The Sun. — London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

~ 1' 3 ,/ •••,/ j ': • °( ,4 U`' 1 lii/ C'..lil4‘ $ ' 114. 4 .1 y4to it i f ib 3V;;, (THIS DAY.) MID-KENT HANDICAP. Wilmo nt Young England Won in a canter. Eleven ran Cato MAIDEN PLATE. Cata:plasm ........... r " ell 9" Ii " r 14 t SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock. LE N HAM RACES. (BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH) IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT ROUSE OF COMMONS—(THIS DAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. Th Lords' Amendments to the Bognor Railway Bill were carried and agreed to ; the London Docks Bill was road a third time and passed. The following bills were considered and ordered to be read. a third time :--Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway (Taff Vale) Bill ; Rooker's Disabilities Removal Bill; and Wimpole, W re stli ngwor th, an d P o tt on - roa d . PETITIONS. Mr. II W. WICKHAM presented a petition from the operative tin-plate workers, Bradford, Yorkshire, in favou r of the Combination of Workmen's Bill. Sir J", DUKE and several other hon. members pre sented petitions in favour of the Combination of Work men's Bill. Alderman KERSHAW presented a petition from a plac e in Lancashire against the Government Educational Scheme. NEW TRIAL (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL. bill On the or d er o f t h e day for the second B reading of this Mr. EWART presented a petition in its favour. Mr. I. Burr then proceeded to move that the hil_ be read a second time, and in doing so the hon. and learned gentleman entered into a detailed explanation of the provisions of the measure. It was not easy, he S aid, to exaggerate the importance of the bill. There could be no doubt that the present state of the law was productive of great inconvenience ; but before a bill of this nature was passed, he apprehended it was the duty of those who proposed it to show that it would not be productive of still greater inconvenience in the adminis tration of the criminal law. The house was aware that in civil matters the law gave parties the power of mov ing for a new trial, if they were dissatisfied with the rulin g of the judge or the finding of the jury, but except ,4 01 1 points o f l aw , th ere was no suc h power o f rev ision '" criminal cases. It was right, however, that he should state that in one case of felony of recent date, the Court oh Queen' s B enc h h a d granted a new tr i a l , a l t h oug h a ll te previous authorities were diametrically opposed to such a proceeding. The law, as it was at present ad ministered, contained many anomalies. For instance, if a man was tried upon a criminal charge in the Court of Queen's Bench, or before a special jury in Middlesex, or the city of London, he could appeal to the court above ,against the di c t um o f th e j u d ge or th e fi n di ng o f th e j ur y ; but there was no power of appeal in a case tried at the Assizes, or before a recorder or petite jury. Now was it S trange that there should be the power of appeal in one case and not in the other. We should have thought, if any exception was to be made, it ought to be in favour of the first and not of the latter case. Well, then, the object in this bill was to remove the defect in the crimi nal law, and to give to the Court of Queen's Bench an enlarged control over the proceedings of criminal cases, no matter where they might have been tried. In mat ters connected with the record a power of appeal already existed ; but the record was no more a reflex of the merits of the case than were the minutes of the house a record of the question debated last night. A judge might admit improper 'evidence, but the record would take no notice of that, because the re cord was prepared before their trial ; and the Princip a l obj ec t o f thi s bill was to give a power of appeal in cases where evidence might have been e rroneously admitted, or the decision of the jury was opposed t o the facts. Observe, the bill introduced no near principl e i n t o th e l aw , b ecau se upon points of law the judge who tried a criminal already had the power of reserving matters for a decision of the court above ; but this bill proposed to give a power of appeal in the cases he had stated without the consent of the presiding Judge. He had the greatest possible objection to leaving the right of appeal to the decision of the judge. He thought it ought to be an absolute right without any limitation whatever, and since this power of appeal had made the English law what it was, he hoped the house would find no difficulty in adopting this measure. Ho need not cite cases where erroneous convictions had taken place, .they must be familiar to all who heard him, but he must remind the house that in several cases parties had lost their lives through the erroneous finding of juries, which could not have happened had the provisions of this bill been in force as law. Now, why should not a man, on his trial for life, have the same protec tion of appeal as he had in a civil action ? (Hear.) He could see no reason whatever against it, and there fore he had proposed this power of appeal with proper machinery for carrying out speedily which would be found explained in the language of the bill. If the Imuse fully admitted the principle of the bill, he should have no ob jection to refer it to the consideration of a select com mittee. (Cheers.) Mr. EWART seconded the motion, and thought it discrete to refer the bill to a select committee. As the bill now stood it was only applicable to Ireland, but if the second reading was carried, he should move that it be an instruction to the committee to inquire into the state of the law of England as well as Ireland. For his Part he thought the whole subject, and not the bill alon e , ought to be referred to a select commit tee, with Power of examining w itnesses. The subject too of apinting a public prosecutor ought to be referred to g a select committee, and when an occ asion offered, he should make s motion to that effect. Mr. PHILLIMORE said it did not appear to him that any good could result from the passing of this bill. The great objection to the measure was that it refused to the judge the discretion of withholding an appeal where he did not think the merits of the case demanded one. With regard to the argument that it was unjust to ref use an appea l t o a ma n who was on trial for his l ife, while lie could have had an appeal in a trumpery - L e ase of debt, it s h o uld be remembered that it seldom uappened i n th e f ormer case that there were nice points of law to be decided. The result of the trial generally turned upon a matter of fact which a jury alone c ould decid e ; b u t i n c i v il ac ti on s there was no end to the questions, which only a superior court of law could settl e and dispose of. (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON said if the principle of this bill was right, he must object to its application piece - ~,, eat It should extend to the whole of the United kingdom but but lie was opposed entirely to the principle of the measure. Punishment in criminal cases was not inflictedm upon the culprit in a revengeful spirit, but merely to deter others from falling into the same crime, and therefore it was of the utmost importance that the . admin istration of the criminal law should be speedy and c ert ain- (Hear, hear.) In civil matters, it was perhaps n ot necessary, that the f u lfil me nt o f the law should be B , o ll l• .'iPid but it would be highly inconvenient to extend was power of appeal to criminal cases. It wal ue a mistake t o suppose that the law, as it stood, was in v of `ncient to protect the man who was unjustly convicted er inie, because in all ca ses wh e re there was a doubt u.n . c o the guilt of the party, ample opportunity was whi. ded for 441 appeal to the Home-office, where the th e case would be ag a in i n vestigated with a view to Leinliberation of the party in the event of the conviction Th e Z ° l ) Posed to the opinion of the judge who tried him. s u m . aPPeals were of every-day occurrence, and quite thi B ele nt, he contended, to meet the difficulty which !rile bill was intended to remove. (Hear, hear.) ope n a PPeal, however, contemplated by this bill was en„ u to grave objections. It might have the effect of to the-rging perjury ; but if they gave power of appeal pass Party accused, why should not the prosecutor thi . 8 the same power ? (Hear The fact was, bill was surrounded 'with objections ; but even sup listiig it were not, at the present time there was a corn of 0 on sitting for the purpose of investigating the whole 61. criminal code, and until that commission made its -. • Port it would be unwise to pass a bill of this nature. t e er r th ese that the bill reasons, therefore, he must move m e r ad a, second time this day six months. (Hear.) Imy • or P t 1:1 1 INN supported the bill, and declared that theirig • highest legal authorities, not even except peal , ulson the bench, were favourable to an ap- Ntatici_llB criminal cases, as they had seen too many in criiu! where parties had been improperly convicted of T her o, and laid open to the punishment of the law. th e was a great obection to the appeal referred to by t wi h ro n 4h il le t l h ord, because . if a man obtained his liberty at medium, it was not granted to him fro m tinileatter of right, but as an act of mercy y'as nn Crown. The case of Mr. Barber, who iq su p „„.. Y convicted of forgery, was a strong evidence read t ri tof this bill, and he trusted the house would fe rre ,ue bill a second time, with a view to its being re t° a select committee. (Hear, hear.) ik at i B ider a iN t A i u ll n l Eß had given this bill his most careful ue un wis _ , and his firm conviction was that it wot!ld ; 1 1 8 , o g s ain e t i , andeopt it. The right of judicial authority granting of new trials in criminal cases.. again st i ,. lightened and humane judges bad decided d ii t s r a i a t i l cri tiiium E. The great object had always been to have ;er o se,final and decisive. At present, if a judge ~Ported with the verdict of a jury