The Sun. — London, England, 1850-07-30 00:00:00

FRAN CE. The Moniteur publishes a decree of the President of the Republic, imposing a quarantine of observation of three days at least, and five at most, on all vessels arriving in the French ports of the Mediterranean from countries where the cholera prevails. A second decree confers the powers enjoyed by the Board of Health at Marseilles on Dr. Metier, ap pointed Special Commissioner under the immediate authority of the Prefect of the Bouches du Rhone. The same official journal contains a letter from the Minister cf Finance to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, informing him that the yachts belonging to various English clubs shall be admitted into all the French ports without the payment of any navigation dues on showing a certificate from the secretary of the club to which the yacht belongs. The Committee of the initiative of the Legislative Assembly have rejected the proposition of M. Lever rier to remove from the town where the Assembly may sit all persons not domiciled in the department, or who cannot prove they possess sufficient means of existence. Letters from Constantine of the 20th instant an nounce the discovery of a gold-mine in the moun tains between Philippeville and Jemmappes. PARIS BOURSE, JULY 27.—Five per Cents., 96f. 40c. ; Three per Cents., 58f. - 4 Rank of France, 2,355 f. CHARGE AGAINST A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST. A most serious charge was preferred against the Rev. Mr. Parsons, the leading Romish priest in Shef field, on Monday last, at the Wakefield Court house, when a girl, who had lived with him as a domestic servant, accused him of being the father of an illegitimate child, to which she had recently given birth. Mr. Girdlestone, of Pontefract, appeared for the girl, and Mr. Hardy, a barrister, who had been specially brought from York assizes for the purpose, defended Mr. Parsons. The evidence in support of the charge was, that the girl had on one occasion been called into Mr. Parsons's bed-room, and there be effected her ruin. A continual system of improper intimacy afterwards took place between them. The reverend delinquent quieted the girl's scruples, as she swore, by receiving her at confessional, and granting absolution. At length the consequences of guilt made themselves apparent in the person of the girl, who finding her self enceinte, prepared to leave the service of Mr. Parsons, under a promise from him, as she told her fellow-servant, " that he would never see her want." She was removed to Wakefield, where she was con fined at a house in New-street, but her father had in the meantime called her seducer to account, and Mr. Par sons had paid him 301. as a quietus. From the inter ference of the parish authorities, or from some other reason not explained, the girl applied for an order of affiliation, and her evidence, that of her father, and others having been given, to substantially the above effect, Mr. Hardy, for the defence, endeavoured to explain away the payment of the 301., by stating that differences had existed amongst the Roman Catholics in Sheffield, who were ready to believe any evil of one another, and that the girl's father having threatened to expose him, Mr. Parsons had, in a moment of weakness, yielded to extortion, and paid for silencing that which he knew to be a false accu sation. Mr. Hardy stated that an examination into the charge bad been made by Mr. Parsons's bishop and the vicar-general of hie district, who had entirely exculpated Mr. Parsons from the accusation of criminality, and had continued him in his office of priest. The learned gentleman wound up his address by taunting the prosecution with not having dared to put the fellow-servant of the girl into the witness-box, although she was in court on their subpcena ; but he, declaring that he had nothing to conceal, proceeded to call her to refute the evidence of the prosecutrix. In this Mr. Hardy appeared to have committed an error, for the girl rather corroborated the other witnesses than otherwise, sad, in reply to a question from Mr. Hardy, said she had never known her master take any liberties but once, when he "examined her." On this answer being explained, itappeared that somebody had told her master that she (Ann Briscomb) was enciente ; that he had called her up into his room one evening, and required her to submit to an examination of her person by himself, which he had done in a manner which she described to the Bench, but which is not fit for publication. It may, however, be explained as such an examination as a matron only would have made under very strong suspicions of crimi nality. This evidence virtually ended the case, and although other witnesses were examined who spoke of another man being on terms of improper intimacy with the girl who had borne the child, yet immedi ately on the evidence being closed, and Mr. Girdle stone having made a short address in reply, the magistrates withdrew, and on returning into court in the course of a few minutes, Mr. Holdsworth said " the magistrates are unanimous in making an order of 23. per week."—Leeds Mercury. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. The following is the official statement of the quantities of corn, &c., received in the port of London from the ports in Essex, from the 22c1 July, 1860, to the 2.7 th Jaly, IriU, both inclusive : • as -a 7; 4.; I oi ! at g T) , _ 2. ,:-. i ;.4 Colchester Harwich . .. Leigh Maldon 83' 28 485{ - - 414 j - - 432' 71 946 - 1 - 45 340 - 370 251 670 CHELXSFOILD. JULY 25.—Prices to-day were as follow: — Wheat, white, old 45s to 493; new 46. to 50s; red, old 373 to 431; new, 38. to 44s ; barley, 23s to 25s ; chevalier 24. to 26s ; grinding 21s to 23. ; oats 15s to 20s ; malt 53s to 555; chevalier 643 to 563; peas, partridge, new 27. to 235; old, —s to ; white, new, 22. to 26s ; old, —s to ; dnn, new, 26s to 29s ; beans, tick, new 23s to 261; old, 241 to 273; harrow ticks, new 21. to 275; old 2 - is to 293; ma zagan, new 22. to 24s ; old 23s to 25s per qr. COLCHESTZR., JULY 27.—Wheat, white 46. to 50s ; red 423 to 46s ; barley 223 to 24s ; beans, mazagan 24s to 235; middle and small 26s to 25. ; peas 24s to 28. per qr. KiItiCALDY, JULY 27.—The following are the quotations up to this date : Wheat. Barley. First 423 Od 22. 6d Second 40. Od 203 6e. Oats. 21s 61 20s 6d 183 Od imperial, ! e followinj Beans. —s Od —s Od —s Od 27s Od to ig are the Peas. —s Od —s Od I —st Od Os Od. Third 353 Od 1183 Od Oatmeal, Der bait of 2801bs liAnotrurrox, JULY 26.—Th prices of grain at our market to-day : Wheat. ... 44s Od ... 413 4d 3.53 0(1 First Second Third Barley. 24s Oct 234 21 20s Od Oats. 223 9d 218 7d 193 Od (Beans. 33s Od 30s 3d 28s Od ---- --- __ . Total quantity of. Wheat in . market . 383 qrs., 376 sold Do. Barley do. 80 qrs., 79 sold Do. Oats do. 219 qrs., 107 sold Do. Beans do. 24 qrs., 20 sold GLASGOW, Jut 24.—Provisions—Cheese, 40, to 473 Od per cwt ' • retail, 5d to 6d per lb. Skim milk, 20s Od to Os per cwt. Country fresh butter, 9id to Od per lb. Irish pow dered, in lumps, 7id to 8d; country powdered, wholesale, 8d to Od. Country eggs, 8d per dozen ; carried hen ditto, 5s 4d per 120, or 7d per dozen. Hens, 2s 6d per pair ; Ducks, 2s 6d. PERTH, JULY 26.—Wheat, 49s Od to 44s Od ; barley, 19s Od to 21s Od ; oats, 18s to 21s ; peas and beans, 23s Od to 26. per quarter. Oatmeal, per sack, 22s to 21s. KxLso, JULY 26.—Wheat, old, Os to Os ; ditto, new, 29s Cd to 34s Od ; barley, new, 15s Od to 17s Od ; ditto old, Os to Os ; potato oats, 00s to 00s ; ditto new, 14s Od to l6s Od ; common oats 03s to 00s Od; ditto new, 149 to 15s Od; peas, Os Od to Os Od ; beans, Os to 03 per boll of six imperial bushels. STIRLING, JULY 26.—Wheat, foreign, 201 to 235; ditto, home, Os. to Os; ditto ditto new, 19. Od to 21s Od; barley, per boll of 6 bushels, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new, 16. Od to 1930 d. Oats, common, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new, 14s Od to 17s Od; ditto, Flemish, Os Od to 03 Od; ditto ditto new, Os Od; malt, distillers, 32s Od to 34s ; ditto brewers, 31s Od to 35s ; beans per boll, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new, 123 Od to 15s Od; pease 131 Od to Os Od; flour, new per sack, 31s Od to 33s Od; ditto common ditto, 18s 6d to 20. Od; oatmeal, per load, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new 27s Od to 28s 6d ; ditto per peck of 71bs, 8d to 9d ; fresh butter per lb,. 7d to 9d; eggs per dozen, 7d to 941 ; hay per ton, Os Od to Os ; ditto new, 60s. FALKIRK, JULY 25. —The supply of grain in this day's market was 153 bolls; wheat at 18s Cd to 21s d per b.ll. ; barley, 00s Od to Os Od.; oats, 15s 3d to Os Od • beans, 14s 6d to Os Od per boll ; oatmeal, Os to Os per load. Buswicw, JULY 25.—Wheat, 393 54d; barley, Os Od; o ats, coos Od ; ry e, . oas Od ; beans, 2ls 4d ; p eas , 00 s Od average per imperial quarter. HA WICK, JULY 25.—Wheat, new, 228 to 33s Od; barley, new, 15s to Ous Od ; ditto old, 15s to 17s 6d ; potato oats, 14s Od to 161 Od ; common oats, 13s to 15s Od ; peas, 18s Od to 223 Od ; beans, 18s Od to 22s Od per boll of six imperial bushels. COAL MARKET.—YESTIRDAY. Huddle's W. Hartley.. 1-Is 3d; Haswell-- ........ l6B 3d Begbies Hartley....... 13s 9d; Keepier Grange Chester Main l3s 0,1, Lsmbton Davison'sWest Hartley 148 3d ,Lumley l4s 04 Hasting'sHartley l4s 3d'llichmund.. ..... .... 14s 9d Holvwell Ord's Main Bavensworth'sW.Hart 13s 9d , Stewart's ..............• 16s 3d Tanfield Moor Tanfield Moor Bates... 12s Od Caradoc ..... .. ..- l4B 9d xt" est Hartley Wil4m ...... ......... .. 13s 3d' Heugh Hall Wall's End, &c. 'Hartlepool l6s Od Acorn Close Ilewicke and Co. Benshain . l3s Sd South Kelloe ... 14s 6d Elm Park Barton Hedley ..... .......... . 148 Od' Adelaide Tees Hilda l3s 6d' Maclean's Tees l3s 6d Morrison l4s Od Seymour,Tees Northumberland Original Gibson .... 13s 6d, Tees Riddell ..... .... ..... ... 134 9J 1 West Pease Walker . 133 lid DerwentwaterHartley 143 Od Eden Main.......• 144 gd,Gwaun Can Stone .. 21s Od Lamhton Primroee Bell Belmont ... 