Lords Sitting of 27 June 1856

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Rear Admiral Lyons, G.C.B. (having been created Baron Lyons).
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Cambridge University; Registration of Voters (Scotland).
2a Dulwich College; Aldershot Camp.
3a Factories; Police (Counties and Boroughs); Sardinian Loan.

POLICE COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, no one was more anxious than he was for the success of this measure, which he had continued to press upon the attention of successive Governments for the last ten years; but, nevertheless, he entertained

2049
great doubt whether the measure would be efficient for the purpose contemplated, and he thought that next year a supplemental Bill would be necessary. But even this year they might, in his opinion, introduce Amendments which would contribute to its success. For instance, the Bill directed the magistrates assembled on the January quarter sessions to proceed with the creation of a constabulary in counties where none already existed. But what were they to do in the intervening five months? There was no direction to the justices in the meantime to make inquiry and obtain that necessary knowledge which would assist the working of the new police; and he therefore thought it desirable to direct the magistrates at the quarter sessions in October to appoint a chief constable, who might in the time that preceded January make himself thoroughly acquainted with the county, and with the circumstances of his district. A map, too, he thought, would be desirable, and it were well if the magistrates provided the county with one before January. Some steps, too, ought to be taken at once to frame some estimate of the cost, without which the magistrates would scarcely be able to carry out the Act when they assembled in January. It was quite true that the magistrates had power to do these things now if they chose; but he must remind their Lordships that they were dealing with reluctant counties, who had resisted the desire of Parliament to establish a general police. There were twenty counties without any police, and some with only a few. Some directions upon these points it would be well to prepare at once.
LORD PANMUREsaid, their Lordships must all agree with the observations just made by the noble Earl. He was not sorry the noble Earl had made those remarks, because the very fact of his calling the attention of the House to the subject would be nearly as effectual for the purpose he had in view as any compulsory provision in the Bill. He believed that at the ensuing Sessions—seeing that the Bill was about to become law—the magistrates would set about making preparations without further intimation. He did not mean to say that this was a perfect measure, but he thought it was a great step towards the object they had in view, and it was as much as the Government could, in the unfavourable circumstances which existed, carry through Parliament.
LORD WROTTESLEYsaid, it was in
2050
the power of the magistrates to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter, and to arrange much that might be afterwards carried out under the management of the chief constable.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, there was a point which he wished to state to their Lordships. When they were introducing the rural police into Gloucestershire they found their greatest difficulty in the appointment of the chief constable, in consequence of the disposition to carry everything by canvass and favour—a disposition which pervaded all bodies of every description whatever. He, however, suggested to the Lord Lieutenant of the county that an application should be made to the Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland to recommend a chief constable for Gloucester. That course was taken, and during the seventeen years that elapsed they had never any reason to repent of that proceeding, for they had at once obtained a most efficient officer. They were not, however, equally fortunate in the importation of sixteen or eighteen of the Irish constabulary, who proved rather rough for the habits of English people, and who were reshipped to Ireland in about eighteen months.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

OATH OF ABJURATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
LORD LYNDHURST: I wish, my Lords, to say a few words with respect to this measure. I object to it altogether. I object to it both in form and in substance. I cannot find in the Statute-book any Act of Parliament which resembles it. I will first point out my objection to the form of the oath. My noble Friend, in his Bill, refers to the oath of abjuration, and then proceeds to enact 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 says, 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

