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

.CANADA. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. Sta,—The recent accounts from Canada (if we are to believe the standard) 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 Lard 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 outb reak, which is very far distant if the only casus belli is the "Indemnit y 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 Canaries. Then as to the Indemnity Bill on perusing the names of claimants, that of " Wolfred Nelson" appears for nearly one-fifth the amount. This person was attainted with treason, he fl:d 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 tteir 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 the 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 than adopt the latter course. Lot Englishmen remember that 'Canada possesses in miniature the British Constitution, and that its representation era Legislature is based on the princi les of the Imperial Parliament. Let me ask, if the Indemnity Bill had passed the British louse 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 Canadas resist, and refuse his acquiescence to a measure which has passed 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 tuencies. 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 ;ustlce can interfere ? I question much if any intn.- ference by the Government 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 repuLive 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 Wolfred 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 tot held at Montreal. Mr. Ogle It. 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 fomentors 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 Canadas." 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:— f• .202,995,867 84 . . 130,422,444 00 ▪ 259,865 49 AS:,ETS. Cash and ingots Ditto in branch banks Bills past due ••• Bills falling due in Paris, of which 13,968,610 f. 49e. are from the branch banks 47,116,944 26 Bills in the branch banks ... 81,654,083 95 Advances on coins and ingots... ... 16,927,052 00 Ditto on French public securities ... 28,194,558 95 Ditto by branch banks... ... 1,483,337 00 Ditto to the State on Bons du Tr6sor... 50,000,000 00 Ditto on the loan of 150 millions ... 50,000,000 00 Rentes of the reserve fund ... 10,000,000 00 Rentes, disposable funds ... Investments of the new branch banks in 42,581,488 13 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 10,000,0001. to the city of Paris 8,000,000 00 Interest in National Discount Bank ... 200.000 00 Ditto branch banks ... Bills protested at Paris ... ... Ditto at the branches ... Expenses of administration of the Bat.k. Ditto of the branches ... Miscellaneous Advance to the department of the 230,000 00 6.514,155 95 4,000,296 00 486,146 39 347,739 00 941,366 14 Seine Loan of 3,000,000 f. to the city of Mar seilles ... ... ... ... ... 3,000,000 00 1,000,000 00 f. 705,413,673 49 LIABILITIES. Capital ... ... • . f. 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 Ditto in branches .. Bills payable at sight ... Ditto at branches ••• ••• ••• Bills of the branch banks payable by the Bank ... ... ... ... 7,134 522 74 Ditto a 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 ... 92,036,239 48 ... 29,623,818 00 4,753,800 00 1,092,112 00 f. 705,418,673 49 Certified by the Governor of the Bank of France, D'ARG OUT. H.t..ILBURGII FUNDS, MAT 1. Hanoverian New Lcian, 5 per Cent:.... Ditto, 3% per Cent. • • Bank Shares •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • Prussian 5 per Cent. • • • • .. • • • • • •• • • 101• X 101 y 4 Russian Certificate.................. Anglo-Russian Loan - • .. • • • . • • • • • • • • 102 101 Hamburgh Certificate, 5 per Cent .... 96 Russian 4 per Cent................... 3d and 4th Series, Hope and Co. ••.. • • 91 Ditto Stieglitz ........ •••• • • • • 82 Belgian Loan. 2% per Cent............ 45% Anglo-Danish Loan, 3 per Cent ••• • • • 65% 65 Ditto, in 1001. shares • • .... 65% 65 Anglo-Swedish Loan .. • • •••• • • .. 96% Ditto, Transport Loan • • . • • • ........ Norwegian Loan, 1848 ••••• • • • • •• • • 9734 Spanish New 5 per Cent ••••••• • • • • • •. 11 Ditto 3 per Cent., Inland ••••• . • • • • 23% 23% Ditto, 1816.... .. •• •• • •• • • - • Anglo-Portuguese Loan, 2% per Cent • • Dutch ActuaiDebt, 234 per Cent. ••• • • Ditto 3 per Cent. National Bank Shares • • American, 6 per Cent. ....•.. •..• • • . RAILWAYS. Bills. Money. 10.1 i Hamb. Bergd. Ditto,.Priority Shares •••• •• • • */*. j z 91% Berlin and Hamburg ........ ...... - Ditto, Priority Share; • • Cologne and Minden • • •• •• 7., Ditto, Priority Shares ( 2:3 76 Mecklenburg .• • • • • • • • • • • • • Altona and Kiel .••• • . • • (;luckstadt •• ••••••• • • • • - 31 89 'L Itendsburg.. • • •• •• •• •• " • Ilameatie Steam Company ' ..... ••• •• 02 EXCHANGES ON I. - NEON. Ilarnbuß•h, May 1 • ...• 94,‘ Ditto, Two months ..• •• • • • • ;,•,. T. 13 Christiana, Ayr. 8/7threa - tnonths• • 4 82 Extract of a l etter rece i ve d at Lloyd's from their agent at Savanilla:--Stiviiiira is now a port of entry. Vessels are allowed to come direct. IRELAND. DUBLIN, MAT 1 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 Protectionist s, the Navigation taws 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. Btu ke, J.P , late Chairman of the Moyculem Hospital, writing to the Central Board of Health, states that the mortality within 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 remains of a poor lad, of about fifteen years of age. 