The Sun. — London, England, 1849-05-08 00:00:00

CANADA. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. Stu,—The recent accounts from Canada (if we are to believe the Ctandard) give us grave information as to the proceedings held at a meeting of the " Brock ville Association ;" but being a Canadian, and well acquainted with the politics of that colony, I venture to explain much of that report which might tend to excite alarm in this country. You are aware that an Indemnity Bill was passed in the Legislature of the Canadas to pay the losses incurred by the late rebellion, and that it awaits—as is usually the course—the Governor's assent at the end of the session; there is nothing very wonderful in Lord Elgin's not at once assenting to the Bill, for it is the invariable custom to await the closing of the Legislature ere assent or dissent is expressed to any Bill. There is no doubt some parties in Canada who are fond of stirring up anarchy are now at work sowing, the elements of discord. But the strong arm of the law is quite ample to suppress any outbreak, which is very far distant if the only casus belli is the "Indemnity Bill ;" and we know that save other matter of greater importance to the Canadas (and I allude to the anxious wish of the Canadians that all restrictions to the free navigation of the St. Lawrence he removed, that Canada may cope with the United States in the transit of produce via the St. Lawrence to Great Britain, whilst by present restrictions she cannot command a carrying trade), no colony enjoys such quiet as the Canadas. Then as to the Indemnity 13i11 on perusing the names of claimants, that of " Wolfred Nelson " appears for nearly one-fifth the amount. This person was attainted with treason, he fi!sd the country, or might have been one of the " Ber muda gang" transported to that colony, and for which Lord Durham was charged with exceeding his power in causing their transport to Bermuda. If that one name had been omitted, and there can not be a doubt of Dr. Nelson and his brother both having fomented on the banks of the Richelieu treason to the fullest extent by their public speeches and acts, I repeat, if Dr. Nelson's name had been omitted, we never should have heard from Canada of any opposition to this Bill; for in the previous ses sion an Indemnity Bill for losses sustained in ,Upper Canada received the Royal assent. Then why not act as righteously towards Lower Canada? For the rebellion raged stronger in Upper than Lower Canada. Lord Elgin has placed himself in a position of difficulty, and he has himself to blame for it. Had he looked over the State Papers con nected with the rebellion, he must have noticed the important part acted by Wolfred Nelson and Ro bert Nelson—and that both brothers fled their country ; presumptive signs at least of guilt!! Then, at the incipient ,stage of introducing this Government measure to tha Legislature, was the period for Lord Elgin to have taken a bold stand, and either dismissed his Ministry or appealed to the con stituency. As it is, he now can act in no other way to save his own reputation duff adopt the latter course. Let Englishmen rememkr that 'Canada possesses in miniature the British Constitution, and that its representation and Legislature is based on the princi ples of the Imperial Parliament. Let me ask, if the Indemnity Bill had passed the British House of Commons by a majority of even 46 to 20, and the Lords by a majority of even 2, then would the Queen attempt to veto the measure ? Then how can the Governor-General of the Canada resist, and refuse his acquiescence to a measure which has Fussed both branches of the Legislature, and intro duced by his own Ministry ? The members of the Legislative Assembly represent and give action to the views of their respective consti tuenciet. If they will that such a law should pass, they who by taxation in the provinces will be called on to find the amount to indemnify these losses, who in ;ustice can interfere ? I question much if any int,r ference by the Governmert of Downing-street will not prove the most unwarrantable violation of the subjects' rights, and by so doing lead to rebellion. It is the interference by the Colonial Secretary with the local matters cf the British colonies which has sown the seeds of discord and misery in each of these possessions; and we are reaping the fruits of that unjust system, tyrannical in its bearing, and ' repulsive to the colonists. But this matter being adjudicated ceases to claim from Earl Grey any supervision or interference. Let him beware ! Let Lord Elgin weigh well what he is doing now. His Ministry recommended the measure to him, and with one exception to Wolfrod Nelson's claim. No ob jection could be raised to this Bill—he must adopt it or dissolve the House. But as regards the important meeting of the "Brockville Association," the names that figure there are, one and all, too contemptible to attach any importance to their resolutions. The meeting was not held at Montreal. Mr. Ogle R. Gowan for years fomented discord as the " Grand Master of Orangemen," and many of the others are little lawyers and wee tradesmen—but, as a sign of the times, I may add that H. Sherwood represents this town. He was Solicitor- General to the weak Administration, and he and Sir Allan N. Macnab are the fotnentors of a movement which will go but to a trifling extent further, and then we shall hear no more of them ; for as to rebellion the whole affair is a "storm in a butter- boat." "Let the St. Lawrence be thrown open to free trade with the world, and 1850 will tell a happy tale for the Canada&." Your obedient servant, A. W. HART. BANK OF FRANCE. The following is a return of the situation of the Bank of France up to May 3:— ASSETS. ... f. 202,995,867 84 . . 130,422,444 00 259,865 49 ••• Cash and ingots Ditto in branch banks Bills past due ••• Bills falling due in Paris, of which 13,968,610 f. 49c. are from the branch banks •••. ••• ... Bills in the branch banks Advances on coins and ingots... Ditto on French public securities Ditto by branch banks... ... Ditto to the State on Bons du Tresor.. Ditto on the loan of 150 millions .. Rentes of the reserve fund Rentes, disposable funds ... Investments of the new branch banks in the public funds ... 12,779,541 39 Hotel and furniture of the Bank ... 4,000,000 00 Real property of the branch banks ... 2,283,787 00 Loan of 10,000,000 f. to the city of Paris 8,000,000 00 Interest in National Discount Bank ... 200,000 00 Ditto branch banks ... 230,000 00 Bills protested at Paris ... 6,514,155 95 Ditto at the branches ... 4,060,296 00 Expenses of administration of the Bank 486,146 39 Ditto of the branches ... 347,739 00 Miscellaneous 941,366 14 Advance to the department of the ... 47,116,944 26 ... 81,654,083 95 ... 16,927,052 00 ... 28,194,558 95 1,483,337 00 50,000,000 00 50,000,000 00 10,000,000 00 42,581,488 13 Seine ••• ••• Loan of 3,000,000 f. to the city of Mar aeilles 3,000,000 00 1,000,000 CO f. 705,418,673 49 LIABILITIES. Capital ••• ••• • • ••• £.67,900,000 00 Ditto of the Branch Banks ... 23,350,000 00 Reserve fund ... ..• ... 10,000,000 00 Ditto of the branch banks ... 2,980,750 00 Reserve-immobiliere ..• ... 4,000,000 00 Notes to bearer, in circulation ... 390,496,200 00 Ditto of the branch banks .., 25,371,625 00 Ditto to order (post-bills) 1,189,937 75 Account-current with Treasury creditor 34,945,997 12 Various accounts current ... 92,036,239 48 Ditto in branches ... 29,623,818 00 Bills payable at sight ... ... 4,753,800 00 Ditto at branches ... 1,092,112 00 Bills of the branch banks payable by the Bank ... 7,134,522 74 Ditto of the Bank payable by branches.. 4,257,809 00 Dividends payable ..• • • ..• 236,375 25 Liquidation of the Algiers Bank 205,202 4 Discounts, interest, and expenses ... 3,163,310 35 Ditto branch banks ... ..• ... 1,621,284 00 Re discounts of the last six months ... 246,109 85 Ditto in branch banks •.• 460,661 00 Miscellaneous ... 349,919 91 f. 705,418,673 49 Certified by the Governor of the Bank of France, D'ARGOUT. lIAMBURGII FUNDS, MAY 1. Bills. Money. 104% Hanoverian New Loan,s per Cent..... Ditto, 3% per Cent. .............. Bank Shares•- •••••••••• • • • • • • • • • ... Prussian 5 per Cent. ••••.. • • • • • •• • • 1C1 3 4 101% Russian Certificate • ... .. •• ••.. •• • . Anglo-Russian Loan • . . • .• . . • • • • • • • • 162 101% Hamburgh Certificate, 5 per Cent .... 96 Russian 4 per Cent................... 30 and 4th Series, Hope and Co. ...• • • 91 Ditto Stieglita —• . ........ ••••• •• • • 82 Belgian Loan, 2% per Cent.-- •• •• • • 45% Anglo-Danish Loan, 3 per Cent ••• • •• 65 14 65 Ditto, in 100/. skares ........ •• 65 , 4 6.i Anglo-Swedish Loan .. ••.•.••• • • • • .. 96% Ditto, Transport Loan ••• • • • ........ Norwegian Loan, 1848 ••••• • • • • •• • • 97% Spanish New 5 per Cent •••••••• • • • • •• 11 Ditto 3 per Cent., Inland ••••• • • • • • 23% 23% Ditto, 1846.. ••..••••—•• • • • • • • " - • Anglo-Portuguese Loan, 2% per Cent • • Dutch Actual Debt, 2% per Cent. ••• • • Ditto 3 per Cent. ................ _ National Bank Shares .....• • • ...... .b merlcan, 6 per Cent. •••••• ••—• • • • 10414 RAILWAYS. /lamb. Berird. Ditto, Priority Shares ... Berlin and Hamburg Ditto, Priority Shares .. ••• •• Cologne and Minden -..• •• •• 7614 Ditto, Priority Shares .• •• 93 Mecklenburg. • • • .• • • • • • Alt'ma and Kiel • Glucksta(it . 92 .......... - 3I 89 - Rendsburg.. • • .. •• • • • • •• • lianseatic Steam Company ......... no EXCHANGES ON V:NDOM. Hamburg!), May 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ditto, Two months •• • • • • • • • • • • Christiana, A r , r. 21, three months . • 13 D; )3 8 1 ,4 •) 82 Extract of a letter received at Lloyd's from their agent at Savanilla:—Sayanilla is now a port of el a _ry. Yule's are allowed to come direct. IRELAND. DUBLIN, MAY 6.