he to e ~ that effect to the Executive, and the Execu ocemiu_ually granted man under a man on such siteii whereas of a ar circumstane , present bill would, under s e circumstances trill es send a man back to take his chance , • _at in the wl; I He could say most conscientiously 1 : 0 Ti r o l wit but 00e 0 e course of his practice he had never Case in which he believed an improper ne x l kt ien had 00 _ day, tilken place, and that was set right the „tira_sci.derable re.. t thought the jury system was capable of ted, b ut l °rrn, and he hoped to see improvements :4Re gre„, cactihoped he should never see the day when b e aitez .tutional syste of criminal trials would kr. l ain the manner Pro "ter b,,,—"-`MAHoN considered . P by the present bill. (II "" been that no answer what ear h made to th • ese e ar ) b 1' e principle of the bill. a Peci e e ieved that u , dusi nnen t more Pau Would do g if ilt this ersons bill passed into law. He believed that the bill would also decrease the number of instances of perjury. Sir G. GREY said it was impossible to deny that the alteration proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman was a grave and important subject, and well deserved the attention of that house. He believed, however, that that alteration would be very hazardous—one which would lead to delays in the administration of justice, and would impair its efficiency. It was not called for, neither would it provide a remedy for the cases cited by the hon. and learned gentleman. He thought that a proper and merciful exercise of the Royal prerogative, exercised under the advice of Ministers responsible to the Crown, would meet all the evils which could possibly arise, and, in fact, meet them better than this bill. He believed this bill would lead to a much harsher adminis tration of the law than at present, and if juries were aware that their verdict was liable to be reversed by , a second jury, they would be much less disposed to give the benefit of the doubt to prisoners than they were now. The house would be acting with considerable precipitation if it sanctioned the principle of the bill, and he should certainly oppose the second reading. Mr. GEORGE said that this bill would put every party concerned in a new trial in a false position, and he should, therefore, oppose the second reading. After a few words from Mr. J. BUTT, the second read ing of the bill was negatived without a division. JUDGES EXCLUSION BILL On the motion for the third reading of this bill, Mr. H. DRUMMOND moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months. The bill was founded upon a narrow basis, without any grasp of the past for the instruction of the future. The presence of eminent lawyers and judges had been of the greatest value when important questions had been before the house, such as the seizure of the Danish fleet, and the discussion of the orders in council. They might say that such cases as these might never occur again, but did they see nothing in the new claims of America, which made it perfectly certain that the next war would involve questions more difficult even than those in the discussion of which the presence of eminent men like such as Sir. William Scott and Sir William Grant would be of the greatest importance ? He could not con ceive that there was any degradation to any man in can vassing 5/. householders, and yet to free judges from this fancied degradation, was the sole reason which the noble lord could assign for this bill. Mr. MACAULAY, whose rising caused consider able excitement, which was manifested by the rapid filling of the house, said he could not allow the house to go to a division on this bill, with out expressing his opinion with regard to it. He should vote against it from the bottom of his soul, and he certainly never had in his life given a vote with such perfect confidence as he should give this against this bill, and he thought it most strange that a bill for which so little could be said had ever got to this stage. On what ground was this bill brought forward ? Was it brought forward on that ground on which alone he could conceive a Conservative statesmen would bring forward any measure of reform—that the present state of the law had produced any practical disadvantage ? That mo tive was disclaimed by all the supporters of the bill. There was not one of them who asserted that any evil had been caused by the presence of the Master of the Rolls in this house. The office of the Master of the Rolls and the Commons House of Parlia ment dated their existence from the same century, and for 600 years a long list of Masters of the Rolls had sat in this house, closed by the illustrious names of Jekyll, Strange, Kenyon, Pepper Harden, Grant, Copley, and Sir John Romilly. Had it ever been said that these judges had discharged their judicial functions with less efficiency because they had a seat in the house. If not, was it the part of wise men to propose to alter a system which had existed for the last six centuries, against which it could not be alleged that in any single case it had produced any single inconvenience, and simply for the purpose of squaring themselves with an abstract principle. What was this abstract principle, that it was desirable to separate judicial from political functions. Supposing that it could ly) shown that this union had produced any ill effects, still he must pronounce this bill the most wretched and pitiable reform ever proposed— (cheers) —the most homoeopathic dose that ever quack administered to a wide-spreading malady. If the noble lord considered that that union of political and judicial functions was injurious, this reform which he proposed would be merely infinitesimal. If the Master of the Rolls was to be excluded, why not the Recorder of London ? He should be very sorry to see the Recorder of London excluded, but the arguments for his exclusion were ten times stronger than for the exclusion of the Master of the Rolls. (Hear.) If the Recorder of London was to be excluded, why not all the recorders in the country ? Why not all the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions ? And he ventured to say that the reason for their exclusion were much stronger than for the exclusion of the Master of the Rolls. He had attended Quarter Sessions formerly, and had seen a man of most eminent ability, one of the ablest and most expeditious judges he ever saw adminis ter justice at Quarter Sessions, and yet that man was a member of Parliament, a keen politician, a strong party man, a man who had made a motion by which the fate of a Ministry had been decided, and who before the end of his life had himself sat in a Cabinet. He took a very conspicuous part in the case of the Queen—and was pelted by the London mob, he believed, for his opposition to her cause—yet lie would pro bably have to go down into his country and try persons for breaking the windows of those who had refused to light up their windows for the Queen's acquittal. No. thing could be more notorious than that whenever there had been any discontent in the country, that they had had the whole democratic press crying out that chairmen of Quarter Sessions ought not to be trusted with the administration of justice in poli tical matters, and he remembered Mr. Canning saying in that house, that one of the worst signs of the times was the growing distrust of gentlemen in that capacity. Yet they allowed judges of that de scription to remain in the house, and at the same time fell upon judges who had nothing whatever to do with political trials. (Cheers.) Even if he were to admit there was something dangerous in the functions of the Master of the Rolls, which made it impossible that lie should take no pail in politics, *he should still vote against the bill as inconsistent. The noble lord shut the Master of the Rolls out of this house, but he left the other house open to him. Was that house alone a political assembly? (Cheers.) Was it not a fact that great judges had risen to the highest eminence in the other house ? Was it not notorious that Lord Hardwicke had long ruled over that house, and after him Lord Mansfield, from whom the power passA to LordThurlow. Many of those present could remember how formidable a political influence Lord Eldon had wielded there ; how he had made and unmade Ministers, and with what veneration he was regarded by one party, and with what peculiar aversion by another. Many in that house could remember, and none could forget the memorable night of the 10th of October, 1831. It was the most solemn and exciting crisis of his political life when took place that great debate of many giants, which ended in the rejection of the Reform Bill by the House of Lords. God forbid that he should ever see such another crisis, certainly such another debate he could never hope to hear. It certainly was a most splendid debate, and he doubted not that some of those who waited, as he did, all that night, until the grey daybreak of an autumn morning, and anon crowding into the House of Lords to catch a few words of what was going on, must remember the scene. And there, in the front of the battle, were the two great leaders, Lord Brougham the Lord Chan cellor, and Lord Lyndhurst the Lord Chief Baron—how the country hung on their words, and how eagerly they were read throughout the country next day before noon, and what fearful excitement they created was proved by the disasters of Nottingham and the riots of Bristol. (Hear, hear.) Yet this was the arena which the noble lord would leave open to political judges, while he closed to them the arena of the House of Commons. The noble lord's sole objection was to their sitting in the House of Commons. A judge must o some 100 feet from where they were no w sittin g , must sit on a red bench instead of a green ono, mustsay " MyLords," instead of " Mr. Speaker," and then there was no pos sible objection to him sitting and voting in Parliament. (Cheers.) But the House of Lords—that great political assembly—was the Court to which went up all the ap peals from all the Courts of the United Kingdom, and if the principle of this bill were correct, the noble lord ought to have