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

CHELMSFORD, JULY 26.—Prices to-day were as follow: Wheat, white, old 45s to 495; new 46s to 50s; red, old 37. to 435; new, 38s to 44s ; barley, 23s to 27 - is ; chevalier 24s to 265; grinding 21s to 234 ; oats 15s to 20s ; malt 539 to 555; chevalier 643 to 565; peas, partridge, new 27s to 295; old, —s to —s ; white, new, 2.1 s to 263; old, —s to —s ; dun, new, 26. to 288; beans, tick, new 23s to 26s ; old, 24s to 27s ; hazrow ticks, new 21s to 27s ; old 2.51 to 28s; ma- Sagan, new 22. to t.t4s ; old 2:3s to 25s per qr. COLCHESTER. JULY 27.—Wheat, white 46s to 503 ; red 428 to 465; barley 22s to 248 ; beans, mazagan 24s to 25. ; middle and small 26s to 235; peas 21ts to 28s per qr. KIR/CALM', JIM! 27.—The following are the quotations up to this date : Wheat. Barley. Oats. Beans. Peas. I First 42s Od 22s 6d 21s 61 —s Od —s Od Second 40s ad 20s 6d 20, 6d —s Od I—s Od Third 35, 0.1 183 Od 18s Od —s Od J—s Od Oatmeal, per Nur, of 2801bs imperial, 273 Od to Os Od. HADDINGTON, JULY 26.—The following are the prices of grain at our market to-day : Wheat. Barley. Oats. 1 !Beans. First ... ... 44s Od 24s Od 22s 91 33s Od Second ... ... 413 41 23, 21 21s 7d 1 30s 3d Third .•• •• 3.5 s Od 204 Od 19s Od 1 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, JULT ` , l4.—Provisions—Cheese, 40s to 47s Od per cwt ; retail, 5d to 6d per lb. Skim milk, 2i)s Od to Os per cwt. Country fresh butter, 9 .21to Od per lb. Irish pow dered, in lumps, lid to 8d; country powdered, wholesale, 8d to Od. Country eggs, 8d per dozen ; carried hen ditto, Si 4d per )20, or 7d per dozen. Hens, 2s 6d per pair ; Ducks, 2a 6d. Praxtr, JULY N.—Wheat, 40. Od to 44s Od; barley, 19s Od to 21s Od ; oats, 18s to 21s ; peas and beans, 23s Od to 26s per quarter. Oatmeal, per sack, 22s to 245. KELSO, JULY 26.—Wheat, old, Os to Os ; ditto, new, 29s Cd to 34s Od ; barley, new, 13s Od to 17s Od ; ditto old, Os to Os ; potato oats, 00s to 00s ; ditto new, 14s Od to 16s Od ; common eats 06s to 00s Od ; ditto new, 14s to Iss Od ; peas, Os Od to Os Od; beans, Os to Os per boll of six imperial bushels. STIRLING, JULY 26.—Wheat, foreign, 20s to 235; ditto, borne, Os to Os; ditto ditto new, 19s Od to 21s Od; barley, per boll of 6 bushels, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new, 16s Od to 19s Od. Oats, common, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new, 14. Od to 17s Od; ditto, Flemish, Os Od to Os Od; ditto ditto new, Os Od; malt, distillers, 32s Od to 344 ; ditto brewers, 34s Od to 3.5 s ; beans per boll, Os Od to Os Od ; ditto new, 12s Od to Iss Od ; pease 131 Od to Os Od; flour, new per sack, 31s Od to 33s Od; ditto common ditto, IBs 6d to 20s 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 ; eg g s per dozen, 7d to 94 ; hay per ton, Os Od t o O s ; dit to 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 lx.ll ; barley, 00s Od to Os Od ; oa t s , Is s 3d to O s Od; beans, 14s 64 to Os Od per boll ; oatmeal, Os to Os per load. BERWICK, JULY 25.—Wheat, 39s 54d ; barley, Os Od • oats, 00s Od ; rye, 00, Od ; beans, 21s 44 ; peas, 005 Od average per imperial quarter. Hawicx, JULY 25.—Wheat, new, 22. to 33s Od; barley, new, 15s to 00s Od ; ditto old, 15 s to 17. 6d ; potato o a t s , 14. Od to 16s Od ; common . oats, 13s to 15s Od ; peas, 18s Od to 22s Od ; beans, lss Od to 223 Od per boll of six imperial bushels. COAL MARK ET.—.YESTXRDAY. Saddle's W. Hartley.. 14s 3 , 3 Haswell Beghies Hartley; Chester Alain 133 Od' Lam bton Davison'sWeat Hartley 14s 3d Lumley Hasting's Hartley l4s 3d Richmund.. .. ...... ... Holywell Ord's Maiu ...... Ravensworth'sW.Hart 13s 9d IStewart's Tanfield Moor Tau-field Moor Butes l2s OdlCaradoc ..... .. ..—..., West Hartley Wylam Wall's End, &c. Hartlepool • Acorn Close Bewicke and Co. Bensham .—... ..... Elm Park . 133 9d; Thornley Barton Hedley ... .......... . 14s OdjAdelaide Tees Hilda l3s EdiMaclean's Tees Pttorri4on l4s 04 Seymour. Tees I•Thrthumberland Original Gibson 13s 6dlTees is 3d is 3d ii 9d Riddell ..... ..- ..... ... 133 9dlWest Pease Walker _ Eden Main . l4l 6d!Gwatin Cae Stone .. 2)s Lambton Primrose ... 15s OdlHp.rtley _ ...... ..... ... 13i _ Bell Belmont 143 9d, ) Llangennech 2os Braddyll Betton Is 94 5s 6d Is 3d !s 3d is Od k 9d :3 6d ;s Od is 3d ,s 6d a 9d LONDON FEVER. 1103P1TA L.—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 mg to 441. Fs, FRANCE. 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. Melier, 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 of 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 de p artment, 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 Jemtnappes. PARIS BOURSE, JULY 27.—Five per Cents., 96f. 40c.; Three per Cents., .58f. , Bank of Fraace, 2,353 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'e bed-room, and there he 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 had 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 i❑ court on their subpoena ; 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, and, in reply to is 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, it appeared that somebody had told her mister that she (Ann Briscornb) 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 2s. per week."—Leeds Mercury. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. The following is the official statement of the quantiti corn, &c., received in the port of London from the poi Essex, from the 22d July, 1850, to the 2it'n July, both inclusive :—. ies of Its in leso, Colchester ......... .