The Sun. — London, England, 1850-07-29 00:00:00

Dirb VEbition SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The; Cordships met shortly before Five o'clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the undermentioned Bills: — Court of Session (Scotland). Larceny Summary Jurisdiction. Upton-own-Chalvey Marriages Validity. Naval Prize Balazice. Convict Prisons. Population (Ireland). Linen and Manufactures (Ireland). Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation (No. 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 Fishermen and Mariners Benevolent So- ciety. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Carlisle Railway. Wolverhampton Waterworks Act (Amendment and Extension of Works). British Electric Telegraph Company. Liverpool Corporation Waterworks. 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 Acts). Commercial Gas Company and Poplar Gas Light Com- pany. Aberdeen Railway. Cromforcl and Newhaven Turnpike Road. Rochdale, through Bamford and Birtle to Bury, and other Turnpike Roads. Surrey and Sussex Roads. • Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. Godstsine awl Biabgatalarnlike Road. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland. Timber Preserving Company. Earl Of Shrevisbury and Grace's Trustees Estate. St. Thomas's Hospital Estate. The Lords Commissioners were the Lord CHANCELLOR, the Earl of CARLISLE, and the Earl of MINTo. Their Lordships then adjourned 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. L , 1.1 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 som, 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 hsury 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 Wale.] after he shall have attained eighteen years of age. He gave notice that he should tomorrow call the attention of the House to this subject. OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE. The NOBLE MARQUIS also gave notice that he should tomorrow call the attention of their Lordships to tho salaries of the officers of the House, with a view to their revision. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE 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 MOUNTCASaEL 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 surgeouy. 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 saved his life. The Esrl of MOUNTCASHEL thought that all emigrant ships should be compelled to carry surgeons. Esti 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 DIOUNTCASHEL moved for the Re port. After a view wavda from the Marquis of BREA DALBAN 6, the modal was agreed to. LEASEHOLD TENURB OF LAND (IRELAND, BILL. Thi, order of the day for the resumption of the ad journed debate on the amendment moved on the third reidin,-: of this Bill was read, and the debate resumed. Lord REDESDALE rose, and was (LEFT SPEAKING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. Long before twelve o'clock, the hour appointed for the met ticg of the House tc-day, the lobbies and avenues leading to the Home of Commons were thronged with persons of the Jewish persuasion and respectable parties, anxious to obtain admission into the gallery, and to witness the arrival of Baron Rothschild. Toe Baron arrived shortly before twelve o'clock, and met with a similar reception to that which had greeted him on Friday. The SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes past Twelve o'ceek, when there was rather a full attendance of blereers, the Strangers' and Speaker's gallery was crowded and below the gallery we noticed, immediately after our niise the Rar•on Rothschild, Mr. Alder man Salomons, Mr. Page Wood, and Mr. J. Abel Smith in earnest conversation with the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer. Ou the SPEAKER taking the chair, the private busi ness of the House was proceeded with. LORDS' AMENDMENTS. The Lords amendments to the following Bills were e>usidered and agreed to: — Bridge Across River Clyde, opposite to South Port- Laurieston, Criasgo7. 7 . - Gorbals Gravitation . Water Company. AMENDED BILLS. The following Bills as amended were considered and igteed to:— Chippindeill's Divorce (Lords). Westratastgilierniiorary Bridge. SECOND READINGS. The following Bah; were read a second time and or dered to be committed:— Bowes' Estate. Deanery of Saint Burian Division. Earl ot Craven's (or Sir John Johnstone's) Estate. Sir ildury M. Vayasour's Estate. PETITIONS. Mr. CAREW presented a petition from Galway against the admission of Jews and other unbelievers into kerbs ant. Mr. D. WADDINGTON presented similar petitions from Suffolk. Mr. DISRAELI presented a peCtion from Ducking hatmbire against unchristianizing the British Legislature, BARON ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the order of the day being read for the resump tion of the adjourned debate, Mr. lIENLEY said he• wished to ask the Speaker whether, in order to give a locus stanch for the debate which was about to be raised by the amendment which had been pot on the paper by the Hon. _Members tor Montrose and Middlesex, it was not advisable that some further questions should be put to Baron Rothschild, one of tne Hon. Members for the city of London. This, he thought, would be necestary, because they would not otherwise be enabled to have entered on.the records of the House that form of oath which he thought binding on his conscience, and the reasons wh;ch iv- ! dueed him to consider he ought to take it.—(Hear.) What he wished to know, therefore, was, whether be could make a motion for this purpose before the debate eau? on? The SPEAKER said when the clerk was about to administer the oaths to Baron Rothschild he requested to be sworn on the Old Testament, and of coarse, as that was a novel proceeding, he could not be allowed to take an oath in that tanner without the sanction of the Huse. He (the Speaker) accordingly directed that the lion. iiember should withdraw, and then the debate engtsll. If ;he House decided Cult any further question should be pat to the Hon.. Member he would, of course, be recalled; but accoroing to the regular order of pro ceeding the amendment would have to be put first. Mr. PAGE WOOD said he appreheneed the Eon. ICVaer donld be asked whether be considered an oath taken on the 011 Testament was binding on his con science? nr• 5 .:10TT wishf d to know whether, if the House da,ided dam Le could be sworn on the Old Testament, THE SUN, be could claim a scat in the House as a Member entitled to vote cn all question?, bEcause if that were so, it would obviate the iicf?ssity of aoy Bill being introduced into Pa:batnot.—(Cheers and •' Hear.") 117 iv St'E.,iiiEß said, if the House so decided it, it WOLI ! ; ditty to call him to the table to be sworn on the o,d ".!.e,c,!ment, but then another question would arise, whether he could take all the oaths provided by the Acts of Parliament. Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to say that the best way would be to move that Mr. Baron Rothschild should be called to the table and asked what oath he considered binding on his conscience. Mr. HENLEY said his only object was to get some thing formal on the records of the House, as it seemed to him that they were very bald at present. Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought it would be expedient that the Honourable Member should declare what oath he considered binding on his conscience. Sir F. THESIGER considered the House was bound to inquire of Baron Rothschild why; he wished to be sworn in the manner proposed by himself. It was very possible that the answer of Baron Rothschild might render it necessary to put a further question to him; but he would not anticipate that necessity, because he thought it was quite sufficient for the House to decide at present whether he should be invited to appcar at the table, and asked why he wished to be sworn on the Old Testament. It would be necessary to go further and ask him whether he was of the Jewish persuasion. —(Hear, hear.) They had now to determine what was the right course to pursue on a novel occasion, and it was therefore of im portance that they should proceed carefully and delibe rately, confining themselves as closely as possible to the technical rules which govern all our courts of justice. Mr. B. OSBORNE agreed with the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman that it was quite necessary that they should proceed with care in this matter.—(Hear.) But, although there could bo no doubt that the House had power to put any question it thought fit, he thought it nothing but justice to the Hon. Gentleman the Member fur the city of London, who was about to be called to the table, that he should be warned that it was in his discretion to answer any of the questions put to him.—(Hear, hear.) He, therefore, hoped that the Hon. Gentleman, - when he was called to the table, would not answer any second question relative to the oath of abjuration which might give rise to a debate.—(Hear.) The SPEAKER then asked if it was the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Gentleman should be called in and requested to say whether he considered the swear ing on the Old Testament was the most binding on,his conscience?—(Hear, hear.) Mr.-HENLEY said the object of his question was to ascertain the reasons why the Hon. Gentleman wished to he sworn on the Old Testament. Mr. ANSTEY said they ought to follow the prece dent established in the Bradshaw, Archda:l, and O'Con nell cases, where all the oaths were set before the Mem ber elected, and he was asked to take the oaths. He examined the oaths altogether, not one by one, and then he stated his objections to all the oaths, or any of them. In Mr. O'Connell's case the objection was stated thus— " I have no objection to the oath of abjuration, or the oath of allegiance, but I have objections to the oath of su premacy." Nov the same course ought to be followed here, and any reasons for the objections stated at the bar. Therefore he would propose that Baron Rothschild should be again called, for the purpose of having all the oaths exhibited to him, and then he could say whether he had any objection to any of them, where they ought to stop and go no further.—(Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the course suggested by the Hon. Member for Oxford shire was the proper course. The Baron claimed to be sworn in a particular form. The oaths to be sworn had nothing to do with the present question. The Baron claimed to be sworn in a particular way, and it was quite right that they should know why he made the claim, bat no other question ought to be put without the previous assent of the House. He would, therefore, move that the Hon. Gentleman be caletil in and asked why he demanded to be sworn in a particular manner. Sir .JAMES GRAHAM rose to order. They were now disposing of a most important judicial question, and it was of the last importance that order should be strictly observed. He suggested, therefore, for the consideration of the Hour that no question whatever should be put to the Honourable Gentleman without being put through the Speaker, after it had been duly proposed, seconded, and carried.—(Hear, hear.) He had already expressed his opinion as to the way they ought to proceed. The amendment of the Hon. Gentle man the Member for Middlesex affirmed that swearing on the Old Testament would be the most binding on the Baron's conscience; but, in his opinion, they ought to have that information from the Baron's own lips. Lord JOHN RUSSELL quite agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet—in order to have the matter regu larly before the House, it would be right that the mo tion should be put and carried as to the question which the Speaker was to put.—(Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER en tirely agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham). He thought the House ought to proceed with extreme regularity in this case. He should, therefore propose that this be the motion—That Baron Lionel de Rothschild having demanded to be sworn on the Old Testament, he be called to the table of the House, and asked by Mr. Speaker why he demanded to be sworn in that form ?—(Loud cheers.) Lord HARRY VANE seconded the motion. Mr. H 112.1111 suggested that the worais " Member for the City of London" be inserted after the name of Baron Rothschild. That being done, the SPEAKER read the motion. Sir THOMES DYKE ACLAND suggested that the question which should iia asked was, did Baron Roths child really desire to take the oaths required of every other:Member on taking his scat in that House.—(Dis approbation, in the midst of which the Hon. Baronet resumed his seat.) The SPEAKER then put the question, which was carried without a division. Baron Rothschild was then summoned to the table, and as he advanced he was greeted with loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the House. The SPEAKER, addressing him, asked why he had demanded to be sworn on the Old Testament? Baron ROTHSCHILD, in a clear and audible voice, replied—Because that is the form of sweariug, which I declare to be most binding on my conscience. —(Loud cheers.) The SPEAKER then ordered Baron Rothschild to withdraw, and as the Hon. Member did so he was again cheered. Sir F. THESIGER thought the House was in another difficulty with regard to having a proper entry on its records in this novel case. The House would observe the ordinary question having been put to Baron Roths child, whether he claimed to take the Roman Catholic or tha Protestant form of oath, no answer bad been given to the question.—(Hear, hear.) The only answer given, was that he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament.—(Disapprobation and counter cheers.) He (Sir F. Thesiger) apprehended that ques tion was not put without requiring an answer; and he should propose that the question be now put to the Baron Rothschild, whether he claimed to talu the Roman Catholic or the Protestant oath?—(Loud cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hoar.") .ktr. HUME—I apprehend, Sir—(Loud cries of " Order," and the Hon. Member resumed his seat.) Thy SPEAKER having put Sir F. Thesiger's emend men t, Mr. P.*WOOD said there was really nothing what ever in the point raised by the Hon. Member for Abing don. There was no precedent to be found in the journals of the House of such a question as that sug gented by the Hon. Member. The clerk at the table usually put the question solely out of courtesy, in order to give the Member about to be sworn his option. If he did not ask fur the Catholic oath, the Protestant oath was tendered to him as a matter of course. The question was merely a proper caution to be given to Catholic gentlemen when they came to the table to in form them there was an Act for their belief, and it was never found entered on the journals of the House. No Hon. Gentleman were obliged to answer the question. and if he did nog, the Protestant oath would be tendered to him. _ - ----- Mr. C. ANSTEY stated in confirmation that when he was sworn twu such questions were put to him, and that he was obliged to demand the Roman Catholic oath, and he appealed to every Roman Catholic Member whether such was not the case with them. Mr. HENLEY reminded the House that the question was already printed on the votes, from which the journals were made up as part of the proceedings. Mr. HUME said that it did not follow that because the question was on record that it was a proper question. Sir G. GREY said that this was a question put by the clerk of the House simply for his own convenience and for his Own information. Is was a question entirely un necessary, and not put by order of the House or by Stat Ute. Mr. J. A. SMITH wished to inquire from the Hon. and Learned M em b er for Abingdon under what statute this question wa s p ut ? Sir F. THESIGER said that he did not know that it was established under ques tion as it stood upon the any statute. He took the Ties ut to vetes, and he understood that p it was a qu es ti on every Member en being sworn. He apprehended that it wa the real point was whether th e e He o p u ut by the clerk; but quite immaterial whether it siled ttat that was a question authorised t question should be put to the Hon. Gentleman Sir JOHN TYRELL reminded the H o u s e no t w ha . t present the Hon. Gentleman had not at refuted any oath, but tEe question was whether he particular manner. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that the question had assumed a form and shape upon the votes of the House, whence it must necessarily be transferred to the jour: Eats, where it would appesr that a distinct question had beers put, to which no distinct answer had been giv en , He could not help thinking that the friends of Baron Rothschild were taking a very injudicious courr.e. This was mere special pleading.—(Cries of " Oh, ch.") What the House wanted to know, and which it had a right to know, was this, whether the Member for London was pre pared to take the necessary oaths which were requisite by Act of Parliament for him to take before taking his seat. If he war, he for one was quite ready to enter caad:dly into the examination of what form of oath was necessary. Mr. R. D. MANGLES said, as the Hon. Member bad chsrged the friends of Baron Rothschild wish using special pleading, he would ask him caadid4 who it wad that had raised this preliminary question as to what bock of the Bible the Hon. Gentleman was to be sworn, upon. Mr. NBWDEGATE suggested that Baron Roths child, if he c , rue to be sworn, would have the two oaths tendered to him. ard would have to choose one of them. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that Ibis maim which the Hon. and Learned Gentle man wished to make was a simple ,interruption. He thought the question of the Hon. Gentleman should be raised after the form of oath should be decided on. Sir F. THESIGER said that it appeared to him the 'question would have a very important bearing nn what had been clad on the other side cf the UOU2C the pre liminary qus- . stiGn. Mr. V. S:dITEI thought the House ought not to call upon Baron Rothschild to state what oath he would take until it had been decided whether he should take it or not in the way he desired. Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that in the present instance a preliminary objection had been made by the •Baron Rothschild to being sworn on the New Testament and not on the Old. He thought the preliminary ques tion should be decided first. Mr. HUME considered that tl:e proper course would be for the ion. and Learned Gentleman t withdraw his motion, and then the question could be properly dis cusEei. Sir F. THESIGER said his only object was to have the proceedings of the House correct. He would with draw his motion. The motion was consequently withdrawn. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY then moved that Baron Roths child be called to the bar, and the Speaker be desired to ask—" Are you ready to be sworn to the eaths required from a Member by Act of Parliament before he takes his seat."—(Cries of "-Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") Mr. HUME as.erted that such a question had never been put before to any Member, land he thought it a most invidious proceeding, and going out of the practice of the House altogether.—(Hear.) Mr. GOULBURN said the same question bad been put in Mr. O'Connell's case.—(Hear.) Sir GEORGE GREY obierved - that the case of Mr. O'Connell was very different to the present; in that case it was necessary to put the question. He thought the proper course would be to consider in the first in stance whether the House would allow the Baron Rothschild to take the oath on the Old Testament. Mr. SEIEIL would move as an amendment that Baron Rothschild should be called and sworn on the Old Testament. The House had received an answer from the Baron of the reasons why he had refused to be sworn on the New Testament. Mr. BERNAL—That is the amendmen t , the notice of which they had already given, Mr. SHELL regretted, if he had taken this amend ment out of the hands of other Members, and would not persevere. Mr. NEWDEGATE thought the whole prcceedings would be designated as a farce, unless something more tangible was effected. Mr. HUME apprehended that the time had now ar rived when the motion of which he had given notice should be proposed, and if the House saw no objection, he would move it at once.—(Cries of "No.") Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the House should first dispose of the preliminary resolution. If the House did not agree to the motion of the Hon. Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley), then they might properly re sume the adjourned debate, and the motion of the Hon. Member for the University (,f Oxford might then be put. The House then divided, when there appeared— For Mr. S. Wortley's motion 104 Against it ... ... 113 Majority .. _ •.. ... —l4 The motion was consequently lost. Mr. HUME then rose to resume the adjourned debate. He commenced by stating that he was really sorry, at this age, to witness such a contest as this. It was melan choly to think that England, which was considered in advance of other nations in intelligence and toleration, should be so far backward in its civil code as to exclude a man from a seat in the legislature of his country on account of his religious convictions. The Continent and the United States of America recognized no such law in distinction, and it was discreditable in that House that such a state of things was allowed to exist in this coun try. The question for them to decide was whether the clerk should be directed to swear Baron Rothschild upon the Old Testament, which was the mode the Baron thought was the most binding on his conscience, and he was really at a loss to understand upon what ground such a reasonable request could be objected to. The House had no right to suppose that the introduction of a few Dissenters could be the means of endangering, the doctrines of the Church of England. The Ho nourable Member for the University said the English House of Commons had always 1 een remarkable for its Christian character. Well, he for one hoped the House would always continue to act upon Christian principles; but let the House remember that the chief of these principles was "to do unto others as they would that others should do unto them."