The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS-LAST EVENING,

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his slat on the Wooi,:ack
at five o'clock.

THE PROMISSORY OATHS BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he should briefly
move the second reading of this bill. Their lordships would
be aware that many oaths had been abolished which were
very cumbrous. But there still existed oaths which were
obligatory upon persons who were appointed to the highest
and lowest official positions in the realm and which oaths,
whether serious or frivolous, it was never intended
should be carried out. There was one oath taken by a
gentlemau-at-arms—(and ho might state at this point that
the oaths to be taken occupied 300 pages of the Appendix
of the,ll-port of Commission on:Promis3oryOaths)—which
declared that he would keep three double horses and two
men, and would with himself and servants be always rzady
in harness to serve the King. This was never, of course,
intended to be acted upon, but he had in feivolous oaths a
much more striking example. It appeared that the beadle
of a parish was, besides going to public-houses and beer-
shops, to take all the pigs in the district to the pound if
they were found straying. The Commission on Oaths had
advised the oaths of allegiance should be retained, and oaths
of office should ba abolished. With this he agreed. He
thought that the military, judicial, and official oaths ought
to be abolished, although some of the greater oaths might
be retained. Judicial oaths only to be taken by the highest
functionaries, and those taken by members of the house,
which oaths should be turned into declarations. 0 f
course secret oaths had to be taken ; for instance, by
the assessors of the income tax. All oaths by this
remtaeinnteidonewde,rewmeroestlpyro
ptoosbede
turned into declarations. That was the purport of the
bill.
tboillimexaboce
plitshethd,osaandhethohsaed

Lord LY VEDEN, who was very indistinct, was un-
derstood to say that he thought it was perfectly absurd to
ask a man to take an oath to do acts which it was per-
fectly impossible that he could perform. He considered
himself that the oath of allegiance and supremacy was
perfectly absurd. Of course, there could be no doubt of
the loyalty of men in office to the Sovereign. He
considered that the official oath was entirely
unnecessary. With regard to the military oath, the officer
had as much right to take it as the private. On the ground
of religion and morality he should support it.
Earl RUSSELL said that be approved of the bill as in-
troduced by the Lord Chancellor. He must, however,
remark that for those oaths which were to zemain it would
be much better that they should be in a substantive form.
With these observations he would say that ho heartily con-
curred iu the bill.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that what he, as one of
the Commissioners on Oaths, thought was, that the noble
lord had been wrong when he said that oaths were use-
less. He considered that they elevated the moral mind of
the nation, and that the Coronation Oath, whereby a Chris-
tian Sovereign swore to observe the duties of his position
in presence of his spiritual lord, ought to be reverenced
by all.
After some observations from Lord WESTBURY, the
bill was read a second time, and referred to a select com-
mittee.
The houso adjourned at 25 minutes to 7.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. DODSON called the attention of the house, to its
legislation with respect to private bills, and moved
certain new standing orders on the subject. He said
the proposed changes would in no way affect the
proceedings of that house, but that they would only
come into operation after the bills had been
considered thereon. The new orders would he felt be of the
greatest convenience, and tend to simplify and facilitate
the passing of measures of a really practical nature, and
prevent, to a great extent, the prosecution of bills,
the objects of which were to harass established companies
and create expense merely for the sake of incurring those
expenses, the interests of the public boing of very little or
no consideration. _

3ir:O7Ciiiapproved of the proposed alterations. He
thought the subject was one of such importance that he
proposed to ask for leave to bring in a bill to re-enact
the provisions of the act of 1847 and 1818, which gave the
Board of Trade the power of sanctioning bills for the
abandonment of railways, and also for the granting of an
extension of time for their construction. He thought also
that if the subject of competition was left for the considera-
tion of Parliament instead of being left for consideration of
theßoard of Trade much good would result from such an ar-
rangement. He thought that the last order with respect
to estimates had better not be insisted upon at the present
moment. He might just say that it was the purpose of
the Board of Trade also to introduce a bill, enacting that
the Wharncliffe meeting should be held before the bill s
as
introduced into Parliament, instead of, as at present, hold-
ing the meeting of shareholders between the time of the
passing of the bill from that house to the House of Peers.
Lord HOTHAM asked that time might be allowed
before the assent of Parliament was given at once to the
proposed alterations.

Mr. C. FOSTER moved the adjournment of the debate
for a fortnight, by which time the house would have had
ample time to consider the new orders.
Mr. BOU VERIE seconded the motion for the adjourn-
ment. If the new orders were agreed to they would cause
a complete revolution of the private business of that
house.

Mr. DODSON said he should not object to the motion
for postponement on condition that that day week they
would come to n decision on the put of the proposed new
orders.

Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE hoped that the whole matter
would be adjourned for the period mentioned by his hon.
friend.

The debate was ultimately adjourned for a fortnight.
BRITISH SUBJECTS.
Mr. FOSTER gave notice of his intention on an early
day to call attention to the subject of the allegiance of
British subjects H ho had emigrated to foreign countries.

DUNKELD BRIDGE.
Mr. BAXTER asked the Lord Advocate if it was cor-
rect that tolls both on foot passengers and carriages
continue to be levied at the bridge of Dun-
keld by the Duke of Athole, although his right
to do so had lapsed, and although the Post-
office authorities had fur some time refused to pay for
their conveyances which now pass free : if in consequence
of that illegal imposition great excitement prevailed in the
neighbourhood, resulting on Monday night in the destruc-
tion of the toll-gate ; and, if her Majesty's Government in-
tended to take any steps in the circumstances.
The LORD ADVOCATE said it was correct that tolls
were still levied, but he could not admit that the Duke of
Athole's right to do so had lapsed. There had been a
litigation between the Duke of Athole and the Postmaster-
General, but it was thought the Duke was entitled to still
take the toll, and he did not think Government ought to
interfere. Those who thought the tolls wero illegal ought
to contest the matter. He begged to say he gave no
opinion upon the legality of the matter.