—.. .. Harwich Leigh Maldon 173 . -4 7'. 83 28 43 , - 4.32 71' 94G - . . 73 0 .74 •- 485 -I - 45, 414 -•••• f - - 90, - 8`)I 25: THE SUN, desiring to be sworn on the Old Testament, the question was whether he could be admitted to be sworn in that form, 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 au 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• alined 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 very earliest period in our courts of justice Jews had been sworn both es witnesses and 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 had 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 leg ales homines, and the other half of Jews, called sex leg Iles J udceos. 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 moat 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 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 exigencies of the occasion, they were not at liberty to dispense with the oath, and it was not 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 cases. 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 ; wad 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 wore 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 taken is 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. I; was true, ns 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 wore 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 prescribed 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, bat 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 nut 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 111., when he stated that during that time a Jew might sit in Parliament. The oath of abjuration, almost in its present ferm, was introduced by the 13th and 14th of William 111., and it contained the words b on the true faith of a Christian." Now, all Members of Parliament were required to take that oath ; they were required to take it, together with the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and his Learned Friend was under a mistake in supposing that there was any doubt whatever that alter the Ist of William and Mary, c. 1, there was any necessity for Members of the House of Commons to be sworn bi fore the Lord Steward, because his Learned Friend said that the sth of Elizabeth and the 7th of James the First were not re reeled by the Ist of William and Mary, c. 8, but his Learned Friend would see, if he turned his attention to the 30th of Charles IL, 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 ether oaths than those provided by the Ist of William and Mary. lie 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 let 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 those 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 which they were now taken, except with regard to the alteration provided for in that Act regarding the oath of abjuration. 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 lstl 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.) Now, he would say that the Ist of George IV., following the ether 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 been interfered with by the Ist of George 111. Now, suppose there was any doubt as to the legitimate construction of the Act 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 iu that House, that from the time of George I. down to the pre sent time, this was the first occasion upon whi c h 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 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 Coke, 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 in the report of the Committee. Very great stress had been fairly and properly laid upon at Act of Parlia ment, but he trusted he 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 had had his house broken ints and robbed, and the Doctor happened to be the principal witness in the trial of the accused of the robbery before Mr. Justice Lefroy. When bookal allowed in t t h h e e idn4utb'tpabhoiust hand, and he came to be sworn he proposed to be sworn by hold h e matter, b not ut Learned nevertheless ey vekissing ordinary wa .y ,s t Judge h si e n l g e s n th e t h e r e tained some doctor to be sworn in that way, and reserved t h e point for the opini on o f the twelve Judges. Ultimately the twelve Judges decided that nor legal. N ow i f this t the oath was not binding case had arisen in Eng land, there would have been that the oath wa s p er f ect l y good, because doubt at all it was decided in a case as long e go 16 1 7 , where the' Vice-Chancellor of Oxford appeared before Chief Justice Glynn as a witness. He objected to ' 1s ithe book, but stated he wou ld be sworn b having the book open before him, and holding up h is right hand. Chief justice Glynn held that to be a good oath, and ever since there had been no question that that oath was good which was bi n di ng 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 which was binding upon their consciences, but the eta, tute introduced was what wassailed 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, enacted that in ell cases in which oaths may be lawfully taken, or shall have been administered, either by a juryman, or witness, or a deponent in any civil or criminal proceeding, or on the appointment of any person to aity office, or on any occe tion whatsoever, such person shall be bound by the oath which shall be administered in the form 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 he 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 he 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.