begun by taking away their political func tions from the peers, and; insteading of beginning with the Master of the Rolls, for no proposition could be more clear than this, that the court above should be constructed with greater purity than the court below. The noble lord, it seemed, was content that in the morning the peers should sit as judges, receiving appeals from all courts, the Master of the Rolls included, and there frame decisions which, until disturbed by an act of the Legislature, should be binding on all the inferior Courts of the Kingdom, and that in the afternoon they should meet as legislators, and debate among themselves, pretty strongly too, occasionally, and in a way in which, if Mr. Speaker was among them, he would find himsel fobliged to call them to order—(laughter) —upon Canada Clergyßeserves, the Irish Education, and the Government of India. The noble lord said that this bill was for the purification of the administration of jus tice, but it would be effectual for one purpose only—to weaken a ntdeioinfaldltnete, that r iNavt h a to c aeuc l tl e lleda t vau l i has e taee l ei o l u se of Commons. This was not similar diel eei been attemptbthoe hereditary rdneedp irt retainedeasrhadsy t h i e ne no e n utohsuees madeHouse o: fft The m e fi m t r st effects oletnm Peers. The great conflict of opinion would then have taken place in the House of Lords and not ' ln the House of Commons, which th en would have been the lower house indeed ; but the clause s t r uck out 'by the wisdom of Pa r li ament. Now, dthis bill passed, it would have a precisely similar effect. It would impair the usefulness and efficiency of the house, by closing the door to some of the ablest men of th e Age,' and at a time, too, when there was a well-founded de sire in the public mind to seek for law reform. (Hear.) Much time in future sessions would have to be directed to that important subject, and when those sessions ar rived who would be the most competent to deal with the question, but the very men whom this bill would ex clude. The argument lie had heard in favour of this bill, that the judges ought not to mix themselves up with the heat and turmoil of a contested election. It was said that his doing so would lower the dignity of the judicial office, and something had been said about the im propriety of a judge partaking in the unseemly jovialities which occasionally prevailed at a contested election. He wished that indulging in such jovialities was the only charge that could be brought against gen tlemen who occupied seats in the house ; but as for the . argument as applied to this case, it was unworthy of notice. In times gone by some of the judges of the law had occupied seats in the house without in any way sullying the judicial character ; and he could see no reason why they should not do so again. Their presence never failed to add to the efficiency of the house, while, like the speaker who now filled the chair, they always passed through the heat of a contested election without in any way degrading or lowering the judicial offices which they filled for the time being. (Cheers.) Why should not their successors be permitted to follow in their footsteps ? True, they had always closed the door against the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and it might seem inconsistent if they did not extend their legislation to the Master of the Rolls, or other equally eminent judicial functionaries, who were eligible to seats if they could find a constituency to re turn them. But the fact was, this species of legislation was founded in error, and as the time must come sooner or later when the whole representative system would have to be reconsidered, he hoped the house would seize the opportunity for retracing its steps. (Hear, hear.) At all events, do not let the house hurriedly pass the bill, and he should be well satisfied with the result. He, for one, should certainly vote against the third reading of the bill. (Cheers.) Lord HOTHAM replied, and quoted a number of eminent legal authorities in favour of the bill. After a few words from Mr. TiunrE, The house divided, when there appeared — For the third reading , Against it 123 224 Majority • 101 The bill was accordingly thrown out. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL. On the order of the day for continuing the further proceedings on the third reading of this bill, a large number of petitions were presented in favour of the bill. Lord PALMERSTON said he had no objection to the principle of the bill, so far as it gave perfect freedom to all parties to combine for the purposes authorised by the existing act, but there were:words in the bill which he could not assent to, because they might sanction a species of intimidation which the framers of the bill had evidently no wish to do. The words which he objected to were these, "peaceably inducing or endeavouring to induce per sons to abstain from work." Under the authority of these intimidation might be brought to bear upon parties who were anxious to work without resorting to violence, or in any way violating the law, and the consequence might be that many poor persons might be seriously injured by domineering persons in their own trade. (Hear, hear.) He would therefore suggest that the bill should be read a third time, and the further proceedings postponed for a fortnight, to afford time for amending that part of the bill to which he had referred. (Hear.) This course was acceded to, and the bill having been read a third time, the further proceedings were post poned until this day fortnight. ABSCONDING DEBTORS (IRELAND) BILL. The order of the day for the second reading of this bill was read, for the purpose of being discharged. HACKNEY CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS) BILL. This bill was read a third time. Sir D. NORREYS moved the insertion of the follow ing clause :—" And be it enacted that the Commis sioners of Police shall, subject to the approbation of the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, cause to be made and published a map of London, reduced from the Ordnance survey of London to a scale of not less than eight inches to one mile, and all disputes as to distance shall be determined by reference to such map, or some copy thereof duly authenticated by the seal of the com missioners, without any actual measurement of the dis tance being required ; and in case of dispute as to the points of hiring or setting down, the first street or public building marked on such map which shall be passed after hiring, shall be taken to be the point of hiring, and the last street or public building passed shall be taken to be the point of setting down, and the fare shall be calculated accordingly." Mr. FITZROY opposed the clause on the ground of the expense it would cause. The clause was negatived without a division. Mr. PIGOTT moved the following amendment to clause 2, at the end of the clause, to add the words, " Provided, however, that in case of the refusal or sus pension of any such license as aforesaid, it shall be law ful for the proprietor of any such stage or hackney car riage, or other persons applying for such license, or sub jected to such suspension, to appeal from the decision of the Commissioners of Police to the Metropolitan Police Magistrate for the time being sitting at the Police-office at Bow-street." Sir R. H. INGLIS seconded the amendment, as he entirely concurred in the expediency of providing some appeal. After a few words from Mr. WHALLEY, who sup• ported the amendment, Mr. FITZROY opposed the amendment, as it would make the bill absolutely nugatory if it was introduced. After a few words from Lord D. STUART, the house divided, when there appeared— For the ainendnient Against it Majority . 42 . 79 . 37 The amendment was accordingly negatived. Alderman CUBITT moved an amendment with the view of excluding the operation of the bill from the city of London. Sir B. HALL opposed the amendment. After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY and Mr. F. FRENCH, Lord D. STUART rose ; but it being now six o'clock, The SPEAKER declared the house to be adjourned. STATE OF TRADE. (Front the Mandtester Guardian of this day.) MANCHESTER, May 31.—The transactions of to-day have been on a very limited scale, both in yarns and goods, for shipment and for home consumption ; partly in consequence of the extent to which sellers and buyers are already mutually engaged, but partly also as a result of various in2uences which were either not felt in the early part of last week, or not in the same degree as now. The overland advices show the overthrow of the reigning dynasty in China to be imminent ; so that pur chases for that quarter are out of the question. At Bombay the prices of piece goods were rather lower ; and at Cal cutta both goods and yarns had in seine degree receded in value, while the up-country advices continued unfavour able. We have consequently found no demand for those important markets. Then, the very threatening aspect of the ruptured relations between Turkey and Russia has quite interrupted operations for the Levant ; while the danger to European peace seen in the mutual attitudes of Austria and Switzerland, tends generally to render commercial men increasingly cautious. At the same time, the American accounts contain nothing whatever to impart the slightest impulse to the Liverpool market ; for they report the price of cotton as stationary, though firm, the estimates of the supply as ranging between 3,200,000 and 3,300,000 bales, whilst some look for 3,400,000, and they state that the weather was remark able favourable for planting. These causes have produced an indisposition for business amongst buyers, which was not observable a week ago ; and they are, therefore, for anything they may want. But, on the other hand, the easy position of spinners and manufacturers in re gard to engagements, and the persuasion they entertain that the clouds in our political horizon will be dispersed, cause them to feel no anxiety about further sales, and therefore not at all inclined to lower their terms. ROCHDALE, May 30.