—Lord Stanley's Irish allies—the landlords—are beginning to fear that their hopes and expectations are doomed to disappointment. It is said that letters have reached London from an influential personage, to the effect, that maugre all the opposi tion of Lord Stanley and the Noble Protectionists, the Navigation Laws Bill will be carried by a small majority. This will be " a heavy blow" to the Irish landlords, who have been speculating on the chances of a change of rulers, to save them from the penalties of their manifold " sins and wickedness." PROGRESS OF DESTITUTION. The accounts from the provinces are so revolting, and appear so incredible, that I am almost ashamed to transcribe them. For instance, G. E. Burke, J.P., late Chairman of the Moyculem Hospital, writing to the Central Board of Health, states that the mortality viithin the last month is more than frightful. On Sunday last, in about four hours, I saw twelve burials ; on Monday there were eight, and yesterday, I saw within two hours, no less than seven rude coffins conveyed to the grave-yards, on carts drawn by horses which were scarcely able to drag their burdens. A few days ago my attention was attracted by the noise of pigs contending for their prey, to an out-house in this village ; I went in, and found to my horror, the brutes fighting for a meal of the rcmains of a poor lad, of about fifteen years ofage. _ . . _ I — know of six people to have been lying dead at the same time last week in one small village, and to have been left unburied until the pure air of God was tainted by the decomposition of their remains, because the relatives of the unfortunate victims could not procure coffins for them, as they had not been recipients of " the I have known a mother who had entered the poorhouse, or, as it should, under present management, be more properly called the " pest-house" of this union, with her husband and four children, to have been turned out in a state of disease after having seen.her four children lying dead, to have been carted about from place to place, refused ad mittance into any hospital, and left to die on the public roads; and why was this ? Because her poor husband fled the " house" in despair at the loss of his children, and preferred death from starvation outside to cruel treatment and certain death within. In Skibbereen the scenes of last summer are re peated with additional horrors. At the village of Ballymacaw, near Skibbereen, three inquests were held in the course of the week, and in each case the verdict was, " Died from want of food." In one case, that of a man named M'Donnell, Dr. Cooke, the medical attendant, stated that he examined the body of the deceased, and could scarcely find out his stomach in consequence of the want of food in it; he had not the slightest doubt on his mind that the man had died from starvation. Constable Michael O'Connor visited the house of the deceased the morning of his death, and found him stretched on a heap of dung, with more than half the roof off the wretched cabin in which he lay. EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF FORGERY.—Consider able sensation was created yesterday in legal circles, in consequence of a discovery which took place in the early part of the morning. From what has transpired it appears that a native of England, who has been a resident of this city for years, and who belonged to a branch of the legal profession, in which he enjoyed both reputation and business, got married some time since to a lady of great respectability, who had a fortune of about 1,2001. This sum, it appears, was invested in trus tees for the benefit of the lady, and lodged in Government security, so as not to be drawn save by the trustees. Some days since the gentleman alluded to presented himself at the bank, produced two separate powers of attorney for nearly 6001. each—both purporting to be wit nessed by clergymen, and on these documents he received the money, with which he disappeared. His absence for a day or so created no suspicion, but its continuance caused some uneasiness ; and yester day, on inquiry, the whole case became exposed. The gentleman who committed this alleged forgery has left wife, house, home, and friends. It is stated that the trustees expect to be able to recover the sum from the bank, inasmuch as the power of attorney was not genuine. We believe an active search is being made for the absent gentleman. Several of the detective corps, and some of the metropolitan police stationed at the Rock, near which his country residence was situated, are said to be on his track. FLIGHT OF A PUBLIC OFFICER —The Under- Sheriff of Mayor has disappeared, taking with him large sums of money, the produce of sales under exe cution. The High Sheriff will be the sufferer. VALENTIA Haanoua.—The Colleen oge, a hired cutter, is now lying in Cove, with Captain Wolf, R.N., on board. It i s su pp ose d that the gallant officer is going on an exploring expedition to Valentia Har bour, with the view of ascertaining its fitness for a packet station. MORE EJECTMENTS.—The Cork Examiner states, "that from 90 to 100 ejectments, including a greater number of families, have been served on the Midle ton estate since it came into the possession of the present owner, a Miss Rushbrook, who, by the way, is not connected with the family of the late Viscount Midleton. Under the new proprietor, the tenantry confidently looked forward to a reduction in their rents, which are stated to be 25 per cent. higher than on any contiguous property; but in this expectation they have been disappointed." RUMOURED REFORMS AMONG CROWN SOLICITORS AND CLERKS OF THE PEACE.—It is rumoured that the offices of the circuit and local Crown Solicitor ships on the Home and Connaught Circuits are to be immediately consolidated, and that the local solicitor of each county is to attend and do the duties of the assize court. This will cause a saving on these two districts of about 3,0001. a year. It is also rumoured that the offices of Clerk of the Peace and of the Crown of each county in Ireland are to be consoli dated. This will effect an additional saving of about 12,0001. The latter change has been long in contem plation. The Clerk of the Peace, it is supposed, will be the officer retained to do the duties.—Freeman's Journal. CORN EXCHANGE, FRIDAY.—We had again a good demand for oats, which met with a small advance. Wheat, on the contrary, was dull, and hardly brought Tuesday's prices. Indian corn in fair demand at former currency. Baker's flour lower by Is per cwt. White wheat 23s to 26s 61; red wheat 22s to 24s ; barley 13s to 17s 6d ; oats lls 6d to 13s 6d ; oatmeal per cwt 12s to 13s 61; AlCann's meal 14i; second flour 14s to 17s ; Indian corn 31s to 36s ; Indian cornmeal 8s Gd. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCFJEQUER, May 7. (Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Baron ALDERSOIN.) This morning Mr. Baron Alderson sat in the Exche quer Chamber to take motions, as it was the last day but one of term, by way of " casement" to the full Court. BROWN V. YARDLEY. In this case an action had been brought against the defendant for the seduction of the plaintiff's niece, one Mary Ann Brown, which was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the Guildford Assizes of the last sum mer, upon which occasion the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages for 2001. In the course of last Michaelmas Term, Mr. Lash obtained a rule for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge, in telling the jury that they might take into their consideration the future maintenance of tho child of which Mary Ann Brown had been deli vered, as well as the alleged breach of promise which had been made by the defendant when they were discussing the question of damages. After this rule had been obtained, and whilst it was pending, a nego tiation was opened and carried on between the respec tive attorneys, of which the object was to effect a settle ment of the matter by a private arrangement. A gen tleman of the name of May acted as the representative of Mary Ann Brown. In the progress of the matter it appeared that this gentleman had been consulted in the first instance in reference to the adoption of proceedings for a breach of promise of marriage which it had been intended to institute against the defendant by Miss Brown, when he advised that no such action should be commenced, seeing that the gentleman was not of age when he made the alleged promise, and consequently that an action would not lie against him. In the course of the negotiation it was proposed t o s e tt l e an annuity upon the plaintiff's niece for the support of the child, and it was to constitute a portion of the terms of ar rangement that Mary Ann Brown should waive her right to affiliate the child to the defendant. Prior to the ar raogements, however, being brought to a termination, the young lady took out a summons to bring the defend. ant before the magistrates at Maidenhead, in Berke, with a view to the obtainment of an order of affiliation, and thereby altogether repudiating the acts of negotiation of Mr. May, which aces, she asserted before the justices, had been undertaken without her sanction. Up o n t hi s , the proofs having been satisfactorily established, un order of affiliation was made upon the defendant. The defendant thereupon applied, under the altered state of the facts, for a rule to have the rule for the new trial made absolute. It further appeared that an action lied been broughs by the defendant against Mr. May for th recovery of M., which he had paid to him upon the faith of his representation that ho was acting tinder the authority of Mary Ann Brown. In his affidavit Mr. May now excused himself upon the ground that he had had an express authority from the