—(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 oyes 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 ho 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 Rothschild in the form in which it was put to him. 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 bad 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 be brought into collision with the courts of law and the House of Lorda 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 farm 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 state.' the arguments upon this question, upon which be founds his opinion that Baron Rothschild ought not to he permitted to take the oaths at the table of this House upon the Old Testa ment, but also because ho 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 Loudon 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 le due to them and to the whole body of the electors of this kingdom to see that nothing short of a pcsitiee 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 riot in their letter—that which is not clearly prescribed by them, but to deduce ieceeences from former Acts of Parliament, some of which have been repealed, but which he tables ought to bind us. I venture to ask in the spirit I have referred to whether there is in these Acts t,f Parliament such provisions as refuse to allow Baron Rothschild to take the oaths in a manner which he says will he most binding on his conscience. I entirely doubt the policy of the Acts to which the Hon. and 1.-Aimed Gentleman has reerred, 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 any 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 H on . an d Learned Gentleman says it 13 quite clear, if oaths are to be taken upon-the Holy Evangelists, that they must be Christian oaths, and Tee are bound to consider that any oaths to be taken must be Christian oaths. Nuw 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 con s ider how we are to construe the Acts we are bound by. Having no precedent, I naturally go to the usages in e u e ri m di a aa t l o th n e ath d s is . tinc N ti n o w n , be i e t: a: e t a s o promissory 1 law, an d thenand j find that Lord Hardwicke says that if a Jew should bo indicted for perjury, he would be as liable to be a punished for the oath he had taken as if it bad been taken on the New Testament. When I find this to be th e 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 I, which re gulates our proceedings, I d o not fi nd 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, th en , we are not bound by it. Even if the words the Holy Evangelists are in it, it i s not an Act at the present moment which binds us to administer the oaths on the New Testament. I t i s indeed a very important consideration that from the Ist to the ' 13th of William 111., there was n o oath which directly excluded the Jews that might come to this table. It has been urged, and it may be rightly, that the Jews wore 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 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 au 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 pasted, which says that if any person is sworn on any occasion what ever, such 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 an other person would b e i subject to supposing he took an oath in the accust ome d firm. You obtain that security at least by the statute. Well, then, what are the oaths which the Member for Loudon has to take. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman complains that those oaths are of that nature that they form a conclusive objection in the first instance against ought not to go so far as the Hon. Member being sworn on the Old Testament. Now it appea rs t o me th a t you to preclude argu m e n t on this subject. It did appear to me that those A cts , to w hi c h t h e lion. and Learned Gentle man refers, v i z., 9t h G eo. I . an d 13th Geo. ll.—that those words givin g exemption to the words o n t he true faith of a Ch r i s ti an i n certain cases t h er e named and described appear to m e t o prec l ude t hi s House from omitting the words on th e true f a i th o f a Christian.—(blear.) But, , he is ready 'to take, and in what sense he is Sir, the quest i on now is, whether the Member for London should be all owe d to goso far as to bo sworn on the Old Testament and to state either by himself or counsel, what oaths ready to take them. Some have contended, and con tended v er y properly, that the words " on the true faith of a Ch r i st i an, " are Only the sanction and confirmation of the oaths, and do not belong to the oaths them selves. N ow , Si r, I think whatever may b e t h e weight of that argument, that the Member LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 80, 1850. 