2051
the oath, and that afterwards another word shall be excepted. My Lords, I cannot understand how the oath can be administered 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? Why, if so, the inconvenience might be obviated at once, by the clerk drawing out a form of oath, leaving out those excepted passages. But how will that apply? Will not the noble Lord at the table be desirous of knowing whether the oath tendered to him is according to the oath prescribed by Act of Parliament? Will he not desire to look first at the oath of abjuration, and then at the exceptions, and then compare these with the oath to be administered to him? Indeed, my Lords, my objection in point of form is in reality an objection in point of substance. Why either my noble Friend, or the noble Lord who drew the Bill, did not add these words, "namely, as follows," and then set out the oath, I find it difficult to conjecture. But, my Lords, I am quite sore that it was not my noble Friend who drew the Bill. I knew the handwriting at once—I knew the style and pencil of the artist—a shrewd and subtle practitioner, and one who loves to challenge difficulties that he may encounter and overcome them. But what is the object of the Bill? The object is this—that my noble Friend might not appear to be presenting a new oath to be imposed on Her Majesty's Protestant subjects. But, my Lords, take the existing oath, leave out certain parts of that oath, and add other parts, and whatever the ingenuity may be of my noble Friend, depend upon it that that is in substance a new oath on the Protestant subjects of this empire. So much for my objection as to the form of this measure. I will now say a word as to the substance. I will again call your attention, my Lords, to the reign of William III. In the first year of the reign of that monarch his title was established by Act of Parliament, his supremacy was established by Act of Parliament, and the succession to the Crown was established by Act of Parliament; and after all these provisions had been made, then the oaths came to be considered. They were considered, and what were they?—the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy, and nothing more. That was all that was
2052
required in the first year of the reign of William III. for the security of the throne and the security of the succession. Two years afterwards it was proposed to add something to the oath, but that was opposed by the Monarch and opposed by Parliament. Subsequently, certain events occurred which led to the passing of the oath of abjuration. The oath of abjuration applied to events of that time only—events which cannot again occur—of which there is no trace. Why should not that oath be entirely abrogated? Why not put ourselves in the position in which Parliament stood at the time of William III., when only two oaths were required—namely, the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy? After all, my Lords, what are oaths worth? Who ever supposes that they have any effect in times of difficulty? Did any oath ever prevent a revolution? I admire the eloquence of my noble Friend sitting at the table (Earl Stanhope), who spoke the other night upon this question; but I must appeal from my noble Friend speaking in the excitement of debate to my noble Friend, calmly deliberating in the closet and viewing this subject in the light of history. Let me quote a passage from the writings of my noble Friend, in the propriety and truth of which I entirely concur. It relates to the security afforded by these oaths, and I think your Lordships will, with me, entirely concur in the propriety of the observations made by my noble Friend. They are to this effect. Speaking of the Jacobites he says:—
"Yet they still retained all their first principles, and the oath, however it might torture their consciences, did not influence their conduct. Such is, I fear, the inevitable result of any oath imposed by any Government for its security. Examples of that kind are too common in all countries. Swearing allegiance to King George did not shut out all the Jacobites from Parliament; swearing allegiance to King Louis Philippe does not shut out all the Carlists from the Chambers."
I quite agree, therefore, with my noble Friend as to the uselessness of these oaths. Hear what is said by another eloquent writer, Mr, Macaulay. He is describing the debate which took place early in the last century upon the subject of oaths:—
"Do not flatter yourselves that the ingenuity of lawgivers will ever devise an oath which the ingenuity of casuists will not evade. What, indeed, is the value of any oath in such a matter? Among the many lessons which the troubles of the last generation have left us none is more plain than this, that no form of words, however precise, no imprecation, however awful, ever

2053
saved or ever will save a Government from destruction. Was not the solemn league and covenant burnt by the common hangman amid the huzzas of tens of thousands who had themselves subscribed it? Among the statesmen and warriors who bore the chief part in restoring Charles II. how many were there who had not repeatedly abjured him? Nay, is it not well known that some of those persons boastfully affirmed that if they had not abjured him they never could have restored him?"
And I recollect, my Lords, in one of the debates which took place in this House upon the subject of oaths, it was made a subject of merriment as to the number of violations of oath with which their Lordships themselves were chargeable. Another objection I have to this Bill is, that it is an insult to the Protestants of this country. My noble Friend in one part of the Bill requires every Protestant—for it applies to Protestants only, and not to Catholics—to declare that he makes this declaration without evasion, without mental reservation, and without equivocation. I should wish to know at what period of our history it was ever imputed to Protestants that they were guilty of evasion when oaths were administered to them. Undoubtedly such an imputation was cast upon the Catholics—whether justly or not I will not say—but no imputation of the sort was ever cast upon Protestants; and I therefore most strongly object that in this new oath brought forward by my noble Friend, an imputation of this kind should for the first time be alleged against the whole body of Protestants throughout this country. Nay, more, do the words included in this new oath, "upon the true faith of a Christian," at all add to the value of an oath taken by Protestant Members? If I swear to bear faithful allegiance to Her Majesty, does it add to the obligation of my oath that I make use of the words "on the true faith of a Christian? "Why, then, should these words be imported into an oath taken by a Protestant? I can understand why they should have been inserted in the case of a Catholic; but to thrust it in its present shape, and containing this phrase, upon Protestants, appears to me to be an insult to their understanding. My Lords, I have heard it said by a learned Friend of mine, for whom I have great respect, that the oath of allegiance is a meagre oath, that it is a mere modicum, and that this is one of the reasons why a new oath should be framed. I have the greatest respect for
2054
that noble Lord. I would, however, oppose to his opinion that of Lord Hale, who says he considers that oath simple, plain, and easily understood; that there is nothing cumbrous in it; and that it fulfils the whole duty owing by a subject to his Sovereign. These are the words of my Lord Hale, and I might, if it were necessary, quote another living authority, for which I have the highest respect, to the same effect. But, my Lords, I think I can understand the object of this Bill. It is directed against the Jews, and intended to exclude them from Parliament. The measure can have no other object—for any other purpose it is wholly unnecessary. At present, as the law now stands, we are simply on the defensive. The Legislature says to the Jews, "We do nothing; you cannot come into Parliament." But the Bill now before your Lordships assumes the offensive, and will directly exclude the Jews from Parliament. If this Bill be passed by the other House of Parliament, what will then become of the argument so repeatedly urged in the discussions on this question, that the Jews are excluded from Parliament by a mere phrase? Why, it will be at once said, should this measure become law, that there is direct legislation against them—that they are excluded by the direct votes of both branches of the Legislature. That is the object of the noble Earl's Bill. But what will be thought of it in the other House of Parliament? Is it possible that this Bill can be read a second time there? Impossible! After all that has passed, the House of Commons will consider it a mockery, not to use a stronger term, to send such a Bill down to them. I do not go so far as a noble Lord who spoke the other night and said that the effect of our resisting the claims of the Jews will be that we shall have to go as suppliants to the other House, in order to induce them to pass a Bill originating with your Lordships and relating to the improvement of the appellate jurisdiction. I do not suffer such ideas as these to influence me; but to send such a Bill down to the other House will be—I will not call it an insult—but certainly a mockery. Entertaining these opinions, I shall, in Committee, move at the end of the Bill, the words, "which oath, being so amended, is as follows," then setting forth the oath; and I shall also move to strike out all the concluding words of the oath, "without evasion, equivocation,"

