POSTSCRIPT.
SATURDAY.
Parliament went through a good deal of business last night, and a good deal of talk. Many bills were forwarded; and the annual " massacre of the innocents " may be said to have fairly begun.
and opposing the demand for further inciuiry. On the other side, fa speakers were Mr. Tim, Mr. GRANVILLE-VERNON, Mr. SPOONER, and Mr. LOCKE. On a division, Lord Elcho's motion was carried by 153 to 145. The announcement of the numbers was received with much cheering. Mr. WALPOLE suggested, that as the division was so close, this would be a good opportunity for adopting the suggestion that addresses to the Crown should be prepared by a Select Committee, so that the opin- ion of the House might be taken again. But there were loud cries of " No !" and Lord PiameasioN said it would not be desirable to act on the suggestion until it had been adopted by the House.
As is now usual at the Friday sitting, a number of questions were put on the motion for the adjournment ; Members being thereby enabled to make little speeches. Mr. Moons humbly begged that a day might be fixed for the bringing on of his motion with regard to "the American question." Lord PALmmisrox, supported by Opposition cheering, said, that as a discussion in that House would not conduce to a settlement of matters pending between the two Governments, he could not assume any responsibility direct or indirect in regard to such discussion : if Mr. Moore determine to bring on his motion, the forms of the House afford him the means of doing so. Subsequently, Mr. MooRE expressed dissa- tisfaction with this answer, and his intention to bring on his motion if the forms of the House will permit him.
Mr. RATKES CURRIE wished to know what course the Government in- tend to pursue with regard to the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill? That bill, the result of a compromise, is, it is said, to be carried by a coalition ; to be held back until independent Members, wearied and jaded with the labours of the session, have left town, and then it would be not smuggled but " rammed " through the House. Did the Government adopt the bill ; and if so, would they fix an early day for its discussion ? Lord PALMERSTON said, that almost all legislative measures are compromises. The bill is not exactly what the Government would wish ; but the appellate jurisdiction of the other House is not in a satisfactory state, and as this bill places it on an efficient footing, he should give it all the support he could. No doubt, it is desirable that the bill should be discussed at an early day, but there are other measures of importance which have the preference. Mr. DISRAELI said he should vote for the second reading of the bill, because he thought it necessary. Lord Palmerston's answer to Mr. Currie was calculated to place the House in an equivocal position. It is Parliamentary practice to hold those who introduce a measure responsible for it. This is a Government measure, but Lord Palmerston says it is a compromise. Mr. Disraeli "could not clearly understand why the noble Lord admitted the House of Com- mons behind the scenes of legislation," nor why he called this measure a compromise. He should hold the Government responsible for the bill, and the class of jaded Members, represented by Mr. Currie, responsible to their constituents if they did not stay to discuss its merits. Lord PALMERSTON rejoined, that Mr. Disraeli seemed to imagine that he had been revealing something that passed behind the scenes, now he only re- ferred to those scenes played upon the stage—" acted, indeed, as one may say, up to the very foot-lights." Sir bares GRAHAM said that the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill should at least have precedence of the Testa- mentary Jurisdiction Bill, and an early day should be fixed.
"M noble friend, like myself, no longer takes the same interest in the 12th of August or the rat of September as in former days • but, speaking
generally, I do not think there will be any very cordial days; on the part of Members to remain here until either of the days I have mentioned. My noble friend has been most constant in his attendance throughout the session. He has been most sedulous as leader of this House, setting an ex- ample to both sides of the duty of constant presence here, to an extent which I never remember before. He is peculiarly well entitled, therefore, to call upon us to remain here so long as the interests of the country require it ; but there must be limits to such an attendance, and I therefore earnestly hope that this most important measure will not be postponed." Later in the evening, Lord JOHN RUSSELL expressed a hope that there would be no delay in bringing on this bill. Sir WILLIAM CLAY wished to know whether the Government would state that they felt bound to carry the Church-rate Abolition Bill ? If not, it would be better that it should be abandoned. The answer re- ceived from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER induced Sir William, at a later hour, to withdraw the bill.
The House of Lords went into Committee on Lord Derby's Oath of Abjuration Amendment Bill. Lord LYNDHURST took the opportunity of severely criticizing that measure. He said it resembled no act of Par- liament that he could find in the statute-book.
" My noble friend refers to the oath of abjuration, and then enacts that a large passage of that oath shall be excepted. He then goes on to say, after a few lines, that a line-and-a-half in addition shall be excepted. Again, going on further, he says that another line-and-a-half shall be excepted and I believe he repeats this a third time, that a line-and-a-half shall be excepted. Then he say s, a fourth time, that a passage shall be excepted, and that something shall be substituted in lieu of it ; then, that a word shall be excepted in a subsequent part of the oath ; and that afterwards another word Alit be excepted. I cannot understand how the oath can be ad- ministered at all. What is the form in which the oath shall be taken ? Is the clerk at the table to take the oath of abjuration in his hand and strike out certain passages with a pencil or with a pen, and then the noble lord at the table shall read the oath, skipping over particular parts ?"
He objected to the substance as well as the form of the bill. Why not abrogate the oath of abjuration, which only applies to events that cannot occur again ? The object which the shrewd and subtle practitioner who drew the bill had in view was to avoid the appearance of presenting a new oath : nevertheless, it is in substance a new oath. Lord Lyndhurst moved some amendments, such as the omission of the words " on the true faith of a Christian."
The Earl of DERBY said, that the remarks of Lord Lyndhurst con- tained " a greater amount of misrepresentation than he ever recollected to have heard from the lips of any member of the House on any subject whatever!" The bill did not introduce a new oath ; it had nothing to do with the Jews ; and it was framed purposely to avoid a conflict with the House of Commons. Lord CAMPBELL observed that the bill abolished the oath of abjuration altogether. Subsequently, Lord Li-mow:rear withdrew his amendments, with the intention of moving them on the re- port; and the bill passed through the Committee.
Previous page