143 9J Llangcnnech 203 Cd Braddyll Hatton LONDON FEVER HOSPlTAL.—Yesterday morning a sermon in aid of the London Fever Hospital was delivered at the church of St. Peter's, Vere-street, by the Venerable Master of the Temple, Archdeacon Robinson, D.D. At the conclusion of Divine service a collection was made, amount ing to 44/. Cs. LONDON, TUESDAY EVRNING, JULY Ao, 1850. 1 4 11-1 E SUN. IMPERIAL PARLIAIVIENT , HOUSE OF LORDS, July 29. Their Lordships met shortly before Fore o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the undermentioned Bills: — Court of Session (Scotland). Lareny Summary Jurisdiction. Upton-cum-Chalvey Marriages Validity. Naval Prize Balance. Convict PrisonF. Population (Ireland). Linen and Manufactures (Ireland). Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation (so. 2). Loan Socities. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Militia Ballots Suspension. Court of Chancery (County Palatine of Lancaster). Manchester Rectory Division. Court of Exchequer (Ireland). Militia Pay. Stock in Trade. Shipwrecked Fiihermen and Mariners Benevolent So- ciety. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Carlisle Rsilway. Wolverhampton Waterworks Act (Amendment and Extension of Works). British Electric Telegraph Company. Liverpool Corporation Waterworks (Extension of Time, &c:). Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway. Borough of Salford Waterworks and Improvement. Bradford Improvement (Police and Purchase and Closing of Bradford Canal). Newcastle. upon-Tyne Improvement (Amendment of Acts and New Streets). Commercial Gas Company and Poplar Gas Light Com- an Aberdeen Railway. Cromford and Newhaven Turnpike Road. Rochdale, through Bamford and Birtle to Bury, and other Turnpike Roads. Surrey and Sussex Roads. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. Godstone and Highgate Turnpike Road. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland. Timber Preserving Company. Earl of Shrewsbury's and Grace's Trustees Estate. St. Thomas's Hospital Estate. The Lords Commissioners were the Loan CHANCELLOR, the Earl of CARLISLE, and the Earl of Mirro. Their Lordships then ad j ourned during pleasure. Their Lordships resumed shortly after Five o'clock. The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented several petitions from various congregations in Scotland against the Marriages Bill. Earl TALBOT gave notice that on Friday he should call the attention of their Lordships to the subject of emigration to Australia. TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. CANTERBURY SETTLEMENT LANDS BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL. Lord EDDISBURY moved the second reading of this Bill. Lord MONTEAGLE objected to these partial and temporary repeals of the usury laws, and thought the subject should be legislated for permanently. Lord BROUGHAM entirely agreed with his Noble Friend who had last spoken. He thought some perma nent change in the law was absolutely necessary. He believed that the practical effect of the usury laws was to raise the rate of interest to the landowner who wanted to raise money on mortgage. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE agreed that this Bill was a Bill in favour of the landed proprietors.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord Brougham.) No inconvenience had resulted from the - suspension of the usury laws. As this Bill had come up from the other House in its present state, he would not interfere with it; but he be lieved it was regarded by all persons as absurd to attempt to revert to the old usury laws. The Bill was then read a second time. PROVISION FOR THE PRINCE OF WALES.— MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then brought down a Message from her Majesty, recommending that Marl borough-house should be settled on the Prince of Wales after ho shall have attained eighteen years of age. He gave notice that he should to-morrow call the attention of the House to this subject. OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE. The NOBLE MARQUIS also gave notice that he should to-morrow call the attention of their Lordships to the salaries of the officers of the House, with a view to their revision. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. The — Marquis of CANSIJOWNE moved that the or der of the day for the consideration of the Commons' amendment to this Bill be discharged.—Agreed to. EMIGRANT SHIPS. The Earl of MOUNTCASIiELL drew the attention of the House to the fact, that a man named W. Pleyer, who was a passenger on board an emigrant-ship from Liverpool, on board of which were 490 passengers, had had his arm, which was broken by accident, amputated by an unprofessional person with a carving -knife, and in consequence of which he died, and asked if it was in tended to make a bye-law incumbent on all emigrant ships to carry a surgeon? Earl GREY said that emigrant ships going to North America were not required to carry surgeons. The Hemisphere, en board which the accident happened, was not required to carry a surgeon, but on board the ship there chanced to be a German surgeon, who operated with a carving knife and afterwards dressed the wound; the man was afterwards landed and removed to the Liverpool Hospital where he died, but the accident which had occurred to him was of such a severe character that no surgical aid, it was understood, could have sand his - The E.rl of MOUN 1 1 CASHELL thought that all emigrant ships should be compelled To carry surgk ous. Earl GREY said this was an accident that happened not to an emigrant. but to a sailor, and it might have happened to any sailor of any vessel navigating the Mersey. He would have no objection to produce the report of the Emigration Commissioners on the subject. The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL moved for the re port. Aftcr a few words from the Marquis of BREA DALBANE, the mi,tion was agreed to. LEASEHOLD TENURE Or' LAND (IRELAND) desiring to be sworn on the Oid Testament, the question was whether be could be admitted to be sworn in that ferns, it being perfectly clear that one of those oaths, namely, the oath of abjuration, containing the words "on the true faith of a Christian," could not be taken in the Jewish form. This would be an important consideration which the House would please to bear in mind in arriving at a conclusion as to whether Baron Rothschild, having de sired to be sworn upon the Old Testament, had not con cluded the question against himself, and prevented the House from ever altering any more the form of the oaths; that having been called to the table he had de• dined to take the oaths in a manner which showed that he entirely dissented from the oath of abjuration. He hoped to be able to prove to the House that this was not a question depending upon the law and usage of Parliament, but upon the law of the land. He should be able to show the House that according to statute it was impossible for any Member to be sworn at that table upon the Old Testament. In order to clear the way for discussion, he would concede to those who were desirous to have Baron Rothschild sworn in the form which he himself had proposed, that from the va ry earliest period in our courts of justice Jews had been sworn both as witnesses mad jurors. Before the banishment of the Jews, in the reign of Edward 1., there had been many transactions between Jews and Christians, and these had led to litigations be tween them, and it was therefore absolutely necessary that Jews should be sworn, unless the courts bad been prepared entirely to refuse justice to persons of that persuasion. Accordingly. it was the custom to have juries composed half of Christians, who were called sex probos et legales homines, and the other half of Jews, called sex legales Jamas. So far it was true that Jews had been admitted to be sworn according to the form of their religion, and to the form 'which they considered as most binding on their consciences. There were many instances of this in the reins of John and Henry 111., but it was observ able, with regard to the oath, that there was no Act of Parliament peescribing the form of oath, but from the earliest periOd it had been the custom of the judges to vary the Wm in order to meet the dif ferences of consciences, until ae last it was decided by • the Chancellor and the three chief judges, that a Geatoo could be sworn in a court of justice. But it was observable that although the judges varied the form of oath to meet the exi g encies of the occasion, ' they were not at liberty to dispense with the cub, and it was not until the 7th and Bth of Wil. lima 111. that the a ffirmation of Quakers was atlow,ed to be taken. It was a very remarkable thing, and cu e which would assist them presieltly still fu.