2055
and so on, to the end of the oath, including the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian."
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I cannot but regret that, having stated very ably and forcibly upon another occasion his reasons for supporting the Bill then under consideration, my noble and learned Friend should think it expedient or necessary upon the present occasion to reopen a question which I understood had been decided at that time by a vote of your Lordships' House. I regret still more that the noble and learned Lord was not present upon the second reading of the Bill now before you, because, if he had been, it would have saved your Lordships the trouble of hearing me repeat a second time the grounds upon which the Bill was framed in its present shape. My Lords, I must say—and I hope it is not inconsistent with the greatest possible respect to my noble and learned Friend to say so—that his remarks upon this Bill, more especially with regard to its substance, contain a greater amount of misrepresentation than I ever recollect to have heard from the lips of any Member of this House upon any subject whatever. My noble and learned Friend tells me that I am now about to bring forward this measure for the avowed purpose of excluding the Jews from Parliament by certain words. Now, I beg my noble and learned Friend to answer me this question,—how this Bill in the slightest degree affects any one Jew with regard to his rights existing or hereafter to exist? I wish to know what provision there is in this Bill in the slightest degree touching the Jews? I wish to know in what particular this Bill does not leave the law in the position in which it finds it? My noble and learned Friend tells me that I am introducing a new disqualification of the Jews; that I am imposing, forsooth, a new oath, by the terms of which I shall exclude the Jews from Parliament. Now, my Lords, if I recollect rightly, in the Bill supported by my noble and learned Friend the other night the existing oath was altogether done away with; unless my memory greatly fails me, a new oath was there set forth; and, after repealing the former oath, he did by his Bill that which the present measure does not do—namely, impose a new oath upon the Jews. My noble and learned Friend says, further, that this oath, which he maintains is for the purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament, but
2056
which I contend does not in any way affect the position of the Jews as regards admission to Parliament, will be offensive to the feelings of the Jews, and also to those of the other House of Parliament, and that I am re-enacting certain words which it is impossible that the other House can assent to. Now, my Lords, I stated the other night, and I state again now, that my intention is carefully to avoid the re-enactment of specific words which would perhaps bring your Lordships' House into an unnecessary collision with the House of Commons; and for that reason I have retained the oath as it at present stands, omitting only those parts of it which relate to the descendants of James II. As I understand the matter, your Lordships have decided one question in a sense opposed to that evinced by the other House of Parliament—namely, the question of the omission of the words, "on the true faith of a Christian;" but that was plainly a question which did not necessarily involve anything in connection with the descendants of James II. My noble and learned Friend has paid me too great a compliment, and himself too poor a one, in saying that I have acted as a subtle practitioner in framing this new exclusion against the Jews. Now, my noble and learned Friend must permit me to remind him of that of which, from his great experience and acuteness, he cannot be ignorant—namely, that if any of the subtleness of the practitioner has been displayed in this matter at all, it has been displayed by my noble and learned Friend in the Bill which he brought before your Lordships. My noble and learned Friend, in the preamble of his Bill, having recited that the oath of abjuration, so far as regarded the descendants of James, was unnecessary, inasmuch as there were no such descendants, then went on to say, "therefore be it enacted that a certain oath, which, whatever was its original intention, has had the practical effect of excluding Jews from Parliament, shall be repealed." If, therefore, there has been any subtlety, that subtlety has been displayed by my noble and learned Friend who introduced a Bill professedly for one purpose, but in reality for another. I cannot, however, call it great subtlety on the part of my noble and learned Friend, because, in point of fact, the plan was too palpable to deceive the minds of any one of your Lordships, except, perhaps, the ingenuous and unsophisticated mind of a noble Friend of