—The same inactivity continues in the flannel market, and the manufacturers are more engaged in fulfilling their old contracts than in entering into new ones. In wool there has been very little doing, but the dealers hold out for the old prices. HER MAJESTY'S SUMMER CRUISE.—We understand that the Royal yacht Victoria and Albert, Captain Crispin, will be put into full commission at Portsmouth, about the 10th June, when the complement officers, lieutenants, and mates will be appointed, and the broad pendant of the commodore, Lord A. Fitzclarence, will be permanently hoisted.—Plymouth Mail. ACCIDENT TO MR. COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.—Yes. tcrday an accident occurred to Mr. Commissioner Phillips which might have been attended wiith serious consequences. As the learned Commissioner was cross ing the Strand he was knocked down by a cab. He was taken to the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and medical aid instantly procured. It was found on examination that he had not sustained any serious injury, and was at once removed to his residence in Gordon-square. DEATH OF A DISTINGUISHED OFFICER.—WO have to record the demise of Lieutenant-Colonel Francis Fuller, C. 8., an old Waterloo and Peninsular officer, who died on the 27th instant, at Greenwich, aged 62. The de ceased was for many years connected with the 59th Foot, with which he served during the greater part of the late war. He was at the battle of Vittoria, the siege of San Sebastian, the battle of Neve, where he was wounded, the battle of Waterloo,storming the of Cambray, and the capture of Paris. Ho afterwards proceed to India, and was at the battle of Bliurtpore, under Lord Com berrnere. The deceased held three medals viz., one for Waterloo, a war medal, and a medal for San Sebastian. THE LADY FRANKLIN AND THE SOPHIA.—Theso two vessels, recently employed in the search for Sir John Franklin, are now lying in our harbour, the first named one having arrived on Thursday morning, under the command of Captain Penny, and the latter yesterday. It was reported some weeks ago that they had been purchased by Captain Penny for the Royal Arctic Com pany, to proceed to the Arctic Regions, but as this has been contradicted, and as we have been unable as yet to see the gallant voyager himself, we can do no more at present than report their arrival here. Aberdeen, Herald. MELANCHOLY SUICIDE IN HEREFORD.—Great excite ment was created in this city on Wednesday morn ing by the report, which subsequent inquiries proved to be too well founded, that a Miss Prince, who resided at Putson, near this city, had com mitted suicide. A considerable degree of mystery attaches to this melancholy event. Miss Prince was an elderly lady, possessed of an ample fortune, whose kindly disposition and unbounded generosity deserv edly won for her the respect and esteem of all who knew her. It appears that on Wednesday evening Miss Prince retired to rest at an early hour, her usual habit being to rise at seven o'clock in the morning. Not hearing her moving at eight the servant knocked at the the d windowoor i: b is u t t r , es r a w ece in receiving no answer, burst it open, when she discovered that th e b e d no t b een s l ep t i n , and that her n hern inight-clothes, apparently htel sittingn! herone the:floor restingn ear a wth g ie a ti i ,o n l otsiiii,ee.rd theendin a Assistance ewbail A piece of new rope, skil fully n n g oose N v, fastened a a r w s i nt found oe twoudni a d t eel round u thed procured, h h e e r r e neck, bt c hu k et y , life had evidently b een extinct for some hours. Not the slightestreasTohne c v a e n rd b i e et a w ss as ig , ned for this lamentable oc currence. The heri maternal ed t ie property,unc l uncle of teheemdme committed de stroyed herself while in a stateof . 81 h: 1 : fir:imd the e wbhyo m deceased shsoilootiinng temporary insanity. himself many years ago in the same house.—Hereford Times. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 1, 1 853. MA ►A Y. IFew Words -o n F rance, " Blackwood.—An ad m i ra bl e ar ti c l e , en titl e d "A adorns the June number of Blackw oo d. I n i t the writer comments w i t h some freedom upon the consequences of the Feb ruary revolution —not always, by any means, with . fairness, but evidently throughout from the depth of his own conscientious convictions. Unhappily it must be admitted that there is a vast deal of truth in many of his most severe strictures upon the excesses into which the mob in France allowed themselves to be carried by de signing demagogues and political incendiaries. The Press showed this clearly enough by the ferocity and madness of many of its exaggerated lucubrations—upwards of twelve hundred different newspapers having started into existence, in Paris alone, between the February of 1848 and the De cember of 1851, several of them advocating theories subversive of the whole system 'of morality, and of the whole machinery of civilisation. The clubs again illustrated the political fanaticism of the time in a manner yet more flagrantly obnoxious — goading on the more depraved classes to all kinds of atrocities, and perpetually threaten ing the Government of the Hour with rebellion and even assassination. The Secret Societies, again, constituted another of the hideous social impos thuines of the day—draining the strength, and hopes, and energies of the country, until the power of France trembled at last upon the verge of irre trievable destruction. For strangling the abomin able licence of journalism, General Cavaignac was lauded to the skies by his sincere brother-Repub licans. For doing precisely the same the present Emperor of the F renc h h as b een disingenuously reviled and execrated by many of the so-called liberals of our generation. For defying the clubs, and for shooting down the emissaries of the Secret Societies on the barricades of June, by hundreds and by thousands, General Cavaignac was eulo gised—and deservedly —as the saviour of France, and the defender of Europe, as the champion of social order and the guardian of civilisation. For doing all this more effectually than any of his ' predecessors, Napoleon 111, has been ab horred as a' criminal of the darkest dye, as an adventurer stained with the blood of his countrymen, and reeking with the guilt of patri cide. Blackwood does justice to the merits of the extraordinary man now ruling France ,with a skill and a resolution 'which have come at length to be universally recognised. What, in fact, is the conclusion, the inevitable conclusion to which this writer in Maga is driven, after reviewing the past history of our neighbours during the last quarter of a century ? Why this—He says : "Eighteen months have now elapsed since the decisive blow was struck, and the first period of no preceding government has passed in greater tranquillity." It is the truth. However distressing it may be to the personal enemies of Napoleon,—however distasteful it may be to the disappointed group of the Orleanists,— however unwelcome it may be to the despotic courts of the North, it is, we repeat, the simple and un deniable truth,—" the first period of no preceding Government has passed in greater tranquillity." And, recollect, it is no merely stunned quietude : it is a thriving and prosperous tranquillity. A careful perusal of the paper here re ferred to will repay the readers of Ebony tenfold. A sixth instalment is given of the present serial in Blackwood—now becoming familiarly known as " Lady Lee's Widowhood." There is a curious contribution, rather remarkable, and cer tainly entertaining in its character, called " The Paradise in the Pacific"—the introductory section of which contribution is significantly headed, " Where is it ?" There are two metrical fragments in the present number of Maga—neither of them of any particular merit —one, "The Shadow on the Way," and the other an effusion by Bayard Taylor, somewhat difficult to be decided whether it is in tended for prose or poetry, which the name, as Mrs. Gamp would say, is " Kilimandjaro." Among the other articles this month in Blackwood are contri butions referring to " Syria," to " Finlay's Byzan tine Empire," to " Six Months with the Malays," to " Minor Morals," and to " Free Trade and High Prices"—variety being well provided (as will be seen from this) for the delectation and amuse ment of the subscribers to the chief of our monthly periodicals. The Emigrant's Guide to Australia. Second Edi tion. By John Capper. Philip and Son, Liverpool. A second edition affords us proof of the popu larity already secured to this admirable littl volume—perhaps (among all similar publications the most compact, and yet, at the same time,t h most complete guide-book to Australia. Its re appearance in its present enlarged form constitutes moreover, a significant testimony of its excel lence. Upon examination it will be found to com prise, a surprising store of. useful and interest ing information. It is extraordinary how so much should have been condensed within 254 pages, however compactly printed, or sententiously expressed, or ingeniouSly arranged. The circum stance becomes, no doubt, less remarkable in ap pearance when it is remembered that the author, as editor of the Emigrant's Journal, had previously acquired considerable experience in the method of conducting the labours of similar compilations. However, that may be, Mr. Capper has in his " Emigrant's Guide to Australia," compressed together a mass of valuable particulars relating to the recently discovered gold fields, to the Government regulations for gold seeking, and to other matters directly affecting the personal interests of indivi duals proceeding in quest of better fortune to our antipodes. Besides possessing the attraction of three new maps of the gold fields, the volume comprises an alluring account of now diggings in South Australia. ELECTION COMMITTEES.