•ther in the consideration of the point, that for 130 years up to . the, 9th of George W. affirmations were not received in criminal cases. The le;w with regard to oaths in a court of justice undoubteelly was, that, ex necessitate, for the purpose of preventheg justice from being defeated, they had permitted persons to be sworn in courts of justice acourdin" to tee term of heir religion, or according to the form most binding on thole consciences. This was the case only with regard to assere.ory or juridical oaths, but did not apply to promissory cabs ; asd his proposi tion was, that the principle whisk was sought to the be applied to all oaths in g eneral , upon radical oaths. authorities, to be applied sole l y to it; Such being the state of the case, he would Lowconsider what the oaths were that were to be taken. Th co ey wee not oaths of a juridical char acter, but weee what was called promissory oaths , and the question was whether such being the case, and it being prescribed that they were to be taken in a particular form, that form applied to the present case. The oaths of allegi ance, supremacy, and abjuration were all required to be taken by Act of Parliament in the Christian form, and the form proposed to be adopted on the pre sent occasion, which he would call the Jewish form, was excluded by the terms of the different Acts of Parliament. They had had the benefit of a report on the subject, which would very much facilitate the discussion and determination of Members. It was true, as had been stated, that the first Act re quiring Members of Parliament to take oaths was the sth of Elizabeth, and by that Act the oath of supremacy was considered as a corporeal oath to be taken on the Holy Evangelists. By the 3d.of James I. Members were required to take tne oath of allegiance, and that oath, as the Act prescribed at the end of it, was to be taken on the true faith of a Christian. Under the 30th of Charles IL Members were required to take three oaths, but the manner of taking them was not altered from that prescribed in the Alta of Elizabeth and James I. So matters remained tilt I st William and Mary, when an Act was passed repealing the 30th of Charles, but requiring that the oaths substituted should be taken in the same form as was prescribed by the Acts of Elizabeth, James 1., and Charles 11. Was it therefore not clear that the oaths were to. be taken upon the Evangelists. His friend, the lion. and Learned Member for the city of Oxford, was not quite conversant with how Matters stood between the Ist and 13th of William IIL, when he stated that during that time a Jew might sit in Parliament. The oath of abjuration, almost in its present form, was introduced by the 13th and 14th of William 111., and it contained the words " on the true faith of a Caristian." Now, all Members of Parliament were required to take that oath ; they were required to take it, together with the oaths of allegiance and supr emac y , and his Learned Friend was under a mistake in supposing that there was any doubt whatever that after the let of William and M. try, c. 1, there was any necessity for Members of the flials.e of Commons to be sworn before the Lord Steward, because his Learned Friend said that the sth of Elizabeth and the 7th of James the First were nut re. I 'riled by the let of William a nd Mar y , c. 8, but his Learned Friend would see, if he turned his attention to the 30th of Cbarle. IL, that the oath was required to be taken at thu teble of the House. It seemed to him (Sir F. Thesiger) throughout quite clear that there was no necessity fur Meeatiers to take any other oaths than those provided by the Ist of William and Mary. He was not aware that this point was one of very great importance, bat it was necessary they should be correct as co west was the nature and effect of certain Acts of Parliament. Now the 13th and 14th of William 111. introduced the oath of abjuration with the important words " on the true faith of a Christian," and from the passing of that statute up to the Ist George 1., to which their attention would be particularly directed, there was no substantial alteration in the form of the oaths of abjuration, at ail events, in regard to this question; and the oaths which were required to be taken continued to be these oaths of abjuration and supremacy which were taken as provided in the Holy Evangelist, and the oath of abjuration on the true faith of Christians, which of course could only be taken in a Christian form.—(Hear.) He now came to the 3d of Geo. 1., which contained the three oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, pretty much in the same form in whisks they were now taken, except with regard to the alteration provided for in that ~Ict regarding the oath of abjuration. And the question which they were now called upon to decide was whether, in a hiteorical review ef the different statutes on the subject, the Ist of George I. repealed those Acts which required the oaths to be taken on the Holy Evangelists. Now, could it for a moment be considered that the object of the Legislature was to allow a person to come to the table of the House, and take these oaths, not in the Christian form, but in the JeWish form or any other form which his notions of religion or anything binding on his conscience may induce him to take?—(Hear.) Nuw, he would say that the Ist of George IV., following the other Acts which bad been alluded to, manifested, as strong as language could, that it was the intention of the Legislature that the only binding form in which these oaths . could be taken and ad miustered was the Christian form, in which form it had been taken from the earliest time, and which had not been interfered with by the Ist of George 111. Now, suppose there was any doubt as to the legitimate construction of the Aot of Parliament, they had only to follow the unquestionable rule of lawyers and decide the doubt or ambiguity by contempos expositio. Now, what was the contemporaneous exposition of this Act of Parliament? Why, they learned from the highest authority in that House, that from the time of George I. down to the pre sent time, this was the first occasion upon which any person had presented himself at the table of the House desiring to be sworn by any other mode than upon the New Testament. Any other form but the Christian form then would not be binding. This was not a question depending upon the law and usages of Parliament. It was a question of law, expressly fixed and established by Acts which he had adverted to, and he would venture to say that no authority in this country could change that law except with, the authority of the Legisla ture.—(Hear, bear.) Now he apprehended his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford would not dispute that; for in the very case to which the Honourable and Learned Gentle man had referred as his leading authority on this subject, Lord Chief Justice Wells, in his admirable judgment, agreed with Lord Cuke, that promissory oaths could only be altered through the interference of the Legislature.—(Hear, hear.) But he did not mean to omit from his consideration of this question an argu ment upon which great stress had been laid, arising out of an Act of Parliament which was mentioned i the report of the Committee. Very great stress n had been fairly and properly laid upon taut Act ut Pasha- went, but he trusted ha should be able to show the House that it had not the effect upon this question which was insisted on by the advocates of the other side. What were the circumstances which gave rise to the introduction of that Act ? Why, simply these, A case occurred in Ireland where Dr. Cook, the President of the Provincial Synod of Ulster bad had his house broken inte and roubed, and the Doctor happi ned to be the principal witness in the trial of the o d r o u u i h n accused of the robbery Before Mr. Justice L frby. When t er a Y bo w u a t y. the he came to be sworn he pr. postal to be sworn by hold tug up his heed, and not by kissing the book in the 'mftetteLr,eabruttiendevJeurdthgeeleessntheretastwd ed theseme dsctor to be sworn in that way, and reservethe point for • nt for the opinion of the twelve Judges. Ultimately the twelve Judges decided that the oath was not binding nor legal. Now it this Eng land, ther e would case bad arisen in Eng that the oath w have been no doubt at all in a case was perfectly good, because it was decided as long ago 1657, where the Vice-Chancellor appealed before Chief Justice Glynn as a witness. He h objected to kiss the book, but staled would be , sworn by having the book open hel l o right hand. Chief Justicere G o i im u , n a h n e d d ho i l l ding up his good oath, and ever since Glynn ' had tat been be a question teat that oath was good which was binding upon the conscience of the .party who took it. Now, tinier those circumstances, Lord Denman thought ii right to introduce a statute for the purpose of enabling persons to swear according to the forms which was binding upon their consciences, but the sta tute introduced was what wassailed a declaratory Act, which was an Act in furtherance of the law as it already existed. The Acc, which wai in troduced on tnat occabion, the Ist and 2d enacted that in all cases in which oaths nay he lawfally taken, or shall have been admioistered, either by a j Layman, or win, ,, ss, or a deponent in any civil or crimival proceeding. or on the appointment of any person to aey office, or on any occa sion whatsoever, such person shall be bound by the oath which shall be a hniaist, red in the torm which he says is binding on his conscience. Now, it would be observed that that was an Act in af firmance of the law as it would be declared by the Le gislature to have existed.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Members knew very well the distinction between affirmatory sta tutes, declaring the law, and repealing statutes, altering the law; and he ventured to contend that that Act of Parliament had no operation whatever upon any existing law, and that if any law previously existed by which an oath was to be taken in any particular form, there was no abrogation at all of that law, and that it had a declara tory and no repealing effect. If the argument was good for anything it must be carried out to its fullest extent. Could it be seriously contended that in the case of its being required of a Member under the Act of George the First to take the oath of abjuration—that oath con taining the words " on the true faith of a Christian"— that person might say be would take that oath in a Jewish form ? His Honourable Friend's argument must go that entire length or it was absolutely good for nothing. He (Sir F. Thesiger) contended that affirmative statutes of that kind'would have no operation on the existing law, much less a repealing operation. It would be quite unnecessary for him to argue that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were essential or substantial words in that oath of abjuration. It was quite impossible that any person could take that oath omitting those words.