2057
mine, not now in his place, who announced to your Lordships that, although he saw the inconvenience of admitting Jews to Parliament, he was prepared to give his assent to a Bill which would have the effect of indirectly admitting them, although, indeed, he should feel himself bound to oppose any measure brought forward directly for that purpose. But, my Lords, I can quite sympathise with my noble and learned Friend, because if your Lordships agree to the present Bill he will lose the stalking-horse he has found so convenient—the abjuration of the descendants of James—and will, no doubt, find considerably more difficulty on future occasions in inducing your Lordships to assent to that which mainly caused the rejection of his measure. I can easily allow for the annoyance which my noble and learned Friend feels at the prospect of a Bill being carried which will remove the substantial cause of quarrel which your Lordships may have with the oath in its present form, and increase the difficulties against which he will have to contend in carrying out the object which, he really has in view. It appears, however, to me, that the course which I have pursued in proposing this Bill is both straightforward in form and convenient in practice. It is straightforward because the object of the Bill is clearly and openly set forth in the preamble, that object being to give effect to the objection entertained by your Lordships and the other House of Parliament to the retention of terms which the lapse of time and other circumstances have rendered wholly unnecessary. The Bill, therefore, having recited the circumstances which render the alteration of the oath expedient, provides that alteration in strict conformity with the circumstances so detailed; and in drawing it especial care has been taken not to throw down the gauntlet of defiance to the other House of Parliament, which we should do by abolishing the existing oath altogether and enacting another containing words to which the House of Commons has expressed its objection. The measure has been brought forward in a spirit of good feeling, and with a desire of obtaining that which your Lordships and the House of Commons are desirous of obtaining, and, at the same time, of obviating the introduction of words which would necessarily lead to a considerable difference of opinion, and perhaps endanger the success of the measure. I hope, therefore, that it is not unreasonable to expect and to trust that
2058
the House of Commons will not think it necessary, for the sake of renewing this discussion, to insist upon an alteration in the form of this Bill. If the form of the Bill be altered one of two things must happen—either your Lordships must go back from the position which you took up the other evening, or else, by insisting upon the retention of these words, you must throw down to the House of Commons a challenge which I am desirous of avoiding. If the House of Commons take what I should consider the ill-advised course of insisting upon the omission from the oath of those words which your Lordships are desirous of retaining, either those who have charge of this Bill will be compelled to abstain from attempting to carry it into law, or else the Bill will be again altered to be again rejected; and then I wish to know how the Jews will be in a better position than they at present are, while there is no doubt that such a course would be most likely to excite continual irritation. My noble and learned Friend studiously seeks to keep open a question which will give rise to a controversy which this Bill studiously keeps out of sight. The argument that this Bill is brought forward with a want of form is, I think, hardly worthy of the great ability and long experience of my noble and learned Friend. But when my noble and learned Friend argues upon the insult which this Bill offers to Protestants, and upon the injustice, the inexpediency, and the unavailingness of oaths at all, he takes up a question totally beside the discussion. But, my Lords, if such were the opinions of my noble and learned Friend, I want to know why it was that he proposed to re-enact the oath? And I want to know why he proposed to re-enact in his Bill that very portion of the oath which I would retain in the form in which it now stands?
LORD LYNDHURST: I would not re-enact it in the same form.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am aware the noble and learned Lord proposed to leave out certain words; still he proposed to renew the oath, and thus he opposed the principle of his present objection. I assume that Parliament is desirous that the oath to be taken should be something more than the oath of allegiance. I therefore propose to continue the existing oath, with the exception of those words which, according to the preamble of my noble and learned Friend's Bill, are become wholly

