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

may be promoted, and by whatever measure, it will have
my hearty concurrence and support. (Hear, hear.) My
noble friend has stated that there is an objection in point
of form to the bill I have introduced, but he is entirely
misinformed on that matter. In the first place, the two
bills which have been introduced are not identical—the
one is imperative, the other discretionary. But Ido
not rely on that. I will state distinctly the rule of your
lordships' house on the subject, and which is also the
rule of the other house of Parliament. When a bill is
brought from the other house, and is rejected by your
lordships, then a bill for 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, having 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-
pending. (Hear, hear.) No man will say that the bill
- which was brought up from the other house relative
to the Jews is not now pending before your lordships.
It is not only on our table, but stands on the paper
for to-night, in so far as regards the answers we are to
give to the Commons for the course we have taken with
reference to it. When those answers go do we to the
House of Commons, that house may again send the
. bill up for our re-consideration. (Hear, hear.) The
role 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. (Hear, 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—for the rule is the same in both houses—
there are two bills depending for regulating the Govern-
ment of India. (Hear.) I think these statements are de-
cisive as regards the objection to my noble friend ;
lent 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 title and directed
to the seine object, and send it down to the house
from which 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
had the former bill been rejected—if it had been en
tirely out of your lordships' house—it would still have
been competent for us, that bill having originated in
the other Louse, to produce another bill with the
same title and directed to the same object. (Hear.)
I did not think it right to rely entirely on my own
view of this case, but I applied for information to an
eminent officer of the other house, whose name I shall
not mention, but who is perfectly acquainted with the
rules of Parliament, and his 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 on the
ground of there being a similar bill already before the
house. Indeed, we have at present two India bills before
us—Lord Palinerston's and Lord Derby's—each waiting a
second reading. It is the rejection, and not the pendency
of the bill, that creates the difficulty as . 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 Lor Is, 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."
But the question does not rest here. You will find from
Mr. May's "Privileges and Practices of Parliament"
that the rules of both houses in regard to this matter are
the same. He says :
" When 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 strictly
in accordance with them. The principle is thus stated by
the Lords, May 17, 1606 i--` That when a bill bath been
brought into the house and rejected, another bill of the
same argument and matter may not be renewed and begun
again in the same house, in the same session, where the
former bill was begun ; but if a bill, begun in one of the
houses, and there allowed and passed, be disliked and re-
fused in the other, a new bill of the same matter may be
drawn and began again in that house whereunto it was
sent ; and if,l kbillbeing begun in either of the houses
and committed, it be thought by the committees that the
matter may better proceed by a new bill, it is likewise
holden agreeable to order, in such case, to draw a new bill
and to bring it into the house.'"
I have to repeat, therefore, that according to the roles
of your lordship' house, 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 no ea allow me to say
a few words with respect to the bill of my noble and
gallant friend. I haze 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 down from tae Commons, that
amendment consisting of two parts, one applicable t•.
members in Parliament, and another to persons tint of
Parliament, my noble friend (Lord Derby) approved
one of those parts, and disapproved, or at least had
strong doubts as to the' other, and now my noble and
gallant friend omits that part which my noble friend
(Lord Derby) approved, and contents himself with the
introduction into his bill of that of which my noble
friend expressed grave doubts. (Bear.) It deals with
the oath of abjuration 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 of the Pretender. I pus that to my noble
friend for his consideration. It is true that when the
bill goes into committee you may amend it in that re-
spect ; but what will be the effect ? Why, absolutely
to make it conformable to my bill ; so, by rejecting the
bill that I have brought in, you are supporting a bill
which emtraces only one part of the subject, and are
going into committee to supply what is wanting to make
it like mine. I repeat Ido not in the slightest degree
care by what process 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 ()eject in view, and
in whatever way that object is attained I shall be per-
fectly eatihfied. Now, ae I understand that my noble
friend will support the bill of my noble and gailatit
friend, and as I know, if Le d 035 ruppo:t that bill, the
object will be accomplished—as I know, too, if I press
my bill it may possibly cot succeed, or at least mey suc-
ceed with difficulty, I have no hesitation whatever in
postponirg my bill in order that the bill of my noble
and gallant friend may be brought ferwarzl and sup-
ported by the powerful voice, the masterly talents, and,
snore than that, the extensive—l will not say the over-
whelming—but the extensive influence of my noble
friend at the bead of the Goveonment. By taking this
course I believe I shad accomplisli the object I have at
heart. (Cheers.) I withdraw my bill.
The order of tee day for the second reading of L.lrd
Lyndhurst's bill was then postponed.
L ,rd LUCAN then moved the second reading of his
bill, the object of which was to allow the ailmission 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 instanc,i far a Jew when
elected to present himself at the table of the house, and
to decline -co take the usual oaths, when it would be
competent for the house to admit such person to take
his seat, upon a resolution to alter the oath in such a
wanner as it could he taken. fie respected the conscien-
tioue opinions of those who were opposed altag-.ther to
the admission of Jews into Parliament, but thought that
there were many members of their lordships' house who
thought it was high time the question was disposed of
and finally settled. The compromise which he proposed
by his bill was one which he thought well calculated to
bring the question t) a final settlement. He cold not
understand the value of the objections which had been
urged to the inesaure, on the ground that it would give
unconstitutional power to the House of Commons. On
a former occasion it had been said that the apathy which
existed on the part of the public, as shown in the ab'ence
of petitions against the measure, arose from .the reliance
which the people out of doors placed on the determina-
tion of their lordships not to pass this bill. But during
the last s x weeks it had been well understood through-
out the country that theirlerdships were disposed to dive
way on the subject, but yet no petitions bad been pre-
sented against toe course proposed. He contended that
when there was a strong feeling exi=ting in the country
on any subject it was always evine,d by the number of
petitions presented to that home, and the fact that none
had been presented against this bill proved most dis-
tinctly that the country was not oppoised to the proposed
tilteratior. (Hear.) He hoped and trusted, therefore,
that this very night their lordships would at once and
fir ever put an end to a question which Lad been so
long in agitation, and which it was hopeless to expect
could be much longer delayed. He therefore moved the
second reading of the bill,