—(lie .r.) He took it for granted that Hon. Members were not to be so entirely deprived of all previous knowledge on this subject; they were not to have their eyes so entirely shut on this question, as to be supposed that they wanted the information that Baron Rothschild was a Jew. But he (Sir F. Thesiger) would venture to assume that he was of the Jewish persuasion. He would also venture to call the attention of Hon. Members to the evidence of Mr. Alder man Salomons. The chairman of the Select Committee asked him what objection he had to the oath of abjuration. Alderman Salomons replied that he had no objection whatever to the oath of abjuration, except to the words "on the true faith of a Christian." He considered it was quite impossible that the oath could be taken by Baron Itothachild in the form in which it was put to hie]. It was a direct presumption against this mode of striving to introduce Baron Rothschild into the Legisla ture without the consent of the Legislature, that nobody ever dreamt of that course before the present day. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government had shown his view, by the introduction of the Bitle which he had laid upon the table—that he considered that this could be done only by an Act of the Legislature. He must call upon the House to pause before it took the present step, which was one of vital importance. It was ad mitted that the occasion was novel and unpre cedented—it was perfectly clear that if they admitted Baron Rothschild to be sworn atter his own mode they would depart from precedent, and, as he considered, violate the statutes of the land. They would also be brought into collision with the courts of law and the House of Lords. He was quite sure that the Noble Lord would not think it desirable that this course should be pursued, unless they were quite certain, it being ad mitted that the Acts of Parliament pronounced nothing decided and express upon the subject. They ought to consider whether they were prepared for a contest into which they would go against the authority of law and precedent, to which he could not help looking forward with great dissatisfaction. He trusted then he had fairly submitted his view of the question to the consideration of the House. He had endeavoured to avoid dwelling upon extraneous topics. and he had rested his observations upon the Acts of Parliament, be cause it was with reference to these Acts of Parliament that this question must be decided. He contended that at the present day no person could claim to be a Mem ber of the Legislature without taking the three oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, in the form which the Legislature had provided, namely, in a Christian form and in no other form. Lord J. RUSSELL said, I am anxious to follow the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, not only because he has most ably stated the arguments upon this question, upon which he founds his opinion that Baron Rothschild ought not to be permitted to take the oaths at the table of this House upon the Old Testa meat, but also because he has treated the subject, 'and I think it can only be treated strictly as a judicial question. Before I sit down I may have to notice some representations which have been made to this House to induce it to treat the question in a different spirit; but at present I shall refer immediately to the arguments of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. He has laid it down that oaths promissory have always been taken in a Christian form, and that the House is bound not only by usage , by law, and by custom, but also by positive statute upon this. subject. The prin ciple upon which I wish to proceed is this—the electors of London have sent a gentleman to this House elected by a majority of themselves, and not only once but twice returned him, and I say it is due to them and to the whole body of the electors of this kingdom to see that nothing abort of a positive obstruction of law prevent us from allowing that gentleman to take his seat in this House. Sir, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman I think has been obliged upon this subject to' deduce rather from Acts of Parliament that which is not in their letter—that which is not ch arly prescribed by them, but to deduce inferences from former Acts of Parliament, some of which have been rei ealea, but which he thinks ouebt to bind us. I venture to ask in the spirit I have referred to whether there is in these Acts of Parliament such provisions as refuse t) allow Baron Rothchild to take the oaths in a manner which he says will be most binding on his conscience. I entirely doubt the policy of the Acts to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has reerred, and I think if we are bound to conform to the letter of tho-e Acts, that they have given us no additional light upon the subject, but have tended rather to en tangle and perplex the mind. and have not tended either to give any bett• r allegiance or better legislation. I believe rather that the wisdom of ancient l eg i s l a tion, before the unhappy differences arose between various dames of people—l rather be lieve that ancient legi-lotion was far better than , that which succeeded it. It certainly is important to see that we do not deviate from the ancient mode of legislation. Let it be admitted that there was an Act of Elizabeth which required that corpor eat oaths should be taken on the Holy Evangelists, let it be admitted also that there was an Act of James I. with the same provisions. I will admit all that, but then the Hon. and Learned Gentleman says it is quite clear, if oaths are to be taken upon the Holy Evangelists, that they must be Christian oaths, and we are bound to consider that any oaths to be taken roust be• Christian oaths. Now I stop here. I find that a gentleman that had been duly elected is proposed to take the oaths in a form unusual to' this House; there is no precedent of any gentleman having refused to take the oaths ' • he came before us asking the privilege of taking the oath in the way he considers most binding upon him, and it be hives us, in my opinion, to consider how we are to construe the Acts we are bound by. H av ing no precedent, I naturally go to the usages in courts of law, and then I come to the distinction be tween promissory and juridieal oaths. Now, I find that Lord Hardwicke says that if a Jew should be indicted for perjury, he would be as liable to be punished for the oath he had taken as if it had been 'taken on the New Testament. Women I find this to be the case, I say at once that I da not think the words contained in the Acts of Elis tbeth and James are conclusive ; but, beyond this, I find two very remarkable circumstances — the one with respect to the Act of George 1., which re gulates our proceedings, I do not find any similar direc tion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman dwells very properly upon that Act, but I submit that if that Act repeals former Acts, why, then, we are not bound by it. Even if the words the Holy Evangelists are in it, it is 'not an Act at the present moment which binds us to administer the oaths on the New Testament. It is indeed a very important consideration the; from the Ist to the 13th of William 111., there was no oath which directly excluded the Jews that might come to this table. It has been urged, and it may be rightly, - that the Jews were prevented by our statutes and the law of the land from having a right to sit in Parliament, but the question is whether there was anything at that time to pre vent them from sitting in Parliament, for at that time the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were not in the oath. I come now to consider what is the manner in which the oaths have been taken; the Honourable and Learned Gentleman says they have been always taken in a Christian form; but at the same time the Honourable and Learned Gentleman contended that this was matter of positive statute, but he failed to snake out that by posi tive statute we are bound to administer the oaths according to certain provisions. Unless you point out some statute which prevents an oath being administered on the Old Testament, I do not think that you ought to, insist on tin objection which would at once rejsct a Member who had been duly elected. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman endeavoured to answer the arguments which had been taken from an Act of Parliament very recently pas-ed, which says that if any person is sworn on any occasion what ever, such person is bound by the oath administered. ect at another least person it o b does wn u t i this— it is— be Nuw I confess I do no t think that statute is com p letel y conclusive onptebbesittes which subject, hu it mak, s a person 'g uilty of p er j ur y sub j ect to the same penalties J and th a Learned t e h t a i mt t l e they n complains that those oa f s , ti ar b en je . et Y to o ' u u o P bn P°u:tingth he took an oa th in the ecsustomat security at least by the statute. Well, they, what are t he oaths wnich the Member for Loudon has to take. forma conclusive objec tion in the first instance against the lion. Member b ein g sworn on the Old Testament. Now it appears to m e that you ought not to g o so far as to preclude argument on this sub j ect. It did a pp ear to me Thy e s H at: e n . of tnature that those Acts, to which the Hon. and Learned Gentle. man refers, viz., 9th Geo. I. and 13th Geo:lL—that those words giving exemption to the words on the true faith of a Cnristian in certain cases there named anddescribed app., ar to me to preclude this House from omitting toe words on the true faith of Christian.—(flear.) hut, Sir, the question now is, whether the Member for London should be allowed to go so far as to be sworn on the Old Testament, and to state, either by himself or counsel, what oaths he is ready to take, and in what sense he is ready to take them. Some have contended, and con tended very properly, that the words " on the true faith of a Christian," are only th e sanction anti confirmation of the oaths, and do nut belong to the oaths them selves- Nuw, Sir, I think whatever may be the weight of that argument, that the Member who alleges if, should he at liberty to shoe* that by a:- 4innent, an l nut be sent away at once frc m this House without i n g at liberty to offer or giv.s any explaaa tiou. If tie had stated, "lam a Christiao ," or "I pro fesi rnyselfto be a Caristian," it mi4ot be inc .nsistent with taut osth that he -sli;nild in the first instance be a worn on the Old Testament, but that is not the present case; the circumstances are entirely cliff-1.