2059
obsolete and unnecessary. I do hope that your Lordships will not consent to the Amendments which my noble and learned Friend has stated that he will propose, and the object of which will no doubt be to strike out from the oath words with which we are not now dealing; the sole object of the present Bill being to get rid of that which all acknowledge to be objectionable, without sacrificing a form which a majority of your Lordships and a large minority of the House of Commons have expressed the opinion that it is desirable to retain.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that no doubt he had introduced into his Bill an oath for maintaining the succession to the Crown as established by law; because when he proposed, on a former occasion, to repeal the abjuration oath, he was told that a portion of that oath related to the succession to the Crown, and he was met with a great deal of opposition in consequence. The oath, as it was now proposed by the noble Earl, would contain the words "on the true faith of a Christian," the effect of which would be to exclude the Jews from sitting in Parliament. Whether that were done negatively or affirmatively, the effect was the same; and if the other House should assent to the noble Earl's Bill, both Houses of Parliament would, then, in fact, have pronounced judgment against the Jews. At the present time Jews were only excluded from Parliament by the vote of one House; and he opposed the Bill of the noble Earl because its effect would be to exclude the Jews by the votes of both Houses.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, notwithstanding the sincere respect which he entertained for the public career of the noble Earl, he could not admire the course which he had taken with regard to this Bill. The noble Earl had laid it upon the table just before the period fixed for the second reading of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend; evidently with the object that by removing certain words, which made the oath almost a profane one, he might cut away a considerable portion of the argument which might have been adduced in favour of the measure of his noble and learned Friend. He thought it very probable, if this Bill passed their Lordships' House, that the noble Earl might be in the position of an "engineer hoist by his own petard," and that it would be returned from the House of Commons divested of the words "on the true faith of a Christian." It was perfectly absurd to call this
2060
a Bill for the Amendment of the oath of abjuration, because in point of fact it did not amend, but abolished that oath altogether.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONcontended that his noble Friend had acted in a candid and straightforward manner in introducing this Bill, and observed that, while one noble and learned Lord charged him with having pursued a subtle course, the noble and learned Lord who had last spoken said that it was a positively ridiculous and foolish one. He thought that it would tend very much to the credit of their Lordships if they would pass a measure which would give them a sensible and clear oath, containing nothing that was obsolete and unnecessary.
LORD DENMANagreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), that the Bill was improperly styled an "Oath of Abjuration Amendment Bill," because it abjured nothing; and he suggested that it might be called the "Oath of Fidelity Bill," or some such name as that.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he was satisfied with the oath as he understood it to be proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) inasmuch as, practically, it left the Jews where they were at present, and where he trusted that they would continue to be left. He had always voted against the admission of Jews to Parliament, and he always must vote in the same way, because he had a feeling, superior to all reasoning, that it would be wrong to do that which he believed would disparage the Christian character of the Legislature. Upon that sole ground he had at all times opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament. But, while that was his opinion of the result of his noble Friend's measure, if passed, he must confess that he saw great weight in what had fallen from the two noble and learned Lords at the table (Lords Lyndhurst and Campbell), with respect to the manner in which it was probable that the Bill would be dealt with by the other House. The strength of their Lordships' House was in the defensive. It was by remaining on the defensive, although they possessed a commanding majority in that House, that they were enabled for ten years to support the Opposition led by the late Duke of Wellington. At the commencement of that great Opposition the noble Duke on one occasion adopted the offensive, in which he was successful in that House; but a counter Resolution was immediately carried in the

2061
House of Commons which overruled all that the Duke of Wellington and his Friends had done, and placed them in a much worse position than they would have occupied if they had never moved at all. He recollected well the noble Duke saying to him that he had been convinced their strength was in dealing with Bills sent up from the House of Commons, and that he never would again fall into the mistake of taking the initiative. Their Lordships could not occupy a better position than that in which they now found themselves. They had defeated by an ample majority—which but for an accident would have been larger—the attempt to admit Jews to Parliament. Let them leave well alone. They were now asked to send down to the House of Commons a Bill which must produce a renewed discussion, a renewed conflict, upon that subject. Whenever that conflict arose, he must always vote in the same way as he had done; but there was no discussion which took place during the Session in that House which was to him so disagreeable as the discussion annually forced upon them with respect to the Jews. He did not think it desirable for their Lordships to court a collision with the House of Commons upon that subject. If the House of Commons attempted to force their religious opinions—and he apprehended it was a religious feeling which animated the majority of their Lordships in refusing admission to the Jews—they were ready to defeat that attempt, and he trusted that the people of England would respect the principles and views upon which they acted. But if their Lordships, leaving their position of strength, descended into the arena and sought a conflict upon that subject, he doubted greatly whether public opinion would to the same extent support them, and he was sure they would do that which would be injudicious, which might produce inconvenience, and which might, even at this late period of the Session, with all the accidents which might possibly arise, imperil the position of strength in which they now stood.
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl. His objection to remaining precisely where they were was not an objection founded on the admission or non-admission of the Jews, but that the continuance in the oath of abjuration of the words referring to the Stuarts would enable those who advocated the admission of the Jews to Parliament to renew the discussion upon that question
2062
under the pretext of abolishing an utterly indefensible part of the oath. It was his object to deprive them of that advantage by removing from the oath everything that was avowedly indefensible; and he wished to know which would he the more reasonable course—to do that which by the common consent of mankind ought to be done, or to refuse to adopt an acknowledged improvement unless something was done wholly foreign to the object of the Bill? But, whether the House of Commons adopted or rejected the Bill, their Lordships would not be troubled with a renewed discussion in the course of the present Session, because, rather than agree to the omission of words which would have the effect of admitting the Jews, those who would be charged with the Bill in the other House would at once throw it up.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he did not like to differ from the noble Earl on a point of Parliamentary practice and rule, but his impression was that a Bill when laid on the table became the property of the House, and ceased to belong to any individual Member.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was glad that the author of the Bill had admitted that his object in introducing it was to remove a clog which he acknowledged to be a great obstacle to him in fighting the opponents of the oath of abjuration. Why, such being the case, did he refuse to adopt the manly course of repealing the oath and excluding the Jews by direct enactment? Not one word had he said in reply to the Lord Chief Justice, who had demonstrated the absurdity of the Bill, and showed that it would place the House in a ridiculous, perhaps an offensive light. The noble Earl opposite had told their Lordships that the Bill would be dropped in the other House if an attempt were made to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Why should the noble Earl decline a conference with the House of Commons on the subject? Because he knew that one of the noblest passages in the Journals of their Lordships' House was that in which their ancestors declared, 150 years ago, that no English subject could be in a more miserable and unhappy condition than to be precluded by law from the full enjoyment of all the rights and privileges that properly belonged to him. He knew that that passage would he appealed to by the House of Commons in favou of the admission