The questio—n having been put by the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR,

Lord CLANCARTY opposed the motion, on the
ground that it would not put an end to the question,
and because it proposed to c4rry out an object which
was in opposition to the repeated expressions of opinion
on the pert of their lordship, If a measure of the sort
were to be posited, he thought it was due to their lord-
ships that they should pass the one introduced by the
venerable and gallant lord (Lord Lyndhurst), [rather
than by the noble and gallant, lord who had just moved
the second reading of the hill. He would gladly join in
any measure which should tend to the continuance of
harmony between the two houses, and which would
amend the character of the oaths required to be taken,
but he could not support the present bid, which be be-
lieved would have no harmonising effect of the kind.
Before they proceeded further with the tampering of the
oath of Parliament, he entreated the house to pause and
consider well the object of the administration of those
oaths, which was to set forth publicly and solemnly that
the Sovereign of th,.s country ruled by the grace of God.
He bad no hesitation in Saying that he should be justi-
fied in bringing in Baron Rothschild, if he could only do
BO without sacrificing principles which be held in the
highest estimation, and whiou he could not consent
to forego upon any consideration, and he therefore
felt it his duty to move that the bill be read a second
time this day three months. (Cheers.)
Lord BERNERS supported the amendment.
Earl GRANVILLE did not think this the bast way
of dealing with the subject, but it was one he could sup-
port. He would rather, however, their lordships bad
first taken into consideration their amendments to the
first bill. They stood in an usisajsfactory and anomalous
position with reference to this question. They were un-
able to prevent a Jewish representative from sitting on
committees of the other house and taking part in con-
ferences between the two houses. He could do all except
voting in the house, and he (Earl Granville) considered
it was a mere mockery for any one to stand up in that
house and appeal to the highest rsligious Christian prin-
ciples with a vie of exercising they barren restriction.
(Hear.) He wouli cordialiy support the second reading
of the ha and he congratulated the house on tee proba-
bility of this measure being passed. (Dear.)
The Duke of CLEVELAND said he had ever sup-