- ent. The original intention of putting the words " ost the true faith of a Christian " appears to have ea to give a solemnity and sanction to the oaths with regard to one class of Christians, viz., the Roman Catholics, who might be suspected of being disaffected to the Crown, and not for the purpose of excluding the Jew.—(Hear.) I have stated that I think it is not in the power of the House to dispense with these words—(Hear, hear) — and when the question comes to be debated, I shall certainly, having given considerable study to the subject, feel myself compelled to oppose the omission of these words from the oath; but I do not think you are enabled at present to declare that Baron Rothschild shall not be sworn in the form most binding to his conscience; and looking at this as a matter for grave deliberation, I think you should allow the Member who proposes to be sworn at the table, every latitude in order to have his case fully and amply stated.—(Hear, hear.) I think thus much Is due to the electors of the city of London— that thus much is due to their right to be represented in Parliament—a right, be it observed, not for the benefit of an individual, but a right for the benefit of the whole people of this country.—(Hear.) Now, Sir, I have said that I would allude, before I concluded, to the line of argument pursued by some Hon. Members. I feel it my duty to protest against their arguments. It wai said the other day in the course of the debate by an lion. Member that this was a party question; that it was the greatest party question of the age; that it was a question of prejudice against progress and intelligence, intolerance and bigotry against the principle of civil and religious liberty. Now I entirely dissent from that.—(Hear, hear.) If it were a question of civil and religious liberty I have no doubt whatever, as I have repeatedly told the House, that a man, whatever might be his reli gious views, ought to be admitted to sit in this House. Sir, the question which we have now to consider is not a party question—is not a political question. It is a question whether you are enabled by the laws as they now act to admit a member claiming his seat. I feel convinced that if you are opinion—if those who are most opposed to the admission of Jews are of opinion that it is lawful for Baron Roths child to take his seat, you ought by all means, whatever political consequences may follow, whatever you may tear, whatever you may consider about its altering the Christian character of the House, you ought at oace to admit him.—(Cheers.) But, on the other hand, it you do not think the law enables him to take his seat according to the oaths now in force, no opinion that is favourable to the Jews, or to a legislative measure for admitting them to seats in this House, ought to induce you to give way. (Cheers.) Sir, I say, if you take any other course you would take a course that would bring you into collision with the courts of law, because you would not be justified by the words of the Act of Parliament upon which you are acting, and most serious evils must follow.—(Cheers.) But I should not be afraid if I was perfectly convinced that it was right of meeting the privileges claimed by, or the decision of, any court of law.—(Cheers.) But there is a question even beyond this—(Hear, hear)—if you feel convinced that you are not acting according to law, but still you propose to act according to the dictates of conscience—it you pro pose to act in a particular way because it is in the promo tion of civil and religious liberty, you will be in effect exer cising and dispensing a power, the exercise of which by the Crown brought the people of this country, and brought them justly and manfully to make revolution. —(Loud cheers.) Sir, I. should be sorry indeed if this House, which has now much of the power that formerly belonged to the Crown, should at tempt to exercise any such power.—(Cheers.) And, Sir, most sorry indeed was I to hear it proclaimed in this House that we ought to treat this qnestion otherwise than as a judicial question—(Hear, hear)—and I was happy, as I said at the com mencement of what I have addressed to the House, to find the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite hal treated it in a different manner, and I trust throughout the rest of the discussion it will be so treated.—(Cheers ) Sir, I have stated the result which I have come to on the present question.—(Hear, hear.) I think the Member claiming nos seat—the Baron de Rothschild—should have his demand complied with ; he should be allowed to be sworn upon the Old Testament —that the House should deal fairly and deliberately with everything that can be urged on behalf of his taking his seat ac cording to the oaths now in force, but, according to my opinion, I cannot lend myself to any vote or pro posal for altering the words of the oath without the sanction cf an Act of Parliament for so doing.—(Cheers.) Sir R. H. INGLIS acknowledged the moral courage and forbearance of the Noble Lord's speech, and thanked him for both; bat if he were prepared to follow the plan of the Noble Lord, which he was not, in what state would Baron Rothschild be if he came to the table. —(tlear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to have for gotten that taking the hook in one hand and kissing the book was not the first act but the last connected with the taking of the eath. The Hon. Member for the city of Lor.don must hold in one hand the three oaths and the book in the other, and by his doing so he binds himself to all three.—(hear.) Those were not the regulations of the House, but the law, as established by Act of Parliament, and only by Act cf Parliament could it be altered.—(Hear, hear.) Still, if it were the wish of the House to t ace the-division on the amendment, he should have no objection to withdraw his motion:—(llear.) He believed the Act of Lord Denman did not touch the case at all. Sir GEORGE GREY proposed that the debate be ad journed.—(Cries of " Divide.") Mr. B. OSBORNE objected to the debate being ad journed until to-morrow. This being a question of pri vilege, the debate should be continued; and he thought further, that after the somewhat extraordinary speech of the Noble Lord, he (Mr. B. Osborne) and those who supported this measure, were in a dilemma. lie should recommend the House to grant no supplies to the Noble Lord until he brought in a Bill this session for the admission of Jews to Parliament. He moved as an amendment that the House should proceed with the de bate et five o'clock. Mr. ANSTEY rose to give the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) an opportunity of explanation. There was a general question he wished to ask before the Noble Lord's unfortunate and ill-advised speech went forth to the country—whether the Noble Lord proposed to give his vote to those who hitherto, with much consistency, had opposed, the concession that Baron Rothschild should be allowed to take his seat? _ Lord JOHN RUSSELL would only say that ques tion was; of course, not new to bite, and that he was told, both last and this year, that it would be very likely that Baron Rothschild would be advised to seek to take hie seat, and of course it became his (Lord J. Russell's) duty to consider the question very ma turely.—(Hear.) He did so consider it, and neither the late nor the present Attorney-General having advised that it would be desirable for the seat to be taken with the omission of the words in question in the oath, he (Lord J. Russell) could do no other than bring his own mind to that conclusion, and with the best study he could give the question he bed come to that result which he had felt it his duty to state to the House.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. PAGE WOOD said that ho certainly thought the debate ought to be adjourned. He knew that many Members had left, confidently expecting that the debate would be adjourned. The debate was accordingly adjourned until Five o'clock. The House then adjourned at Twenty minutes after Three o'clock, until a Quarter before Five o'clock. The House resumed at a Quarter to Five o'clock. ROYAL ASSENT. Immediately on the SPEAKER resuming the Chair, Mr. Pulman, the Deputy-Usher of the Black Rod, ad• vanced to the table, and summoned the House to the House of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given by Com mission to several Bills. The SPEAKER accordingly left the House, accom panied by several Hon. Members. On his return, The SPEAKER read the titles of the different Bills which had received the Royal Assent (tor which see Lords' report). PRISONS DISCIPLINE BILL. The report on this Bill was brought up. PETITIONS. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from Westminster against the Sunday Trading Bill. NATIONAL LAND SOCIETY. Mr. 11. BROWN presented a petition from certain members of the National Land Society, which he prayed might be read at length. Mr. F. O'CONNOR, objected that it was the same petition which had been presented at the commencement of the session. Mr. W. PATr EN hoped that if such were the case, the Hon. Member would not press for its being read. Mr. H. BROWN d en i e d that it was the same petition. The Clerk th en rea d th e petition, which was signed by a consid era bl e num b er o f t h e a ll o ttees in the National Laud Com pany,and prayed for au inquiry into the whole affairs of te a t un d erta ki ng . Mr. BROWN gave notice that he would move to-mor row tbat the petition be printed with tae votes. Mr. O'CONNOR said the petition was a verbatim copy of the one which was presented at the beginning of the session. Many of those who complained so loudly of his conduct had received loans of 501 ., sad had their land highly cultivated, and yet they had paid not a farthing of lent far at least twelve months. When the Com mittee of the Howie entered into en investigation of the company's atTairs, they stated that the company owed him (Mr. O'Connor) 3,4001; in the following year they owed him an additional 1,2001.; end he was r, ad) to show ta another Committee Oat it was indebted to ,him to the extent of 7,000/. or 8,0001., which he had not chimed; and this was the gratitude which he received from these ruffians.