plaintiff to enter into these proposed arrangements, and that he had had no reason to suppose but that her niece, Mary Ann Brown, was a consenting party also. Mr. Sergeant Sher, Mr. Prentice, and Mr. C. Pollock now showed cause against the rule. Mr. Lush and Mr. H. A. Simon were heard in sup port of the rule, contending that the defendant had a clear right to be placed in the same situation as that in which he had stood prior to the attainment of the order of affiliatian. Mr.flaron ALDEIaSoN said that in his opinion the dc. fendant in this case had been very hardly dealt by. The offer he had made was a very fair ofiCr, alid very rea s-,nabl,. He had no doubt blit that Mr May had bef.n decCaed bV thn young woman, arid he, theret'ore, could not see that that gentleman Nvss personally to bLmc. It was quite clear that alter what had taken place th© de fendant was entitled to be relieved front the effect of THE SUN, LONDON, this verdict, and it was equally clear that the plaintiff must pay the costs of the preseat application, The rule was, therefore, made abso:ute. BAIL COURT, May 7. (Sittiggs in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, JEWISH DISABILITIES. On the Learned Judge taking his seat this morning, a number of barristerA, principally members of the Middle Temple, who had been called to the bar of that inn on Saturday last, attended to take the usual oaths, and to subscribe the roll. Among the members was Mr. Salomona, Alderman of the city of London. Upon his name being called, Mr. Salomons demurred to taking the oath of abjuration, in consequence of the concluding words of the oath, " upon the true faith of a Christian," and wished to sign the roll without taking that oath. A communication of this objection being made by the Clerk of the Crown to the Learned Judge on the bench, a conference with his Lordship ensued, which was concluded by Mr. Justice COLERIDGE expressing an opinion that he was incompetent to alter the usual form. The Learned Judge, however, suggested that Mr. Salomons might take the opinion of the full Court upon the point. Mr. Salomons acquiesced, and subsequently appeared in the Court of Queen's Bench; but an important case being under hearing, ne opportunity was afforded him of moving the court. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT. Thomas Evershed and Robert Bussell surrendered to be tried upon an indictment for misdemeanour. Mr. Payne prosecuted, and Mr. Crouch defended. The prosecutor in this case W3S a dissenting minister, named Stubbs, and the offence al!eged to have been com mitted by the defendants was, that they bad unlawfully conspired together to harass and annoy the prosecutor by putting in a distress for rent under a fictitious claim of right to the chapel in which the prosecutor preached, in Hops-street, Bethnal-green, and other property in the same neighbourhood. The case occupied the attention of the Court a con siderable time, and the evidence went to show that the defendant Evershed, who had been appointed trade assignee under the insolvency of a person named Hardy, appeared to have acted under the colour of right con ferred upon him by that position, and that he employed the other defendant, who was a broker, to act for him in making the distress ; but thera was nothing to show that the latter had any knowledge with regard to the actual rights of the pirties. The prosecutor, it ap peared, had no interest whatever in the property, and his only object was to protect himself from the annoy ance of having his chapel continually distrained upon. The REc AMER, at the close of the case for the prose mane, said, that, without expressing any opinion upon the subject of the title to the property in question, it appeared to him that there was no evidence of any guilty knowledge on the part of Bussell, and if the jury entertained the same opinion the charge of conspiracy could not be supported, at it was necessary that two per- sons at least should be shown to have conspired in order to make cut that charge. The jury said they did not think there was any evi dence to show a knowledge on the part of Bussell that there was anything illegal in the transaction. The RECOnDER then directed the jury to Acquit both the defendants. IVEW COURT. (Before Mr. BULLOCK.) Aldria Rusk, a miserable sickly looking woman, was indicted for concealing the birth of her illegitimate child. It appeared that the prisoner, in March last, whilst in the service of a lady named Scott, living in Gloucester street, Regent's-park, was delivered of a stillborn child, which had only reached the sixth month of gestation. She bad carried the body from the house and thrown it into the Regert's-canal, where it was found by the police, to whom she admitted having thrown it there. The prisoner, in her defence, said, she did not know she hr.d been guilty of any crime. The jury found her Guilty. and she was sentenced to ono mouth's imprisonment in Newgate. Edward Price and James Trotman were indicted for stealing a cash-box containirg 371. in gold, notes, and silver, and also two small bsgs, containing copp2r coin, the property of Martha Fife, in her dwelling-house. Mr. Clarkson prosecuted, and Mr. Ballantine de fended. The fac's proved were these.—The prosecutrix, a widow, keens the Queen Victoria public-house, Earl street, Kensington. On the night of the 26th of March, just previously to closing, she pat the money in the cash box, and placed that with the bag containing the copper in a desk in the bar-parlour; when a quarrel taking place in the tap-room, she went in there, leaving the prisoners at the bar, and on her return they were gone, and the cashbox and bag. The prisoners, who were her near neighbours, were taken into custody the next morning ; and the circumstance of their not having bee❑ home all night, and behaving somewhat suspiciously when seen by the police, seemed to be the chief evidence from which they were inferred to be guilty. Anothcr circum stance to establish the guilt of Trotman was, that the empty cashbox was found on the top of a cowshed adjoining his mother's premises, where he lived, and the wall of the garden seemed as though some one had very recently clambered over it in the direction of where the cashbox was found. A circumstance, however, was proved to show that some one else must have had a hand in the robbery, namely, that the bag with the copper was found in a place where it must have been put subsequently to the prisoner's ap prehension. In cross-examination it was elicited that some one else might have committed the robbery. Mr. I.3ALLANTINE having made a powerful appeal to the jury, they, after a short deliberation, Acquitted the prisoners. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MARYLEBONE. Mr. Charles Higgins was brought before Mr. Brough ton, charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct at 11, Upper Montague-street, Montague-square; ho was also charged on a warrant obtained against him by his wife, the daughter of Sir Paul Joddrell, of Portland place, with having threatened to " do for her," in conse quence of which said threat she was in fear of her life, and, therefore claimed protection at the hands of the magistrate. _ _ A great deal of evidence was gone into, and it was shown that defendant was some years ago received as a guest at Sir P. Joddrell's house, and that he ingratiated himself into the good graces of his daughter, with whom he ran away, and a marriage took place between them at Whitechapel Church. Sir Paul and her Ladyship were averse to the match, and neither of them had since been upon friendly terms with defendant, who had as saulted his wife violently on the 25th ult., but she did not then press the charge against him; he had s i nce abused her, and threatened her in the terms before al hided to, and she was fearful that ho would do her some injury; he had unfortunately given himself up to habits of intemperance, and she had in more than one instance been aEs3ulted by him; for the last assault he was brought before this Court, but as she had no wish to punish him, as he had promised not to molest her any more, he was discharged on paying :is. for being drunk. Mr. BROUGHTON now ordered him to firrl bail, him self in 401, and two sureties in 40/. each (with 24 hours' WORSHIP-STREET._ notice) for his keeping the peace for six months. A mid.:lle-aged woman named LI/au Bird was charged before Mr. Arnold a ith steeling a female infant, the daughter of a master shoemaker named Clayton, living in Three Colts- court, Finsbury. The evidence of the child's sister, 10 years of age, was, that she was sent out by her moier in the evening to give the child an airing, and that while returning home through Sun-street, the prisoner, who was a stranger, came up, and after cares-ling the infant for some time took it out of her arms, and c fferi d the girl a penny to buy it a cake. The girl refus, d the money and de manded the child back, upon which the prisoner walked hastily off with it, pursued by the sister through several courts, until she abruptly turned into a mean-looking house, where the girl overtook her, and the prisoner then promised to give her the infant if she went to the top of the house. The girl did as directed, but finding the place very dwelt and that the prisoner did not follow her she became frightened and hastened down again, when she found t'ee prisoner passing with the child into a back yard, and upon her re-demanding the infant's restoration, the prisoner turned sharply round upon her, and forcing her back along the passage, thrust her into the street, and closed the door upon her. The girl then commenced screaming for her sister, and several inhabitants having been alarmed by her cries at last came to her assistance, and, having forced in the door, were just in time to