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 relief." 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 Bally macaw, 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 bad 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. EXTRAORDINAHY CASH OF FORGEF.Y.—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 600/. 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 pruduce of sales under exe cution. The High Sheriff will be the sufferer. VALENTIA HAanotra.—The Colleen oge, a hired cutter, is now lying in Cove, with Captain Wolf, R.N., on board. It is supposed 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 6d; red wheat 22s to 245; barley 135 to 17s 6d ; oats Ils 6d to 13s 6d ; oatmeal per cwt 12s to 13s 6d; M'Cann's meal 143; second flour 14s to 17s; Indian corn 31s to 365; Indian cornmeal 8s Gd. . LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Mu 7. (Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) 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 " easement" to the full Court. DROWN 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 the 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 bad been consulted in the first instance in reterence 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 to settle 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 rangements, however, being brought t o a term i nation, the young lady took out a summons to bring the defend ant before the magistrates at Maidenhead, in Berks, with a view to the obtainment of an order of affiliation, and thereby altogether repudiating the acts of negotiation of Mr. May, which acts, she asserted before the justices, had been undertaken without her sanction. Upon this, the proofs having been satisfactorily established, an 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 teal made absolute. It further appeared that an action had been brought by the defendant against Mr. May for the recovery of 941., n hich he had paid to bim upon the faith of his representation that he was acting under the authority of Mary Ann Brown. In his affidavit Mr. May how 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 Shee, Mr. Prentice, and Mr. C. Pollock now showed cause egainst the rule. Mr. Lush and Mr. H. A. Simon were beard in sup port of the rule, contending that the defendant bad 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 affiliaticu. Mr. Baron ALDEBSON said that in his opinion the de fendant in this case had been very hardly dealt by. The offer he had made was a very fair offer, and very rya sonabl... He had no doubt but that Mr. May bad becn deceived by thn young woman, and be, therefore, could not see that that gentleman was personally to blame. It was quite clear that after what had taken place the de fendant was entitled to be relieved from the effect of this verdict, and it was equally clear that the plaintiff cnuit pay the costs of the present application, The rule was, therefore. made absolute. BAIL COURT, May 7, (Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLE?.IDGE.) JEWISH DISABILITIES. On the Learned Judge taking his seat this morning, a number of barriateri, principally members of the Middle Temple, who had been called to the bar of that inn on Saturday last, attended to take the usuid oaths, and to subscribe the roll. Amon.. the members was Mr. Salomons, Alderman of the city of London. Upon his name being called, Mr. Salomons demurred to taking the oath of abjuration, 'in consequen‘.3e 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 au important case being under hearing, no opportunity was afforded him of moving the court. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. OLD COURT. Thomas Evershed and Robert Russell surrendered to be tried upon an indictment for misdemeanour. Mr. Payne prosecuted, and Mr. Crouch defended. . . The prosecutor in this case was a dissenting minister, named Stubbs, and the offence alleged to have been coat mittk d by the defendants was, that they had unlawfully conspired together to harass and annoy the prosecutor hy putting in a distress fur rent under a fictitious claim of right to the chapel in which the prosecutor preached, in Hope-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 bad 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 there was nothir ' e to show that the latter had any knowledge with regard to the actual rights of the parties. 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 bis chapel continually distraincd upon. The REC 'EDER, at the close of the case for the prose cution; said, that, without expressing any opinion upon the subject of the title to the property in vestion, 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 out 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 RECORDER then directed the jury to Acquit both the defendants. NEW COURT. (Before Mr. BuLLccx.) Merria 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 had carried the body from the house and thrown it into the Regent'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 had been guilty of any crime. The jury found her Guilty, and she was sentenced to one mouth's imprisonment in Newgate. Edward Price and Jams Trotman were indicted for stealing a cash-box containing 371. in gold, notes, and silver, and also two small bags, containing copper coin, the property of Martha Fife, in her dwelling-house. Mr. Clarkson prosecuted, and Mr. Ballantine de fended. The fat's proved were these.