The Sun. — London, England, 1857-07-22 00:00:00

of his hellth, and under the circumstances he begged to be excused from attending on this committee. Mr. BASS bore testimony to the correctness of this statement. After a abort discussion, the hon. member was excused from attending. BERWICK ELECTION PETITION. The SPEAKER read a letter from the agents of the petitioners against the sitting members, stating that it Was not intended to procee d with the petition. BANDING BILL. On the motion that the house go into committee, Mr. HEADLAM said he had a very important mo tion on the paper respecting this bill, it was to move an amendment to provide for the formation of joint-stock bank, based , upon the principle of limited liability , but in the present state of the house be appealed to his hon. friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade not to press forward the b)11 at A morning sitting. He doubted much if there were sufficient members present to constitute a house legally, A nd as the measure was one that would require the greatest attention he hoped that the committee would be postponed until a future day. Mr. HADFIELD thought the best course to pur sue was to withdraw the bill altogether for the present session. Mr. LOWE reminded the house that the bi l was to establish a system of winding-up, in place of that which bad proved to be so disastrous in the case of the Royal British Bank. The subject was of such importance to the commercial community that he could not consent to postpone the progress of the measure for a single day. , The boo. member, if he thought proper, could bring for ward his amendment upon the bringing up of the report. After a few words from Mr. GLTN, The house went into committee on the bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2 being read, Mr. HEADLAM moved the omission of certain words at the end of the clause, for the purpose of introducing words to provide for the formation of Joint-Stock Banks upon the principle of limited liability. The hon. mem ber having complained of being compelled to proceed with his amendment in so thin a house, proceeded to explain that some time ego he had to investigate the case of several Joint-Stock Banks in the north of England ; the result was, that he became thoroughly conscious that the principle of unlimited liability, as applied to Joint-Stock Banks, was attended with very great evils, and it was to put an end to such anomalies as he then discovered that the present amendment was proposed. Having entered into a statement of the evils of unlimited liability, the honourable member said he believed that the direct tendency of the present law was to lower the character of the shareholders in such companies. Un limised liability prevented the establishment of joint stock banks, for but few gentlemen would be found disposed to enter into a concern by which they ren dered themselves liable for every shilling of the liabi lities of the company. He looked upon joint-stock banks, in which there was unlimited liability, as possessing a character purely fictitious. The business transacted was of the same nature, and it sometimes happened the whole capital was frittered, and cases had occurred in which, he was sorry to say, it had been traced into the hands of the directors. He maintained that the existing sys tem did not work well, on the contrary, he thought it was impossible to exaggerate the evils it occasioned ; bearing out this view of the case he need only point to the Tipperary Bank—(hear, hear)—as an illustration of the bad effects of the system, and then again the Royal British Bank, at the constitution of which it was said to be based upon limited liability, but the shareholders had found to their cost that it was not so, but on the con trary, they were liable for the debts of that bank to their last farthing. If his amendment was agreed to cases similar to those he had mentioned could not occur. Mr. BERNARD Raid, as a very large shareholder in certain joint stock banks, he gave his cordial support to the amendment of the gentleman opposite. The un limited liability principle had proved to be erroneous by the failure of the Royal British Bank. Mr. HASTIE thought the principle of limited liability was most dangerous, and he looked upon a person enter ing into one of these company's as one playing with iaded dice. It allured parties to speculate to the extent of 20,000/, although only possessed of capital to half that amount. Ile looked upon Vie limited liability system as one which will prove most disastrous to the trade and commerce of the country. The hon. member for Newcastle bad totally failed to prove the superiority of the limited liability principle, and therefore he trusted the house would refuse to adopt the amendment. Mr. GLYN regretted that the hon. member for New. castle bad thought it Hs duty to bring forward this amendment at a morning sitting. The limited liability principle, during the time it bad been in operation, bad not had a fair trial, owing to the state of the money market. He thought the present was not the best time for