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 give any explana tion. If he had stated, "lam a Christian," or "I pro fess myselfito be a Christian," it might be inconsistent with that oath that he should in the first instance be sworn on the Old Testament, but that is not the preseut 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, who might he 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 ,tember who proposes to be sworn at the table, every latitude in order to have his ease 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 ergunaent pursued by some lion. Members. I feel it my duty to protect against their arguments. It was said the other day in the 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, 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 fear, whatever you may consider about its altering the Christian character of the House, you ought at 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 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—if 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 dispensingapower, 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 question 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 had treated it in a different manner, and I trust throughout the rest of the discussion it will bo 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 nis seat—the Baron do 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 of 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; but 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. —(hear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to have for gotten that taking the book in one hand end kissing the book was not the first act but the last connected with the taking of the oath. The Hon. Member for the city of London must hold in one hand the three oaths and the honk 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 of Parliament could it be altered.—(hear, hear.) still, if it were the wish of the House to Like the division on the amendment, he should have no objection to withdraw his motion.—(Hear.) He believed the Act of Lord Demean did not touch the case at all. Sir GEORGE GREY propoied 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 vilepe, the debate should ba continued; and ho 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. Be 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. Ho moved as an am , !:.idment that the House should proceed with the de bate tt five o'clock. 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 f , rth 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 ? Lard JOHN RUSSELL would only say that ques tion was, of course, not new to hire, and that he was told, both last and this year, that it would be very likely that Baron Rothschild would bo advised to seek to take his 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 questio❑ he had come to that result which he had felt it his duty to state to the House.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. PAGE WOOD said that he certainly thought the debate ought to be adjourned. He knew that many Members had left, confidently expecting that the debate would he adjourned. The debate was accordingly adjourned until Five o'clock, The House then adjourned at Twenty minutes af6er Three o'clock, until a Quarter before Fire o'clock. The House resumed at a Quarter to Fire o'clock. ROYAL ASSENT. Immediately on the SPEAKER resuming the Chair, Mr. Pulman, the Deputy-Usher of the Black Rod, ad• vacced to the table, and summoned the 'louse 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 ion. MernLers. On his return, The SPEAKER read the titles of the different Bills which had received the Royal Assent (for which see Lords' report). PkISONS DISCIPLINE BILL. The report on this Bill was brought up. PETITIONS. Mr. C. LUSIIINGTON 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. by3,T M l‘aiihrr r e.e .. ol3 W uncis.t . lieodn i re , k :: :(tbhN T )Wl TEN hoped that if such were the case, Land Company, the Hon. Member would no t p ress f or its being read. g N ave deniedthat waspetition, which the same was eaps signed etitio n. e a e n nndupmrba read the eyredoffothreanalilnoqttueiersyiinnttohethNeawtihoonlael affairs of that undertaking. notice that he would move to-mor row that the petition be printed with the 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 50/., a rad had their land highly cultivated, and yet they had paid not a farthing of sect 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) 3,400/ ; in the following year they owed him an additional 1,2001.; and be was ready to show to another Committee that it was indebted to him to the extent of 7,0001. or 8,0001., which ho had not chimed; and this was the gratitude which he received from :hese ruffians.—(A 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 back to the Committee of Selection, as having become unopposed; and the Bills withdrawn, or not proceeded with by the parties. Of all the railway Bilis 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 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 which 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 been proved; 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 pertiue Of all the private Bills, other than railway Bills, which in the present session have been treated as unopposed Bills, and have been referred to the cba..man 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; and of all the railway Bills which, being unopposed, have been referred in 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 for the Affairs of India and the Court of Directors; also between her Majesty's Government and 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. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 29. Their Lordships 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-cum-Chalvey Marriages Validity. Naval Prize Balance. 