—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for the city of London contributed towards the expense,' of the State, and was, therefore, entitled to enjoy all the privileges of citizenship. Too long had the Dissenters been persecuted, but it was a source of pleasure to him to find that since he had been in Parlia ment many other disabilities had been removed. Tole. ration was formerly the rule, but religions liberty in its fullest sense was what they ought to leok fornow. —(Hear, hear.) It was on that ground that he trusted the House would allow the Hon. Member for the city of London to take the oaths in the same manner that they were taken in the courts of justice and the House of Lords. When he came to the table and refused to take any of the oaths prescribed, it would be time enough to raise the question consequent upon that refusal, but the only point they had to decide now was, whether, agn e ably to the ordinary customs of his persuasion, the Mem ber ,for the city of London shall be permitted to take the oath on the Old . Testament. He begged, therefore, to move as an amendment to the original motion— That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the city of London, having presented him self at tho table of the House, and having previously to taking the oaths requested to be sworn on the Old Tes tament (being the form which he has declared at the table to be binding on his conscience), the clerk be directed to swear him on the Old Testament accordingly." . Mr. WILLCOX seconded the amendment. Sir F. THESIGER regretted that the Honourable Gentleman the Member fur Montrose had introduced the subject of religions 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, and 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 bean • 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 lion. 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 trona 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 wee two distinct questions to be decided, but in reality they resolved themselves into one; and the first was a preliminary question, whether Baron Roths child could be admitted to take the oaths on the Old Testament, and the next question was whether a person could take the oath of abjuration on the Old Testament, professing that that was the form of oath most binding on his conscience. He believed it would be quite iinpessible to separate those two questions; they were involved and blended together; and if a Member coming to the table could not take the oath of abjure tiou in the Jewish ;erre he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought the Home would find, on careful deit: beraiiun of the subject, that, he could have no right whatever, according to established law, to take any of the oaths in that particular form. Although, it might be perfectly true that the question which was put by the clerk at the table was an unautho rised question, and that rio Member coming to the table was bound to answer that question, yet that question had been put—(llear)—and answered, and the question and 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 de-ire to take the Roman Catholic oath. lie (Sir F. The*iger) was ttereforo 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 nut 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 religion were required to take, namely, the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration. It was impossible to separate one oath trom the other, and until be could take all the oaths he 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, for 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 desiring to be sworn on the Old Testament, the question was whether be could be admitted to be swells in that firm, oath the faith rse i be being per fec tly c l ear th a t one of thos e oa th s , namely, the a Jewish abjuration, w oi s f h a fo r r o c. Christian" n T a i h n i s n g wouldc o ut the wordy noto he w be an imp ortant consideration which the House in arriving would please t o b ear i n mind conclusion as t o w h ether Baron Rothschild, having de t the l true off de sired to be sw orn upon the Old Testament, had not e o taken a h 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 ho had de clined to take the oaths in a manner which showed that he entirely dissented from the oath of abjuration. Fie hoped to be able to prove to the House that this was not questien depending upon the law and wage of Parliament, but upon the law of the laud. He should bs able to show the House that according to statute it w as impossible for any Member to bo sworn at that table upon the Old Testament. In order to clear the way for discussion, he would concede to these who were desirous to have Baron Rothschild sworn in the form which he himself had proposed, that from the very earliest period in our courts of justice Jews had been sworn both as witnesses and jurors. Before the banishment cf the Jews, in the reign of LONDO N, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 29, 1850. 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 morn, unless the courts had been prepared entirely to rehiee justice to persons of that persuasion. Accordingly, it was the eastern to hale juries composed halt t.f Christians, who were called sex probos et . legales &mines, and the other half of Jews, called sex legales Juciccos. 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 theysconsiderei as most binding on their consciences. There were many instances of this in the reigns of John and Henry 111., but it was observ able, with regard to the oath, that there was no Act of Parliament prescribing the form of oath, but from the earliest period it had been the custom of the judges to vary the form in order to meet the dif ferences of consciences, until at last it was decided by the Chancellor and the three chief judges, that a Gentoo could be sworn in a court or justice. But it was observable that although the judges varied the form of oath to meet the exigencies of the occasion, they were not at liberty to dispense with the oath, and it was net until the 7th and Bth of Wil liam 111. that the affirmation of Quakers was allowed to be taken. It was a very remarkable thing, and one which would assist them presently still further in the consideration of the point, that for 130 years up to the 9th of George IV: affirmations were not received in criminal casts. The law with regard to oaths in a court of justice undoubtedly was, that, ex necessitate, for the purpose of preventing justice from being defeated, they had permitted persons to be sworn in courts of justice according to the form of their religion, or according to the form most binding on their consciences. This was the case only with regard to assertory or juridical oaths, but did not apply to promissory oaths ; aed his proposi tion was, that the principle which was sought to be applied to all oaths in general, was, upon the authorities, to be applied solely to juridical oaths. Such being the state of the case, he would now consider what the oaths were that were to be taken. They were not oaths of a juridical character, but were what was called promissory oaths, and the question was whether such being the case, and it being prescribed that they were to be token 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 Aet of Parliament in the Christian form, and the form proposed to be adopted on the pre sent occasion, which ho would call ,the Jewish form, was excluded by the teems of the different Acts of Parliament. They had bud the benefit of a , report on the, subject, Which *ould very much facilitate the disatthtion and determination of Members. It was true, es 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 the 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 11. Members were required to take three oaths, but the manner of taking them was not altered from that prespribed in the - Acts of Elizabeth and James I. So matters remained till Ist William and Mary, when an Act was passed repealing the 30th of Charles, but requiring that the oaths substituted should be taken Rin 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 Hon. and Learned Member for the city of Oxford, was not quite conversant with how matters stood between the Ist and 13th of William 111., when he stated that during that time a Jew might sit in Parliament. The