bringing forward the amendment, and that it would be much better to leave the subject in the hands of the Government, in order that next session a measure might be brought forward which would meet the views of a'l parties. Mr. SHERIDAN said he should support the amend ment of the hon, member for Newcastle. He thought the liability of shareholders should be fixed at three times the amount of their holding.. If such a plan was adopted be thought loss would scarcely ever occur in case of the failure of the concern. Mr. BItISCOE opposed the amendment. He con sidered the limited liability principle to be a total failure. In the yecr 1837 no less than 600 banks en the limited principle failed in America. Mr. BUCHANAN opposed the amendment. He thought the moat reckless set of trustees were th,ee who transacted their business on the limited liability principle. Mr. RIDLEY said he was not yet certain that the principle of limited liability could with safety be adopted, and for these reasons he could not support the amend ment of his lion, coleague. Sir J. GRAHAM said be thought ucder all the cir cumstances', the state of the house, and a committee now sitting on banking upstairs which was examining the most important questions, it wenn be unfortunate fix tie bon. member for Nea ca All even to push this amend. ment to a division. He thought it intxdedient that the Government should be csllel upon to express an opinion upon the sul-j,ct at that time, and he therefore again appealed to the hon. gentleman to withdraw his amend ment. Mr. LOWE thought the rigbthon. baronet, the mem• ber for Carlisle, had given the house good advice, and be hoped the hon. gentleman would assent to his pro position. Mr. LIEA.DLA.D.I said after the remarks he had just heard be should not trouble the committee to divide. The amendment was then negatived without adivision. Clauses up to 11 svcra agreeSto. Oa chose 12 being proposed, Mr. SHERIDAN wished to know why the govern ment had fix Id the shares of joint sto.:k banks at 10,:1. each. He thought such a determination wal most .x -traordinary ; as be could not see why 10 shareholder, of 101. were not as good as one shareholder of 02.0 larger suns. Mr. LOWE said there was strong reason why the sbares should be fixed at 1001. The existing law fixed the amount at 100/, and as this act was to supersede that law that rum hal been retained. His object in fixing upon that amount for this bill was for the convenience of maculating, supposing the limited liability principle was ext-ndel to joint,stock banks, the value of each member's share. Mr. SHERIDAN said he did not feel satisfied with the explanation, and he ehould therefore wove that the snares be fix di at 101. Mr. FIfZitOY said it was not competent for the hon. memb , r t move the amendment. The question was that the clause stand part of the. bill, therefore no amendment could be put. The clause was agreed to, a 3 were the remaining clauses of the till. LOAN SOCIETIES BILL. This bill wag reari a thir I tiu,e passed. COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL. This bill wag read a third time and passed. BOUNDARIES OF LAND. This bill waA also read a third time and passed. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill %was read a third time awl passed. LAND AND ASSESSED _TAXES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. PUBLIC HEALTH (ALDERSHOT) BILL. Tbis bill Was also read a third time and pacsed. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRE. LAND) BILL, The arnendments on this bill were considered and agreed to. MALDON ELECTION. Sir J. TROLLOPE brought up the report of the committee appointed to try the merits of a petition against the return of tae sitting members for the borough of Malden. The report stated that Thomas Sutton Western, Esq., and John Bramley Moore, Esq , ha been duly elected. That bribes were offered by an elec. for named John Riley, bat it was not proved to hare been done with the cognizance of the sitting member or Isis agents, and that the petition against the return of J. B. Moore, Esq., was frivolous and vexatious, baying been prevented for the purpose of inducing the withdrawal of the petition against the other sitting member. The sitting of the house was suspended. The Sretexen resumed the chair at six o'clock. LISBURN ELECTION. The SPEAKER informed the house that he had r-- calved a letter from the agents for the petitioners com plaining of an undue return for the borough of Lisburn, stating that it was not their intention to proceed with the petition. THE INSPECTOR OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN IRELAN D. Mr. CAIRNS asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the statement which had appeared in the public news papers, that Dr. Hatchell had been appointed In spector of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland was correct • an d , if so, whether Dr. Hatchell had had any, and what ex perience, in the manag ement of lunatic asylums, or i n the treatment of the insane Mr. H. A. HERBERT replied tha. statementctheorrect. That h a a s t to Dr. Hatchell't appointiren t was quite gentleman never ha.d any connexion with a lunatica o s d y e . lum, but he had been professionally employe d in a mode which frequently brought him into communication with lunatics. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DUBLIN AND • LONDON. Mr. REPTON asked the Secretary to the Treasury, if the Government bad finally settled the arrangement for an improved communication between London and Dublin, and whether he would have any objection to lay the minute on the table Mr. WILSON said that in consequence of the ab sence of Lord Chandoe, the arrangements had not been definitively concluded, but would in a few days. THE SLIGO ELECTION. Mr. somERS asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland ItHE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 22, 1857 if he hail rceiived any infsmation respecting the recont tea's at Sligo, arising out; of the late e!ections, and the systematic exclusion of all persons professing the Roman Catholic religion from the j Hies emi.annelled to try the paeies accused of rioting. Mr. H. A. HERBERT had not received any such in formation. supro:t s'rennously such a blll . as the one I now pro pose to bring in—if they art inclined to give it a better chanue in the House of Lords than their late bill l al. we might look to the end of the questior. (Hear.) If they are not prepared to do so, it is not my intrnti•)n, after introducing the bill, to mislead the house by telling them that I think the bill is likely to receive the appro bation of the other house. (Rear, hear.) I shall now e titer into a statement of the bill I propose to introduce. I have said it will be a declaratory bill. Now, the first proposition I propose to make is, that according to the general principle of the law of England, when oaths are to be taken, they are to be taken in the manner and with the forms and c:remony that are binding on the consciences of the p-rsons taking the oatb. Tnat prin cipal, as far as regards witnesses in courts of justice, was laid down in the case of " Otnichund and Barker." In that case the law was laid doe n by Lord Hardwicke, assisted by the Chief Justice and the Chief Baron. The house is well aware that in that case it was contended that the Hindoo witnesses to be examined must be sworn upon the Holy Evangeli-ts. The case was argued at considerable length, and we have the authority of these learned judges in favour of taking an oath in the manner most binding upon the conscience of the person to be sworn. In the course of the discussion the Chief Baron said, " It is objected to us, that we are imposing upon our own authority a new oath ; but Isay this is no new oath." The Chief Baron thereby meant to imply that he was not altering the oath, but that the substance of the oath was entirely distinct from the form and sere• mony whieh made it solemn and binding on the conscience of the person taking it. But lam told, as we heard the ether night, that there is a distinction between a witness taking an oath for the purposes of justice and persons taking an oath to qualify themselves for office or seats in Parliament. Now what I maintain is, that in princi ple there is no distinction whatever. Upon what can you ground that distinction ? Can you say there is more importance attached to the oath of a sheriff, who is to administer the law, than to the oath of a Jew who is seeking to recover a debt before that officer ? The she riff iq liable to penalties, and so is the Jew, and no one can say that the one is more important than the other. It is of the highest importance that the ends of justice should be obtained ; it is of the highest importance, if a murder is committed, and none but a Mallomedan and a Jew should have been witnesses of it, that they should be able to give evidence in a court of justice according to the form of oath binling on their consciences. No person would dispute the importance of that mode of taking the oath ; but if it is important in view of the law of England, it is equally important in view of the liber ties of England, which are the birthright of the pe.iple of tla3 country. It is declared by statute that unless a person is absolutely disqualified by law he should ob tain the office to which he is legally appointed or he should obtain the seat in Parliament to which he is le gally elected. No man at this time of day will dispute that maxim. It was asserted in the House of Lords 150 year-i ago, that there could be no greater hardship to an Englishman than deprive him of this object of ambition. Well, sir, I do not doubt, I do not question that there may be particular statutes depriving the subjects of this country of advantage; which, if there was no law against them, would btlong to them. For instance, not to speak of the law with regard to minors, it was once the policy of this country to fxCude Roman,Catholic3, to impose upon them a declaration against transubstantiation. The in tention of the legislature in asking for that declaration was to exclude them from Parliament ; but they now make no such declaration. It would be