On this page
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
The House of Commons met at noon on Monday , to resume the adjourned debate upon the admission of Baron Kothschild to his seat in Parliament . A preliminary and confused diapuMum took place , in the course of which Sir Ciiakltss Wood moved that the member for London should be called to the table , and the question asked him why he had demanded to be sworn upon the Old Testament . The motion was agreed to , and the honourable member having been called in andinteirogated by the Speaker , he replied that he had made the demand because that was the form most binding ? upon his conscience . He then ¦ withdrew . Mr . Stuart Woktlky proposed another interpellation , in the shape of a query to be put to the baron , whether he was prepared to take all the oaths required of elected members before they were admitted to take their seats . This question would have involved the abjuration oath , between which and the two concurrent affirmations of allegiance and supremacy a broad distinction was laid down , both on account of its terms , and because it had a statutory origin . Considerable debating took place upon this motion , after which the House divided :
For Mr . Wortley s motion , 104—Against it , 118 . Majority against , 14 . The adjourned debate upon Sir Robert Inglis ' s motion was resumed by Mr . Hume , who briefly supported the amendment of which he had given notice in the form of a resolution , that the elected member for the City of London should be called in , the clerk directed to administer to him the oaths upon the Old Testament . The amendment was seconded by Mr . Wilcox . A long speech on the subject was then made by Sir Frederick Thesioer , who endeavoured to prove that the oaths to be taken by elected members of Parliament were determined , not
by the law of Parliament , but by the law of the land . From the wording of the statutes , corroborated by the interpretation put upon them at the time by various tribunals , he concluded that the form of a promissory oath could not be altered , except by the act of the legislature . The recent conduct of the ministry in introducing successive bills for modifying the form of parliamentary oaths had confessed to a like conclusion on their part . To attain the same end by the short cut now proposed would involve a -violation of the established law , a contradiction to the precedents of all times , and a future collision of the
most perilous character with the legal tribunals of the country , if not with the other branch of the legislature . Lord Johx Russell admitted that the question turned and ought to be argued upon strictly judicial grounds ; Their duty to Baron Rothschild himself , and to the constituency who had twice elected him , called upon them to grant him every privilege which the statutes of the land did not clearly prohibit . He denied , therefore , that merely inferential conclusions from existing acts were to be considered binding ; and believing that the spirit in which too many ot those statutes had been passed was unjust and unwise , he
concluded that they ought to be so interpreted as to put the least constraint upon the consciences of men . Great stress had been laid upon the words * ' sacro sancti Evangelis" in the statutes : but Lord Chancellor Hardwic-ke and Judge Hale had decided , what whs now accepted as a maxim of law , that the Old Testament was the evangelism of the Jews . He deprecated any treatment of the subject ns a party question ; and to settle it upon a consideration of the principle would be an act of usurpation on the part of that House ; but ho had arrived at his own conclusions upon judicial grounds , and hoped the debate
would be continued solely under that aspect . Sir Roheiit Indus showed that the plan suggested by the noble lord would not relievo the member for London from his dilemma . It was of little use to bring him up to the table and ofFor him a series of oaths of which he could only accept a part . The honourable baronet then announced his intention to withdraw his resolution , in order that the amendment of Mr . Hume might be put and voted upon as a substantive motion . The adjournment of the debate wns then moved , and noon on Thursday proposed for the resumption of the discussion . After some contention , in which much heat was manifested by
various members , a motion , made by Mr . ANSTRY , was agreed to against the reiterated appeals of members on ih « front of the ministerial bench , that the debate * houhl proceed when the House re-assembled in the evening . ' 1 he debate was resumed in theeveningsittiiifj by Mr . Anmtky , who quoted a mass of technical and historical evidenuo to prove that no statutory enactments wen ; in existence , whose prohibitory clauses ¦ w ore , aimed nt the Jews , and that in innumerable instances the Judaicivl body were assimilated in their treatment by the Legislature with the Christian subjeetH of the crown of England . Mr . Paof . Wood Htppnrictl the motion , Thu House having divided , the numbers
werel ' or Mr . llump ' n resolution , US—Affninst it , fit ) . Mujority for f > I . As four o ' clock was then passed , Vtoforo which hour , according to parliamentary usage , ivt-rynew member must have coinu up to tuke the . outha , no immediutu
steps could be taken in consequence of this vote , and the House therefore proceeded with other business . The proposal to settle Marlborough-house on the Prince of Wales during the joint lives of the Queen and Prince Albert was not received very favourably by the House on Monday . Mr . Hume maintained his title to the character of the leader of the economists by the plain and firm manner in which he showed the unreasonableness of proposing to make a provision for a boy of nine years old . There was no use in giving this house to the royal family till they saw more about . Perhaps they would find out that
they had a sufficient number of palaces on their hands without it . There were sixteen of them altogether , and they cost £ 60 , 000 a-year . Lord John Russell said , it seemed to the Government that Parliament should be asked to settle Marlboroughhouse on the Prince of Wales . It had always been usual to settle a house on the Prince of Wales , and as the Queen had been pleased to direct that the pictures of the Vernon Gallery should be removed to Marlborough-house , in order that the public might have an opportunity of seeing them , the Government deemed it proper to make a settlement of that palace on the Prince of Wales now , to prevent all complaint nine years hence , the time when the use of it would be required for an establishment for the prince . Mr .