seize the prisoner as she was escap ing through an outlet at the back into an adjoining court. The prisoner on being detected boldly declared the infant was hers and refused to give it up; but, as the child screamed very much from the violence with which the prisoner squeeze d it, they forced it from her and sent fur a constable. The prisoner then commenced a furious attack upon her detainers, one of whom she severely bit in the arm, and resisted so violently that it was not until she bad been strapped down at full length upon a stretcher that they could get her to the station. This evidence was corroborated by the testimony of a married woman named Lewson, and the prisoner, on being called on for her defence, denied all knowledge of anything that had occurred, pleading drunkenness as an excuse. This, however, was positively contradicted by the constable, who stated that she appeared to be per fectly sober at the time, and it having been proved that the prisoner was actually in the act of stripping the in fent at the time she was detected by the neighbours, she was ordered to be committed for the completion of the evidence. _ _ _ TVEST.II.IIVSTE I ?. George Rerers, a man about forty years of age, was charged with inflicting several wounds upon his wile while in bed with a knife. The prisoner, on being asked w!iether he wished to say anything in reply to the charge , replied •°I decline saying; anything at present." He was committed to the Central Criminal Court for trial. CLERKENWELL. William Jackson, aged sixty, was again placed at the bar before Mr. Combe for further exaniination, charged at the instance of the directors of the poor of St. Pancras pani7,ll with a burglary at St. Pancras Workhouse, and stealing twenty tovereigno and 1551, in silver money. The pariah authoriiies were in attendance, and con sidr:l3le interest was manifested in a croa clod court. Mr. Prendergast, the barrister, attended for the pro secution, and Mr. Huddiu..,t.aie for the prisoner. The prisoner, who was in a very delicate state of healr brought from pri,oo in a cabri6L t, :Alfa lining .uppertt-ti into court was aliow. if to sir, up-r: a choir, wiril his injurtii log paced in au horizJatal position, and appear:d to still; r great pain. The case was, after a lengthened examination of evidence, adjourned for a week. T LrES A. Y EVENING, MAY 8, 1249 Member of the House of Commons. So soon as the report appeared, the directors took the only course they could to inform the public of the real state of the facts ; and, with the permission of the House, he would read the remarks that the Eastern Counties Railway Company made in re ference to the 7,6001. (The remarks substantially were that there was a committee sitting in April, 1846, celled the Size lane Committee, formed for the purpose of carrying out a scheme for amalgamating the Eastern Counties and the London and York, which had been propounded by Mr. Hudson in 1845, and that had that committee been successful, a great amount of the legal expenses would have been saved.) He could only beg to assure the House, which he did as a man and as a gentleman appearing before that assembly, that there was not a Member of that House, directly or indirectly, who had had the benefit of a single shilling in reference to that 7,6001. He thanked he Honourable Member for giving him an opportunity for contradicting the rumour ; an if such a statement had been made before the committee, he would have repelled it with indignation. Mr. CHARTERIS said he was in the hands of the House as to the course he should pursue. With all due respect to what had fallen from the Hon. Member, which he in some measure believed, he thought it would be saiisfactory if an inquiry took place into the matter— (Hear, hear)—and, believing the House to be of the .eauae opinion, he begged to give notice that on Thursday next be should move for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The matter then dropped. THE SICILIAN PAPERS. In reply to Mr. DISRAELI, -- Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the papers would be placed immediately in the hands of lion. Members. PAR LIAMENTARY OATHS BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the second reading of the Bill. Sir R. H. INGLIS rose to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. He complained that the real nature of the 13111 could not be satisfactorily traced from its title. None save those who had bad an opportunity of reading the Bill could tell what was its object, and indeed he thought it would have been more consistent in the Noble Lord if he had favoured the Romeo with some statement as to the exact purpose of the Bid—what the object was that it had been introduced to effect. If, however, they took the Bill under what he supposed was its true designation, the " Jews' Bill," they should perhaps gather its an an• ing ; but though they had had opportunities every year of discussing the objet; it had in view, for the last 30 years, yet they had never discussed it under circumstances so likely to affect its ruceess, end therefore the Christian character of that House, as during the last two years. Indeed, he apprehended that no Bill of this nature would have been brought forward but for the recent election in the city of London. Though the avowed object of the Bill had been re jected by the House of Lords, it had been re introduced into this House tinier a new name. Now this Bill was brought forward for the second time, and it proposed in a whelesele manner to deprive the Crown and the country of one of the safeguards of the constitution. It proposed to remove altogether those oaths which had hitherto been held essential for the maintenance of the constitution; but they had not hoard a single argument to show for what good purpose the alteration could be made. The oath to be substituted for those already in existence ought to contain all the provitions of the present oaths. The oath of allegiance remained unaltered for sax cen turies, till the year 1688, when certain alterations were made in it to give more latitude to the consciences of those who took it. At that time the words heirs and successors were left out, but they were retained in the oath of abjuration. Surely, then ' if they w e r e re t a i ne d in one they ou g ht t o b e retained in the other; but still he did not propose that they should be re-inserted. This was a Protestant country; the people in it were not ashamed of professing Protestantism; and so long as the country existed as a Protesant state there could be no jast ground or reason to change the Protestant oaths which a Member of either House of Parliament took on entering his neat.—(Hear, hear.) A very important element in the discussion was, that in the oath which his Noble Friend proposed to substitute, there was no re ference whatever to the Protestant character of the Sovereien. It was as a Protestant, and as Protestants only, that the illustrious family of her Majesty ascended the throne, and not only as Protestants, but as Pro testants of the Episcopal Church of England and Ire land. In fact, his Noble Friend had hoisted neutral colours, simply that he might cover enemies' goods.— (Hear and cheers.) The fact was that the Bill was gospels, h a coue : ese c lphril u s al as a osst ntr twenty to take away from the Legislature the essen tial portion of its Christian character.—(Llear, hear.) ngeoantunritmelytttehih:n,eaaet t t amera t ra h liolg e etibhr, a nuta l ttt alteration it:iveoans had badmades ta b tt e he e de n r made oenn, aa s former wr within ina3e some Christian rite. The oath was taken either upon the , b e or b y u somepsoonme cconsidered s r i e d l e i i s rr r e e v l ic. e lant, but irrevelancy by no means diminished its force. He had the opinions of several eminent men of 1773, and it might be said the opinions of those who lived a century ago, but it should be recollected that although abroad power might be vested only in those who were seated in positions of authority, in this country it was distributed throughout the whole of the community, and was especially assigned to these who in that House took part in the government of the country—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend had last year asked,' with more of an air of triumph than the occasion justified, what good the oath had donei—(Hear, hear.) Why it had at least done this good, that it had served as a bulwark in the attacks on our common Christianity.—(lfear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. BERESFORD seconded the motion, and said he had failed to see any sufficient cause, or any just reason, for hazarding such a great experiment as the admission of Jews into Parliament. Ile supported the doctrine that those in the possession of the administrative should sheer at least an acknowledgment of the Christian faith in their measures. Upon that doctrine they had hitherto acted, and under it they had flourished, and he would not now participate in that which he considered morally and religiously wrong. It was strange that the Government, instead of fostering and shielding their faith, should be the first to give offence to it. He had a strong confidence in the religious feeling of the people of England, who would struggle and prevail in spite of every obstacle, and he trusted, that with the blessing of an All-merciful Being, they would continue still to be, not a professing, but a faithful and Christian nation. Mr. PEEL and Mr. TRELAWNY rose together, but The SPEAKER called upon Mr. Pecl,and immediately the utmost silence and attention was manifested by the House. Mr. PEEL said, he rose on the present occasion to express his sentiments upon the question I ' under consideration, and which had already occupied , so much the attention of the House; and he felt at the outset that he should net duly show his respect to the House, which lied so much considered that ' subject, it he did not confidently rely upon the indul gence which they were always disposed to extend to those who had occasion for the first time to express their sentiments.