—The prosecutrix, a widow, keeps the Queen Victoria public-house, Earl street, Kensington. On the night of the 26th of March, just previously to closing, she put the money in the cash box, and placed that with tho 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 been home all night, and behaving somewhat suspiciously when seen by the police, seethed to be the chief evidence from which they were inferred to be guilty. Another 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 iu 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. BALLAICTINE 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. Joddrelrs 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 26th ult., but she did not then press the charge against him; he had since abused her, and threatened her in the terms before al luded to, and she was fearful that he would do her some injury; he had unfortunately given himself up to habits of intemperance, and she had in more than one instance been assaulted by him; for the last assault he was brought before this Court, but as she had no eish to punish him, as he had promised not to molsst her any more, he was discharged on paying ss. for being drunk. Mr. Idnouormos now ordered him to find bail, him self in 401., and two sureties in 401. each (with 24 hours' notice) for his keeping the peace for six months. WORSHIP-STREET. A middle-aged woman named Mary Bird was charged before Mr. Arnold with stealing 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 mother 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 caressing the infant for some time took it out of her arms, and Lifer% d the girl a penny to buy it a cake. The girl refuse d the money and de manded the child back, upon which the prisoner walked hastily cff 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, bat finding the place very dark and that the prisoner did not follow her she became frightened and hastened down again, when she found t'.:e 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 ber 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 squeezed 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 had 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 Lawson, 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 feet at the time sho was detected by the neighbours, she was ordered to be committed for the completion of the evidence. • WESTMINSTER. George Revers, a man about forty years of ago, was charged with inflicting several wounds upon his wife while in bed with a knife. The prisoner, on being asked whether 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. Combo for further examination, charged at the instance of the directors of the poor of St. Pancras parish with a burglary at St. Pancras Workhouse, and stealing twenty sovereigns and 155 L in silver money. The parish authori.ies were in attendance, and con siderable interest was manifested in a crowded court. Mr. Prendergast, the barrister, attt ruled for the pro secution, and Mr. lluddlestone for the prisoner. The prisoner, who was in a very delicate state of health, waa brought from prisoirin a cabriokt. and being, supported into court aas allowed to sit upon a chair, with his injured leg placed in an horizontal inmition, and , appeared to suffer great pain. The case was, after a lengthmed examination of evidence, adjourned fora week. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 8, 1R49 LAMBETH. James Webb, a master baker, was charged with knowingly uttering a forged bill of exchange for the amount of 251., to Mr. John Towey, a builder, in Willow walk, Bermondsey. The prosecutor stated that, about this Limo twelve months, the prisaner, whom he had known for some years, applied to him to know whether, if he got his relation, Mr. Abraham Fuller, to draw a bill upon Mr. Henry Ashley, his brother-in-law, be would get it cashed f or hi m; saying, at the same time, that ho 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 d4ys afterwards he met the prisoner at the Greyhound public house in Newington, and he 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 181. 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 pris oner , a nd 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 had been drawn by Mr. Fuller. In reply to a question from the magistrate as to why he had not before moved in the aff.dr, 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. Abraham Fuller was called, and 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 fcr his appearance at the Old Bailey. THAMES. John and Thomas Rugan, 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 Antweiiler, a lodging-house keeper in Burr-street, East Smithfield was brought up cn remand charged with stealing 165 guilders from a Dutchman named• William Vat - Akrdyle. Mr. YARDLEY committed the prisoner for trial. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ---- HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 7. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Mr. ROEBUCK took the oaths and his seat for Shef field. Tho Eon. and Learned Gentleman was introduced by Colonel P. Thompson and Mr. Hutt. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY. Mr. BERN AL having explained the ditfurencs which existed between the report of the Committee and his own expressed opinions with regard to 'this Bill, The Bill for the Lease or Purchase of the Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct Railway by the Cale donian Ralway wal then read a third time. OATHS OF SUPREMACY AND ABJURATION. The Sheriffsof 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• apecting supremacy and abjuration. DIVISION OF LIVING OF ItICFIMOND AND KINGSTONUPON-TIIAIES. Mr. C. LUSIITICioI'iI said that the offensive parts )f this . Bill having been withdrawn he should retrain :rom any further opposition. The Bill was then read a third time. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. Mr. LACY presented several petitions. in favour of an alteration in the Parliamentary oaths. GLASGOW, KILMARNOCK, AND ARDROSSAN RAILWAY BILL. This B;11 was read a third time. COUNTY COURTS. Mr. BROWNE and other Hon. Members presented several petitions from Liverpool and 0.h4 places, in favour of the constitution of financial boards in conjunc tion with the county courts. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. Mi. PLUMP ntE presented several petitions against any alteration of the Acts fur this purpose. REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE AND DEATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.' Sir J. GR AHAA and several other Members pre sented _petitions against this Bill. REDUCTION OF BEER-HOUSES. The BIGHT 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 a petition most numerously signed by the nobility ar.d gentry, and among others by the Lard-Lieutenants of Waterford and Tipperary, and other residents in the southern counties of Ireland, in favour of some grant from Go• vernment fur the completion of this railway. ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE LOCAL BILL. The Ashton-under-Lyne Police, Markets, and Improve ment Acts Extension and Amendment, and T rans f ere nce of GAS and Waterworks and other Property t o the Cor poration Bill, was ordered t o b e re - comm i tted. PARLIANIENrARY OATHS. Mr. NEWI)EGATE presented several petitions against the alteration of Parliamentary oaths. Mr. STAFFORD presented several petitions to the same effect. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY. Mr. CHA.RTERIS, in rising to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention had been drawn to the report which had been recently published by a com mittee 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 supposed by 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.—(Sear, 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 expenses, there appeared several items, the character of which your committee could nut arrive at. The items were— 1846—April 17. Parliamentary expenses (a) .E 500 0 0 April 24. Ditto (a) 3,009 0 0 April 28. Ditto (a) 2003 17 6 Ditto (a) 1,700 0 0 )1 1847—Jane 25. By "Extensions"... (5) 2,000 0 0 9,606 17 6 In reference to the amount of the items marked a, namely, 7,6061. 17s. 6d., the explanation given to your committee by Mr. Waddington and Mr. Duncan was, were disbursed by the company which did not leave them at liberty to give particulars, as that tutehhe sums, as a f s o; ta s t e e services rendered, and in a 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 was called facilitating the passage of ails through Parliament, in other words, in 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 him that not a moment should pass by without some notice being taken of them. They could not allow them to circulate and to poison the public ear; and he conceived the House was bound to institute some :inquiry into rumours such as thPse, which not . only affected the character of that House, which ought to be above suspicion, but also the private and individual honour of every Member belonging to it.—( Loud cheers.) He felt confident that the Hume 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 satisfaction of detectir g the guilty parties, and 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.) He 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 Home; but his opinion was, that the Honourable Gentleman having turned hii 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 Hon. Gentleman would be by Members of all parties in the House, than that the inquiry should be conducted by the Government. He could leave the advice and assistance of Hon. 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 saw in the report the remark made by the committee, that after ho had given evidence in reference to the sums alluded to, it was stated that ho could not, answer, lest his reply might implicate indivi• dual Mein'acrs in that ll( t use. When he told the 'louse that he m a d e no nal:lrk in that committed affecting any Member i n that house,he thought the House %oa k] join with him that there was no reason for such a remark as that being made, inasmuch as he did not by implication or otherwise allude to any Member of the House of Commons. So soon as the report appeared, the directors took the only course they could to inform tho 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, cg.lled the Size-lane Committee, termed 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 Home, directly or indirectly, who had had the benefit of a single shilling in reference to that 7,600/. He thanked he Honourable Member for giving him an opportunity for contradicting the rumour ; and if such a statement hhd 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 Hun. Member, which he in some measure believed, he thought it would be sa'isfactory if an inquiry took place into the matter— (Hear, hear)—and, bclirviug the House to he of the same opinion, he begged to give notice that on Thursday next he should move for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The matter then dropped. VIE 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 