Lord,—No objection can be raised to the in-
troduction of a bill into the House of Commons t.n the
ground of there being a similar bill already before the
house. "[Eldred, we hire at present two India bills before
us—Lord P.dwerston's and Lord Derby's—each waiting a
second reading. It is the rejec-tion, and not the pendt Rey
of the bill, that urea& s the difficulty us to ulterior pro-
ceed ngs. The rule applies to both houses, and an addi-
tional indulgence is allowed to bills sent by the Commons
to the Lords, as, even in the event of their rejection by
the Ler ,s, similar bills may be subsequently introduced
into► the Lords. (See May's "Practice of Parliament,'
247.) The introduction of any Jew Bill into the Lords is,
therefore, as far as I can judge, perfectly regular."
Bet the qu -slim( does nut retl here. You wi.l find from
Mr. May'► "Privileges and Practices of Parliament"
that the rules of both houses in regard to this matter are
the same. He says :--
" WI en bills have ultimately passed, or have been re-
jected, the rules of both houses are positive that they shall
not be introduced again : but the practice is not btrictly
in accordance with them. The principle is thus stated by
the Lords, May 17, 1606 :•--` That when a bill bath been
brought into the house and rejected, another bill of the
same argument and wetter way not be renewed and begun
again in the same house, in the saute session, where the
former bill was begun ; but if a bill, begun in one of the
houses, atul thero•allowed and passed, be disliked and re-
fused in tte other, a new bill of the same matter may be
drawn and begun again •in that house whereunto it was
lint ; and if,t a:.bill being begun in either of the houses
and committed; it be thought by the committees that the
matter may bettor proceed by a new bill, .it is likewise
holden agreeable tp order, in such case, to draw a new bill
I and to bring it into the house.' "

I have to repeat, therefore, that according to the rules
of sour lordships' home, even if this bill .had been re-
jected, we have power to introduce a new bill for the
same object. (Hear, hear.) I have stated this in justi-
fication of what I have done ; and now allow me to say
a few words with respect to the bill of my noble and
gallant friend. I have no objection on principle to that
bill. It embraces, indeed, a material part of my own
bill ; but what strikes me as very extraordinary is, that
when my noble and gallant friend moved his amendment
to the bill that came do wn front the Commons, that
amendment conaistmg of two parts, one applicable to
tneuitere in Parliament, and another to persons out of
Parliament, my noble friend (I,9rd Derby) approved
one of those parts, and disapproved, or at least had
Wong doubts as to the other, and now my noble and
gallant friend omits thae part which my noble friend
(Lord Derby) approve], and contents himself with the
inttoductiou into his bill of that of which my noble
friend expressed grave doubts. (Bear.) It deals with
the oath of eltjureeion only so far as relates to the words
" on the true faith of a Christian," and if the bill should
pass into a law, you still would have to abjure the de-
scendants cf the Pretender. I put that to my noble
friend far his consideration. It is true that when the
bill goes into committee you may amend it in that re-,
epect ; but what will be the effect? Why, abiolutely
to matte it conformable to my bill ; so, by rejecting the
bill 'that I have brought in, you are supporting a bill
which embraces only one part of the subject, and are
going into centreittee to supply what is wanting to make
it like mine. I repeat Ido not in the slightest degree
care by what pleicees the object I have in view may be
attained. Whether it be by the bill brought in by my.
noble and gallant friend, or by my bill—whether it be
by one bill or by two—is to me altogether immaterial.
As I said before, I have no personal feeling on the sub-
ject ; I am desirous of attaining the object in view, and
is we,eeyee way that object is attained I shall be per-
fectly eatisfitd. Now, as I understand that my noble
friene will euppert toe bill of my n :blei and gallant
friend, and as I know, if he does support that bill, the
object will be accomplethed—as I know, too, if I press
toy bill it may possibly tot succeed, or at least may suc-
ceed with d fliculty, I have no hesitation whatever in
pe4tpAting my bill in order that the bill of my noble
and gallant friend may be brought forward and sup-
ported by the po eerie' voice, the masterly talents, and,
more than that, the extensive—l will not say the over-
whelming—but the extensive influence of my noble
friend at the head of the Government. By taking this
course I believe I shall accomplish the object I have at
heart. (Cheers.) 1 withdraw my hill.
The t rder cf the day for the second reading of Lord
Lyudburst's bill was then postponed.
Lerd LUCAN then moved the second reading of his
bill, the object, of which was to allow the admission of
Jews into the other house of Parliament upon the reso-
lution of the house. Under the provisions of his bill it
would be necessary in the first instance fur a Jew when
elected to preseut himself at the table of the house, and
to decline so take
the usual
nwotuoltdakbae competent for the homes o dmi
a et s
ihis seat, upon a resolution to alter the oath in such a
manner a 3 it could be taken. He respected the conscien-
albin Ire loutred, whshh pei
pen sr ' i
s house who
tious opinions of those who were opposed altogether to
but thought that
tthhee
reed
iTtirs so
ni
i ona onfy.Tme
:TB ibnetros P
ofa their oaths,
thought it was high time the question was disposed of
and finally settled. Tae oompromise which he proposed.
by his belt was one which be thought well caleulited to
bring the question to a final settlement. He could not
understood the value of the objections which had been
urged to the measure, on the ground that it would give
unconstitutional power to the House of Commons. Oa
I a former occasion it had been raid that the apathy which