oath of abjured( n, almost in its present farm, was introduced by the 13th and 14th of William 111., and it contained the words " 611 the true faith of a Ceristian." Now, all Members of Parliament were required to take that oath ; they were required to take it, together with the oaths of allegiance end supremacy, and his Learned Friend was under a mistake in suppoeing that there was any doubt whatever tnat after the Ist of William and ;Miry, c. 1, there was any necessity for Members of the House of Commons to be sworn lei fare the Lord Steward, because his Learned Friend said that the sth of Elizabeth and the 7th of James the First were not re pealed by the Ist of William and Mary, c. 8, but his Learned Friend would see, if he turned his attention to the 30th of Charlet 11., that the oath was required to be taken at the table of the House. It seemed to him (Sir F. Thesiger) throughout quite clear that there was no necessity for Members 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, but it was necessary they should be correct as to what 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 all 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 iu 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 which they were now taken, e except with regard to the alteration provided for in that Act regarding the oath of sijuratiou, And the question which they were now called upon to decide was whether, in a historical review of 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 comedo 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 lrm to take?—(Hear.) Now, he would say that the Ist ofGeorge IV., following the other Acts which had 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 minstered was the Christian form, in which form it had been taken from the earliest time, and which had not teen 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 contemposezpositio. 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, hear.) • Now he apprehended his Lord ag Chief Justice with Lord W H o nourable and Learnedh i 3 Frienddisputeleadintgh that; eM e formb authority in r t h o f ono v r thisothry e subject, city of h a Orford x referredf o rd not ease to which the Hon oura b le and Learned Gentle man c ellsuice: o h t i s p r admirable omissory judgment, su agreed oaths could only be altered through the interference of the Legislature.—(hear, hear.) But ho did not mean to omit from his consideration of this question an argu ment upon NV bich great stress had been laid, arising out of au Act gef Parliameht which was mentioned in the House trustedhad not e the s ho effectu be upon alele report of the Committee. V ery great stress had by the whichsiro pl g y a t v n c es rise e. to A been fairly and properly laid upon I Cat Act of Parlia ment,us e but that he it advocates t o ht f oi s question t s h h o ow oth t h e i side. d h e ic . which I t l v y ti o s a t i 4 n , s e i r s o tee t t h o circumstanceson the introduction of that Act ? Why, case occurred in Ireland where Dr. C oo k , the President of the Provincial Synod of Ulster had had his house broken into and roobed, and the Doctor happened to be the principal a itness in the trial of the accused of the robbery I efore Mr. Justice Lefroy. When he came to be sworn ho proposed to be sworn by hold ing up his hand, and not by kissing the book in the ordinary way. The Learned Judge entertained some doubt about the matter, but nevertheless he.allowed the doctor to be sworn in tleit way, and reserved the point for the opinion of the twelve Judges. Ultititifely the' twelve Judges decided that the oath was not bindi n g nor legal. t tNow if this case had arisen in Env laud, there would have been no doubt at all that ;the oath was perfectly good, because it was de c id e d in a case as long ego 1857, where the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford appeared before Chief Justice Glynn as a a itncas. He objected to kiss the book, but stated he would be sworn by having the book open before him, and holding up his right band. Gillet Justice Glynn held that to be a good oath, and ever since there had been no question that that oath was good which was binding upon the conscience of the party who took it. Now, under those circumstances, Lord Denman thought it right to introduce a statute for the purpose of enabling persons to swear according to the forms w hi c h was binding upon their consciences, but the sta tute introduced was what wasnalled a declaratory Act, which was an Act in furtherance of the law as it already existed. The Act which was in troduced on that occasion, the Ist and 2.(1 Victoria, ueinietered, eith e r by a-• o r a deponent in , any enacted that in all cases in whic h caths ma y be lawfully taken, or shall have been ad juryman, or witness, civil or crimit a l proceeding , or on the shall by the office, or on an y occe be bound h 2 w ii a i appointmentc%h't i a s shall °f;B l e n ,suche n he saga is binding on his conscience. Now, v Y per persondrsifioion s ° i t ttred in the form which it would b e ob ser v e d 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 bete eau affirmatory sta tutes, declari ng the law, and repealing statutes, altering the law; a n d he ventured to contend that that Act of Parliament had no e -oration whatever upon any existing law, and that if any la trevieusly existed b y which au oath ts t c si) was to be t a k en in any articu lar form, there was no abrogatio n M a ll of that law, and that it had a declara tory and no repealing effect. If the argument was good for an)thing it must be carried out to its fullest extent. Could it be serioutiv contended that in the case of its being required of a Member under the Act or George the First to take the oath of abjuration—that oath con taining the words -t' on the true faith of. a Christian"— that person might say he would take that oat ' in a Jewish form ? His Honourable Friend's argument must go that entire length or it was absolutely good for nothing. Ile (Sir F. Thesiger) contended that affirmative statutes of that kind would have no operation on the ea :sting law, much less a repealing ca er.ttion. It would be coite uenceessery for him to argue that the woiels "on the true faith et a Christian" acre essential or substantial words in that oath of abjuration. It was quite impossible that any person could take that oath omitting those words.—(Hear.) 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 Baton 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 ho bad 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 Rothschild in the form in which it was put to him. It was a direct presumption against this mode of strivisig 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 Bills 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 after his own mode they would depart from precedent, and, as he:considered, violate the statutes of the land. They would also he 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 irato 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 catise it was with reference to these Acts Of Parliament that this question must be decided. lie contended that at the present day no person could claim to be a Mem ber of the Legislature without taking the three oaths of al'egiancp, 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 be 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 ment, 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 Louden have sent a gentleman to this House elected by a majority of themselves, and not only once but twice returns d him, and I say it is due to thrm and to the whole body of the electors of this kingdom to see that nothing short of a