Hon. Members. PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the second reading of the Bill. Sir R. H. INGLIS rote to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. He complained that the real nature of the Bill could not be satisfactorily traced from its title. None save those who had had 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 bad favoured the House with some statement as to the exact purpose of the Bill—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 mean ing ; but though they had had opportunities every year of discussing the object it had in view, for the last 30 years, yet they had never discussed it under circumstances so likely to affect its success, and 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 fur the recent election in the city of London. - Though the avowed object of the Bill bad been re jected by the House of Lords, it had been re introduced into this House under a new name. Now this Bill was brought forward for the second time, and it prop sed in a wholesale 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 heard a single argument to show for what good purpose the alteration could he made. The oath to be substituted for those already in existence ought to contain all the provisions of the present oaths. The oath of allegiance remained unaltered for s:x 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 were retained in one they ought to be retained in the other; bet 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 b© no jest ground or reason to change the Protestant oaths which a Menv -, er of either House of Parliament took on entering his seat.—(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 Sovereign. It was as a Protestant, and as Protestants only, that the illustrious family of her Majbsty 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 13:11 was calculated to take away from the Legislature the essen tial portion of its Christian character.—(llear, hear.) He was aware that the alteration bad been made within the last twenty years, but as he had stated on a former occasion, until that alteration was made there was always some Christian rite. The oath was t a k en e ith er u p on t h e gospels, upon the crown, or upon some religious relic. Such an argument might be by some considered irreve lant, but irrevelancy by no means diminished its force. Ho 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 thcso 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 done/ —(Hear, hear.) Why it had at least done this good, that it had served as a bulwark in the attacks on our common Christianity.—(Hear, 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 ho had failed to see any sufficient cause, or any just reason, fur hazarding such a great experiment as the admission of Jews into Parliament. He supported the doctrine that those. in the possession of the administrative should show at least au acknowledgment of the Christian faith in their measures. Upon that doctrine they bad hitherto acted, and under it they had flourished, and he would not now participate in that which ho 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 religions 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. Peel,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 under consideration, and which had already occupied so much the attention of the Rouse; and he felt at the outset that he should not duly show his respect to the House, which had so much considered that subject, if he did not confidently rely upon the indul gence which they were always disposed to extend to these 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 Right 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 the 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, attached 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 communi cants of a particular sect, but because they fulfilled all the obligations which devolved upon the citizens ofa 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 he 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, but 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 H., on which much stress had been laid, did not prevent Protestant Dissenters from sitting in that House; yet these cases appeared in no wise different from the case of the admission of the Jew. The law to which he would now call attention affected 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 Christiar." In the reign of James the F rat 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 11., when a more stringent measure was passed requiring Members of both Houses of Parliament to take the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy, and to sign a declaration against tran ' iubstantiatien. These oaths did not at all contain the words "upon the true faith of a Christian, " and there fore, as far 43 the legislative disabilities of that period went, the Jew was not disabled from taking his seat in Parliament.—(Hear, beer.) 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 the words " on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the oath. The design of the oath, however, was not to ex c'ude 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 cluded. But it might be argued upon political grounds that it wes important that before any man was admitted to Parliament that his con science should be fit • bound before ho enterEd upon his legislative lunotl;nv. Well, the Jew did not obi-ct to that, ties d::1 he object to take the oath,providtA they peril:it t:tql him to take it, .n a different - shape.