The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.—LAST EVENING.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PETITIONS.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH presented a large num-
ber of petitions against the abolition of Parliamentary
Oaths by members, and the reading of the names of the
places from which the petitions emanated occupied a
quarter of an hour.
Lord SONDES also presented petitions to the same
effect from Felthorpe, Boston, and Easton, in Norfold ;
and against the appointment of Roman Catholic prisons

and workhouses.
Earl DERBY presented petitions from different parts of
the United Kingdom against the Parliamentary Abolition
of Oaths Bill

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
On the motion of Earl STANHOPE, returns relating to
Parliamentary Reform, which had been presented to the
House of Commons, were ordered to be laid on the table
of their lordships' house.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a second time :—West
Middlesex Water, Devon and Somerset Railway (capital),
-Morayshire Railway, Dublin Corporation Water, Cornwall
and Central Wales Extension
County Lunatic Asylum,
Railway.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Worcester and Birmingham Canal, Ryde Gas, and Alder-
shot Gas and Water.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL.
Earl RUSSELL rose to move the second reading of this
bill. The noble earl, who spoke in a very low voice, said
that the bill proposed to substitute a uniform oath for
persons who were entitled to seats in Parliament, and to
repeal existing statutes on the subject. The present
oaths taken originated in the reign of Charles 11.,
and was decided upon as being calculated to confer
permanency on the Protestant succession, and the Pro-
testant religion in this country. He then proceeded to
give a brief historical account of the origin of the present
oaths. He contended that they were adapted to a state of
circumstances which had no existence now, and that
it
was, therefore, unnecessary to retain them.
The Earl of DERBY said he should confine his remarks
to the bill of 1829, which imposed the present oath on
Roman Catholics. Last year a proposal was made to re-
peal the oath on the ground tlaat the declarations contained
in it were unnecessary and offensive to those who were
required to subscribe them. That bill was passed by the
House of Commons, but rejected by their lordships, and
this year the present bill had been introduced into the
other house by the Government. On all sides it was ad-
mitted that those portions of the oath which were offensive
and unnecessary ought to be retained; but there was a
further question whether that portion which was intro-
duced for the protection of tho Protestant Church in Ire-
land should be struck out. He concurred in the advisa-
bility of having one uniform oath ; but he thought that, in
whatever terms it was framed, it should express allegiance
to the reigning Sovereign and recognise the Protestant
succession, and should also maintain the supremacy of the
Crown. A difficulty however arose as to the manner
in
which the last sentiment should be convoyed—whether
it was to be confined merely to the civil and tempral autho-
rity of the Crown, or to its supremacy also
in matters
ecclesiastical. He did not propose on the present occasion
to offer any opposition to the bill; but ho
thought it might
i
be amended in committee so as to render
t more accept-
able to all classes of the community, especially with re-
gard to the matter of supremacy.
Lord RA.VENSWORTII expressed his regret at the
away
the safeguards which had been
gradual sweeping
imposed by our ancestors for the protection of the Crown.
At the same time ho was not anxious to provoke a contest
between the two Houses of Parliament and should net
offer any active opposition to the
The Duke of ARGYLL, in supporting the bill, rejoiced
that at length complete emancipation had been secured for
his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.
Lord CHELMSFORD did not approve of the omission
from the new oath of the declaration that no " foreign
prince or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction
within this realm," and the disclaimer of any intention to
interfere with the Church Establishment. In committee
on the bill, therefore, he should move a proviso to Clause
6, which would not affect the oath itself, but would simply
apply to the acts repealed by the bill, as follows : —" Pro-
vided always that the repeal of these acts, or any of them,
shall not be construed to weaken or in any way to affect
any laws or statutes now in force for the preserving and
upholding the supremacy of our Lady the Queen, her heirs,
and successors, in all matters civil and ecclesiastical within
this realm."
After some further conversation the bill was read a

second time.
The County Courts Bill passed through committee.
Their lordship then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SrEAKEit took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Aldring,ton, Hove, and Brighton Gas; Bridgnorth, Wol-
verhampton, and Staffordshire 'Railway ; "Newcastle and
Gateshead Water ; and Sheffield Water.
TILE REForm BILL.

A number of petitions were presented in favour of the
GOVeIIIITICIA bill for the amendment of the state of the re-
presentation of the people.
Mr. OTWAY gave notice that to morrow he should
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Govern-
ment intended to adhere to their determination with re-
spect to the disfranchisement of the dockyard artisans.

Mr. MARSH asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether the Government had come to any final determina-
tion with regard to the promised bill for the redistribution
of seats. What boroughs, if any, were to be amalgamated
with others; what, if any, were to be totally disfranchised;
what were to be partially disfranchised; and how the seats
taken from those boroughs were to be disfranchised. And
whether it was the intention of the Government to keep its
views on these subjects concealed from the members of the
House of Commons until after the division upon the pre-
sent bill?
The CIIA.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with
respect to the threefold question of the hon. member, it
was not the practice to state the final determination until
the proper time arrived. With respect to the second ques-
tion, that could not be answered viva voce, but would best
be discovered from the bill itself. With respect to the
third portion, it appeared to him to be asking the Govern-
ment whether they would do that which they said they
would do. (Laughter.) He would, however, take the op-
portunity of restating the intentions of the Government
on the opportunity he should have in speaking to the
amendment of the noble lord the member for Chester.