—(Cheers.) Indeed he stood much in need of that indulgence, because he had the misfortune to follow a Bight Hon. Baronet well known in that House, and whose personal character entitled him to its respect ; and the more so because he had arrived at a conclusion directly opposite to that which he had come to on the facts which pre sented themselves for their consideration—(Hear, hear)—he had come to tho conclusion to vote for the second reading of the Bill, under cover of which it was sought to relieve the Jews from those disabilities which attached to them as subjects of this realm, and which, let the House recollect, a:tached to no other subject of the realm. He wished, by the permission of the House, to state some of the grounds. He supported the Bill on the broad fundamental principle of our constitution, that all its privileges ought of right to belong to every natural born subject of the realm— they belonged to them, not because they were cumin uni cents of a particular sect, but because they fulfilled all the obligations which devolved upon the citizens of a free state. Indeed Parliament had recognised the rights of the Jews by conferring upon them all the offices of the state—civil, military, and judicial. As a magistrate ho ought to administer the law judicially, and ministerially as a sheriff. Almost every office of trust and authority which he could name were open to the Jew. They had given him votes at elections, both parliamentary and municipal, hut nevertheless he was disqualified from sitting in that House. The constituencies might elect him, and the re turning officer must return him as a Member of Parliament, yet he could not take his seat in that House as a Mem ber of Parliament. It was true a distinction had been drawn between the holding of the two offices. The Act of Charles 11., on which much stress had been laid, did not prevent Protestant Dissenters from sitting in that House; yet those cases appeared in no wise different from the case of the admission of the Jew. The law to which he would now call attention effected the Jew so as to prevent his admission into the House, as he was called upon to take the oath " on the true faith of a Christian." In the reign of James the Yint an oath was required to be taken by Members of the House of Commons previous to entering the House, and no further legislative mea sures were made till the reign of Charles IL, when a more stringent measure was passed requ i r i ng Members of both Houses of Parliament to take the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy, and to sign a declaration against tran substantiation. These oaths did not at all contain the words " upon the true faith of a Christian," and there fore, as fir as the legislative disabilities of that period went, the Jew was not disabled from taking his seat in Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Louis XIV., however, having recognized the Pretender, an Act was passed imposing upon the Members of the Legislature an oath, which declared that King William had lawfully suc ceeded to the throne, and no one else had any right or title to it, and then it was that tho words " on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the oath. The design of the oath, however, was not to ex clude the Jew, and it was not the oath which now ex cluded him, but the fortuitous circumstances which led to the introduction of these words. Upon political grounds, therefore, the Jew ought not to be ex• eluded. But it might be argued upon political grounds that it we e irn; - ortant that before any man was admitted to Parliament that his con science sleeild be first bound before he entered upon his hee; , letive le:foa:me Well, the Jew diet not ohji et to thee. not - :1 . ,1 he c.bject so telro the oat!i pleaddeci they jeerede..... :;he, to tee:: h: in a eelerent shape,— (Hear, Lear.) That they could bind the con - I science of' a Jew was generally admitted, and as the i words " upon the true faith of a Christian' were purely • of a ceremonial character, intended no doubt to giv. greater significance and solemnity to the taking of the oaths, he could see no reason, either in . a religious or political point of view, why the phraseology should nut be changed so as to enable the Jew to subscribe to These expressions showed how strongly the country was divided upon the subject ; but when the terms wen considered attentively, it would apptar that then was contained is them no degree of danger.— (Ilear, hear.) It was by some others supposed that, as in the olden time, the State was in subservience to tin Church, it was not to be denied that there were per sons who desired that the Charch should be in subser vience to the State. But there were facts which could not be denied, and among them was tais, that they had deliberately, and after a sufficient view of the circum stances of the case, already in two instances altered the oaths taken by Members of Parliament, and departed from the old rule which had prescribed that none should be Members but those who were in communion with the Church of England.—(Cheers and loud cries of " Hear.") They had first altered the sacramental test in 1825, tine again they had altered the terms of the oath in 1828; and why should they depart from this rule o; progress on the present occasion, and depart from that principle which had always been the distinguishing mark of the British constitution? Another argument of religious expediency advanced against the further progres of this measure Was that the influence which this Bill, if passed into ha', might introduci into the composition of Parliament wou:d unfit it for the discharge of that branch of its functions which concerned the interests of the Church. He thought it would ho admitted that there was a community in Parliament, coestituted as it now was, which dealt a ith the affairs of the Church. At the same time it rheuld be borne in mind that Parliament dealt only with the temporal affairs of the Church. A short answer to an objection of that kind appeared to him to be that the con gruity which already existed was introduces when the Members of that House ceased to to exclusively composed of conformists to the Church. He should pass on to another argument lie referred to the value which was set on the nominal profession of Christianity on the part of the Members of the Legislature. That outward unioa was represented as part of the law and practice of Parliament and the • Constitution; bur when was it, he would ask, that that had been e guarantee of the Christianity of the nation? The Hon. Member concluded by saying he would give his cordial support to the second reading of the Bill.—(Loud and prolonged cheering.) Mr. TURNER opposed the measure, and could not help observing that the House and the country were much indebted to the Government for the calm and die passionete manner in which it was brought forward. It bad been, for the most part, considered simply as a question excluding the Jews. He thought it was question of preference, rather than one of exclusion, or, in other words, that it WAS to be an admission of Jews to the exclusion of Christianity. That was not a mea sure, he contended, consistent with the policy of this country. They excluded the Arian merchant and Ili( Arian gentleman from Parliament, who were as anxious to uphold the principles of tee British constitution and the honour of England as any other class of her Ma jeat)'s subjects ; and on what ground, having excluded the Arian, vvould they admit the Jew? Beside, the Jew s had, and he trusted would long continue to have, re ligious freedom in the fullest sense of the word, and that no, law whatever interfered with their werahip or ceremonies. Their marriages had all the social rights which every other class possessed, and certainly it was the first time in history that a nation living within a nation was permitted to enjoy its own laws and privileges. The business of that House was to promote Christianity among the people, and could they expect that if a Jew became a member of that House, he would promote by every means in his power, or vote for any measure which would have the effect of extend. ing that which he believed to be founded on imposture and fraud? And then see what the position of a Jew would be, if that Bill passed, on the hustings at an election. 119 believed that such scenes would have the effect of rendering persons of that persuasion a bye word in this country, by the common people of England. A Jew had never yet taken his seat in that House, and not withstanding what had been said by the Honourable Member who last so ably addressed the Hone, he (Mr. Turner) contended that Christianity was at all times a qualification for a scat in that House. The day mighs come when it would suit the p:casure or the duty of a Jew to revile Christianity, and how, consistently with the freedom of debate, could that be prevented ? In the case of the Roman Catholics they were called upon to revive a privilege, but in this case they were called upon to create aright.