Bright could see very little force in that reason . They were told that Government wished to have an arrangement now made in order that the public some nine years hence , when it may be proper to give a residence to the Prince of Wales , may not be annoyed when the removal of the pictures would be required for that purpose . If it should be a proper thing that Marlborough-house should be given t : > the Prince of Wales at such a time , he did not think there would be any difficulty in doing it , because as the matter had been thus fully discussed , it would be well known that the pictures were only therefor a temporary purpose , until a more fitting place should be found for them . Mr . Henley thought it was very absurd for them to hamper themselves with prospective arrangements of this kind . Who could tell what would take
place in nine years ? How could anybody say that there may not be changes of opinion as to what may be desirable to be done with either Buckingham Palace or Marlborough House during that period . On similar matters changes of opinion had taken place within the last twenty-five years . Suppose , then , that they now voted that this House should be given as a place of residence to the Prince of Wales , and that a change of opinion took pJace , they would be compelled to buy the Prince of Wales out of that which they had originally given him , and then they would have to assign to him another house . Mr . Hume did not wish to withhold the house from the
prince , but he thought that the whole circumstances connected with this branch of the family ought to be considered . The public would ask what amount of saving had arisen out of the property of the prince . They were not to be expected to be continually making grants to the Prince of Wales without enquiring what his income was , and whether his property was properly taken care of . The House divided , when the Government proposition was carried by C 8 to 46 .
At the morning sitting of the House of Commons , on Tuesday , the Speaker read the resolution agreed to on the previous day , directing the clerk to swear the Baron de Rothschild on the Old Testament . The Baron appeared at the table , introduced , as before , by Mr . Wood and Mr . J . A . Smith , and , with , the Old Testament in his hand , took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy , reading the words audibly and distinctly after the clerk , uncovered , putting on his hat when he pressed the book to his lips . In the same manner he followed the cleik in reading the oath of abjuration , until he came to the words " upon the
true faith of a Christian , when he said , * ' 1 omit these words as not being binding on my conscience , " and , passing quickly on , read *? So help me God , " kissing the book . The Speaker then desired the Baron to withdraw , which he did , amidst cries of «« No , no . " Mr . Hume said the member for the city of London had taken the oaths in the form which he declared to be most binding on his conscience , as by the vote of the previous night the House had declared he had a right to do , and objected to his being obliged to retire . The Speaker said , as the honourable member declined to repeat certain words of the oath as prescribed bv act of Parliament , he had directed him to withdraw , until he had ascertained
the pleasure of the House . Sir F . Tiiesiohr moved that Baron do Rothschild , one of the membeis returned by the city of London , having refused to take one of the oaths prescribed by law to bo taken by a member , a new writ be issued for the election of a member for the City of London in his stead . Mr . Wood said , this was a question which concerned not only the privileges of that House , but the interests of the country at large , and the rights of the electors of the United Kingdom . The House was not called upon to take an active part , as in Mr . Pease ' s case ; the oath hero had been duly taken , and whether taken or not the seat was full , lie concluded n very effective speech , which the Attorney-General declared to be one of the ablest arguments he had
ever heard , by moving as an amendment th at the seat was full . The Attorney-General said he had had considerable difficulty in coming to a conclusion which was a painful one ; but if he were sitting as a judge , sworn to decide justly between parties , he could not say that the Baron had taken the oath of abjuration . Speaking in a judicial capacity , he could not in his conscience say that Baron de Rothschild had taken this oath in the form prescribed by an act of Parliament , and that he was entitled to take his seat . Mr . Anstey asked why , if this was a judicial question , it had been prejudged , and made a Cabinet question ? Several other members then spoke in
favour of taking time to consider the subject before coining to a decision , and the House ultimately rejected Mr . Wood ' s amendment that the seat is full ( which would have entitled Baron de Rothschild to take his seat forthwith ) by 221 to 117 . Sir Frederick Thesiger s motion that a new writ be issued for the City of London was then negatived without a division . A conversation afterwards took place respecting the ulterior course of proceeding , and it was ultimately decided that the matter should stand over until Thursday at twelve o ' clock , in order that the Attorney-General , in conjunction with the Government , might prepare a resolution to be submitted to the House , to be discussed on Monday .
