JOHN MORLEY AND THE LORDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13781, 20 June 1908, Page 2 (Supplement)

JOHN MORLEY AND THE LORDS.

REFUSAL TO TAKE THE OATH. [from our OWN correspondents.] '•'']'' London, May 8. To anyone who knows the House of Lords it is 'difficult to imagine that anything.in the nature of a "scene" could be enacted there, except the word, be given its fundamental meaning and entirely disassociated with anything untoward. But an incident that had once thrown the House of Commons and Britain into a tumult of passion was repeated in "the other place" this week, Lord Morley refusing to take the oath, making affirmation instead. Yet so little. did the proceedings differ from the regular custom that hardly a press representative noticed it. One who did has chronicled the event as follows : — * "Many peers might well have rubbed their eyes with surprise when the House of Lords reassembled to-day. ' Honest John Morley,' the man of the people, the ex'tremo Radical of other days, the 'ender or mender of the House of Lords,' in the scarlet robes of a peer, bowing low, raising his cocked hat, and bowing low' again to the woolsack as Viscount 1 Morley! " But Lord' Morley did nob enter the House in the orthodox way: On the very threshold of his new career he came in conflict with the traditions of the august assembly. The' scanty number of onlookers present during the ceremony of swearing-in noticed a sudden break in the proeeduigs. The new peer addressed the leading clerk, who was observed to shake his head vigorously in the negative. A hurried consultation took place between the reading clerk, Lord Peel, and Lord Esher, who stood sponsors for the' novice. The difficulty, whatever it might have been, was settled, and the process of swearing-in continued to the appointed end.

~' "I am told that the incident arose upon the new peer's refusal to subscribe to the oath. He insisted on making affirmation. There being no precedent for such objection there was no form of affirmation handy. The form of* oath, slightly varied, served, and the incident closed without its significance being . guessed by the onlookers. "Such an incident has never previously occurred in the House of Lords. In tlie House of Commons, however, the question was raised by Mr. Bradlaugh in 1880, when he claimed to make an affirmation leaving out the words, 'So help me God.' A storm of controversy followed. Mr. Bradlaugh was not allowed to affirm, and when he offered to take the oath he was not allowed to do so. He refused to withdraw from the House, and was imprisoned in the Clock Tower. The ultimate result of the controversy was the passing of the Oaths Act of 1888, which enables any person to make affirmation either that he has no religious belief or that it is contrary to his religious belief to take an oath."

Reverting again to this week's incident the writer from whom I am quoting proceeds:, "Attended by the Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk) and Garter King of Arms and Black Rod in the striking garb of office, Lord Morley and Lord Wol° verhampton (Sir Henry Fowler) went the grave tour of the House, making the regulation ceremonial bow from the various points in turn, and doffing their hats with due solemnity. Peers, peeresses, and commoners looked on as 'John Morley,' on bended knee, presented to the Lord "Chancellor his patent of nobility. Then they paced slowly to the table and took the oath. A few minutes later they had doffed their flowing red robes and had come silently into the Chamber, again. The two political veterans, being new men in the Gilded Chamber, took "their seats at the bottom of the front Ministerial bench, below a group of young peers who are undersecretaries."