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-upcn-Tyne and Carlisle Railway. 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- pally. 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 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 BREAD ALBANE presentei several petitions from various congregations in Scotland against the Marriages Bill. Esrl 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 moyod 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 LAN'SbOWNE 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 °tier 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. Th. Bill was then reed 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 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 to-morrow call the attention of their Lordships to tivs 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.—Agrced to. ENIIGRANT SHIPS. The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL drew the attention of the House to the fact, that a man named W. Pieycr, 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 i❑ 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 to 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 ha 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 Earl of MOUNTCASHELL thought that all emigrant ships should be compelled to carry surgeons. Earl GREY said this was au accident that happened not to an emigra,it, 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 IibUNTCASLIELL moved for the re port. After a few words from the Marquis of BREA DALBANE, the motion was agreed to. LEASEEIOLD TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL. The order of the day for the resumption of the ad journed debate on the amendment moved on the third reading of this Bill wan read, end the debate resumed. The LORD CHANCELLOR having proposed a series 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 Honourable Gentleman the Member for 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, 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 been proposed by his Hon. Friend the Member for 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 th© Speaker from the earliest times Members bad 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 preliminary question, whether Baron Roths child could be admitted to take the oaths on the Old Testament, and the next question was whether r%p us e dt r ai s nm o g n e on cnt professing ri l d so fec take sosnins e t gi h et e nhc o ae a t. t t h h lai o t ef wasabjurationthem ot o f n wo ao t thuhel would be Ib q i uite impossible to separate those two questions; they i were involved an d bl ended together; and if a Member coming to the t a bl e cou ld not take the ( oath of abjura tion in the J ew i s h f orm h© s thought the Hou se would find, z F. The s i ger ) on careful deli beration of the subject, that he could no right whatever, according to established have law, to take any of the oaths in t h at particular form . Although, it might be perfectly t rue t h at the question which was pat by the clerk at the table was an una.utho rised question, and that no Member coming to the table was bound to answer that question, yet that question had been put—(Hear)--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 desire to take the Roman Catholic oath. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was therefore entiOel 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 R:unan Catholic religion were required to take, namely, the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration. It was impossible to separate one oath from the other, and until he 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, 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 RETURNS. Mr. W. PATTEN moved for the following returns, instead of those ordered on the 2,1 of July :—Returns of the number of private Bills introduced and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in 1850, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways ; roads and bridges ; waterworks ; ports, pi ers , h ar b ours, and docks; canals and navigations; churches, chapels, a n d burying grounds; paving, li g h t i ng, and improving; gaols and other county buildings; inclosures; 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 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 PETITIONS. Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from a proctor residing in Ballinasloe, Galway, complaining of the Bill to alter and amend the Prerogative Court of Ireland, 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. MACGREGOR presented a petition for Glas gow praying that the House might promote every mea sure tur 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, be would move that it be read a second time that day three months. 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 fact, and therefore calculated to impugn his character and the character of the troop of Yeomanry he 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 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 bad 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 reached Bristol he reported 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 not act without a magistrate. 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?