At the evening sitting of the House , the Lords ' amendments of the Parliamentary Voters ( Ireland ) Bill were taken into consideration . Lord John Russell said the first question upon these amendments was as to the alteration made in the amount of rating , from £ 8 to £ 15 , which would reduce the number of electors from 264 , 000 to 144 , 000 . This appeared to him a very serious alteration , and he proposed to substitute £ 12 for £ 15 , which would
give 172 , 000 electors . Another alteration , to which he attached greater importance , affected the principle of the bill , which instead of requiring a claim for registration , had proposed that the rate-book should be a self-acting register . He disagreed with that alteration altogether . The other amendments he did not object to . Mr . Gaskell supported the amendments of the Lords , and moved that the amount should be £ 15 instead of £ 12 . Several Irish
members approved of the course taken by Lord John Russell . Mr . Bright said this was the great Ministerial measure of the session , and now they were allowing the Lords to do what they pleased with it : — " If they took the votes in the two Houses of Parliament on this subject they would find that whilst the bill had been carried by considerable majorities in that House , the franchise was defeated in the other House by a small majority of seventy-two to fifty . ( Hear , hear . ) And the noble lord should be cautious how he allowed small majorities in another place to override the majorities of
the House of Commons and the Ministers of the Crown on this question . The noble lord ought to have stood by his bill as he had brought it in if he were satisfied that he was right . The noble iord had said that some honourable members in that House spoke with great ability on matters connected with trade— ( hear )—but that he was amazed at their narrow and small views when they came to discuss great constitutional questions . ( A laugh . ) The noble lord had discussed such questions all his Jife , but found after all that he could not make his great constitution work . The noble lord was now to make that House work in harmony with the other , but never did
any man undertake a greater improbability . They had just had a specimen of the manner in which the two Houses were working together . Year after year had the noble lord passed a measure which , went to the House of Lords , but there it was scarcely discussed , —not only that House , but the Ministers , were treated with contempt , and the bill was kicked out as too absurd to be discussed . And now the noble lord appeared to be carrying on his Government on the policy of only passing measures suited to the very minute gauge of the House of Lords . add
It , was rumoured that the liobie lord intended to a little more to the democratic element of the House of Commons , but if there were in it now t > o much of that element for the House of Lords , how could they get on more comfortably if they had added a few more members to it who would vote against him when he did not go far enough in his measures of reform . The result would be either a greater difficulty to the noble lord in working the constitution , or the constitution would be exiinmiished , because the noble lord would have to succumb to that House . "
Lord John Russell defended himself with animation , and charged Mr . Bright in turn with apparently desiring one absolute democratic assembly , suffering no barrier to its will , and no opposition to its decrees , to which all estates and constituted bodies were to bow . The sum of good enjoyed under our present system , he observed , was so great , our institutions were so valuable , and their fruits so precious ,
compaved with other forms of government , that he was not willing to change our present constitution for anv scheme which Mr . Bright mi ^ ht propose . Lord John referred to the policy he had pursued m various public measures , to show that great good might be effected by concession and compromise , instead of bluntly saying , " Here is my mousuro ; 1 will listen to no change , and will rather run tin ; risk of a collision between the two Houses of
Parliament" : — " It has happened to me—if I may be pardoned for speaking of myself— -to carry measures of change through
Untitled Article
434 &t ) t $ L ( atltV . [ Saturday ,
Untitled Article
PARLIAMENT .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 3, 1850, page 434, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1849/page/2/
-