2063
of the Jews; he was conscious of his inability to answer it; and it was because he could not meet it fairly that he had resolved to avoid it altogether.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
LORD LYNDHURSTthen formally proposed his Amendments, which were as follows—
"To leave out the words in line 18, and the word 'abjuration' shall be omitted from the last sentence of the first oath, and the word 'renunciation' from the same sentence of the said oath and affirmation," for the purpose of inserting the following words?—
"And the following words shall also be omitted from the latter portion of the said oath—that is to say, 'And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever. And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
"Also, in line 21, after the word 'affirmation,' to insert the words, 'which oath so amended will stand as follows.'—
"I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign lady Queen Victoria is lawful and rightful Queen of this realm, and all other Her Majesty's dominions and countries thereunto belonging. And I do swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and Her will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against Her person, crown, or dignity. And I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty and Her successors all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against Her or any of them. And I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my power to support, maintain, and defend the succession of the Crown against all persons whatsoever, which succession, by an Act entitled, 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better Securing the Rights and Liberties of the 'Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants."
"Amendment in the title—after the word 'doth,' to insert the words 'commonly called the oath.'"
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to impress upon their Lordships that the practical effect of the Amendments would be expressly to carry out the views which they had negatived the other night. It was, moreover, opposed to the whole spirit of the Bill, and, therefore, he hoped it would be rejected by their Lordships.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he did not mean to press his Amendments at this stage. He would withdraw them for the
2064
present, but would give notice that he would move them on the Report.
Amendments negatived.
THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested that his noble and learned Friend should give notice of his Amendments for the third reading, and, if he did so, he would be prepared to meet them.
Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

BURIAL-GROUND (GREAT TORRINGTON).
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHpresented a petition from the inhabitants of Great Torrington, in the county of Devon, being members of the Church of England, complaining that they are deprived of any place of burial according to the rites of the Church—their churchyard having been closed by an Order in Council, and the Bishop of the diocese having declined to consecrate the burial-place provided by the burial-board of the town pursuant to the enactments of the recent Burial Acts; and praying for relief. The noble Earl said that a few weeks since a highly-esteemed citizen of Torrington died, who had been a member of the Church of England throughout his life—he was a member of the corporation also, and the mayor and corporation wished to testify their respect for him by attending the funeral in their robes of office. Their burial-ground was closed; application was made for permission to bring in the ground of the neighbouring parish, but it was refused on account of its supposed illegality, the deceased not having been a parishioner; there was no other ground than the one which the bishop had refused to consecrate; and the body was conveyed thither; there was no clergyman to read the service, and the mayor himself read the burial service in his robes. Since then burials had been performed by the clerk reading the service and the sexton making the responses. If such scenes as these were continued, the people would begin to look with doubt and distrust upon the connection of Church and State, for the Dissenting Ministers regularly discharged their duties to the members of their own persuasions, and might he led to suggest whether the presence of a clergyman was really necessary or not—a notion which he, in common with their Lordships, would be sorry to see prevail. The bishop had refused to consecrate the burial-ground because there was no inclosure within the inclosure. The noble Earl was understood