—(Near, hear.) He should base given evidence before the court-martial, had not Colonel Brereton terminated his existenca, and he had, ►here 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 Hon. 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 ventilation of mines. Sir GEORGE GREY .:aid a Bill had come down from the Lords wish a view to that object, which stood for a ,econd reading to-night. BARON ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. C. ANSTEY then rose to resume the adjourned debate, and commenced by complaining of the conduct which Government had pursued in reference to this ques tion. It was hopeless, after what had fallen from the Premier, to think of asking the Home to deal with the third oath by way of resolution. The Hon. 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 Hon. and Learned Member aware that Quakers had been admitted to make an affirmation in 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 the courts of law had alwa3s considered the Pentateuch to be the Gospel of the Jews. He 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 missory 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 judge. There was also a distinct recognition that the oath of f:aity might be taken by Jews in those days. There was no 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 I. 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 that 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 purpose 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 Resteration there were only 12 Jews in the kingdom. Their number increased 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 before Parliament by peti tion, but the House refused to receive it as it related to a Bill not before them. In 1689, 100,000/. was levied on the Jews, being a taxation of 10/. for each 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 Acts before them it was impossible to agree with the views laid down by the Hon and Learned Member for Abingdon. 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 liberty, but a judicial question. Why the Noble Lord considered it a judicial question ho did not know, but this ho knew, that the Noble L or d had pro posed the consideration of this judicial question by pre judging it, and without having heard a s yll a bl e wh i ch bore on the third oath, an oath which he shotild en deavour to show was illegal, w h et h er administered to Christian or to Jew. The t ru th was that the question was question of civil and r e li g i ous lib erty. 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. Frientl.—(H ear , hear.) Mr. P. WOOD co ld not a ll ow the ' question to go to a division without making some observations. He re gretted that the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern ment should have thought it necessary to pronounce any opinion at all o n w h a t some h a d ca ll e d th e secon d ques tion. At present the first question, and that only was under their consideration. With respect to the amend ment of the Hon. Member for the University of Oxtord, ho 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 without deslaring ho was a Christian. It was well known to many that Moravians and Friends took an oath without any such declaration.—(Hear, hear.) When he formerly addressed the House he ventured to assert that no lawyer would be found who would hesitate to say that by common law every individual had a right to b e sworn in the manner which he declared to be the mo s t 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 Fes . culiar limitations relating to the oaths of Members of Parliament. Ile had net, however, heard a single au ------- .. thority to prove that the juridical call was not app ll , • : cable to the oath of office. He WOS Collfidellt DO such authority could he found. He apprehendcd all they could say with reference to oaths was this, that at ono time, in this country, there was a general assumptioa that every person was Christian, and hence the gener?l mode of administering en oath carets to be on the neli Gospels, as the form most binding on the consciescer But the moment any question arose as to best with respect to some individuals, tha t was the s ense mode of binding the conscience, common stepped in and said that the real point for inquiry wansi whether a religious sanction had been obtaine d, e t . t , whether the party had been bound in the presence 0 ~ God whom he believed to be the avenger of of oa f This doctrine would be found laid down in the cas e ° e e the " Ommichin v. Barker." It was the doctrine Roman law acted upon by the Emperors, who decreec! that everybody should be sworn according= lib to shal. is obt r . superstitioe. The Church had not been lesr Augustine, in his 134th book, stated tha t if the oat h o . t an idolator was not admitted, there would be no adept Ing means of forming a covenant with him, or of ofillg i. him to keep his word; and that it was not forbidden It any law of God to employ the oath of a m an whose fall s ' ( L ) it was to swear by false gods, if he kep t faith 1 1 e re doing. Such a principle was acted on in Spain, w in the oath was administered to Moo rs and Jews. 9 to 1755:a case came before the Parliament Of Paris, a „ whether Jews should be allowed to swear in a differenti mode from that prescribed by the French law, which wll9 simply je le jure. A Jew came to be sworn alter his own fashion; he kept on his hat—held a Bibl e t • •,--• left hand, touching it with bis right, and the Presi,auer't decided that he had been properly sworn. The ( L o t to of Cessation had decided that a Jew had a right Lo be sworn in his own manner. With referen ce to vra,e, aga in refer b r , had been done in this country, he must The olicito the case of " Ommichin v. Barker," General of that day supported the new mode of s w eat' . a, ing, and argued, though such a case had not before all: w e _ that the common law worked itself pure by rules dr 5 ; from the fountain of justice, which wa s in suc k ea his superior to Acts of Parliament. The Chief Baront'ico, giving judgment, said that reason, and not anY P.