--(Hear:) Ile further objected to the language of the Bill. If ou expunged the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," and left the words "so help me God," you would put out of view the God of the Christians, and an individual might substitute in his mind any other deity. That, he thought, would be prejudicial in many poi n t s o f v i ew , and therefore he could not give his vote in support of this measure. Mr. J..r. WILLIAMS said that the Jews were not a proselytizing race, and therefore the danger anticipated from their occupying seats in that House could not pos sibly follow. Seeing, therefore, no good reason why they should be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by the rest of their fellow- citizens, he should gives his fervent support to the second reeding of this Bill. Mr. TRELAWNY said that the Jews discharged all the duties which other classes in this country were called upon to perform, and they should enjoy equal rights. Upon the 10th of April, last year, were the Jews back ward in affording substantial aid to the preservation of good order ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Honourable Member who spoke last said truly that the Jews were not a proselytizing sect. It was the last thing the Jews sought or deired. It seemed to him pure bigotry to oppose this Bill. It was said that you could not. induce the Jews to vote in such a manner as would be conducive to the interest of the community, but i that were the only objection, the words of the affirm& Lion or oath might be altered to guard against that con. tingency. HOPE said that this Oaths Alteration Bill was brought in to cover a very different thing. It was, in reality, a Jewish Emancipation Bill. He thought that most objectionable in a Christian country and Legi.,la• ture. Ho must, therefore, oppose the second reading of the Bill. Mr. ROBARTES raid that this preposition was no thing more than to do an act of social justice to a class of fellow citizens, and he did not think that there was anything in Christianity opposed to that, and therefore he should give his support to the Bill. Mr. NEW DEGATE said that a seat in that House was given by the public for the public good, and for the public good it should be continued. The words "on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced originally in times of danger as the test of the sincerity of each man's actions, and were these words expunged he thought they would have no claim to be considered as a Christian na tion. The removal of the p resen t oat h h e regarded as a temptation to the Roman Cathol - cs to take the oath which they were now obliged to prescribe. The present was not a period to remove the safeguard provided fur the maintenance of the Church as by law established. Evidently it was a denial of justice if they admitted the Jews to Parliament, and refused admission to the infidel. They should bear in mind, too, that at the end of the last session of Parliament the Duke of Wellington had proposed the insertion of a clause in the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill declaratory of the rights of her Majesty as the ecclesiastical as eel as civil head of the country. Tao necessity for such a clause was admits: d, and the House of Com mons adopted it by a majority of 77 to 4. Ile knew not what were the circumstances which had since occurred to induce the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, who voted for the clause, to sanction the removal of the oath maintaining the supremacy of her Kijesty. An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, but forty Members having been found present, Mr. NE WDEGATE resumed—Coasidering what was passing in another place, where the fate of the Ministry hung in the balance, he was not in the slightest sur prised at the comparatively small number of the Mem bers present. If they admitted the claim of the infidel to sit in that House, they should determine that the House of Commons wes no longer a Christian assembly. The Jews were aliens by birth, blood, and religion, and as such, not entitled to sit, he contended, in the British House of Commons. Members to the Queen, and " on the faith of a Chris. Tian" expressed that feeling." The Jew might express his allegiance in a n y form that — was equally binding on him.—(Hear, hear.) If they were indeed to go back to the times of Richard the First, when 1,000 Jews were sacrificed in cold blood ; if they could restore the time when the Jews were consigned to the fury of the people, or when they were kept for the especial torture of kings, they might endeavour to keep froth them their civil rights. But these things had passed, and this country had not been less Christian. Jews were allowed to hold office in this country, and yet the land was not cursed.—(Hear, hear.):They had been admitted into the corporation, and he was not aware that the cor porations had become less Christian then heretofore. To be a Christian was, in his opinion, to do what they were about to do with respect to this Bill. To act otherwise would be to violate the principles of Christianity. Stead of denouncing the Jews, they ought to do as the Author of our holy religion-did—forgive them. To d° this would be to show that they regarded Christianity not as a part and parcel of the law of England, but as in attribute of our holy religion, and as an example worthy of imitation.—(Hear.) Lord MAHON said that this question had a wider range than that given to it by the Noble Lord the Mem ber for Arundel. The effect of passing this Bill would prove a heavy blow and great discouragement to the missionary labours of the army ofe martyrs who were sndeavouring to propagate the Gospel, when . they learned that the profession of Christianity was thought to light of that Jews *ere admitted, into Parliament. It was urged that the discharge of duties entitled a el" Lzsti to all the privileges of the constitution, provided se fulfilled his duty to the State; but to this there were several exceptions? A clergyman was not eligible to sit to the House of Commons; a bankrupt, who might not eave failed in his. ditties to the State, could not sit iu Parliament. The resistance to this Bill, founded on e reverence to their own religion, ought not to be regarded enfavourably; and of this he was convinced, that those 4 hoe ould vote against the Bill would not be influenced by religious rancour. The Marquis of GRANBY said this Bill was a meant' to an end, and that end was the introduction of Jews to' Parliament. He opposed that measure on religious arcunds, for he could not think that Jews were fit to legislate for Christians. In opposing this Bill he dis claimed any desire to persecute the Jews or to detract from their respectability as individuals. They had al ready admitted them to all offices; military and civil, and allowed them the right of worshipping in their syna gogues according to their own fashion, - and therefore they would not be charged with being influenced by a persecuting spirit towards the 'Jews. It was urged in avour of the Bill that the Jews . were few in number, but it was not whether they were numerous er few that he measure should be judged, but upon the principle that :heir admission would be a violation of the principles of the constitution. If they admitted the Jews to Par liament they could not limit :the injury they could do by the fewness of their number. While they acted with all charity towards the Jews, they should take care not to break down those barriers which were the defence of their religion, and the means of its diffusion through' out the world, arid in which he hoped the Jews would be included. Mr. FAGAN said, as a Roman Catholic, he should support the s. cond reading of the Bill, upon the prin.' eiple cf doing to others as he would be done by.. Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to the second reading of the Bill, but he did not do so from any hostile or perse cuting spirit to the Jews. He looked back to their peat' history with a respect amounting to veneration. But when Members of that House were celled on to intro duce into a Christian 'assembly those who denied their Lord and Seviour, he must be permitted to decline being participator in such an act. He thought, therefore, that the Hon. Member for Reading was wrong when Le asserted that the Jews were not at variance with the Christians, and believing the measure was one of great impolicy, and uncalled for, he should oppose its second reading. Mr. EONCKTON MILNES would earnestly recom mend to the lion. Member for Kent, who had last ,poken, that although persons might itafiviclually oppose the admission of Jews into that House, yet they had ne right to assume that others should hallo a similar wish to promote their return. Bet the question, after aP• was—whether one of the highest and most influential individuals in the country, and elected by one of the most distinguished constituencies in the empire, shall be prevented by, after all, a question of mere feral, from taking his seat in that House. And ho was surprised that, in the deliberations of thLt ..v.ning, a more frequent allusion had not been made to that fact, so important in the consideration of the question under discussioa , TI ey had heard that-evening a history of the mode in which the oath which excluded Baron Rothschild was introduced into that House, perhaps in a manner superior to what had been heretofore done; but the question was, after all, whether a section of the great British empires and a nly a section, sl - .ould be exc'uded from the benefits of the British constitution. He thought they should agree with him that, amid all the disorders and distur bences which had taken place in other parts of the world, it was not safe to keep any man from such a par ticipation. Let them pass that Bill, and no portion of the inhabitants of that empire, or of the subjects of their . Most Gracious Sover e i gn , wou ld h ave any cause to' complain of exclusion from such a participation. Where ever the Jewish nation, or any portion of that nation or , people, had established themselves, they had invariably, and without any exception whatever, identified them' selves with the interests of that nation, and in no ono instance had opposition co me f rom them, but from those who govern e d. If any Hon. Member would take the trouble of reading the emigration and colonization of that wcndt•rlul nation they would find that to be strictly true. He should give the measure every support in his pow, T. Mr. BANKES observed that by far the best speech made in favour of the measure was that spoken by the Honourable Member for Leominster (Mr. Peel), characterised as it was by the diffidence which belonged to talent, and the modesty of one speaking for the first time in that House. In reply to what that Honourable Member asserted, that Jews were not excluded from Parli?ment until modern days, he (Mr. Betakes) had only to sty that inasmuch as they were not ever al lowed to possess a freehold property, it would have been wore than useless to have introduced a measure to prevent them, seeing they had not a qualification, and could not therefore sit. Unless this Bill was consider ably altered in Committee, the effect would be that it would admit not only Jews, but also Roman Catholics, vtith all their hostility to the Established Church. 