positive obstruction of law prevent us from allowing that gentleman to take his seat in this House. Sir, the Hun. and Learned Gentleman I think has been obliged upon this subject to deduce rather from Acts of Parliament that which is no; in their letter--that which is not eh arly prescribed by them, but to deduce inferences from farmer Acts of Parliament, some of which have been revealed, but which ho thinks ought 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 to allow Baron Rothschild to take the oaths in a manner which he says will be moot binding on his conscience. I entirely doubt the policy of the Acts to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has referred, and I think if we are bound to conform to the letter of those 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 auy better allegiance or better legislation. I believe rather that the wisdom of ancient legislation, before the unhappy differences arose between various classes of people—l rather be lieve that ancient legislation 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 corporeal 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 must 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 hoves us, in my opinion, to consider how we are to construe the Aats we are bound by. Having no precedent, I naturally go to the usages in courts of law, and then I come to the distinction be tween promissory and juridical 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. When I find this to be the case, I say at once that I do not think the words contained in the Acts of Elizabeth 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 that 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 wbether 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 catb. 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 make 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 an objection which would at once reject 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 passed, which says that if any person is sworn on any occasion what ever, snub person is bound by the oath administered. Now I confess I do not think that statute is completely conclusive on the subject, but at least it does this— it makes a person guilty of perjury subject to the same penalties which another person would be subject to supposing he took an oath in the acaustomed form. You obtain that security at least by the statute. Well, then, what are the oaths which the Member for London has to take. .The Hon. and Learned Gentleman complains that those oaths are of that nature that they Ural a conclusive objection in the firet instance against 'the Hon. Member being sworn on the Old Testament, Now it appears to me that you ought not to go so far BS to preclude argument on this subject. It did appear to me that those Acts, to which the Hon. and Ls arned Gentle man refers, viz., 9th Geo. I. and 13th Geo.ll.—that those r-) But, e to words giving exe m p t i on to t h e wor d s on the true faith of a Christian in a pereerotiatlidncctahsiess House there natmro, on named and d escr bed appear to m Sir, the questio n now i s, w h et h er th e Member fU i r in London the n should be all owe d to go so f ar as t a, b e sworn on the Old Testament, and t o s t ate , e i t h er by himself or counsel, what oaths h e i s rea d y to t a ke, and in what sense he is tt Loo words on the tr ue f a i t h o f a Ch r i st ia n .---(lle ready to take them. some have contended, and con tended hvreisrytiapuro,,paerrelyo,otit",;tthtehesawnocrtdios"n aonndtheeonttfluremaftalothu them selves. Now, Sir, I think whatever may be the wei"ht of that argument, that the Member who alleges it should be at liberty to show that by ar gument, and not be sent away at once from this House without being at liberty to offer or save any explana tion. If he had stated, .‘ I am a Christian," or "I pro &as myself to be a Christian," it .might be incensistent with that oath that he should in the first instance be sworn on the Old Testament, but that is riot the present case; the circumstances are entirely differ ent. The original intention of putting the words " on the true faith of a Christian " appears to have been to give a solemnity and sanction to the oaths with regard to one class of Christians, viz., the Roman Catholics, a ho might be suspected of being disaffected from the crown and not for the purpose of excluding the Jew.—(Llear.) I have stated that I think it is not in the power of the House to dispense with those, words—(lier.r, hear)— and when the question comes to be ( r e b a t e d; I sh a ll certainly, having given considerabl e stu d y to the subject, feel myself compelled to oppose the omission of these words from the oath; but I do riot ook i i n og the if t Or t m his most as think you are enabled at p resent to declare that Baron Rothschild shall not be a shorn binding to his conscience; ant! looking a matter for grave deliberation, I think you shouid allow the Member who proposes to be sworn at the table, every latitude in order to have his case fully and amply staged.—(bear, 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.—(:Tear.) Now, Sir. I have said that I would allude, before I ceeeluded, to the line c•f argument pursued by some Hen. Member:. I feel it ray duty to protest against their arguments. It was said the other day in thg course of the debate by an Hon. 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, intolerauce 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, ,s..s 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 nut 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 et once 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 Douse, 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—if you pro pose to act in a particular way because it is in tie promo tion of civil and religious liberty, you will be in effect exer cising and dispensing a power, ►he 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 ha 4 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 his seat—the Baron de Rothschild—should have his I s 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 H. H. INGLIS acknowledged the moral courage and forbearance of the Noble Lord's speech, and thanked him for both; but if he were prepared to follow the plan of tho Noble Lord, which he was not, in what state would Baron Rothschild be if he came t 3 the table. —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to have for gotten that taking the book in one hand and kissing the bock was not the first act but the last connected with the taking of the calla The Hon. Member for the, city of London must hold in one hand the three oaths and the hook in the other, and by his doing so he binds himself to all three.—(lleer.) Those were not the regulations of the House, but the law, as established by Act of Parliament, and only by Act of Parliament could it be altered.—(Hear, hear.) Still, if it were the wish of the House to take, the division on the amendment, he should have no objection to withdraw his motion.—(Hear.) He believed the Act of Lord Denman did not touch the case at all. Sir GEORGE GREY proposed that the debate be ad journed.—(Cri,-s 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 contiruud; 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. Ile should recommend the House to grant no supplies to the Noble Lord until be 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 at 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 a.k 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 hie seat? Lord JOIIN RUSSELL would only say that ques- ticn was, of course, not new to him, 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 his seat, and of course it became his (Lord J. Russell's) duty to consider tb e 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 tban bring his own mind to that conclusion, and with the best study he could give the question he had come to that result which ha had felt it his duty to state to the House.