obviously an infringement of the very purpose of the law, if when a Roman Catholic came to the table to be sworn, he should be required to make a deearation against transnbstan- tiatio;. Instead of there being any principle which makes a distinction between an oath as it affects a seat in Parliament, as it affects office, and as regards wit nesses in courts of justice, I think the only proper dis tinction is that which was taken by the learned j edges, who gave their opinion against Alderman Salomons, when he sat one on occasion in this house. They said, there is a great difference between what judges can do with common law, where they may interpret according to whatever they believe to be the dictates of reason and common sense, but with regard to the interpretation of a statute, in which express words have been laid down by the Legislature, they said, "We are not at liberty to deal with a statute the same as the common law ; it is in our power to modify that from time to time, so as to make it concert with the interests of society ; but when the Legi-lature has laid down particular words, it is not for the judges to say with what purpose they have laid down those words, or to question what their meaning shall be ; it is beyond our province to question that." But if this is beyond the province of the judges, it is not beyond the province of the High Court of Par liament; on the contrary, it is the privilege, it is the duty of Parliament—it was what was the intention of the words of the oath to be taken. (Cheers.) I now, sir, come to my second proposition, which is, that in the oath of abjuration as taken at the table, the words "on the true faith of a Christian" are not part of the substance of the oath, but are of the solemn form in which the oath is administered. .1 think this point can be made clear in various ways. In the first place, it is made clear by the history and origin of the oath. I referred the other day to Mr. Baron Alderson's statement—a sta`ement borrowed from what is now perfectly well known—namely, the history of a treatise which .-.- was found in the axileian Library. It appeared from that treatise that the doe rine of the Jeiuits at that time was that they might evade the words, and were not bound to keep their promises with heretics ; but if they swore upon their faith they were bound to pay so much respect as not to violate the oath they bad taken. It was with the view of binding persons who had imbibsd the dostrtne of the Jesuits that the oath was established in its present form. Those persons were only portions of the Roman Catholics of this country at the time o James 1., and the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the oath immediately after the discovery of the Gun powder Plot. It is therefore clear from the origin of this oath that it was intended as a form more binding than any other, as a form more binding than the words " so help me God," or any other words, in order. to bind Ro man Catholics in their allegiance to the Crown. With respect to the oath then introduced, as with respect to the oaths since, the object was n: t to have a test of the Christianity of the person swearing, it was riot to require any special declaration of faith, but to obtain an assur ance of loyalty to the sovereign, an assurance that the person swearing would never plot against the sovereign, but would loyallydefend the sovereign against any claim ant to the throne whatsoever. If this was the origin of the oath, in the next occasion on which it appeared there is further evidence that such was the intention. By the oath of William 111., it was declared that refusing the oath of abjuration, which was then for the first time intro duced with these wor.ls "on the true faith of a Christian," should subk.ct a person to be deemed a popish recasant convert to all intents and purposes. No v does that mean the Jew? Is it not perfectly evident to the house that it was intended thereby to say that Roman Catholic persons who refused to take the oath should he treated as Popish recusants, and not entitled to sit in Parliament ? It Fs clear that such was the meaning and object of the oath ; but I come now to the second proof that these words ars not part of the substance, but only part of the ceremony and form. That proof is, that whenever Parliament has dispensed with the taking of the whole of the oath, it has relieved persons from the words, " on the true faith of a Christian," wild; it has not relieved them from the substanoo of the oath. A Such was the case with re gard to the Quakers. (Hear.) By the 8 - 1 of William 111., Quakers were relieved from these words ; but the act relating to Quakers has been renewed from time to time. It was renewed in the reigns.of George 1., George 11., and George 111., and when Mr. Pease took his seat the last of these acts was passed, which provides for an affirmation, in which the words " on the true faith of a Christian" are left out. Now what is the purpose of this? It is not, the Q Hiker is not a Christian. Is it because a Quaker coul I object to decline, that if the Society of