2065
to contend that the provisions of the Burial Act had been complied with. He did not for a moment impute anything to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), and thought that he acted from the most conscientious motives; but there was no monopoly of conscience. The burial-board represented the inhabitants of the town generally, both Dissenters and members of the Church of England, and asserted that they had complied with the Act, and had divided the ground by fit and proper boundary. The noble Earl then read from the correspondence which had taken place between the burial-board and the Bishop of Exeter. The bishop said the canons had not been complied with; but he begged to remind their Lordships that the burial-board was the creation of Parliament, and Parliament had declared that intramural burials should not be allowed. Now Burns, in his "Commentary on Ecclesiastical Law," said, that the parishioner had a right to be buried in the parish church, unless he was excommunicated, or a criminal, or a suicide. With regard to the bishop's objection about the erection of walls, he would observe that the Church of England did not require any walls—her laity was her best defence. This feeling was very strong in the West of England, and had been so even at the time of the Monmouth rebellion, which was favoured by the population there mainly in consequence of their attachment to the Church of England, and their dislike of the king's encroachments upon it.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he would not trespass very long on their Lordships' time. He would not attempt to follow the noble Earl through the entire of his statements, but only deal with two or three facts, which had fixed on his recollection. He was glad to have the testimony of so excellent an authority to the existence of a strong feeling in favour of the Church in the West of England; and, in confirmation of that fact, would mention that, out of eight or ten burial-grounds which he had been called upon to consecrate within his diocese, the case in question was the only one in which there had been any objection, on the part of the burial-board, to comply with the requirements of the canon law. As bishop he felt bound to carry out that law; and, when the canon directly said that burial-grounds should be fenced, he had no other course than to require that law to be
2066
obeyed before he consecrated the ground. He had not required a wall, but a fence or railing, or any real bonâ fide separation. He had even offered to be satisfied with a sunk fence. It might be imagined that he had refused to consecrate the ground; but such was not the case. He had only required that the ground should be put into a fit state for consecration before he could consecrate it. He had made the same demand in other portions of his diocese, and had met with a ready compliance. In the case of Torrington he had suggested to the mayor to put an end to the difficulty by procuring a mandamus from the Queen's Bench to compel the burial-board to put the ground into a fit state for consecration; but that gentleman objected that it would be very disagreeable to go to law with his neighbours. All he (the Bishop of Exeter) could say was, that if in all cases where anything happened to be disagreeable to anybody's feelings an appeal was to be made to that House, their Lordships would have plenty of occupation on their hands. His simple reply upon this occasion was, that he acted upon his own sense of duty as bishop, and in the discharge of that duty he was sure he would receive the support and sympathy of all whose opinions were worth having, either in his diocese or out of it.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he had no wish to call in question the conscientiousness of the motives which had induced the right rev. Prelate to act as he had done, for he believed nothing but a strong sense of duty would have induced him to refuse to consecrate a cemetery prepared in pursuance of the Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, he must observe, that his determination had caused a great evil. As to the remedy which the right rev. Prelate had suggested to the mayor, he (Earl Fortescue) was not sure that a mandamus would lie—at any rate the burial-board of Torrington was elected by the whole body of inhabitants, Dissenters as well as Churchmen, and the mayor would naturally be disinclined to take a course which many of his fellow-townsmen would regard as an insult to themselves. But what had been the consequences of the existing state of things? The Dissenters were buried by their own ministers, but no member of the Church of England had received the rites of the Church. The mayor, attended by the corporation, had read the funeral service over one respected member of that body; but in other cases the

2067
clerk had represented the clergyman, and performed the service. The burial-board had done in this case what they considered to be their duty, and what the statute required. The cemetery had been so laid out by them as to lead them to believe that they were complying with the law; and, not having obtained consecration of the ground from the right rev. Prelate, the petitioners came to Parliament to ask that the law might be put into such a shape as would enable the members of the Church of England to receive the rites of burial according to the canons of the Church, and remove the scandal which afflicted the neighbourhood.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that this was not the first time, and he was afraid it would not be the last, that this disagreeable subject would occupy their Lordships' attention. Their Lordships must recollect that this was not a time when a few churchyards only were consecrated in the course of a year, but that now throughout almost the whole of England new cemeteries would probably have to be consecrated in the course of the next few years; because, under the provisions of the Act of 1853, inspectors had been sent out, and the result was, that many of the old burying-grounds had been condemned. It was quite evident that in a short time hardly any of the old cemeteries would remain, and that the bishops would have to consecrate new ones throughout the kingdom. Now, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) knew that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) had acted most conscientiously in the present matter; nor did he say that the right rev. Prelate had not acted legally; on the contrary, his impression was, that he had acted in perfect conformity with the law. The canon provided that burying-grounds should be enclosed in some way, and this had been done in the present instance. But surely strict legal rights were not to be considered for a moment in consideration with the feelings which were abroad upon this subject. Their Lordships knew that differences of opinion existed as to the necessity of having a chapel in a cemetery. Some persons considered that they ought to be consecrated with a chapel, others without a chapel being built, and these two parties were at war. A statement had been made to him (the Earl of Malmesbury), that there was a cemetery now useless because a right rev. Prelate refused to consecrate it, and for this reason
2068
—the burial-board had thought that a set of posts erected between the two divisions of the cemetery was sufficient, but the bishop said that there must be a chain connecting the posts before the cemetery was fit for consecration; and scenes of great scandal and impropriety had taken place in consequence. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) would beg with all humility to express his opinion on this subject. Seeing that the chances were that for the next few years there would be a constant renewal of these disputes, he thought it was necessary that the conditions under which cemeteries should be consecrated should not be left entirely to the decision of the individual bishop in each case. He wished to say this, that if the bench of right rev. Prelates would agree upon some conditions upon which they were unanimous, or nearly so, they might be then submitted to some Member of Her Majesty's Government, or to respectable Members of Parliament of sufficient position, and finally embodied into an Act of Parliament, to make consecration compulsory upon these conditions being complied with. He could see no way of settling the matter, unless Parliament were to enact some conditions, or the other which should oblige the bishops to consecrate cemeteries, and thus put an end to these scandalous proceedings.
THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSunderstood the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) to say, that the whole of this cemetery was surrounded by a wall; but what the right rev. Prelate required was, that the part appropriated to the Church of England should be fenced in separately. That, he considered quite an incorrect construction of the canon; the plain intention of which was, that the burial-ground should be enclosed to prevent the inroads of animals, and for the purpose of taking proper care of the monuments that were erected in the burial-ground; but it never was in contemplation that there should be any line of demarcation drawn between one portion of the burial-ground and another. Their Lordships knew that in the old churchyards there was no distinction made between the portions of ground where Dissenters and where members of the Church of England were buried.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERhoped that, as he had been personally referred to by the noble Earl, he might be allowed a few words of explanation. The noble Earl had favoured their Lordships with his interpretation