11 ° thought that the present form was a check to honourable Roman Catholics, As for persons not honourable, Ile oath would bind them. The state and condition of this House was not now what it was before Roman Catholics were admitted to that House. If he were asked, had he observed any mischief follow from their admission to that House, he would answer yes, he had.—(Hear.) This Bill was more mischievous than the measure of last year. A seat in the House was no privilege, it was a duty imposed upon them by their constituents. The elec tors had a right to choose them, ,whether they would serve or not. This eas a Christian Parlia ment, and one of its duties was to regulate the Christian Chu' ch, and it was not proper that a Jew, whatever might be his qualifications of active charity, should be called upon to discharge these duties towards an EAublishment which,lto say the least of it, be garded as an errcr. In regard to such solemn duties, was it right to call on one who believed our fath to be a falsehood to join in legislation? He thought it was riot, and, therefore, should vote against the measure. Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the House now called for a division—(liter, hear)—he was anxious to give some answer to the objections urged against this wee sure. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had fallen into the error of affirming that the oath had not Is en imposed with the express intention of excluding the Jews from that House. Such exclusion was totally opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and it was de sirable to remedy that injustice. He did not see that this I3ill took away any security for tl e Protestant sue cession of the Crown, as the Hon. Member tcr Oxford seemed to thick. The Act of Parliament on that subject being perfectly good in itself, required no further force to sustain it. Some Hon. Members had thought that Christianity would be endangered. Only imagine three or four Jews in th a t H ouse. W hat would be their power to overthrow Christianity?---(Hear, hear.) Ag a in, it was :aid that they would use reviling language to Christie ity, but happily that House was nut a theological as• :ornbly, and was it too great a stretch of charity to sup pose that they would not?—(Hear, hear.) He wished that there should be no exclusion on account of religion —(Hear, hear)—and that there should be no punishment or penalty on account of religious opinions.—(Cheers.) They had been accustomed to hear in those debates that this House was Christian, and that it was proposed to unchristianiso it; but that had been admirably an swer, d by the fact, that the changes in our municipal corporation; and other civil offices, had not had that elect. He did not believe that the character of that House would be altered by the admission of three or four Jews.—(Hear.) If, while there were 40,000 Jews in the country, it was still entitled to be called Chris tian, so, when there were three or four Jews in that House, it would still be entitled to be called Christian. (Hear.) He hoped that this House, disregarding the arguments against the Bill and acting upon the princi ples of charity, which ho believed to be truly Christian, would admit the Jews; and considering that they were faithful adherents to the constitution nnder which We live, and that they were loyal and peaceable subjects. ready to defend the Sovereign of these realms, and faithful to the British constitution, he hoped that they would admit them to all the advantages of that consti tution.—(Cheers.) „___ _ The Earl of ARUNDEL briefly replied to the re marks of the Hon. Member for Northampton, and con tended that where men of different religious persuasions had been already admitted to the Legislature, he could not understand why those who professed the Jewish persuasion should be excluded. Mr. SPOONER felt constrained to give tho Bill every opposition. The Catholics, it was true, had been admitted to seats in the Legislature, but he did not on that account consider the Catholic religion the less ob jectionable or the less idolatrous. The representatives of a Christian nation should be guided by Christian principles, and they ought to maintain that constitu. don which they had received horn their ancestors. He objected to the alteration made in the oath, by which they got rid of the purely Protestant form of the oath, and which was essential to the existence of the Protestant constitwion of thii country. It was a great national sin to encourage idolatry, and to discourage Christianity, which would be the practical effect of this Bill. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said the state - of the House (there was but a thin attendance) induced him, even against his intention, of addressing a few words to it on the question before it. Seeing that only fifteen or sixteen of those Hon. Gentlemen were present who re presented that, if this Bill passed, this country would be unchristianised, he was led to think that these opinions were only lip opinions, and that the feeling which they expressed did not enter into the moral nature of the Hun. Geutlernen.—(Dear,) It was a fact that Parlia ment existed for ages without any oath being adminis tered to its M em b ers, and that oaths could only be traced back to the period of the Reformation. Why, then, all this desire to make an oath operate to the pre . judiee of the Jew? Instead of exciting hostility to wards the Jew, we ought rather to sympathise with him, for, surround, d as he was from his cradle to the ' grave by forms of religion, it was impossible for him to escape from that religion in which he was born. The Jew, was in truth, only an imperfect Christian. We hold the most of our iaith in common with the Jew—he only not reaching that diviner simplicity which was the great attribute of the Christian religion. —(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) said that the Jew was an alien in this country. Was not the Samaritan an alien? And yet when our Lord weaved to give an example of universal he,thnrhood, hc; :,I•:_cte , l the conduct of the Saaturitan ;:. FLOZ , . Ile te , T;2 - 0-(Te e thong tx.:;ltit any a,iou eivii ri,;fits (n account of,his religion.—(Hear, hear.) Oaths were not intended as a profession of faith in that House. They were intended to express the allegiance of Honourable Mr. GOULBURN said that so long as the House was called upon daily to deal with matters deeply and even vitally bearing upon the Christian faith, he could not help pointing out the inconsistency of entrusting those important duties to persons incompetent from their religious feelings to the efficient discharge of those duties. Mr. ROEBUCK said the observations of the Nigh Honourable Gentleman who had just addressed the louse would, he presumed, be a lesson to the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, for they bad learned from him that if the Bill brought under the considera tion of the Legislature proposed to admit persons of all religious denominations to seats in the Legislature, there will be no objection to the measure. The arguments used, however, by the Right Honourable Gentleman did not militate against the Bill, and he could show that all Honourable Gentleman, when introducing a Bill of this nature, was often obliged to be inconsistent with himself. Take the Bill as it stood, and he was prepared to main tain that it w en t the hngth of admitting all men to seats in the Senate, without regard to their religious belief.— (hlear, hear.) The fifth clause of the Bill was general is its eati:roetion; it permitted every person to make prescribed. The words of the c'y*Lso were general, and therefore of necessity t.dmitted ever) body. What was it the Legislature desired to do when it administerzd the oath which the Bill prescribed ? In the first instance, 19 enforce the LAMBETH. Janes Webb, a master baker, was charged with knowingly uttering a fcrged bill of exchange f,r the amount of 25/., to Mr. John Tewey, a builder, in Willow walk, Bermondsey. Tha prosecutor stated that, about this tame twelve months, the prisoner, whom he had known for some years, applied to him to know whether, if ho got his relation, Mr. Abraham Fuller, to draw a bill upon Mr. Henry Ashley, his brother•in-law, he would get it cashed fur him; saying, at the same time, that he was without flour, and could not get any on credit. Witness told him he could get such a bill cashed, but must put his own name to it to procure the money. In a few days afterwards he met the prisoner at the Greyhound public house in Newington, and be then produced a 25/. bill, which he said he had received from Mr. Fuller. Witness took the bill, and at the time handed the prisoner 51., and subsequently advanced him other sums on the bill, amounting altogether to 18/. 