-(THIS DAY•) LIVERPOOL. At the sitting of the committee this morning, Witnesses wore called to prove agency and the hiring of bands, but the evidence was uninteresting. CLARE COUNTY. Thomas Macnamara was recalled this morning, and examined further as to the kidnapping of voters. Wit ness was employed by the sitting members' agents to stop all the voters he could lay hands on coining into Ennis. He had a party of the boys with him. All the voters that would not promiso to vote for Sir T. Fitzgerald and C. O'Brien they carried off, and shut up, but the others were well treated, and had something to drink. Witness paid for some of the drink, and S. Green (an agent of the sitting members) paid for the rest. Cross-examined —Witness was employed to canvass for Mr. O'Brien. By canvassing witness understood that he was to try and induce and force people to vote for Mr. O'Brien, and if they refused, to give them drink, and prevent them voting at all. SLIGO. The case for the petitioners was this morning con cluded, and the learned counsel proceeded to sum up. METCALFE COMPANY. The annexed memorandum from the Metcalfe Com- Extract of Captain Lean's Report to the Metcalfe Com- pany, dated the 9th May. " Job's-hill.—The winze sinking in the bottom of the shallow edit, No. 1 still continues to improve. The lode is 44 feet wide, half of which is good saving work. Wo have sunk 2 fathom 2 feet. " I expected we should have cut the lode in the edit be neath before this, but the cross course has thrown it out of its regular bearing and greatly disordered the ground. We have six English miners working three spells, day and night, at this work, in order that no time may be lost in accomplishing the desired object. " The drift on No. 3 lode looks well, especially towards the bottom. This warrants success at a deeper level, which we intend to be at immediately. We have driven 5 fathoms 3 feet in ore ground by means of three English miners and three natives day and night, and have raised some three tons of copper ore. "At Job's-hill east a considerable change has taken place: The ground has become hard and spare for driving. We have not intersected the lode yet, but there are indi cations now and then. " At Pembroke we have found the lode on the opposite side of the stream since my last. It is 30 feet wide, com posed of gossan, blue and red sandstone, carbonate of lime, e y, is b r before ou t hg with abundance of sma ll cr y stals of pyrites. This pro mises something in depth. I have abandoned fiin small dress ingandxonesditfei• the time. It requires an engine,a out an nd ootuhreromre as machinery, anythinglovp operations r th haveeo r n e s tcano commencedwb a e sproved. and clean ,laying out of the drift, and cutting and making galleries inside the hill. A sufficient stream flows from No. 3 lode for this purpose. " The miners who had been employed before my arrival wore inexperienced, and driving out of the lodes into sand stones lost their way and came to a stand. lat once saw their error, and began as soon as possible to work my way back, which lam happy to say has proved successful. In stead now of going underground and finding only sand stone, we can raise large rocks of rich copper ore:' ROYAL SOUTH LONDON FLORICULTURAL SOCIETY.— The first open - ai r show of this society was held yester day, and the Su rre y Zoological Gardens, and though the day was somewhat cold and unpropitious, attracted a large number of visitors. The show was composed pi in cipally of Cape heaths, azaleas, orchedeous plants and ot h er exotics. pelargoniums, verbenas, pansies, tulips, and early fruit and vegetables, all of which were in very fine condition, and elicited universal admiration. Prizes were awarded to Messrs. Edwards, J. Hunt, Bragg, Treacher, &c., tor tulips ; Mr. Jarvis, orchedeous plants . Mr. Roser and Messrs. Fairbain, Cape heaths ; Messrs. Ivory and Son, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Garves, pelar goniums ; Mr. Steward, verbenas ; Mr. Hamp, straw berries ; Mr. Young, grapes ; and Messrs. Kately, Au gust, and Todman, vegetables. DEATH OF THE HON. THOUS MONTOLIFU MURRAY. —This gentleman expired at Bengara, in New South Wales, on the 27th of December last. lie was son of the eighth Baron Malik, and was born in 1811. IIVIPERIAL PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) ALTERATION OF OATHS BILL. Lord LYNDHURST, in moving the second reading of this bill, said that he found a great extent of misap prehension had gone abroad as to the object of this bill, and he was therefore desirous of explaining its nature and purpose. The object of the bill was simply this: to strike out of those oaths which patties were bound to take, as a qualification for a seat in Parliament, or for holding certain offices, such parts of those oaths as were inoperative, idle, and, if he might be permitted to say so, absurd. (Hear.) It appeared to him that no well founded objection could be made to such a course of pro ceeding. Sonic friends near him had stated that they did not understand precisely what the bill meant. Ile would state its meaning in a few words, and with as much plainness and simplicity as he could. The oaths required to be taken for sitting in Parliament were in number three : first, the oath of allegiance ; secondly, that of supremacy; and, lastly, the oath of abjuration. These observations applied to the oath -of supremacy, and he thought he had stated sufficient to satisfy their lordships that, so far as Protestants were concerned, the oath ought no longer to remain .on the statute book. He trusted their lordships would bear with him patiently, for his strength was hardly sufficient for the task he had undertaken. (Loud cheers.) He came now to the oath of abjuration—the oath that was notoriously framed on the model of the oath of allegiance passed in the third year of James 1., after the discovery of the gunpowder plot, and the trial and conviction of the conspirators. That oath of abjuration bore date in the thirteenth year of the reign of William 111., and the occasion of its passing was stated in the preamble of the act ; namely, the proclamation of James 111. by the King of France being the pro clamation of the Pretender as King of England. That oath related merely to the Pretender, and attested that he had no right or title to the throne of England, at the same time adjuring all allegiance and obedience to him. Such were the terms of the oath of abjuration stated rather shortly, and that oath was altered from time to time in point of form, as change of circumstances might call for alteration. It was altered on the accession of Anne, and also on the union with Scotland. It was afterwards altered on the accession of George I. ; and, lastly, after the death of -the old Pretender, it was altered in the reign of George 111., adapted to the new state of things, and applied to the descendants of the Pretender. Their lordships would see, then, that this oath was altered from time to time to adapt it to the state of the facts, and it was reasonable to suppose that, when the whole case of the Pretender was at an end, and, following the previous precedents, it would have died out and terminated altogether. (Hear, hear.) To take it at the present day when there was no Pretender to adjure, nor one of his descendants in existence, was an idle mockery, an obvious absurdity. (Loud cheers.) If any person were voluntarily to enter a grave assem bly, and say, "I do sincerely in my conscience, before God and the world, declare that no descendants of the late Pretender"—there being no such known in exist ence—" That no such persons have a right to the throne of Great Britain, and I abjure all obedience to them or any of them, stating this in the true and ordinary sense of the word, without any secret or mental reservation, and on the true faith of a Christian." He said that if any one came voluntarily into a, grave assembly and made such a statement, such person could only be looked on as a case for some personal restraint. (Cheers and laughter.) But noble lords came into that house and stood at that table—all business being meanwhile suspended, and his noble and learned friend on the woolsack assuming additional gravity for the solemn occasion—and made that statement not voluntarily, but on compulsion, and called on the Almighty to witness it. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) TO make the matter more ridiculous, each noble lord signed his name, in order that this absurdity might be secure of being handed down to posterity. Surely, hearing all this, their lord ships could not sanction such an absurdity for a moment after it has been fairly brought under their notice. (Cheers.) In addition to what he had said relative to what he might call the expansion of the oath of alle giance, he would refer to what lie had before stated to show how necessary that expansion was. To continue it to suit present exigencies, he would propose to strike out every part of the oath to which he had referred, ex cept that part which related to the succession to the throne as settled by the act, and to the character of the sovereign in as far as regarded religion. He retained this latter, because he could conceive no greater cala mity that could befal this country, judging not only from past experience, but from what was daily passing before their eyes, than the allowin g the crown of these realms to be placed on the head of a Roman Catholic. (Loud cheers.) Now several unfounded rumours had been spread abroad respecting the fourth clause of this bill, among others, that by that clause members of the Jewish religion might be introduced into either house of Parliament. Respecting this clause he had been attacked in various shapes, as if he had introduced the clause with such an intention. But he could assure their lordships he should not feel justified in attempting to do that by a side wind which he dared not do openly. (Loud cheers.) There was no lawyer who would put such a construction on the fourth clause as he had heard applied to it, namely, that by its provision members of the Jewish religion might go into the House of Commons, and make a declaration, or take the oath therein specified. Why, at that very moment the words, " on the true faith of a Christian," were not in the affirmation of the Quaker, nor in the oath of a Roman Catholic, and if a person of the Jewish persuasion were to take either the affirmation or the oath, it would be a mere nullity, and