—(Hear, hear.) That they could bind the con science of a Jew was generally admitted, and as the words "upon the true taith of a Christian' were purely of a ceremonial character, intended no doabt to give greater significance and solemnity to the taking of the oaths, he could see no reason, either in a religious eat political point of view, why the phraseology should not ha changed b 0 as to enable the Jew to subscribe to it. These expressions showed how strongly the country was divided upon the subject ; but when the terms were considered attentively, it would appsar that there was - contained •in them no degree of danger.— (Hear, hear.) It was by some others supposed that, as it the olden time, the State was in subservience to Oa Church, it was not to be denied that there were per sons who desired that the Chareh should be in subser vience to the State. But there were factS which could not be denied, acid among them was this, 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, ant, again they had altered the terms of the oath in 1828, and why should they depart from this rule ce 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 law, might introduce into the composition of Parliament would unfit it for the discharge of that branch of its functions which concerned the interests of the Church. He thought it would be admitted that there was a community in Parliament, constituted as it now was, which dealt with the affairs of the Church. At the same time it ehoald he borne iu mind that Parliament dealt only with the temporal affairs of the Church. A short answer to an objection of that kind aapeared to him to be that the con gruity which already existed was introduce(' when the Members of that House ceased to be exclusively composed of conformists to the Church. He should pass on to another argument He referred to the value which was set on th , umninal profession of Christianity on the part of the Members of the Legislature. That outward union was represented as part of the law and practice of Parliament and the Constitution; bee when was it, he would ask, that that had been a guarantee of the Christianity of the nation? The Hon. Member concluded by saying ho would give bis 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 Melee and the country were much indebted to the Government for the calm and die pa-sionate manner in which it was brought forward. It had been, for the most part, considered simply as e question excludin the Jews. He thought it eas a 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 net a mea sure, he amtende.l, consistent with the policy of this country. They excluded the Arian merchant and the Arian gentleman from Parliament, who were as anxious to uphold the principles of the British constitution and the honour of England as any other class of her Ma jesty's subjects ; and on what ground, having excluded the Arian, would they admit the Jew? Beside, the Jews 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 Wer.hip or ceremonies. Their marriages had all the social tights which every other class possessed, and certainly it was the first time in history that a nation living ithin 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. He believed that such scenes would have the effect of rendering persons of that persuasion a bye word in this country, -by the common p eople 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 House, he (Mr. Turner) contended that Christianity was at all times a qualification for a seat in that House. The day might come when it would suit the pleasure 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.) He further objected to the language of the Bill. If you expunged the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," and left the words "so help me God," you would put out cf view the God of the Christians, and an individual might substitute in his mind any other (laity. That, he thought, would he prejisoicial in many points of view, add therefore he could not give his vote in support of this measure. Mr. J. f. 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 give his fervent support to the second reeding of this Bill. Mr. TRELAWNY said that the Jaws 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 affurding substantial aid to the preservation of good order ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Honourable Member who spoke last said truly that the Jews wa re not a proselytizing sect. It was the last thing the Jews sought or desired. 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 if that were the only objection, the words of the affirma tion or oath might be altered to guard against that con tingency. _ _ . lIOPE said that this Oaths Alteration Bill was brought in to covet. a very different thing. It was, in reality, a Jewish Emancipation Bill. He thought that most objectionable in a Christian country and .Legisla- Lure. He must, therefore, oppose the second reading of the Bill. Mr. ROBARTES raid that this preposition was nc thing more than to do an act of social justice to a class of fellow citizens, and ha did not think that there was anything in Christianity opposed to that, and therefore he should give hie support to the Bill. Mr. NEW DEGATE said that a seat in that Mouse was given by the public for the public good, and kr 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 present oath he regarded as a temptation to the Roman Cathol cs to take the cath which they were now obliged to prescribe. The present was not a period