Friends took the whole substance of the oath, ho de clared against the Stuart family, and any other pre tender to the throne, which is the substance of the oath, but he did not declare that •` on the true faith of a Chri.tian." (Cheers.) Truth in proof of this is with re re9pect to the Jews themselve , , when Parliament wished to relieve the Jew, which it did from certain penalties with regard to the non-register of their estates. If they did not take the oath of abjuration, th e wor d s ' on the true faith of a Christian" were not applied to the case. But, sir, there is a further proof in what the parliament of this country required at the time when it did wish for a religions profession. There was a time, it was dining the Commonwealth, when it was thought advisable, but it has not since, to obtain a posit►ve profession of faith from members of the Commons House of Pa►liament. It was then enacted that the following declaration should be made : " I, A B, do in the presence of and in the name of Alm►ghty God, promise and swear that I wiil, to the utmost of my power in my place, uphold and maintain the true reformed Protestant Christian re- ligion, and the authority thereof as contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and to encourage the profession and the professors f the same." Now, is this the sort of declaration that par liamert would have enacted if they had wished really for a declaration of faith. If they had wished for any pro fession of that kind, there was a direct mode of doing it, and if honourable gentlemen who have raised a =- test with respect to any alterations in the oaths wish to bring this matter to a fair decision, they should propound some positive declaration of Christianity by which their principle could be effected, a principle which they have always declared to be the principle of Parliament, but which is not and never has been. (Hear.) Then, I con tend from all these things ; from the origin of the oath in the time of James L ; from the enactment of the Oath of Abjuration in the time of William 111. ; from the law exempting the Quakers in certain case, and the Jews from the Oath of Abjuration ; and lastly, from the posi tive declaration contained in the Act of the Common wealth ; from all these circumstances I contend that it clearly appears that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" form no part of the oath, but that they are part of the form and ceremony introduced to make the oath more binding on Roman Catholics, but which are much out of place at present. I con ceive, therefore, nothing can be clearer than the pro position that the words " on the true faith of a Chris tian" are not part of the substance of the oath. I come - next to the question in what manner is that which is not part of the substance of the oath to be omitted when the Jew comes to the table of the Louse to be sworn ? Now, sir, with regard to that subject, is it to be said that this house has not the ability or the power as a single house of parliament which is possessed by the judges of the land. Practically, we have the power, if we thought fit to exercise it, by stating in a resolu tion that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" are not part of the substance of the oath, and that Baron Rothschild, being admitted to the table, shall take the oath in the form binding on• his conscience—namely, without these words. (Cheers.) But it is a ques..ien whether we should not lose by that step—whether we should net be exposing ourselves to the contest that may arise with the Lords. On looking through the arguments which have been used by learned men upon this subject—on looking at the arguments that were used in a most able speech of Sir William Page Wocd when he was a member of this house, no .v one of the Vice-Chancellors, on the subject, I find that though he used arguments which I must say are convincing to my mind with respect to the nature of the oath itself, I confess do not find in any of the speeches ,a solution of the practicable difficulty in which we should be involved if we attempted to make the change by resolution. Sir W. Page Wood said, on one occasion, that there were many questions in which the house might decide differences of law, and that we ought not to be deterred from it by the fear of coming into collision with another place ; that may be so, but I conceive there is no case similar to this where that course could be followed. Well, thee, sir, it appears to me, in the present state of this question, that if we could obtain our end by a bill in a different form from any that has been introduced ; if we could obtain the assent of both Houses of Parliament to a delaration upon this sul ject —a declaration which I believe would be in entire con formity with the law—it would be a far better mode 6f ending this question than using our extreme powers by admitting Baron Rothschli, of our own decree and authority, to take the oath at the table with the omission of these words. (Hear, hear.) I have stated at the beginning that it must depend upon the government in a great degree