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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

' ROUSE 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 Feithorpe, 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
County Lunatic Asylum, and Central Wales Extension
Bailway.
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
s
oaths taken originated in the reign of Charle 11.,
and was decided upon as being calculated to confer
permanency on the Protestant succession, and the Pro-
testant religion in this country. go 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
retain them.
was, therefore, unnecessary to
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 that 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 the 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 tta
Crown. A difficulty however arose as to the manner in
which the last sentiment _should be conveyed—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 he thought it might
be amended in committee so as to render it more accept-
able to all classes of the community, especially with re-
gard to the matter of supremacy.
Lord RAVENS WORTH expressed his regret at the
gradual sweeping away of the safeguards which had been
imposed by our ancestors for the protection of the Crown.
At the same time he 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 lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENDIG.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Aldrington, Hove, and Brighton Gas; Briagnorth, Wol-
verhampton, and Staffordshire Railway ; Newcastle and
Gateshead Water ; and Sheffield Water.
THE REFORM BILL.

A number of petitions were presented in favour of the
Government bill for the amendment of the state of the re-
presentation of the people.
Mr. OTWAY gave notice that tomorrow he should
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Govern-

ment intended to adhere to their determinatiOn with re.

apect 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 CHANCELLOR 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
bo 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.) Ha 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.
ARMY SURGEONS.
Col. C. LINDSAY asked the Secretary of State for War
whether he would state the reason of the proposed change
of system in the promotion to the rank of surgeon in the
Brigade of Guards; whether the existing system of regi-
mental peornotion had ever been known to fail, and that
public advantage was likely to be derived from the pro-
posed change ?
The Marquis of HAILTIN GT ON said he couldhardly in
the
limits of an answer to a question explain the resort for
the changes from that of 1860. hon. n
The member for
Fifeshire had given notice of his intention ' • elcv ge the
matter under the attention of the house, and therefore
' he
thought it would be better to postpone the: discussion un
til that time.

i
THE MALT TAX.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCREQ,puoEn,
i asked Sir F
Kelly whether he would consent to postpone,
his motion on the malt duty, now standing for Tuesday,
the 17th, with a view to the continuance on that evenig B
of the debate on the Representation of the People Bill ?
He was afraid there was no hope of the debate on the Re-
form Bill being concluded that evening, and his sole rea-
son in asking tho hon. member to postpone his motion was
that the debate might proceed without interruption.
Sir F. KELLY said he should much regret the post-
ponement of his motion, • i ho would not stand in the
Lay of the Government, provided the right hon. gentle-
torwa would give him an evening on which he could bring
forward, said
motion previous to the Budget being brought
could
The CHANCELLOR,otgiv of the EXCHEQUER said he
to his make the right hon. gentleman a night previous
pledged to tlle Louse
financial statement, because h. stood
Government night to brie forward the budget the first
Bill. alter the second reading of the Reform

Sir F. KELLY •
he should bring fosar:ara that, under these circumstances,
IMPORTATION otis motion to-morrow evening.
DISEASED CATTLE.
Sir G. GREY said with respect to the question put to
him relative to smuggling
Home diseased cattle, at the
instance of Earl Granville and Col. Talbot, he had made
the inquiries promised. With respect
charge that related to Earl ll t°ll the part of the
appeared
that the cattle had been taken to a
left entirely to the management of his bailiff, a licenta of his
e
having been obtained by the dealer for e i
moving
taro cattle ; he used it for the purpose of drivingc
the cer-
brought by the Dutch steamer to his lordship'sfarm.wr
information had been laid against Earl Granville, and
had been heard that day by the magistrates at Edgewar.c:
but they were unanimous in dismissing it against his lord-
ship, but it was bold that the bailiff and the dealer had
broken the law. The cattle had been killed,
ti and
oCher was
unreason to suppose they had spread any in and With
resPect to the cattle taken to Col. Talbot's, they had been
moved to his farm on speculation by the dealer, and had he
driven them back he would have contravened the law.
He had not heard the result of the magisterial inquiry
into this cage- It had not been concluded since his in-
formation left.
THE REFORM BILL.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The adjourned debate on the amendment of Earl
Grosvenor to the motion for the second reading of
this bill was resumed by
Mr. )lAcr-n,
"4,4 who in tho course of his observations