° . hose lar case, ought to govern them in interpreting tne 1,00 more especially when the law was doubtful. ° be of Hardwick° ordered the words compl ained struck out of the oath, and since that time petari: bile a the been indicted for perjury who had swor n false'Ytf-e-aiher Old Testament only. The Hon. and Learned su 1 to for Abingdon had contended that that d id not aPProry. oaths of office, It -- was quite true that a deel%! t re ' , Act could not alter the law; but the declaratory tim es, .. t e n f Trod to &Glared what had been to law and referred to a tan h "either agaitur gau oat ; me et t° men, a witness, adeponent, or on any aPPa'r t , — „,faiidr office or employment."—(Hear.) The law 0 ' - at de therefore, swept away the distinction altogeth er er' „ and stroyed three-fourths of the argument of the G e n tle' Learned Gentleman. If the Hon, and Learned 0 the man referred to the remaining fourth, and relic t ' ~1 3, the Act of Supremacy, he would join issue with hntl,,', question whether the words in the sth Elizabel'erhe9o dered it impossible for a Jew to take the oath• c i` te tte words were that a Member of Parliament On & I , so t the oath on " The Holy Gospels." But it was ° ll hi a e h the of Charles 11. that that oath rested, an d je Vr.- : - 0 vies mode of taking it was pointed out. The declare s ad 'lee 3 to be made at the table of the House between oi „Tod four o'clock, and nothing said in 't ab°tl 13 was Holy Gospels." The Ist of William and Katy abrogated the statute of James. Thus the oath fl, pre' to be taken before the High Steward was t' a- e bse' scribed by the Act of Elizabeth. Now that w es , oath l h tl a t d el Y gone by the statute of William, and i ! ! a tered ? gone, he would ask how it could be adri ] . nt ' , 1 ,,, eeon ci That brought him to the consideration of l'", - e l y s i c , - question in the case. Now he protested *gain s ' -11 0 alt c T ond question beiug assumed to be in that eas e e 0 1'0 he Hon. and Learned Member for Bute rats cicus a - es o n ; expression or two which he could not suffer °bad sat, answered or unnoticed. The Hon. Mem ber ; co o* ,' that they who were acting in that House ia j - pita' the s d claim made by Baron Rothschild were acthe)ggouse• vi e ly, and taking an unfair advantage of th 1- et heite The Hon. and Learned Member had also said 5 , ° . 7° , 'eg et about special pleading. Now this vvas the fair que . stion, whether the party concerned WAS tO b 6 r the an important trust confided to him? and wh h et e e 6t Of L citizens of London wore to deprived f t he -et' ha ' be o 9 1 0 t c t his services on a mere dry, technical quibble' hi ll bo state of things, they who advised Baron Rotbs"i'eetsge recommended him to take every possible aav tit of his which his position. position. And ho begged it might be distalieut tee derstood, and that there might be io naistalo a, 1 - 1 , , de• subject, the Hon. Member for 1 London was,°,l7'cbill• termined to act upon that advice. Baron o° ro s ine"' be deter hs° was advised that the first question to was, whether or not he had the rig ht ° bleb bi' the oaths administered to him in the man ner w ht peel felt most binding on his conscience? Tha t tri e j esf‘ er e . to the question of a distribution of the oaths a - o r ss ecl 5- 5 He was sorry the Noble Lord should have "P a r r - 3 01 k i h S i t strong an opinion upon that question. It via misses •-•', to quote any opinion expressed before the C°l33, had—i be,a,•o the Attorney-Genera], because nothing forces' qioereosia, done by that Committee. Its proceedings conversational. They had been stopped from disc o b il e ; anything. The present question, • ht ell t ot bet he thoag ' to t fore the House in quite an independent M ann er ' 0 9 $ 131 ; unprejudiced by any opinion on such an occesi ne he alti '- Committee. He thought no decided opioi n° t e - 1 0 °i d ° pronounced or formed on any case until the we cl r eteN r had been heard and understood. There wa s 8 ,1 teb' c 'e which ho had heard had Voile le been circulated a Vol to he was most • . anxious to contradict. It had beel l , e eal about that It had crossed Baron Rothschild'3 `ijoi6slti ask for the Roman Catholic oath on presea ting fou nde d moro . I , l3 t eseh il a a t ni the table. Never was there a false misrepresentation. -"•°• d b e : Baron e li t e 0 was a man of too high a character and too li ne ; seo P ei nour to allow such a notion for a moment t e 1:° 1i 0 °a 's mind. He could not ask for the Roman CatVeritbOild, without at Ceti same time professing the Iteei: 111 , ied f f , faith. He did not believe there was a more bi„,Plher -r t honourable man in the House than the Hoye a'e,,-lighte:s the city of London; and there need not be t li e E3- ; be t i t apprehension of his taking any such course. r h '• ;be la d fully determined to