—(A laugh.) RETURNS. Mr. W. PATTEN moved for the following returns, instead of those ordered on the 21 of July:—Returns of the number of private Bills introduced and brought from e co li r d o i n u g s e t o o t' th , Lords, foi o ng f A su c t t ti s p ee a ts ss :_ ed n in ail l :a s ) o c 1 0, 3. ;rosasedd ac s and bridges ; waterworks ; ports, piers, harbours, arid docks; canals and navigations; churches, c h a p e l s , isiles selected wtehdic Members have small and burying grounds; paving, lighting, and improvin=g; and other cs,unty buildings ; i nc l osures; debts courts; and all other Bill s arid Acts. Of all the private Bills, other than Rail wa y Bill s, w hi c h , i n t h e . c i f the in g nameso e of t h B e present session, hav e b een treated as opposed B i lls, sp y classi fied in groups by the C omm i ttee of Selection; toget h er with each committee; the fi rs t an d a l so t h e l ast d a y of the who b e n served oon sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member hss served ; the Bills the preanatele of which was redor ed to have been proved ; the 13i11a the preamble of which was repotted to have been not proved ; thv Bills referred back to the Committee of 5, lection, as having become unnppo-ed; and ,tie Bills withdrawn, or riot proceeded with by the parties. Of a.ll the railway Bills which, in the ptesent st.ssion, have been treated as opposed Bills ; specifying those Bills which have been classified in groups by the Committee of Selection; together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first, and also the last day of the sitting of each Com mittee; the number of days on wbich each Com mittee sat ; the number of days on which each selected Member has served ; the Bills the pre— amble of which was reported to have bean proved; the Bills the preamble of which was reported to have been not proved; the Bills referred hick to the Committee of Selection as having become unopposed; and the Bills withdrawn, or not proceeded with by the parties. Ot all, the private Bills, other than ruilway Bills, which in the present session have been treated as unopposed Bills, and hare been reterred to the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which Mach Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended; and of all the ,railway Bilk which, being unopposed. have been referred is the present session to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means; together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended.—Agreed to. Sir J. HOGG moved for copies of all correspondence between her Majesty's Government and the East India Company, and the Board of Commissioners fur the Affairs of India and the Court of Directors; also between her Majesty's Governmentand the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, or the Court of Directors and that company, regarding the establishment of, or the mode of conducting steam communication between Suez and Bombay, or between Suez and Calcutta or Ceylon and Hong-Kong, and with the Australian Colonies. PETITIONS. Mr. REYNOLDS pre,ented a petition from a proctor residing in Ballinasloe, Galway, complaining of the Bill to alter and amend the Prerogative Court of Roland, and praying, in the event of the Bill passing, that a clause might be introduced rendering him admissible as an attorney to practice in the court without the pay ment of any additional fee. Mr. MgCGREGOR presented a petition for Glas gow praying that the House might promote every mea sure for the purpose of extending steam navigation with the Australian colonies. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition against the admission of Jews into Parliament. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. REYNOLDS gave notice that when the Muni cipal Corporations (Ireland, No. 2) Bill came on for the second reading, he would move that it be real a second time that day three months. BILL. ThA order of the day for the resumption of the ad journed debate nn tile amendment moved on the third reading of this Bill was read, and thi. debate resumed. The LORD CHANCELLOR having proposed a aeries of amendments which were agreed to, The Bill as amended was read a third time and passed. The Borough Court of Records (Ireland) Bill went through Committee. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 29. BARON ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Sir F. THESIGER regretted that the Hunourable Gentleman the Member fur Montrose had introduced the subject of religious liberty into this discussion, be cause they were not considering whether it was ex pedient that Baron Rothschild should be allowed to take his seat, but all they were called upon to decide at the present moment was whether, in the particular mode proposed, a person who came to the table of the House for the purpose of being sworn, and proposes to be sworn upon the Old Testament as the form most binding upon his conscience, could be permitted to take the oaths, and having so taken them, whether he can take his seat accordingly. Now that was the question, and the only question which the House had to decide. It had very properly been called a question rather of a quasi-judicial character, end he did really trust the House would argue it in the spirit of such a question—(Hear, hear) —that they should not introduce into the subject any passion or feel ing, but calmly and dispassionately consider whether, ac cording to the existing law, what was now proposed to be done could be done. He confessed it appeared to him that, it being of course desirable they should discuss that question with most convenient form, what had been proposed by his Hon. Friend the Member fur the Uni versity of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) was altogether objec tionable, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) would suggest that his Hon. Friend should withdraw his motion, and that the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose should be substituted as a substantive motion. (Cries of " No, no.") According to what had fallen from the Speaker from the earliest times Members had been sworn on the New Testament. He (Sir F. Thesiger) appre hended, therefore, where it was disposed to depart from that practice on the present occasion, that those who in sisted on departing from the practice had the onus thrown upon them to show that it was lawful to do so. There were two distinct questions to be decided, but in reality they resolved themselves into one; and the first was a prelimin ar y qu e stion, whether Baron Roths child could be admitted to take the oaths on the Old Testament, and the next question was whether binding on t re pe t rson could take the oath of abjuration on the Oid quite ia i g ns o p ti es h ai l b s le co to nsciene that that was the form of oath most separatee. Htheeehebeltiweveedqueist were involved and blended to ti w on o s u ; ld the b y e together; and if a Member coming to the table could not g take the oath of abjura tion in the Jewish form thought the House wou fi n d,he(Sir F. Thesiger) deli beration of the subject, h on careful no right whatever, accord i n g tit he could have law, to take any of the oaths in that to established Although, it might be perfectly true tat i f.articular form. which was put by the clerk at the table t was the question rised question, and that no Member comianseainoutnhaeutho was bound to answer that question, yet th it question table b been put — (Hear ) — and answered, and the question and ad answer appeared on the votes, and would in due time be transferred to the journals of the House. It was quite clear from his answer, that Baron Rothschild did not desire to take the Roman Catholic oath. •He (Sir F. Thesiger) was therefiro entitled to assume that Baron Rothschild did not profess to be a Roman Catholic, and did not desire to take the Roman Catholic oath. If he did not desire to take the Roman Catholic oath. and did not profess the Roman Catholic religion, all that remained was that he must take the other three oaths, which all persons who did not pro fess the Roman Catholic re li g ion were required to take, namely, the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration. It was impossible to separute one oath from the other, and until he could take all the oaths be could not be regularly sworn.—(Hear, hear.) The amendment of the Hon. Member for Montrose assumed that. It was quite clear that what were called the Pro testant oaths were distinguished from the Roman Ca tholic oath, fur there was only one oath to be taken by the Roman Catholic, namely, the oath under the 10th Geo. IV. Baron Rothschild must therefore have all the oaths tendered to him, and THE BRISTOL RIOTS. Sir WILLIAM CODRINGTON threw himself upon the indulgence of the House while he explained a matter personal to himself'. On Friday last the Hon. Member for Bristol, in alluding to him in his absence, had made assertions with regard to him (Sir William Codrington) which were not founded in fsct, and therefore calculated to impugn his character and the character of the troop of Yeomanry ho had the honour to command. The Honourable Member for Bristol on Friday night, comparing him and his troop to a certain King of France, who marched up a hill and then marched down again, said he (Sir W. Codrington) and his troops marched into Bristol at the time of the riots, and immediately afterwards marched out again by the light of the fires. Now, in answer to that statement, he had to say that the first intimation he got of the Bristol riots was about three o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, and he immediately' called up his troop of yeomanry, consisting of 60 mem bers, and in less than four hours 59 of them were in the saddle, while within four hours after that they reached Bristol. As soon as the troop reache I Bristol he reportod himself to the commander of the district, Col. Brereton, who kept him in conversation for some time. He told the captain that his troop had come a long march, and were anxious to act immediately. but they could nut act without a magi,trate. They endeavoured to find a magistrate, but did not succeed, and then Colonel Brereton said the troop had better leave the town, remarking that he hoped there would be no more blood shed, and the sooner they left the better. Now, under those circumstances, what alternative had he but to march out?