whether there shall - be any chance of carrying this measure. I cannot think that, with a majority of 140, and the support of the country, which the ministers say they have—and • I believe truly—that the opposition of the House of Lords cannot be over come. It has been overcome in so many instances, such as the settlement of the Roman Catholic question, the corn law question, and many others, that I cannot be lieve that it would fail to be overcome in this instance. (Hear, hear.) I remember perfectly well there was a strong objection on the part of many members of the House of Lords to a bill that we passed here with re spect to the temporalities of the Irish church, and many persons expected that the bill would be thrown our. There was a man then who led the conservative party, 'who united graat authority to a long life of glory and distinction, and the greatest wisdom and prudence, and by the advice of that man a great many of the Lords, who would have formed a decided majority of the house, re frained from opposing it, and th e bill was carr i e d i n t o law. With respect to another measure, to which I have al ready adverted, and which was brought in when I had the honour of being a member of her Majesty's councils —namely, the repeal of the navigation acts, which my right hon. friend below me, the Secretary for the Colo nies, will well remernLer, for he was the person who had the honour of carrying it through this house, the govern ment declared that they had made up their minds to ac cept a defeat on that question as a vote of want of confi dence, and the bill•was carried. Yet I candidly believe that to this day it was the particular wish of a portion of the House of Lords that the navigation laws should not be repealed. There was upon that subject opinions as hasty and strong as some of those which are professed upon this question - of the admission of Jews into Parlia ment ; but, after all, they are more prejudices or fancies than any real or settled convictions. Well then, sir, with regard to the authority of this house, I beg leave to quote a statement that was made by Chief Justice Fortes cue, which has been referred to often of late years. With respect to the privileges of this howe, when the Chief J ustice was asked with respect to one of your pre decessors in the chair, sir, whom it was proposed to ar rest—(a laugh)—he said : " Chief Justice Fortescue and all the judges say that they ought not to be called upon to answer that question, for it pertains to the privileges of Parliament, and Parliament is so high and mighty that it may make law, and make that not law which is law. This is a question of privilege, and it hath afore time been adjudged that the determination and know ledge of the privileges of. Parliament belong alone to the lords of Parliament itself." Such was the declaration of discussion. (Cheers from the ministerial side below th:l ' gangway.) If he comprehended .those cheer-, it was time that the two sides of the house understood each other. (Cheers and counter cheers.) The noble lord had made - some remarks upon the power of Parliament, and had quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Fortescue upon the point. 'But if it were meant to b 3 said that the power of the House of Commons was the power of Par liament, the sooner it was avowed the better. (Cheers and counter cheers.) There was a time when such a claim was set ua by the house, and the result would appear in the journals of the house. The first resolution appeared on t .e 4to of Jan. 1643, when it was resolved that what- i ever was enacted and declared by the Commons in Par liament should have the force of law. The next resolution was on the 6th of the following July, is which it was re solved that the House of Lords was useless a,nd dangerous; and on the following day a third resolutioa was agreed to, resolving that the office of king was us e l ess , d angerous , and burdensome. ifs would rather that fifty Jews had seats in Parliament than that the House of Commons, by tampering with the constitution, should enter upon such a course. One other remark of the noble lord he must notice, and that was with reference to the case of Lord Wensleydale. The noble lord, in the way which he hal of treating such matters, treated the question of the ad mission of Lord Wensleydale into the other house and Baron Rothschild into that house as identically the same. The fact was, that the House of Lords had Ihe privilege, when a peer presented himself with his patent, of deter mining therefrom his right to take his seat. So, the House of Commons had the privilege, and exercised it unchallenged, in its election committees, of deciding upon the right of its members to take their seats, when their ti•le thereto—which was hived upon the legality of their election—was impeached. But to snake the case of the two houses parallel they must suppose that ihron • Rothschild being made a peer chimed to tike his seat in the House of Lords. In such a case he did not hesi tate to say that that house would not have a right to admit him. (Rear.) He trusted