—(lear, hear.) Mr. PAGE WOOD said th:4 he certainly thought the &bate 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 Eeve ra 1 Bills. The SPEAKER accordingly left the House, accom. panied by several ion. Members. On his return, The SPEAKER, read the titles of the different Bills which had received the Royal Assent (for which see Lords' report). PRISONS DISCIPLINE BILL. The report on this Bill was brought up. PETITIONS. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from Westnainstrr against the Sunday Trading NATIONAL LAND SOCIETY. Mr. 11. BROWN presented a petition from certain members of the National Lund:Society, which he prayed might be read at length. F. O'CONNoltobjected that it was the same petition which had been presented at the commencan3ent of the session. Mr. W. PATTEN hoped that if. such were the case, the Hon. Member would Lot press for its being read. Mr. H. BROWN denied that it was the same petition. The Clerk then read the petition, which was signed by a considerable number of the allottees i❑ the National Land Company,aud prayed for an inquiry into the whole affeirs of tout undertaking. Mr. BROWN gave notice that he would move tomor row that 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 beginnlng of the session. Many of those who complained so loudly of his conduct had received loans of 50/., ,tad had their land highly cultivated, and yet they had paid not a farthing of tent for at least twelve months. When the . Com mittee of the House entered into an investigation of the company's affairs, they stated that the company owed him (Mr. O'Connor) 3,4 . 001.; in the following year they owed him an additional 1,2001.; and he was ready to show to another Committee that it was indebted to him to the extant . of 7,0001. or 8,0001., which he had not 4 1simed; and this was inn whioh ho raaaived from these rulaans.—(A laugh.) itETui;..tcrs. Mr. W. PATTEN moved for the following returns, instead of those ordered on the 2d or July :—Returns of the number of private Bills introduced and brought from thellouse of Lords, and of Acts passed in 1850, chased according to the following subjects:—Railways ; roads and bridges ; waterworks ; ports, piers, harbours, and docks; canals and navigations; churches, chapels, and burying grounds; paving, lighting, and improving; gaols aria other county buildings; it:closures; small debts courts; and all other Bills and Acts. Of all the private Bills, other than Railway Bills, which, in the present session, have been treated as opposed Bills, specifying those Bills which have been classi fied in groups by the Commitike of Selection; together with the names of the selected Members wbo served on each Committee; the firs: an also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served ; the Bills the preamble of which was reported to have been proved ; the Bills the preamble of which was reported to have been not proved ;..the • Bills referred hack to the Committee of Selection, as having; become unopposed; and the Bills withdrawn, or not proceeded with by the parties. Of all the railway Bills which, in the present session, have been treated as opposed Bills ; specifying those Bills which have been classified in groups by the Committee of Selection; together with the tamer of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the fir: t, and also the last day of the sitting of each Cum- mittee; the number of days on which etch Com mittee set ; the number of days on which ea c h selected Member has served ; the Bills the pr o .: amble of which was reported to have been prevail; the Bills the preamble of which was reported to have been not proved; the Bills referred back to the Committee of Selection as having become unopposed; and the Bills withdrawn, or not proceeded with by the parties. O: all the private Bills, other than railway Bills, which in the present session have been treated as unopposed Bills, and lame been referred to --.._.......----..—...--.—.----,........-- the chairman of the Committee of WaY s ' 86 ..1 Means, together with the names of the Membet who served on each Committee;_ the nuinLer of dap °,,n which tech Committee sat; and tbe number of days e" which each Member attended; and of all the rays Btlls which, being unoppos-2d, have been referred is t f present session to the Chairman of the CoramitV,e ° the Ways 13 Ler I Memb and Means; ogether with the names ers who served on.cach Committee; the nilli l h . i . of days on which each Committee od; aud the nom" of days on which each Member attencied.--bigeed to:iee _ e Sir J. HOGG moved for copies of all corer E¢ do bteeen her Maj.;:Ay's Government and the Bas I n ." .Company,,„ and the Board of Commissioners for tweet Affairs of India and the Court of Directors; els°, bet° 01 her M a j es ty' s Government and the Peninsular( and Orietnor. Steamand Navigation Company, or the Court f Direc, or that company, regarding the establishmeta nilees the mode of conducting steam communication betty or and 'with Aultll4. Suez and Bombay, or between Suez and Calceiraijap Ce 3 lon Hong-Kong, and t e Colonies. PETITIONS. ro Of Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from , a P b - - ; 13 01 residing in Ballinaslue, Galway, complaining 0 ' t welt to alter and amend the Prerogative Courting, of Ru bs; • and praying, in the event of the Bill passi n g' .100 clause might be introduced rendering him a dt°issi b s 4* an attorney to practice in the court without th P J meat of any additional fee. Gloria Mr. MACGREGOR presented a petition for roes, gow praying that the House might promote everY. w ill, sure tor the purpose of extending steam navigation the Australian colonies. dust Mr. PLUMPTRE p res ented a petition sg , admission of Jews into Parliament. -gn) Birk MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IBEL A- - -,- goov Mr. REYNOLDS gave notice that when ti.efortbe cipal Corporations (Ireland, No. 2) Bill came en sates second reading, be would move that it be read ti s time that day three months. AND TAE SIR CHRISTOPHER CODRINGTON BRISTOL RIOTS. c e 'blin d Sir CHRISTOPHER CODRINGTON threw er self upon the indulgence of the House whi le jo ttb e plained i a matter p er sonal t o himself. On Friday bo o ion. Momber for Bristol, in alluding tolaira in h is ;0101 c and made assertions with regard to bit° I S fat, stl oddriegton) which were not founded to ' fit/ilt/ therefore calculated to impugn leis character 't character of the troop of Yeomanry ho had the blyete command. on The Honourable Member for, , i kooP, ti Friday night comparing him and his inar 6/1‘ . a certain King of France, who .a,iiir'(6l:ll w*; . a hill and then marched down agai n , : 6 ' 11 1 3 / .o l ' Coddrington) and his troops m arched lot „eroetli the time of the riots, and immediately 6/17,10.111. marched out again by the light of the fires. c l og fir o answer to that statement, he bad to seY ~,,t 1 et O f t: intimation be got of the Bristol riots vvas 61"'" stet:' o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, and he itallj n O n' called up his troop of yeomanry, consistinEOlefe6r;i'lLttede. bers, and in less than tour hours 59 of thew roc P .A saddle, while within four hours after that tbeef„enetr" Bristol. As soon as the troop reached Bristol rents" himself to the commander of the district, CO' Ile P i a t who kept him in conversation for some tite e ' nov eh, Is he captain that his troop had come a l°l3g ties lied were not t anxious to act immediately. bu t „4010,eeti to aet without a magistrate. Tbei ,7 a rid ,1, find a magistrate, but did not sue b n e e t e ; ba le il s o e to . f r e e Captain Reardon said the troop had town,blo remarking that he hoped there Wou ld r . *l 4 ~%; underto ' march i tshhoe out?