take every advantage I vb e 'p c bel i l e i e es permitted to secure the position to which 'id e sees e '', e himself entitled. But he would not avai l •••,, of t P -s f well as he (Mr. Wood)could • f an) • e ° ° ascertain, 0 r no ti , legal advantages without • •the Hous e ' 9 shier s giving fo r •,,oe the matter. The Hon. and Learned Member for s t- te don spoke of Jews as aliens, but it was a long time tete; AS heir any British-born Jew, was considered as snor e gi s ter k h or in the time of George 11. called upon them t° p his o . l ets properties; and if they were supposed to be h ea could not possess any. The Jew Bill vvhieb since passed had reference to foreign Jews. I l e 01 11, 11 ; Mr. S. WORTLEY said he did not rely 0 1 r , t ,i t tak e t of ment that it was necessary that Jews ah °u " all • 13 s' oaths on the Holy E • h e ght ge e Evangelists. He t 0 f the ,oa could do was to look to the practical part 0 , ea" be tion; and from all the information which th e l r e %' of their journals the three oaths totaken We t ' 0 be r oe 05 combined. They were not entitled to seP e ' It f a an) 0 0 t a il s and to put one oath and not another.- -- s —e w orn - e clear when the Hon. Member refuse( to be e; W il - ea r.) 0 , 0 ° Gospel that he was not a Christian.--e( f the- h' thought it absurd on the part of the friend!, 0 , vvit 4 e) Member to press that matter, for it was trioaabor, h . % o d, question and with the time f the House•--(''`e le'" 0° • be Pel Suppose he had taken the two first oaths as , 1;0 11 h 00 would he not refuse the third, and then th e J r ' (11 0 ' obliged to shut their doors against bina--- and cries of " Divide, divide.") te a The House then divided. de rs el • h 0 On the re-admission of strangers it ware vill that Sir R. Inglis's motion had been negst a division, and that the numbers were 13 For Mr. Hume's amendment ••• - 59 Against it • ------ 54 re' ••• ••• '• be Majority ..• d eb* " Mr. NEWDEGATE asked, Id the o f would der ' sunned? The SPEAKER was d to s5l the ()t 0 understood . e t the day should then be proceeded with. ore feo .00 The impression in the gallery wa s ' other 1301 too l the debate was to be resumed on some A o r twelve o'clock this day. However, we be et- ° ;g announcement of the fact in the House. et ir e fe r 0, - , THE MERCANTILE MARINB ' dingy °- %"" The order of the day for the third reveredl boa" Bill was then moved. Several new clailseei„oeodlßed up and added to the Bill; various verbatbird- the , were alto made, after which it was read a 15 97 passed. 5 00 i tie QUEEN'S MESSAGE.—MARLBOBOITG sider coo to The House went into Committee to . i , le / „ Queen's Message. Mr.B • the 0 01 ' . recv too The CHAIRMAN ERNAL In ...A t he ~r 0 of proceeded to rea . marwhees, e the effect that it was expedient to settle „ je t b eev House on the Prince of Wales duri t he ' stfi fig -,„,b1 0 e t her Majest y and the Prince; and tbat sat"-„t. no t of should xt be provided for the same establisbrac".4 0 "„ a o e he co.- • e oe - se; Mr. TRELAWNY complained that the ie 0 0 satisfactory • information with respect to r they ~,„ the duchy of Cornwall, which was a Ln et e te s tioa• e fre t to consider in entertaining the present tin—selth ', e to ~ Lord J. RUSSELL said certain r eturos toeoo ode yacht' 0 0 0 de to that duch b• y were obliged by Act fah 0 *prea n, made to that House, and they were e ta 0%; given. But a motion which the 110 0 • lu e , - h e elilest ol3 " in the beginning of the session to throw ," o f VO r ' - agement of those revenues into the ban oa f had been negatived by a large inejoritY.(ea, ales 4 0 After a few words from Mr. TREL A " fW- basta ~_.,e o o _to e Mr. HUME said he thought e a i e , at present too young, only nine year He ogr e beal 1. e ts such an establishment settled on him. ,e' - ` - c ded "e eta they ought to have more information rtne . ,,,11. a sod lative to the revenues of the duchy of C°rll it order, „°f'§d the late Queen had been voted that II it er„' n - 01, v c v • also arranged that they were to keel) it i. ' l , 40,u,'" e e t the consequence had been that no less than 4 h ' 1 - ee t , i been paid for repairs. He thought theY, I , A rlio te c o s t „ a t ei pone that matter until the next session 0 ` over be e Vit'a l g Lord J. RUSSELL said ho had la sit.4 'eh objection before made to the present proP ° f 3 ,110%;0 0, 1,r her Majesty had intimated her intention ° merlov obe y public to see, the Vernon Gallery A ir : to egien ° House, the Government had though t '" t he )" • 9 d e , M • atesty to make a settlemeet of it °II e icts e ry , Wales. i f o° l r Os iji V Mr. HUME objected to the remof3,° t one - ~e 0 '„}, which should have bes left • tli© ei,e,, ;lne° d n In D e g t ,t , which had cost the nation so much . L ed ° tt einrior part occupied by tho Royal Academy b ° ve r e ls' had o e ph° to the pub] . G in. George the Third 000 to settle any of his sons or Make ee. 0 year S ' 1,0 11 them at such an early . hat of In , j ' n -rat, to ii 4e ' age as t After a few words from Mr. SPUD -i-''' - ' a tie ti fl ° es la n eb 0 , Lord SEYISIOUR entered into a" e:liborOjed t it that stables had not been added to gt a. io ;co e ,eve t ' because Carlton-terrace was originallY rose' bow 4 1 carried further up To whatever nuP r e 01 08 . r t oo sal was devoted, stables would be neeessa o y to O le Mr. HUME objected to their hav ia e g os e, palaces with their concomitant OP