10s. When the bill became due it was dishonoured, and Mr. Jones, its holder, brought actions to recover its amount. Amongst others, proceedings were taken against Mr. Abraham Fuller, the alleged . drawer of the bill, and his defence was that it was a forgery. The prosecutor was examined at some length by the prisoner's attorney, who endeavoured to elicit that he was aware at the time he got the bill discounted that the money was for Ashley, and not for the prisoner, and that the prisoner had acted in the transaction as the mere agent of Ashley. This the witness positively denied, and declared he had been induced to obtain and advance money to the prisoner solely on the faith and belief that the bill bad been drawn by Mr. Full* r. Ir. reply to a question from the magistrate as to why he had nut before moved in the affAir, the witness said, the forged bill with other bills had remained in the hands of Mr. Jones as a collateral security until last week, and he did not wish to adopt any proceedings until he be came personally possessed of the bill. Mr. Abra'am . Fuller was c a ll e d, en d deposed that the signature to the bill was not in his handwriting, nor had he authorised the prisoner or any other person to put his name to a bill. The prisoner Was fully committed for trial. Mr. ELLIOTT refused to accept bail for his appearance at the Oki THAMES. John and Thomas Ruyan, two powerful Irishmen, were charged with a misdemeanor, and committing sa vage assaults on a variety of persons. Mr. YARDLEY said the prisoners had been guilty of a very serious outrage, and committed them, in default of bail for trial. Edward Keyzer, a German, lately waiter and touter to a person named Antweiller, a lodging-house keeper in Burr-street, East Smithfield, was brought up en remand charged with stealieg 165 guilders from a Dutchman named William Var.derdyle. • Mr. YARDLEY committed the prisoner for trial. /MPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMOiVS, May 7. The SPEAXER to:)ic the Chair at Four o'el.:Jek. EMBER. Mr. R OLBUCK tok NEW the 'M oaths and his seat for Shef field. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was introduced by Colonel P. Thom Non and Mr. Hutt. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY. Mr. BERNAL having explained the difference which existed between the report of the Committee and his own expressed opinions with regard to this Bill, The Bill fur the Lease or Purchase of the Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilsten Direct Railway by the Cale donian Railway was then read a third time. OATHS OF SUPREMACY AND ABJURATION. The Sherin of the city of London appeared at the bar of the House to present a petition from the Corpo. ration, under the corporate seal, against the oath re. specting supremacy and abjuration. DIVISION OF LIVING OF RICHMOND AND K IN GSTON,UPO N-TH AMES. 'Mr. C. LUSIIINGTON said that the offensive parts of this Bia having been withdrawn he should retrain from any further opposition. The Bill was then read a third time. PARLIAMENTARY O ATHS. Mr. LACY presented several petitions, in favour of an alteration in the Farliamentary oaths. GLASGOW, KILMARNOCK, AND ARDROSSAN RAILWAY BILL. This Bill was read a third tirne. COUNTY COURTS. Mr. BROWNE and other Hon. Members presented several petitions from Liverpool and other places, in favour of the con s tit ut i on o f financial boards in conjunc tion wits the county courts. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented several petitions against any alteration of the Acts for this purpose. REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE AND DEATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL. Sir J. GRAHAM and several other Members pre sented petitions against this Bill. REDUCTION OF BEER-HOUSES. The EIGHT HON. BARONET also presented several petitions in favour of some measure for the reduction of the number of beer-houses. MARRIAGE WITH THE SISTER OF A DECEASED WIFE. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE presented several petitions in favour of Mr. Stuart Wortley's Bill for the alteration of.the present law. LIMERICK RAILWAY. Sir 11. W. BARRON presented ; petition molt numerously signed by the nobility and gentry, and among others by the L?rd-Lieutenants of IVaterford and Tipperary, and other residents in the southern counties of Ireland, in favour of some grant from. Go• vernment for the completion of this railway. ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE LOCAL BILL. The Ashton-under-Lyne Police, Markets, and Improve ment Acts Extension and Amendment, and Transference of G is and Waterworks and other Property to the Cor poration Bill, was ordered to be re -committed. PARLIA MEN VARY OATHS. Mr. NEWDE9ATE presented several petitions against the alteration of Parliamentary oaths. Mr. STAFFORD presented several petitions to the same effect. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY. Mr. C EIARTERIS, in rising to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention had been drawn to the report which bad been recently published by a com mates appointed to inquire into the management of the affairs of the Eastern Counties Railway Company, in so tar as it affected the general character of the House, claimed the indulgence of the House while he made a few observations, as considerable misunderstanding ex• isted with reference to the object which he had in putting the question. It had been suppo se d b y many persons, that the question was directed against some individual Member of that House, but he begged to say that nothing was farther from his intention than that.—(Hear, hear.) As many Members then present had not, perhaps, directed their attention to the matter to which the ques tion referred, he would read an extract from the report of the committee of shareholders as it appeared in the Times newspaper. It was to the following effect:— . In the investigation of the disbursements, under the head of Parliamentary expen ses , t h ere appeared several items, the character of which your committee could not arrive at. The items were— 1846 —April 17. Parliamentary expenses (a) £ 500 0 0 April 24. Ditto (a) 3,000 0 0 April 25. Ditto (u) 2,406 17 6 D itto (a) 1,700 0 0 (6) 2,000 0 0 1847—June 25. By "Extensions" 9,606 17 6 In reference to the amount of the items marked a, namely, 7,6061. 17 s. 6d., the explanation given to your comm i t tee by Mr. 11 , addington and Mr. Duncan w as , disbursed that the sums, as stated , were by the company through them, for services rendered, and in which did not leave them at liberty to give particulars, as manner these could not be given without implicating other parties.' There were rumours prevalent that that sum had been expend e d f or w h a t tees called facilitating the passage of Bills th roug h P ar li amen t, in oth er wor d s , i n plain English, for bribing Members of that House.—(Hear, hear.) He could not believe that any Member of that House had been guilty of conduct so disgraceful and dishonourable ; but as those rumours were very prevalent, it appeared to hi m th at not a moment s h ould pass by without some notice being taken of them. They could not allow them to circulate and to poison the public i ear; and h e conce i ve d t h e H ouse was bound to institute some in qu i r y into rumours suc h as those, w hi ch not only affected the character of that H ouse, which ought to be above suspicion, but also the pri vate an d individual honour of every Member belongi ng to it.--(Loud cheers.) He felt confident that the House on inquiry would find that there was little or no foundation for these rumours, but if it unfortunately turned out otherwise, the House would at least have the satiataction of d etect i ng the gu il ty part i es , an d holding them up to the reprobation and contempt of all Hon. Members.—(Cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed with the Hon. Gen tleman that the words to which reference had been made had a tendency to excite suspicion, and to affect the character and credit of that House. He did not himself give the slightest credence to the rumour to which the Hon. Gentleman had alluded; but he (Lord John Russell) did agree with him that it would not be right to let those words, reported as they were by a public committee, pass by without inquiry. —(Cheers.) Ile did not himself think there would be any advantage in that inquiry being instituted by a member of the Government, unless it were decidedly the wish of the House; but his opinion was, that the Honourable Gentleman having turned his attention to the subject, and the question being one affecting the character of individual Members of the Reuse, he (Lord John Russell) thought it would be better that the inquiry should be in the hands of the Honourable Gentleman, assisted as the lion. Gentleman would be by Members of a ll part i es i n t h e H ouse, than that the inquiry should be conducted by the Government. He could have the advice and assistance of lion. Members as to the best mode of facilitating the inqury—an inquiry which should be pursued until the whole truth was elicited.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. WADDINGTON said that he was not at all aware until he eau in the report the remark made by the cow /litter, that after be had given evidence in reference to the SEMIS C.] titled to, it wls stated that he coull not arne.ver, lest his reply might junclic.-.to di.4 , 1 11 , tr.h , ..rs iiith.tt thrise. IV - len he told Eloue ;hat h.. ul,dc 1711 ren Lt Fi 11, that et - e.:;lnitte, affeatz; soy :q. , ruber in that house, lie th, , ught thu house would jinn pith him that there was no reason for such a remark a s th at b e i ng ma d e , i nasmuc h as he did not by implication or otherwise allude to any