—(Bear, hear.) Ile s hould L.. coie tae?in_rdebirlitesetas;ronoeneesr, whatthey alieteftrntbsetivboetitleai!elcoi evidence before the court-martial, Da° , . , no t or bat], t e t, Reardon terminated his existencN and he On e i 3 6t3 It i be tore, had no opportunity of making di 1 , 3 tball pi mouse made it, however, now, he wau el d°lll- oil i 'ittV - -,. se for its kind attention, and leave it to 0 1 9 0 1 0 _ amount of reliance was to be placed 'on t l . l° f the Hon. Member for Bristol. th e VENTILATION OF MINO' vai s e intention of Government iw Mr. F. O'CONNOR ' 1•ow if feelo the ventilmiongft° ' - ( PO pc Sir GEORGE mines. the Lords GREY said a Bill h a ote! sto od with a view to that object w hich itTf° sccond " readtng to-n ight ,in DO a BARON ROTIISCLI - . uglir'''' -00 e d w e b b i a e t b e,and commencedlLD—ADJO th e t l .l doe ; Mr. C. ANsT , of isthoedaiztoe ; n a y step , to EYthenbryoseeointoprise ; n ag; of .to b teb c i9 ol ' „ ste t; Lion. Premier, d ": 11 ;: frt . (l°ll3 l l. thirdto o e with thet f ion as b k y in w g ay th ; f . 1 ',,, e a 5 0 : 0 1614"57‘ . 1. ' P eg Hon. and Learned Member for Abine , re lief Ho ts sa' Quakers, notwithstanding the Act which r e l' °s lo consciences at the time of the evolution, I f i e jB2 B . b "4 mated to give evidence in criminalr cases ile i , - kers .4 ; the bee Hon. and Learned Member awa re that (4 1 ! $ 0 1 caw ot t_ n admitted to make aieaffirmaton ie r iWill tilli t !' . 0 of justice from 1826 down to the P resell a t li °4 '..e 64 f 9 l did be forget that take their seats in that liaklleorsusesws.eoi. ,rtise of Mr. Pease without any What the house of Commons was th tile a: 0 1 : 7 t 0 ; 11 ,0: $ : ~„c i to r ' was exactly what was done in the case °f e[;3 ter tie °I Though the forms of oaths of abjuration // s ot °op t r b io e us, yet he would venture to say there was t o. t .d,tie ° wffhei m ch which b - e a en Je d w or even a Heathen W ig- d/ O$lP- 14 11 ' (Mr. Anstey) could .not understattegthweeen j o ° o - 01 11 1 ' i ,asanthaetorot r g a nt w hoe n f in the debate ea ei cal earlycr what were called pro rn i tte folloo as judges, oaths. Richard 1 1 1 . if, , d e w w : 3 : 1 . 4;t to ll .t :J; 11 . g Jews took the oaths of fealty soli the tdrs' were admitted to Parliament whenPartteien (LEFT SPEARING . ) . i4 Cl. i TATTERSALL'S—THIS- _ $ ll ° No betting. a ia" FRAN CE. t he r re ir . stlit The Afoniteur publishes a decree of f o oe t. soov of the Republic, imposing a quarantine ° 0 , 1 0 of three days at least, and five at most ol).teP eal arriving in the French ports of the ~a t h from countries where the cholera pees '',.f •r A second decree confers the poWers epivoiere,dioto Board of Health at Marseilles on V t ' A e , un der 0 :1 0 0.° to ll tli g pointed Special Commissioner authority rh of the Prefect of the Bounb es , te r ft f ele The same official journal contains le' °, ng te Minister of Finance to the Minister -1013 g to al i t tt Affairs, informing him that the Ye ebts d b ill• - • various English clubs shall be adtnitte told French ports without the payment of alOO dues on showing a certificate from th e i g tif e the club to which the yacht belongs. I , Lev , fier The Committee of the initiative of t'lpf, ~ ;0 0 1 1 Assembly have rejected the proposit ion ° be' A' s ;otel rier to remove from the town whereitt deov , may sit all persons not domiciled in " g ot 01 ' 4 or who cannot prove they possess me i— t 00 P' existence. ,„' 20th f i b ° Letters from Constantine of, ---a in in e nounce the discovery of a Pe s. del tains between Philippevill , and J-gralnair) of PARIS BOURSE, JULY 27.-4' lo j e nk Of 40 c 7 _; Three per Cents., 581. , 2,355 f. , 0 .05,, POLICE IN TELLIG I ‘ .3 4 1 1 1 1 ',$it BOW-STREET. ~,,,i 00 : , 0. 0 L. Barris, footman, who was reinan",,;, 0 ell', or ' and j J. il l otberstone, coachman, bosh in t''',f 10' 1 4 , J. Burge :me, appeared to answer a el' r g e - O t ifi lr saulted the police. bn yi° 0 f¢ T ‘ he prisoners expressed their reFret f()r s qtl ig° t ; rea . with the policeman, and said i; W 2 , t es r hii tentional. 6 0 * ia v il Sir J. Burgoyne gave both defendants a bee° fe # lent character. Tyheearfsooatnmdan,l(h sa id) " r e t eoachninoh/f°orielfe; $4l( service for fifteen and both had at all times well ecocnductei4th'efiec:-es iv Jo M n r. JARDINE fined them 3/. each. 914 ",,:ii 1 /°-1 ' . ii i John would not pay the fine out of his ' 00 0 0 1, them. , c.e P t i 01 0° di Sir John raid he would advance the um- ill°,: e - 1 11 F they might not have the money; but he m o vi ic a ° k. yg j. ing to the directions of the magitrate• - . v.v . it ultimately. The fines were • c er eal . i A no T ma il i e i v ca e t r h y ol ß ie .'"*.- of . •co f •dent iflit le Paid. and the prisecierg Cep. e rd e ae C v l . p o I , ae l i e ua ) g ri :e s i, ii- h P a a s Y I :e .s r s 'i g r i l: t e e i rd r e e e St ssis t e d o tie : c :!ift e " ll . i i t e -1311 0 ° . 111 ;r0 :1 : : I,o ll ,:f e e l r i l d . j u t e_rvi:n.,ngessiel Vincent 4ort!)un.n, p r.. p ll: , alsh, theDanuldabtibeins Vice - r re fOr if • succeeds to the chair 0 . join . 0 serLmoOnNDi bold of the -., rard4Y do _. T SPITA L. ~,,i I ftig •Ifc , i t v a. , the church of St. Peter's, Vere-street, by n p. o no e ll- L il o:don Fever—Hloseps::- ' t i:e li e :„ e ; conclusion of the Temple, Archdeacon. Robos?,'lntia°!, of Divine service a collection Wil" jug to 441. cs. . BIRTH& OF A SO On the 27th inst., the Marchioness of Stap 40 4 0 , the Ho O n t . t r,ir lt t n hr yi n A s i t a. ,l3 u a e t r2 B erg hapto On the 25th inst., at Gloucester- mu ure, Ow itia wife R e ynol d s. o on uof t t i c i h e eh 24th ds inst.,s:stot Smith, Esq, a t EtAs L 2sTq j a u : sdowne - 0 a d ' is ° 4 ti rd ' ~ tb ° ' p Mrs. Robert Dalz . ell. 11.u.cottie:,(cil.epEtlfcrlibie On nAluanodisr:r j3Eellov..4l.ci:gbilif:vv, evoo,.ili the 20th inst., at Oakfield, near eh" - , : i ei wife of Joseph Oldham, Esq. , 0 ~ 0 , , w O at n ,o t o l:e 25th inst., at l'Sr• John Sr . 1'93 7 I t° dflt , . ...., n teD, iive pia7 , daughter of the late Samuel LOUgdell, .c.',,`c,o o "'" Oa f .llr On the 20th inst , at Greenwich, Mr. A.. oh to m p e Esq., Spring-lodge, Barnar'd 9,inst.a. ,Dr o p r v ieta tt‘ Professor of RhetOric and Elocution, Glasg,er, of k . " youngest daughter of the late William DY Of Greenwich, oc' e r9 Pi Dap. , yeiee' t 1 1, On the 23d inst.. at Bosworth -par., t ell Willoughby Wolaston, Dixie, Bart. ~ PO' el 50 " 1 •On the 25th inst., at.Porebester-terracv, ~ AO D i Schaw, Esq., Commander R.N., a ged 7° ' old' to On the 24th inst., at Druids -lodge, 1 " 1°13 e . re' John Sanderson, sq , aged 85. a 1‘ 16" t: rt'ei d , S,C II Oa- On the 2Gth inst., ;it Camberwell, ag e c r ap .„I,:ti, vet the late Rev. J. Simons, rector of Paul's o,lbam o ug h e I On the 27th inst , aged 74, Sir Jolla r' ojestvoto u gt , On the 26th inst., llannah Elizatbcetolul,ccii r a e t i r et of r , i G. Brown, Esq., formerly member o . f . or y, ~- p At Stratford-green, Essex, aged 74, , a-' ef i lit Oakes, late of the Stock Exchang,a• .. 1 0 /0. 'o' .—___.,.....-- .....----;--- 00 k" 101 , -,AIO O, O il London: Printed and Published b% so v-,„,-. 0 No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tize i t i IP - , l 't l3l ‘ l . lii the Precinct of the StOr e P Middlesex, Monday, July 29, 18.50.