he would be just as liable after the oath to be prose cuted for penalties as if no such oath or affirmation had been made. But he admitted that the clause was copied from a bill which had been laid on their lordships' table by a noble and learned friend some years since, and con tained some general words having reference to the pro hibition of aliens and separatists from sitting in the House of Commons. However, as lie had uo intention to alter the classes of persons who were permitted to sit, he should propose to strike out those general words, and confine himself to the words used by the Quakers in affirmation. He would be asked why he did not extend this bill to the Roman Catholics. The answer was very short and plain. He was anxious 'that the bill should pass, and therefore did not wish to entangle with it any matter that might render its passage difficult. (Hear, hear.) That was the simple answer lie had to give, and if any noble lord thought right to alter the oath taken by Roman Catholics it was perfectly competent for him to bring in a bill ; but he had not thought right to encumber this bill with any attempt of the kind. Further, he had been pressed much more strongly to strike out the words, "On the true faith of a Christian." The answer he had given to such applications was, that he felt bound to respect a decision of their lordships' house recently and decisively pronounced. He could not strike out these words, because if lie struck them out, there would be no chance of passing the bill, and therefore he yielded to necessity in the matter. But at the same time he must be allowed to say, after having voted in the minority on the former occasion, that al though he yielded to necessity it was against his own con- • viction. Perhaps he might be allowed in justification to state very shortly the grounds of that conviction, so far as it related to the words to which he hail referred. The introduction of these words was very curious, and it might not be out of place to detail them to their lordships in as few words as possible. After the discovery of the gunpowder plot in the third year of the reign of James 1., search was made in the chambers of a person named Francis Tresham, one of the conspirators, who had cham bers in the Temple. During the search a manuscript was found, entitled " A Treatise on Usurpation." The manuscript was altered in the handwriting of Garnett, the superior of the Jesuits, and had the imprimatur of Blackball, at that time the archpriest of the Roman Ca tholics. It was made use of on the trial of the persons implicated in the plot, and afterwards found its way, through the hands of Archbishops Abbott and Laud, into the Bodleian Library, where it remained for many years, and was only lately brouLdit to light. It had recently been reprinted with a sui table preface, and was well worthy their lordships' attention. It had marginal notes in the handwriting of Sir E. Coke, the Attorney-General for the prosecution, and its object was to show how the obli gations of an oath might be avoided. It contained many Chapters, and the doctrine was laid down that if a ques tion was put to you that you thought in your conscience you were not bound to answer, you might answer that question aloud, but might at the same time qualify it with other words, spoken mentally, so that the whole, being taken together, the " aloud" with the " reserve" mentally expressed, if the whole was true, then you might, without being considered guilty of taking a false oath, swear to the truth of the proposition, so that, while the person addressed, applied only the words that he heard, the person who took the oath applied the whole of the proposition,tthe "aloud" and the " reserve." For instance, if you were asked by a person whom in your conscience you thought you were not bound to answer—a magistrate, perhaps, " Were you in London to-day?" you might say you had not been in London, provided you added mentally, "For any improper pur pose." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The reserve saved the truth of the proposition. It was remarkable that in the letters of Pascal, he ascribed to the Jesuits exactly that doctrine, and here in this manuscript, in the hand pCzatrttl7olfi cthCahturch, Church.er writing of the superior of the Jesuits, they had it laid there wore some ex ceptions,hat the words, " On Roman Catholics taking an oath of that description. It e f s was remarkable that in the year in which the plot was rather 71 ne d r rd u a io e st faithaotanhpnerdtprinciple these e sph a u laiee C tt w r fe i wenti s ti h t ol dof n 1878:11to w oanewt d e l ea r d e lati used to prevent the discovered the oath of allegiance was introduced, and then for the first time the words " without equivocation, evasion, or secret reservation, and on the true faith of a while in p o ssession o f this document, carefully suited, to i t n h t e r o o d a u t c h e d. was (He a framed (Hear, l e a b r y . ) s T i r h e E r . e could e b t C h eh e rin o os c t c ida a on st b" n tw , the a ra n et d so worded in order to prevent Roman Catholics taking it evasively. It wa s p e rfectly clea r then that when that oath was framed a nd those w ord s i n troduced, they were not introduced as a test of Chris - I so t le w ly as moretaoremmaalcrekaitble circumstance binding also,o n R that when the oath of abjuration was framed , it was framed Catholics. on the model of the oath of allegiance, &n 4 glom) con cluding words added. To apply those words to persons a an th it o y lic but s. of the Jewish persuasion, for whom they were never in tended, but for another class, and persons of the J ew i s h persuasion being at the tuna in a state of banishment, in which they had been absent for 400 years, and from which they did not return for many years after, was, as it appeared to him, a misapplication of the most extra ordinary description. (Hear, hear.) The case had been argued at great 1 4 .3nZh in the Court of E xc h equer, 3 WAS and he wished to state Oeir IPrdfahips. t stated by some of the learned judges on that occasion, with reference to the point to which he had just been referring. He would first mention, however, that it was said that if this oath, although framed for the purpose which he had stated, namely, that of being binding on the consciences of Roman Catholics, were not in existence, some direct act of legislation would '.-.:tvF been passed for the exclusion of members of the .1 cwiah persuasion. But it was remarkable that during the greater part of the reign of William 111. no attempt was made to introduce such a bill, and yet there was nothing whatever during that time to prevent Jews from taking .their seats in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that at a subsequent period when the position of the Jews in this country was not understood, and when they were improperly considered as aliens, any person attempting to sit in Parliament while professing that religion would, in all probability, have been excluded by an act of the Legislature, but no such an attempt having been made, they were now solely excluded by the operation of this oath. The passages to which lie re ferred were very short, and he should only read one or. two. One learned judge said " There w:O3 not in the act of abjuration any tendency to show that the Legislature wished to exclude the Jews, the whole strain of the statute being directed against persons who held commu nion with the Roman Catholics, and he thought the words 'On the true faith of a Christian' were inserted in the oath, not as a test of Christianity, but for a different object, namely, for the purpose of framing the oath so as to be most effectually binding on the consciences of the Roman Catholies." Another learned judge, for whom he had the greatest respect, a person of great learning, acuteness, and soundness of judgment (Baron Alderson) expressed himself in these terms :—"I do most sincerely regret to be obliged as a mere expounder of the law, to come to this conclusion, for I do not believe that the case of the Jews was thought of by the Legislature in framing this act. I think it would be more worthy of this country to exclude the Jews ; if they are to be ex cluded—a point on which I give no opinion—by some direct enactment, and not merely by the casual operation of a clause intended to apply to a different class of the subjects of this country." (Cheers.) And in another passage the learned judge said, "This act excludes Jews from sitting in Parliaments not by the direct intention of the act, but by an unforeseen and unintended applica catioa of a few words inserted with an entirely different object. This I do not consider to be consistent with the practice of the law of the land." (Hear, hear.) Now in these principles he (Lord Lyndhurst) entirely agreed, and he went further than what was stated by Baron Alderson, when he said that if they were to be excluded it would be more consistent with the honour of this country to have it done by direct legislation. He went further than that, and said that it was unjust without such an express act to exclude them from Par liament, that it was contrary to the principles of the Constitution, and that no natural born subject of this Crown ought to be deprived of the same rights as his fellow subjects unless lie had been con victed of some crime, or unless he was ex eluded by some direct act of Legislature directed specially against him, or against the class to which he belonged. (Hear, hear.) He stated that as a principle of the Constitution, and if it were so the Jew could only be excluded by the concurrent voice of both Houses of Parliament, and with the assent of the crown. If you excluded him by the casual operation of a clause which had been directed against him or the class to which he belonged, you deprived him of a right in opposition to the opinions of the other house of Parliament. On these grounds therefore he said, that although he re tained the words " On the true faith of a Christian," he maintained them as a necessity, but against his own decided convictions. He was sorry to have troubled their lordships at such length. (Loud