2069
of the canon, but his (the Bishop of Exeter's) duty was to act upon his own construction. He would beg the noble Earl to allow him (the Bishop of Exeter) the same right of action as was allowed to any one else in constructing a clause in an Act of Parliament. But further than this, he might add that every lawyer, every person capable of forming an opinion, with whom he had communicated, agreed with his (the Bishop of Exeter's) view of the meaning of the canon, and he had never heard that view contradicted except in this House. He did not say that it was his view merely, but his view made up after the fullest considerations of duty. He thought this was an unfortunate mode of bringing on the question, which involved really great principles. It would have been more satisfactory to have had a Bill brought in upon the subject, as the discussion of such a question on the presentation of a petition was anything but satisfactory.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, surely the first object was to make out a case for legislation, and he thought the best way of doing so was, by petitioning the House and raising a discussion upon it.
LORD PORTMANsaid, he was glad to hear that the right rev. Prelate considered the subject could only be settled by legislation.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER: No; I never meant that.
LORD PORTMANthought the right rev. Prelate had intimated that it could not be satisfactorily considered except upon a Bill. And he was glad to be able to assure the right rev. Prelate, that a Bill for that purpose was proposed, and stood for a second reading next week.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought it most desirable that something should be done to put an end to these unfortunate disputes—for unfortunate they were, whoever was right or wrong. But the Bill of the noble Baron, however, would not settle it, for it did not at all point out what was to be done. It only took the power from the bishops, and gave it to the Secretary of State. Now, that left the matter open just as much as it was at present. No doubt legislation was necessary. In the settlement of the question, regard should be had to what was fair and reasonable with reference to conscience; but the plea of conscience could not be fairly urged against that which was necessary according to the consciences of others; and hence, those who did not themselves require a
2070
chapel could not object to a chapel being provided for others.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid that, personally, he was sorry that the noble Lord intended to bring in this Bill on Tuesday next, when he could not be present to give his opinion on it; but he thought that, considering this was the first intimation they had received of the intended measure, it was rather sharp work proposing Tuesday next for the second reading, particularly if it were of the awful character described by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Redesdale); for really if the Bill did embody the principles which had been mentioned, they were such as none of his right rev. Brethren could consent to. He thought more time should be given before the second reading. There was an observation which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of St. Germans) in the course of the debate, upon which he would make a remark. They ought to bear in mind that part of the burial-board in every parish consisted of Dissenters. The Legislature had made a sort of compromise between the members of the Church of England and the Dissenters by permitting this; but whilst this was so, it should be remembered that the Church of England members of those boards took no manner of interest in the way in which Dissenters treated their part of the burying-ground, and it was manifestly the height of injustice to say that the Dissenting members of those boards should determine when the Church of England burying-ground was in a state fit for consecration.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he could not consider it as a true construction of an obsolete canon to raise up a wall of separation between two classes of Christians, even in their graves; and that in the construction of such a canon the spirit of charity should be considered, rather than one of a different nature, which delighted to revive rusty laws to raise invidious distinctions.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he supposed it would be better not to say anything further on this subject until the proposed Bill was before the House, but he could not refrain from making one observation. He believed a great portion of those who took an active part in passing the measure of 1853, supposed that they were doing something very agreeable to the Dissenters; but the measure had, so far from conciliating them, unfortunately given rise to all these controversies. As

2071
regarded the provisions respecting cemeteries, he (the Lord Chancellor) doubted whether it had not been unwise policy to make a line of demarcation between the ground appropriated to Churchmen and Dissenters; but, if it were thought right to make a line of demarcation between Churchmen and Dissenters, let this be done as unobtrusively as possible; but he believed that to provide that there should be an enclosure, and that a portion of the ground should be consecrated and a portion left unconsecrated, had created many of the difficulties which now existed. In his opinion, a short enactment providing for the consecration of the whole of the ground, thereby assimilating them as far as possible to the old parish churchyard, would be likely to meet the whole case.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Monday next.