that the house would refuse to read this bill a second time. Mr. DILL WYN remarked that the hon. gentleman who had read theca such a lecture to the house upon the dangers of tampering with the constitution was himself the author of one of the most democratic proposals that had ever been made in that house—viz , to confer the suffrage upon all men in the militia. (Cheers and laugh ter.) He (Mr. Dillwyn) was as little desirous as any one to tamper with the constitution, but he did sincerely desire to see the constitution moulded as it had hereto fore,-from time to time, been, its order to meet the re quirements of the age. He believed that-he and these who had acted with him had kept to that object in the course which they had taken. Iu search through the library of the house for precedents in point upon the subjee - , he had found one which went very el isely to the matter before them. He referred to the case of Mr. Pease. He would venture to call to the attention of the house the statements which upon that occasion were made by Mr. Speaker's predecessor, Mr. Sutton, a gentleman connected by birth and antecedents with the conservative party in the house, The right hon. gentleman said: "I was sure that the house would feel, as it has felt, that not only the law and privileges of the house, but also the personal interest of the hon. member, were concerned, and th ore f ore it was necessary that a deliberate construction of the law as it existed should be obtained. That deliberate construction can only be pronounced by the houseitself." He hoped that after that quotation hon. members on the liberal side of the house would not be accused of taking a revolutionary course. He was desirous of avoiding collision with the House of Lords—he thought all collisions undesirable— (a laugh)—but he thought that the course he. proposed offered the best possible means of avoiding it. The late House of Commons in going bef A.° a court of law, en tered upon a weekend undignified course, and one which in any case must have ended in their discomfiture. Sup pose that the case of Jewish admission bad been carried Chief Justice Fortescue, a declaration made when this to every court in succession, and decideditavourablyir, house was using, I will not say powers beyond the Lords would stiil have the lest word as the final its rights, but greater than it has ordinarily sought court of appeal, and there was no doubt but that they to enforce. An hon. gentleman, who spoke the would reverse all that had been done before. This was a other night, seemed to suppose, in refe - rence to the very grave question, one that seriously affected their pri decision of the House of Peers in the case of Lord vileges. He wished to take every step before he resorted Wensleydale, that I disputed the competence of the to what was calledon the otherside a revolutionary mea- House of Lords to decide the question. I did not sure, and therefore he would in the present instance, dispute their competence in any way, but at the vote with the noble lord the member for London. same time, considering that Lord Coke had given • Mr. PALK opposed the motion. it as his opinion that life peerages might be created, and Mr. GILPIN said that this question had long since that Lord Redesdale had declared that a life peera L e ceased to be a question of Jew or no Jew, and had become carried with it the right to a seat in parliament—l must one of political principle and of civil and religious liberty, say that it was going to the utmost extent of the privi- being also, secondly, but hardly secondly, a qeestien of leges of the house, when a peer came with a patent the privileges and liberty of the House of Commons. granted by the advice of the Lord Chancellor, aid pre- When the right hon. member far Cambridge University sented that patent, to refuse to that peer admittance to talked so loudly of the privileges of the House of Lords, the house. (Cheers.) The House of Lords have so heseemed to leave the privileges of thellouseof Commons exercised their privilege. I have no doubt they exercised out of consideration altogether. He (Hr. Gilpin) asked it upon a conscientious conviction, after examining the the hi,use to consider whether they were from ten years authorities—which were examined by some of the most to ten years to go on submitting to be roughridden, for it learned members of the house—that such a power was came to that, by the other branch- of the legislature. vested in tiera. BA I must hell that it is somewhat The right hon. gentleman said that the house was in grating—finding that the House of Lords can exercise an extraordinary position, but who had placed it in that teat power without question, the government not pro- position? He (Hr. Gilpin) should say the right, hon. posing (and being well advised, as I think, in such a gentleman's self and colleagues. And when the right course), to bring the question before courts of law—it is, hon. gentleman spoke of the constitution of the country, I repeat, somewhat grating to us, it is somewhat grating he (kit. Gilpin's) reading told him that it