cheers.) He passed these points by, and recalling their lordships' attention to the grounds which he had stated for repeal ing the oath of supremacy, and for the alteration of the oath of abjuration, without repeating the arguments which he had already adduced, and he trusted that on these grounds he should have their lordships' concur rence to the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.) The Earl of DERBY had waited for some member of the Government to address himself to this subject, but as none had so risen, he must beg to call attention to a few points in the speech of the noble lord who had just sat down. It was not his wish to offer any oppo sition to the second reading of the hill, but in assenting to that stage he understood himself as assenting to the necessity of considering certain oaths taken by members of that and . the other house of Parliament. Further than that, in assenting to the second reading he did not understand their lordships or himself to assent to any specific alteration of the oath, or to relinquish any opinion which they had already expressed on the sub- 1 ject. He admitted that a portion of the oath was sur plusage and might require change, but he did not go along with his noble and learned friend in thinking that the securities to be substituted were sufficient. His noble and learned friend sought to alter the oath of al legiance, and to do away with the oath of supremacy. All admitted that the oath might require alteration, but he could not admit the doctrine of his noble and learned friend, that the admission of the Roman Catholics to Parliament was a recognition of the spiritual power of the Pope. He did not mean to deny that the Pope exer cised spiritual jurisdiction over the consciences of Roman Catholics, but Parliament declared that it members Ire nounced such authority, an d th e l aw d i d not recogn i se i t, nor gave any p ower t o en f orce i t. H e (Lord Derby) should be most un w illi ng , see i ng t h e encroaching spirit of the see of Rome, to om it f rom th e oat h taken by Protestant members of Parliam en t, a so l emn protest against the domination of th e see o f R ome. With respect to the oath of abjuration it m i g ht b e r idi cu l ous to renounce allegiance to th e P re t en d er ; b ut he should like to see— and in this he was happy to concur with his noble and learned friend—in that oath also a declaration that the succession to the throne of these realms should be exclu sively Protestant. (Cheers.) Now, if he was not mis taken, the view he had taken on both these points was the view still maintained by a considerable number of her Majesty's Ministers ; and it was a question upon which Government would no doubt take some united action if they could agree as to what was requisite and proper. He held in his hand a bill which had been introduced in the preceding session by Lord J o h n R usse ll f or t h e pur pose of amending the Parliamentary representation, and although he found that for the purpose of admitting the Jews Lord John Russell omitted the words which his noble and learned friend proposed to retain, yet his lord - ship introduced a most stringent declaration, maintain ing the succession in the hands of Protestants, and re nouncing obedience to any foreign prince or potentate whatever. This bill also abjured in the strongest terms *he belief in any power of the Pope to release subjects from their allegiance. Therefore, what his noble and learned friend proposed to reject, Lord J. Russell re tained in his bill of the preceding year, for the admission of the Jews into Parliament, an object which his noble and learned friend did not entertain. He was satisfied that his noble and learned friend had no intention of re versing their lordships' decision given on the subject of the admission of the Jews. The question had been solemnly discussed and decided by a considerable majo rity, and besides his noble friend retained the words which effected the exclusion of Jews. But he confessed that such being the view of his noble and learned friend, he regretted that he should have prejudiced the chances of his bill, by introducing a very elaborate argument for the admission of the Jews, and by showing exceedingly good reasons why the excluding words should be struck out. He certainly must look with suspicion on this bill. His noble and learned friend said he retained those words for the sole purpose of facilitating the passing of the bill. Of course his noble and learned friend referred only to the passim -, of the b i ll th roug h t h e i r lord ships' house, fo r the retention of those words could give no additional facility for passing it through the other house. Now, he would put this t o hi s noble and learn e d friend. This bill was introduced on the last day of May. The House of Commons were so overwhelmed with business that they had made very little progress with legislation ; and what certainty had their lordships that if this bill were passed by their lordships and sent down to the House of Commons, worded as it was, it would not be amended by the omis sion of these words in the latter end of July or the com mencement of August, and then brought back for the assent of the few peers who still remained to occupy their seats in Parliament ? (Hear, hear.) He was not de sirous of throwing any impediments in the way of the fair and impartial consideration of the object which his noble and learned friend had in view; but he hoped he should not be thought unreasonable if, looking forward to what he deemed not a very improbable occurrence, he put a plain question to noble lords opposite, namely, what course they would pursue if such an amendment were introduced ? (Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that if at that period of the year the bill were returned to the house with such an amendment, her Majesty's Govern ment would then have absolute control over its adoption or none adoption. Had the bill been brought in at the' commencement of the session, their lordships might have exercised a deliberate judgment upon it ; but under the circumstances of the case, it was absolutely impossible for them to exercise such a judgment ; and unless her Majesty's Government declared that they adhered to the decision to which their lordships had already come, and would not use their influence in either house of Parlia ment to reverse it, then he warned their lordships against permitting the bill at that period to leave that house for the consideration and amendment of the other house. (Hear, hear.) He did not speak from mere suspicion on 'this subject. There had been a very significant intima tion by the leader of the House of Commons, given in answer to a deputation which went to him on the sub ject of Jewish claims, that, though he was not prepared to bring in any direct measure, for the purpose of re opening the discussion on a question which had been disposed of by the House of Lords, yet a bill for the alteration of oaths was about to be introduced into the other house of Parliament ; and he told the advocate of Jewish claims that it would be prudent to see how far that bill might be made available for the purpose of ob taining what they asked. Lord LYNDHURST was understood to disclaim having had any communication with Lord John Russell in reference to this bill, The Earl of DERBY said he had no intention to cast the slightest reflecti on on hi s noble and learned ' b f r r l o e u n g d l: s t good faith, being p er f ec tl y convinced that hehad forward his bill solely for the purpose w h ic h he ha,a stated ; but the wor d s of the present leade r o f the House of Commo ns l e d him tolnfer that the bill might posiLly be peryeyted from the purpose for which it was introduced. (Hear, h before that he did not intend to the second reading. R e wording of the Proposed , consideration in Committ a the propriety and ex in the oaths at present serve to himself he nii'ht think had d o ow he had stated offer any opposition to th don with regard to the , but that was matter for d. ee. lie was ready to admit p t e iency of making some alteration en administered • but he must re serve perfect liberty to take ' any course 034 ‘,proper on the next star. 1-. Te trusted, ~" ;~~ that her Majesty's Government would not ho3ititte ta give an assurance that both in that arid in the other house of Parliament they would resist any attempt to amend the bill so as to pervert it from the avowed object of its framer. If they would give that assurance, then they should meet with no obstruction from him in carry ing it through the house ; but if they declined to give that assurance, he must be permitted to look at a pos sible and probable contingency, and, entertaining a sus picion as to the danger which would be incurred by pro ceeding with the bill, he must tell their lordships that he thought it would be infinitely better to postpone its con sideration until the early period of the next session. The Earl of ABERDEEN said—My lords, with re ference to the alteration in the oaths proposed by my noble and learned friend, I must confess that I think his speech, like all the most powerful eloquence, was marked by great good sense—(cheers)—and I think it is impos sible for your lordships to reject the proposal which he has made. It is of course quite unnecessary for me to add a word to his statement, which must have carried conviction to your lordships' minds. With respect to the su g gestion of the noble earl opposite, I must say that 'it is one of a most unusual description, one which I have never beard made in this house before, and one to which I should conceive it impossible for any Minister to give an answer. In the first place the noble earl has totally misre presented —unintentionally, of course—the state ment of my noble friend the member for the city of London. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell), lam in formed, stated to a deputation who addressed him on the subject of relieving the Jews from the disabilities under which they labour, that he was waiting to see what was the nature of the bill which was to be intro duced by the noble and learned lord (Loid Lyndhurst), of which at the time he was entirely ignorant, but the object of which, according to common report, would affect the condition of the Jews. The noble lord said, and said only, that he would wait to tee what were the provisions of that bill before he gave any advice or pronounced any opinion on the subject. (Hear, hear.) Now I have only one regret to express with reference to the speech of my noble and learned friend, namely, that he did not deliver the latter part of it some time ago ; for I think there would at least have some chance of its diminishing the majority with which your lordships rejected the proposal which I had the honour to make. But as, not withstanding the desire which I then expressed, and which is now entertained by her Majesty's Gvernment, of relieving the Jews from those disabilities, I am cer tainly prepared to make no proposition on the subject at present. Ido not wish to interfere with the progress and success of a measure so manifestly consistent with reason and common sense as the bill proposed by my noble and learned friend. (Cheers.) I therefore ab stain entirely from interfering with any of the provisions of this bill, and such will be the course of her Majesty's Government. As to what we shall do in consequence of any amendments being introduced in the House of Com mons, I most unquestionably decline to give any pl e d ge on that subject. (Hear, hear.) I think it most unrea sonable for the noble earl or any noble lord to expect that we should fetter our discretion in any such manner. The noble earl talks of his inability to meet an amend ment. Why is the noble earl unable to exercise the same power in opposing amendments that he did in opp os i ng the bill rejected by himself and his friends the other day. At all events, he has the power, which has b een use d more than once, of enforcing a majority in this house, by means of proxies. (Hear, hear.) Only the other night, in the last division, the noble earl had a greater number of proxies on his side than were used by her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) He may it he choose—if his friends find it convenient to attend to their duty in this house—ke may have recourse to the same means again. At all events, I decline to give any pledge ; I decline to fetter my discretion in dealing with any amendments which may be made in the bill of my noble and learned friend. As the bill stands I cordially support ,it • and as it stand s I h ave no d ou b t her Majesty's Ministers will join with me in supporting it. The Earl of CLANCARTY approved of that part of the bill which related to the oath of abjuration, but ob jected to the removal by a side wind of the security given to the Protestant Church by the Catholic Relief Bill. Lord CAMPBELL said he rose to state for the infor mation of their lordships and the public, that an autho rity likely to have weight with those who were least dis posed to support this bill, might be quoted in its favour. Lord Eldon's opinion was recorded to the effect that the oath of supremacy was superfluous and improper. In the year 1324 a bill was introduced by Lord Holland, to enable the Duke of Norfolk, who was a Roman Catho lic to exercise the office of Earl Marshal on taking the oath of allegiance ; for he could not take the oath of supremacy as it was not then framed. That bill had passed and received the royal assent. A violent protest was afterwards made against it. The language of this pro test was supposed to be rather unparliamentary, and was brought under the notice of the house, on which occasion Lord Eldon said, " With respect to the oath of allegiance to be taken by the Earl Marshal, I must say, as a lawyer, that it contains in it everything included in the oath of supremacy, and that the oath of supremacy was in fact. added as an explanation of the oath of allegiance." He (Lord Campbell) hoped that the oath of allegiance would `soon be the only oath required to be taken in either house of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM said, on this subject, he did not intend to trouble their lordships at any length ; and for this reason, that after the inimitable, and he would add unanswerable speech—(cheers)—ot his noble and learned ) friend, it would be impertinent and superfluous for him to add a word. One word, however, with regard to the Lite of this bill. The noble earl asked the Government, as the condition of his abstaining from opposing the bill in its future stages, to pledge their word that at some period, necessarily uncertain, when the bill should come back from the other house with some alteration, of which they were at the present moment necessarily ignorant, the Government would oppose the amend ment which had been so introduced. How was it pos sible for the Government to pledge themselves as to what their conduct would be in this most hypothetical of possible cases ? (Hear, hear.) He hoped this bill would receive the assent of their lordships in all its stages, thereby removing a great blot from their legisla ture, not. merely in a civil but in a religious point of view. The bill was then read a second time. Lord LYNDHURST said that if it suited the noble earl, he would move the committee on the bill on. Thurs day. He wished to know what amendments the noble earl had to suggest. The Earl of DERBY said that lie did hot suggest any amendments. What he apprehended was that amend ments would be made elsewhere which would alter the character of the bill. HOUSE OF COMMONS_-(YESTERDAY.) CUSTOMS RESOLUTIONS. The orders of the day having been postponed pro fennel, on the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the report upon the Customs Resolu tions was agreed to. ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES OF IRELAND. Mr. G. H. MOORE rose to move for a select com mittee to inquire into the ecclesiastical revenues of Ire land, with the view of ascertaining how far they are made applicable to the benefit of the Irish people. No ques tion had been forced so much upon the attention of Par liament as this, and he believed none but Englishmen would allow themselves to be bored with Irish grievances simply to gratify a feeling of obstinacy. It was very popular with some people to represent the Irish Roman Catholic population of Ireland as exceedingly loyal ; but those who made such representations were grossly de. ceived if they believed them. The fact was, the Roman Catholic population of Ireland were discontented with the present state of ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland ; and if an American fleet were to attack the shores of Ire land, he believed its success would be hailed with joy by the Irish people. Now, it was for the ex press purpose of removing this bad feeling that he now proposed this motion. Ireland, in a time of war, had rendered this country good service, and the period might arrive when the aid of her sons would again be required by the Crown. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that the feeling of discontent that now prevailed in Ireland on ecclesiastical matters should be removed, if it could possibly be done. There was a wide difference between the situ ation of England and Ireland. In the former the Church of the majority was closely iterwoven with the State. It was distinctly represented in one branch of the Legislature, while the Sovereign had sworn to protect and cherish it. Not so in Ireland. There the revenues of the Church were grossly misappropriated. The majority were sacrificed for the sake of keeping up the religious intolerance of the minority, and the con sequence was that there was no such thing known in Ireland as ecclesiastical equality. Hence the discontent to which he had referred in the opening of his address. If the grievances of which the people of that country complained were not redressed, the noble lord the leader of that house was himself of opinion that the union could not be maintained. The right hon. gentleman the leader of the opposition was also of opinion that it was most injudicious to ask for an identity of institutions for Eng land and Ireland, because the people of that country disapproved of the union between the Cluirch and State. He was also of opinion that the Church question ought to be immediately and sa ti s f ac t orily settled. B thg those high authoriti es , it appeared, agr ee d i the °°l demnation of this anomaly. A nother great tlauthority, con the Chief Justi ce o f the Court of Queen s Bench, had said that the Established Church in Ireland was the greatest mischief in existence —that it was so considered now, and would be considered so by prosperity ; and it was only because their lordsliis were familiar with it that they were not shocked at its nature. The noble lord, formerly Lord Chancellor England, was of the same opinion and one of the greoatest political writers of the day—dr. Macaulay —said that the Established Church of Ireland was a bad —a very bad institution, and Ought to be abolish If all these high political and legal authorities did.ednot justify the Irish people in demanding an iinnq into this question, they ought all to be shut up Bedlam, and . the hon. member for North Warwickshire appointed First Minister of the Crown. Let them for a moment consider what were the facts of this question, The Church revenues of Ireland were a property, in themselves, set apart for a public purpose ; they were held under a sacred trust for sacred purposes, and it was the duty of the state to see that they were not diverted from those purposes. He was not going to say that because these funds were so appropriated in Catholic times they ought now to be restored, and! applied to such p ur poses ; but he contended a t th e least that they ought not to he necessarily and 18 1731, exclusively applied to Protestant __ _pnTr o wsP i s. In tZe ere me i n% s be u rrof *then Est3atlitilshee.Y the Catholic population were 6,500,000; __ During that period,. the 850,000.iw b th? ig i tr of Protestantism, contributed Church amo u rs: g ii• of a mill ion of money to increase the resources upwards o this gorged establishment. And now it was, pre. ~' y "~ i'