—(Hear, hear.) He should have given evidence before the court-martial, had not Colonel Brereton terminated his existence, and he had, there fore, had no opportunity of making this statement. Having made it, however, now, he would thank the House for its kind attention, and leave it to decide what amount of reliance was to be placed on the assertions of the ion. Member for Bristol. VENTILATION OF MINES. Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know if it was the intention of Government to take any steps to secure the ventilaion of mines. Sir GEORGE GREY said a Bill had come down from the Lords with a view to that object, which stood for a cond readiog to-night. BARON ROTEISCRILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. C. ANSTEY then rose to resume the adjourned debate, and commenced by complaining of the conduct which Government had-pursued iu reference to this ques tion. It was hopeless; after what had fallen from the Premier, to think -of asking the House to deal with the third oath by way of resolution. The lion. and Learned Member for Abingdon said that Quakers, notwithstanding the Act which relieved their consciences at the time of the revolution, were not ad mitted to give evidence in criminal cases until 1828. Was the Lion. and Learned Member aware that Quakers had been admitted to make au affirmation iu criminal courts of justice from 1828 down to the present time, and did be forget that Quakers were allowed to take their seats in that House in the person of Mr. Pease without any oath at all? What the House of Commons was asked to do to day, on behalf of Baron Rothschild, was exactly what was done in the case of Mr. Pease. Though the forms of oaths of abjuration were very various, yet he would venture to say there was not one of them which a Jew or even a Heathen might not take. The nearest form to the present Christian oath was one concluding "So help me God and his Holy Gospels." It was well known that tho courts of law had always considered the Pentateuch to be the Gospel of the Jews. Ile believed no one would deny that a common-law oath was of as much authority as one prescribed by statute. It was quite true that many of the oaths to which he re• ferred were of a juridical character; but he could not understand the distinction between juridical and pro. miasory oaths. But allowing there was the distinction contended for, still so early as the reign of Richard I. Jews had been admitted to the office of ju age. There was also a distinct recognition that the oath of fialty might be taken by Jews in those days. There was nu specific precedent of such an oath to be taken by Mem bers of Parliament, but there was an oath of office to be found in the Statutes at Large which persons had to take in the time of Edward k. on being admitted to the King's Council. Of that council the House of Com mons might be considered a part, and he had no doubt that thst oath was taken by barons, knights, and * burgesses on admission to the King's Council. The terms of that oath were to counsel the King— to respect the privilege of debate —to maintain the rights of the Crown— and it concluded with the words "So help me God." Now that was an oath which any Jew might take. At the first establishment of Parliaments Jews were admitted, but shortly after wards by ordinance—legally or illegally—they were ex pelled the realm. In the time of Henry 111. a general assembly was called for the purple of granting supplies. and writs were directed to the Sheriffs of the different towns in which the Jews resided, commanding them to send to Westminster two or more Jews, according to their number in the population. Either the Jews were admitted to that assembly without an oath, or they took the same oath as the other Members. Soon afterwards the Jews were expelled the realm. At the Rest ration there were only 12 Jews in the kingdom. Their number ittcreased in the reign of Charles 11., and still more so in the time of William 111., when large exemptions were granted them. In that reign the question of the alien age of the Jews was brought bef pre Parliament by peti tion, but the House refused to receive it as it related to a Bill not before them. In 1689, 100,0001 was levied on the Jews, being a taxation of 10!. for (teen Jew. The re sult was, that in the first land tax Act the Jews were treated not as aliens, but as natural subjects, and aliens were taxed as before. With these Acta before them it was impossible to agree with the views laid down by the Hen and Learned Member for Abingdten. The Natu ralisation Act of George 11. related to foreign Jews re sident in the kingdom. Their object on the present oc casion was not to admit Mr. Rothschild as an alien, but as an English Jew. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government said that this was not a question of civil and religious liberts , but a judicial question. Why the Noble Lord considered it a judicial question he did not know, but this he knew, that the Noble Lord had pro posed the consideration of this judicial question by pre judging it, and without having heard a syll a bl e w hi c h bore on the third oath, an oath which he should en deivour to show was illegal, whether administered to Christian or to Jew. The truth was that the question was a question of civil and religious liberty. It was also a judicial question, and if it was also a party question the Noble Lord had himself to blame for making it so. He should certainly vote as he had spoken, in favour of the amendment of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. P. WOOD cold not allow the question to go to a division without making some observations. He re greVed that the 1%1 . ..hie Lord at the head of the Govern ment should have thought it necessary to pronounce any Opinion at all on what , otne had called the second ques tion. At present the first question, and that only was under their consideration. With respect to the amend ment of the Hon. Member fur the University of Oxford, he thought it ought to be negatived. It was impos sible for any one to maintain what was asserted in teat amendment, and it was contrary to every day's experience to say that no person took an oath wi.heat deel dine he was a Chr.stian. It was w,.11 known to many that Moravians and Friends took an oath without any such declaraton.—(i - lear, hear.) ‘Vh ,, n he fornierly - addressed the House ho vetaw el to assert that no lawyer would be found who would h , sitate to say that by common law every individual had a right to be sworn in the manner which he declared to be the most binding on his conscience. It had been said, however, that such a proposition should not be too widely laid down, and that exceptions must, be made, first as re garded oaths of office and secondly as regarded some p eeD culiar limitations relating to the oaths of Members o f heard single au- Parliament. lie bad not, however, ______ ____- not apPli' thority to prove that the juridical et ch was eb cub!o to the oath of office. He was est:Kleist no g 2- authority could ee leant!. He appreheedtd all 1 1 could say wish reference to oaths Ives tide, that tit 1-11 , time, in this ceuntry, there was a general assunlPTl 0 - . at every vermin was Christiae, an `t hence the r a i l' , i ti mode of administering an oa h came to be on the '?:. Gosp: Is, as the forrn most binding on the consciencr But Ihe moment any question arose as to ebethe with respect to some individuals, that was the b eet mode of binding the conscience, common seassii, stepped in and said that the real point for incluill pee, stepped whether a religious sanction had been obtained, . _ whether the party had been bound in the presence et . 5 . God whom be believed to be the avenger of folseboon. This doctrine would be found laid down in the case.b: " Ommichin v. Barker." It was the doctrine of decreed Roman law acted upon by the Eesperers. that every body sheuld be sworn according to his o ,° • fr a . rape rstitiot e The Church had not been les, litvral..°,l4 Augustine, in his Math book, stated that if the 05t h of an idolator was not admitted, there would be no adequ,o"l_ or of Otta n i. g . means of farming a covenant with him, him to keep his word; and that it was n( t fsrbidde. tiDlYt who _ any law of God to employ the oath of a man whose b la 50 it was to swear by false gods. if he kePt faith w here Y doing. Such a principle was acted on in SP '4 ll ' In the oath was administered to Moors and arts to 1755 - a case came before the Parliament Of rarl i . e . co s whether Jews should be allowed to swear in a °. : w as mode from that prescribed by the French law, weft Lis simply je le jure. A Jew came to be svrorn er io, ~,o in his own fashion; he kept on his hat-held a 131 '. 0 " eg iaen; left hand, touching it with his right, slid the I f c o urt decided that he bitei been properly s worn. l i n e : ht to of Ca(ssation had decided that a Jew had a rig_ bg s be sworn in his own manner. With reference to; to had been done in this country, the eaee ( f " Ommichin v. Barker," The o°- Ea r. General of that day supported the new mode of 511 i00 , he must agahLrpitor• ing, and argued, though such a case had not beforessitriwo that the common law worked itself pure by ru1e . ,.. ° 0 0 from the fountain of justice, which was in su e " n , ja superior to Acts d Parliament. The Chief Der°,.ticss giving judgment, said that reason, and not an P i "; 10 , liar case, ought to govern them in interpreting 4 ' L o rd more especially when tee law was doubttul.f to be Hardwicke ordered the words compleined ° s bid struck out of the oath, and since that tune person a to been indicted for perjury who had sworn falselCober Old Testament only. The lion. and Learne d e lu te to for Abingdon had contended that that did not irg o or oaths of office. It was quite true th at a de e a mt re' Act could not alter the law; but the declaratory, ow, tarred to declared what had been the law at and referred to a person taking an oath "either asa'tar vet to men, a witness, a deponent, or on any aPPeilogleodt office or employment."