to remove the safeguard provided for 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 ecelesiaitical as well as civil head of the country. The necessity for such a clause was admittf d, and the House of Com mons adopted it by a mejority of 77 to 4. He 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 Majesty. An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, bat forty Members having been found present, Mr. NE WDEGATE resumed—Considering what was passing iu 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 was no longer a Christian assembly. The Jews were aliens by birth, blood, and religion, and as such, not entitled to art, he contended, in the British House of Commons. The Earl of ARUNDEL briefly replied to the re marks of the Hon. Member fur 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. SL - 00NER felt constrained to give the 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 jectionsable or th 3 less idolatrous. The representatives of a Christian nation should be guided by Christian principles, lipid they ought to ma i nta i n t h at constitu tion which they had received from 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 constitution of this 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. Gentlemen.—(Dear.) It was a fact that Parlia ment existed for ages without any oath being adminis tered to its Members, 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 judice of the Jew? Instead of exciting hostility to wards the Jew, we ought rather to sympathise with him, for, surrounckel 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 faith in common stith the Jew—he only not reaching that diviner simplicity which was the great attribute of tho 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 wanted to give an example of universal brotherhood, be elected the corZuct of the Samaritan as a lessen to the JuwL.h ptiet,ts. He therefore thet4Crt they should not exclude any man from civil rights to account ()Lids religion.—(Hear, hear.) Ociths were not intended as a profession of faith in that HOtt.e. They were intended to expreas the 411egiance of Honourable Members to the Queen; and "on the faith of a Chris.. ian " expressed that feeling.""The Jew might express his allegiance in any 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 he 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 from 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 carsed.—(hear, hear.):They htd been admitted into the corporation, and he was not aware that the cor porations had become less Christian tha❑ 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. In" :toad of denouncing the Jews, they ought to do as the Author of our holy religion did—forgive them. To do 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, am} as an example worthy of imitation.—(Hear.) Lord MALIGN said that this question had a wider range than that give❑ 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 of martyrs who were endeavouring to propagate the Gospel, when they learned that the profession of Christianity was thought >o light of that Jews were admitted into Parliament. It was urged that the discharge of duties entitled a ci tizen to all the privileges of the constitution, provided he fulfilled his duty to the State; but to this there were several exceptions? A clergyman was not eligible to sit in the House of Commons; a bankrupt, who might not have failed in his duties to the State, could not sit in Parliament. The resistance to this Bill, Sounded on a eeverence to their own religion, ought not to be regarded =favourably; and of this he was convinced, that those ho would vote against the Bill would not be influenced by religious rancour. The Marquis of GRANBY said this Bill was a means to an end, and that end was the introduction of Jews to Parliament. Ile opposed that measure on, religious ;rounds, for he could not think that Jews were fit to legislate for Christians. In opposing this 13 , 11 he dis c!aimed any desire to persecute the Jews or to detract (rem 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 vitae 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 savour of the Bill that the Jews were few in number, out it was not whether they were numerous or few that .he measure should be judged, but upon the principle that their 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 fewnsss of their number. While they acted with all charity towards the Jews, they should take care not to bleak d.)wn those barriers which were the defeece of their religion, and the means of its diffusion through out the world, and in which he hoped the Jews would be included. Mr. FAGAN said, as a Roman Catholic, he should support the second reading of the Bill, upon the prin ciple of d9ing to others as he would be done by. Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to the second reading or the Bill, but be did not do so from any hostile or perse cuting sprit to the Jews. Ile looked back to their past history with a respect amounting to veneration. But when Members of that House were cslled on to intre loce into a Christian :assembly those who denied their Lord and Saviour, he must be permitted to decline being a particip :dor in such an act. He thought, therefore, that the Hon. Member for Reading was wrong when Le asserted that the Jews wore not at variarce with the Christians, and believing the measure was ono of great impolicy, and uncalled for, he should oppose its secina reading. _ _ Mr. - SIONCKTON MILNES would earnestly recora. mend to the Ilon. Member for Kent, who had last ~ pol.ssn, that although persons might individually motto the admission of Jews into that House, yet they had no right to assume that others should have a similar wish to promote their return. Bat the question, after all. was—whether one of the highest and most influential individusls 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 form, from taking his seat in that House. And ho was surprised that, in the deliberations of the t .vt ning, a more frequent allusion had not "been made to that fact, so important in the consideration of the question under discussion , They 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 em pires asel only a section, should be exc uded from the benefits of the British constitution. He thought they should agree with him that, timid all the disorders and distur° bances which had taken pace 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 portiou of the inhabitants of that empire, or of the subjects of their Most Gracious Sovereign, would have 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 , :sod without any exception whatever, identified them selves with the interests of that nation, and in no one instacce had opposition come from them, but from those who governed. It' any Hon. Member would take the trouble of reading the emigration and colonization of that wonderful nation they would find that to be strictly tree. Ile should give the measure every support in his pow,' F. Mr. BANKES observed that by far the bast 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 riot excluded front Parliament until modern days, he (Mr. &mites) bad only to sly 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, s e eing th e y h a d no t a qua lifi cat i on , 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 , eith all their hostility to the Established Church. lie thought that the present form was a check to honourable Roman Catholics, As for persons not honourable, n° oath would bind them. The state and condition o f 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 ilewe, 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 . tots had a right to choose them, vvhether they- would serve or not. This esti a Christian Perlis' 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 bo called upon to discharge these duties towards an Establishment whieh,ito say the least of it, he re gardcd as an error. 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 wag not, and, therefore, should vote against the measure. Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the House now called for a division—(llear, hear)—he was anxious to sire acme answer to the objections urged against this Ines: sure. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down bad fallen into the error of affirming that the oath had not bten 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. Ile dal not see shut this Bill took away any security for tl a Protests nt stic;• cession of the Crowe, as the Lion. Member for Oxford seemed to think. 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 bo endangered. Only imagine three or ft ur Jews in that House. What would be their power to overthrow Christianity?•—(Hes,r, hear.) Again, it eras . aid that they would use reviling language to Christie ' ity, but happily that House was not a theologies' as' embly, and vas it too great a stre•ch of charity to sup rose that they would nut?—(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 bad been admirable meted by the fact, that the chang es i n our mumciPai corporations, and other civil offices, had not had that effect. lie 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. Jeers 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 considtritg that they were faithful adherents to the constitution nnder which we live, and that they were loyal and peaceable stibjects , 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 coasts' tution.—(Cheers.) Mr. GOULBURN said that so long as the HonSe, was called upo n d a il y to deal with matters deeply an d even vitally bearing upon the Christian faith, he could not help pointing out the inconsistency of entrusting those important duties to persons incompetent fron j their religious feelings to the efficient discharge of those duties. Mr. ROEBUCK said the observations of the Righ Honourable Gentleman who bad just addressed th e House would, he pr esume d , b e a lesson to the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, for they had learned from him that if the Bill brought under the considera tion of the Legislature proposed to admit persons of oi l religious denominations to seats in the Legislature, tiler ° vull be no objection to the measure. The aegurnenn used, however, by th e Ri g ht H onoura bl e G ent l ema n di' not militate against the Bill, and he could show that a ll Honourable Gentleman, wh e n int ro d uc i ng a Bill of Ib is nature, wai often obliged to be inconsiste n t with hinn!li• Take the Bill as it stood, and he was prepared to mall" tain thr.t it went the ki.gth of admitting all men to scats in the Senate, without regard to their religious bel ief. (Hear, hear.) The fifth clause of the Bill was gene r al in its -construction; it permitted every person to Ma t : uffl. nation prosuiLed. The words of clause were general, and therefore of ne cessity admitted ever) body. What was it the Leg i s lature de,ired to do when it administered the• oath which th e . _ Bill prescribed? In thefirst_ instance, to enforce the