JOHN MORLEY AND THE LORDS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14245, 20 June 1908, Page 7

JOHN MORLEY AND THE LORDS.

REFUSAL TO TAKE THE OATH. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, May 8. To anyone who knows tho House of Lords it is difficult to imagine that anything in. tho nature of a "scene" could be enacted there, cscept the word be given its fundamental meaning and entirely disassociated with anything untoward. But an incident that once threw the House of Oonimoiis and Britain into a tumult of passion was repeated ir» "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 wlhen the House of Lords reassembled to-day. 'Honest John Morley,' the man of the people, tho extreme Radical of other day 6, the ' ender or mender of the House of Lords,' in the scarlet robes of a peer, bowing low, raising his cocked hat, and towing low again to the Woolsa/ck as Viscount Morley! "But Lord Morley did not enter the House in the orthodox way. On the very threshold of liis career he came in conflict, with the traditions of the august assembly. The scanty numbeT of onlookers present during the ceremony of swearing in noticed a, sudden break in the proceedings. The new peer addressed the reading clerk, who was observed to shake bis head vigorously in the negative. A hurried consultation took place between the reading clerk, Lord Peel, tuid Lord Eslier. who stood sponsors-for the novice, The difficulty, whatever it might have been, was settled, and tie jtfocess of swearing-in continued to the appointed end.

"I am told that the incident arose npon the new peer's refusal to siibscrilie to the oath. Ho insisted on making affirmation. There being no precedent for such objection, there was no form of affirmation handy. The fonu of oath, slightly varied, served, and the incident dosed without its significance being guessed by the onlookers. "Such an incident lias never previously occurred in the House of Lords. In the House of Commons, however, tfte question was raised by Mr Bradlaugh in 1860, when he claimed to make an affirmation leaving out the words ',9o help me God.' A storm of controversy followed. Mr Bradlaugh was not allowed to affirm, and when he offered to take the oath lie was not allowed to do so. Ho refused to withdraw from the House, and was imprisoned in the Clock Tower. The ultimate result of tiho controversy was the passing of the Oaths Act. of 1888. which enables any person to mulo! affirmation either tliat he has no religious belief or that it is contrary to his. religious belief to take the oath."

Reverting again to this week's incident, the writer from whom I am quoting.pro-ceeds:-"Attended by the Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk) afld Garter King of Arms and Black Rod in the striking garb of office, Lord Morley and Lord Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Fowler) went the grave tour of the House, making the regulation ceremonial bow from the vajious points in turn, and doffing their hats with due solemnity. Peers, ueeresses, and commoners looked on as 'John Morley.' on beitded knee, presented to the Lord Chancellor his patent of nobility. Then I hoy 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 (Hided Chanilior, look their seats at the bottom of the front Ministerial IxMidi, lieloiv a jrroim of young peers who are niider-srerela.ncs."