-(Hear.) The law ot It d therefore, swept away the distinction altogether:ea, sloe stroyed three-fourths of the argument of the 1 1 ,..,..";01es Learned Gentleman. If the lion, and Learnen,`"oo the man referred to the remaining fourth, a nd relie a 00 t ae Act of Supremacy, he would join issue with hire d , s er question whether the words in the sth Elizahal'Oe° dared it impossible for a Jew to tak e the oa th' e a tolell words were that a Member of Parliament Wu; lot the oath on " The Holy Gospels." But its as o n hic h th s of Charles 11. that that oath rested, anin I/ d o n a'S e mode of taking it was pointed out. The de elars ine and to be made at the table of the House betwe en n t eV four o'clock, and nothing was said in Holy Gospels.' The Ist of William and ° T . s e quir e4 abrogated the statute of James. Thus the oath lot re. to . be taken before the High Steward ' O5 t ob s° ' scribed by the Act of Elizabeth. Now that wag oh lutely gone by the statute of William, and if. i e ite rel had Th gone, he would ask how it could be of g ecoe at brought him to the consideration ° f , the „ t aof ' I T question in the case. Now he protested egg" - , st 1/ " * it abets nary ba d c T esd question being assumed to be in that co s se expression or two which he The Hon. and Learned Member for Bute Wa de e itiq,l sobe r had of answered or unnoticed. The Hon. Mem fooar d , that they who were acting in that House in. ~, nail could not d to pa 4 g the claim made by Baron Rothschild were at /4 TO ° visedly, and taking an unfair avantage ° f e l l :0 0 1 The Hon. and Learned Member had also sa t " r iair J e g about special pleading. New this was tbetosacrifire question,. whether the party concerned W a ss a beth er s:of anenporteitt trust confided to him? se', beve l t c h et.zens of London were to be deprived of the /0 th% st i a s te se o rv f recommended hl i j ie th es ing o s n . a mere dry, technical quibble chil d bo o, which the law allowed him for the establis. 005 n: be di_is":boot the t w o ho ta a k d o vis e e v d er ß y ar r o e n ss ß ih o l t n b d o l a o t t ood his position. And he begged it might deratood, and that there mht be no msts ° fallf ‘ O,l subject, the Hon. Member for London wasiotbse.ved termined to act upon that advice. Bare dete r°3 e l- f e was advised that the first question to l' ils to ' ll ° o was, whether or not he had the r i g n - e r 41,,c lead the oaths administered to him in the te„, a , s h o - t oler' felt most binding on his conscience? - 1 -"7,„ berti l se to the question of a distribution of the ° a rags gr- $ P re P e He was sorry the Noble Lord should have 0 D ot V strong t as opinion upon that question. I t f r o voi l A ie t e ,e o oquote any opinion expressed before the ‘'" 0 1 boo o itS the Attorney-General, because nothing fe rn : Were c s l g iOg done by that Committee. Its proceedigo; aise° be conversational. The p T r h es e e y n h t a ci cl ue b s e t e i t o i n s , toP ed fr°- litt e elli a ° o ll / be thoug o or, t" abe t fore the House in quite an independent 111 , 0 10 0 Id he unprejudiced by any opinion on such an ° , c ; o - sh% sa le Committee. He thoht no decided oP il yslisi" c o pronounced or formed on case ' ant_ l r l o th w e es nraliea ts had been heard and understood. Tn u a eV° brol ly ; which he had heard had been circulate dwelt...ol,f he was most anxious to contradict. lt hs eild' a j " . o lge l' about that it had crossed Barer itothse:tingablodrs ask for the Roman Catholic oath on P re n il ~e se i b- ii tijs at d the table. Never was tre a 123-I.° oui -Se r , ' an false misrepresentation. 13Breu 139111-te4 Ili° was a man of too high a character sod te ° ,. ° to 14 0 1 0 111 n m o . ur to allow such a notion for a wome n " dath f ,, e 'tll,s2 tnd, lie could not ask for the Roin a g li o tia 'door without at the same time professing th m e o r. e -ra bif s t . o) "be l 1 ;1 faith. He did not believe therewasa honourable man in the House than the 11 ,, ° a 13. tbe e go the city of London; and there need not "" 13°",b0 , e e l apprehension of his taking any such course,' bich he ' lie j fully determined to take every advanbtie,h be; s elf:" . . permitted to secure the position to ° D. :, •1 b' - of l b ' t himself entitled. But ho would not "" si of '0 ° well as he (Mr. Wood) could se rtaia, of i . 50 oti t or legal advantages without• • aseertain, the e 1i © giber s ee' t ole. the matter. The Hon. and Learnedlng IdearOi es don spoke of Jews as aliens, but it was s : a o- la s , A as °l s l , e g . f !t n ny British -born Jew was considered as;`,oreg,F;gsrgi• i pro th e e time of George 11. called upon the ° be 0- 0 /3 I°- couildrt'" and if they were supposed doe bio b h 0 , since not possess any. The Jew Bill 0 . dig Ode Mr. passed rs had reference to foreign Jee i ",' oil '', Its d meet e ci could hlas r oSn.ORTLEY said be did not 01 oa 'ii ° so * that th Wit e the a g o f th o e g ° be tion;.o do was to look to the practical par 001 0 to 0 , j n o n u d rn f a r l e s m ta a e ll their wHanslyneEeevsasnagreylistths.at HJeeWs sb ° l , t is i s.; oathstthhreeeinformattioonbewhojekPon s vi rs e e t , ;r o t s combined. They were not entitled / 00 1 *. A oos and to put one oath and not another. k to s tve'; is ) do e clear when the Hon. Member retuseJ to .. .,(o„ s ,be vol Gospel that he was not a Christa°' di oP j ah o ,) thou m ght it absurd on the part of the frldlitle.,llLid, Member to press that matter, for it W °S - ....( 11 ‘ ,7 fl,, r iii I! question and with the time of 9 the Hour" a s s'aoP h "o o Suppose he had taken the two first oatu e - tbeksr e would he not refuse the third, and then - Or obliged to shot their d oo rs against h ihj...' tod anti cries of " Divide, divide.") it° de/100/ The House then divided. *t wag '4A 0 On the re-admission of stranger s l u s'" lre that Sir R. Inglis's motion had De e " eg f a division, and that the numbers w ere- -- 1 , 4 ! For Mr. Hume's a endusent '' 57 4 10 f Against it th ..‘..--/-5 e• ••• '• DO jl O l • Majority ..• •" 1 13.8 de Mr. NEWDEGATE asked, wo uld t or i/ sumed? t be lii /1 The SPEAKER was understood to so, .ef,,_,o theT The impression should then be proceeded wih. v s/ 0, 1 in the gallery w t t c , 0 1 ,1 1) 0 0 the debate was to be resumed on 5°- St" be i d twelve o'clockthis We da. However. f i f ie fly announe -em , nt of the y fact in the 1 -I °„ ne f e o 13 saig h 0 el d THE MERCANTILE 1V1.5i,4 res . ; sVP The order of the day or thew. asel'areS-0 Bill was then moved. Several n claw h ' o l it ,A , - 00 4 up and added to the Bill; • 0 l er- tii ir- ffr vartou 03 0 00 0 1 were also made, after which it was r e 0 r passed. n g 11 (1 0 0 QUEEN'S MESSAGE gLI3- ° et° / 'r fiv •I'he House went into Committ it c l h sl ; r e 0' Queen's Message. M B E RNAL in `h e a l Hierthll),,4l The CliAlltSl r* dd to r e- t r itt ir• AN procee e o ttle pit ) 0 01 the effect that ' it was expedient to t he Jose 1 House on the P r i nce of Wales during o 'o t.. p i 1 her M b jest) , and the Prince; and h, a l is be ee „lti P o hl should be provided for the same estau - e°" - is sP , t he be 4 0 Mr. TIM e LAWNY complained to° t° ter t oe; il l t t satisfactory information with reap er od e • tab, r co r e o tho duch • ) of Cornwall, which Was n a nt gue e witl i n d to consider in entertaining the Pres'-esureeeteSersev / Lord J. RUSSELL said certain r - 1 1'0 0 ; fitird ol o / to that duchy were obliged by A cC ° 01 04) h . er li V made to that House, and they w ere ,A OO- e pi 0 given. But a motion 9 which the flo e ' ... O f for to thr: o 3B °`. i in the beginning ofthesession agement of those revenues into tb! r i t - y. iio si r t vl o/ 0 0 . 1 0 had been negatived by a large ta,,, e k' '' vLA..„" of ',.ii f i e Alter a few words from Mr. * -" -- fria's" f lag - e e f r 4 Mr. HUME said he thought the „ t ool el•atiirg at present too youn only nin e J - Plod - i f high a such an establishmentg'settled on -, n eee w el' e they ought to have more informat'°( Cor° il f ef lative to the revenues of the duehi llotis e t, o °OOl,/ the late Queen had been voted that op it ' n 4°;t o g t , ,i also arranged that they were to It th 9 0 ,00;01 9 the cons: quenc. hail been that 0 °, 4 sbef leir ll e - 0 1 151 been paid tor repairs. He thoug..o ~,f 1 . li , pine that matter until the next se s h si d tieltis e 'ail i f i ii 'Lord d• RUSSELL said he 9 11 3131) Vs c l ea s r i objection before made to the proe.Psntioo ° y a dilpi r Majesty had intimated her 10,7 a in to Opt public to gee the Vernon Gall e a bt O t os ~ t ','. hi)use, the Government had th'llt 0 0 1 e ,11 , i1 Majesty to make a settlement °` o°oo 1 o. , , 0 0 4 , 0 Wales. 03 ovg .4 0 t 11 " ptrire Mr. 11U ME objected to the r at t he .. fio i h s Ofi ( which should have been left ' n i le 0 1( 1 rot ? ,0 1 which ha 1 cost the nation so fa rin t e a sV e ssf,o o part occupied by the R lel A t i • ed laolilli i Vit . " 0 eyo r " 0 to the public. George th e c are ° a l e t 0 , 1.0 to settle any of his stnts or ° C ha t of o, l 'o, 0011 toP' ri them 4t such an early age 3 9 t":1700'" .- 10 00 d'A .l Alter a tew words f'rone Mr• '' O OW pore dr, i n to a er a s . ' t io ie I Lord SEYMOUR entered i i 0 g fr i , i 0 00 1 ° that stably-s had not been adoe• - •. a t usalti 05 e, ,i4 fy because Gaiters-terrace was °/*I•j• Pr V carried further up. To wheteve 0011.0," ts neee •eg ty was devoted, stables would ise . be vle A sta Mr. HUME objected to their.. ope palaces with their concotuittio&