was never in to my constituents of the City of London, to be told tended that two integral portions of the con titution— that we have not the power of introducing a member of the Sovereign, as represented by her Ministers; and that our house legally elected, and allowing him to take his house—should be subservient to the will of a third. An seat among the Commons of England, as by his due other hon. gentleman talked of infidelity, but what he election be has a right to do. (Cheers.) It is impossitih, meant was infidelity to his own peculiar views. Ortho- I think, that the House of Commons can continue much dory it seemed was the hon member's dtxey, and hetero longer in this state—(cheer)—which I cannot but con- duxes , was any other man's doxey. (Laughter.) It re sider to be a state of degradation. (Cheers.) I there- minded him of the lines of Thomas Hood : fore ask the house to allow me leave to introduce this " A man who cries church, church, at every word, bill ; I ask this that members may see the bill, and may Is not more pious found than other people. form an ooinion as to whether or not it will solve the A dew is not a most religious bird difficulty. Ido not think that hon. gentlemen opposite Because it caws from every lofty steeple." have a right to flatter themselves that this question is to He did not think that any religious principle was in be allowed to sleep for the next ten years. (Cheers.) I volved in the liberation of the Jews, for the fact was that think we are bound to pursue it in one form or another, the Jew was excluded for his conscientiousness. Let him (Hear, hear.) Let us do so with as much moderation only swear "on the true faith of a Christian," and no as we can. We have already s ho wn mu c h modera- one could refuse him admission. (Hear.) A collision tion—(cheers)—the City of London has shown with the Lords was of course to be deprecated, but there much . patience ; but I do not think that it is a was one thing still more to be deprecated, and that was period in which we ought to adopt a precedent that the freelyoilected representatives of the Commons of showing that, whatever may be the powers of the England should allow their majorities to be over- House of Lords, whatever may be the powers of the other ruled, and their principles to become a dead letter, be branches of the Legislature, the House of Commons is cause there was an adverse majority iu the Lords. The utterly powerless on a question of grave public policy, hen. member alluded to the absence of p ipular excite. on a question relating to civil and religious liberty, on a meet on this subject; this was certainly a new doctrine question involving the highest principles of law—that coming from a quarter which had always deprecated sub. upon such a question we are utterly imp o t en t and have mission to popular excitement. (Hear.) fie (Mr, Gil nothing to do but to sit down with degradation. (Cheer...) pin) did not mean to undervalue the force of public opi The noble lord concluded by moving for leave to bring nion collected at public mean gs, but he thought the in the bill. wisest way in reference to a question of principle would Mr. WALPOLE regretted that the noble lord should be not to wait until a pressure from without took have asked the house for leave to introduce a bill which away the grace of free concession. But the fact was was substantially the same as a measure upon which in that the question resolved itself into a question of that very session Parliament had already decided. The earnestness or want of earnestness on the part of the noble lord said the house was in a peculiar position. By I Treasury Bench. If it were once understood that whom was it pieced in that position ? (Cheers and court- I the noble lord at the head of the Government ter-cheers.) He believed that the noble lord himself was was determined to carry this bill, the bill would be car not blameless upon that point No rule was better known ried. (Hear, hear.) It was for the noble lord to say to or more universally recognised than that when Parlia- the upper house. went had o n ce in a session decided upon a question, that I " Princes and peers may flourish or may fade, question should not again be argued during the same A breath can make them, as a breath has made." session. If a member possessing the w eight and xperi- Let him make -them understand that their numbers might erns of th e n oble lord violated that rule in favour of a be increased, and then depend upon it the bill would be measure in which he left interested, was it to be suppesed carried without any such txn-cise of the prerogative. that other hon. members would not follow the precedent? Mr. NE WDEGATE said that this question had al ways There were many subjects upon which different members been treated us a religiousquestion. When Baron Roth,- took great i n terest —an interest which was shared by child presented himself at the table the words of inspire large bodies of persons oat of doors. Many took a great tion were tendered to him, and the house remembered interest in the question of the endowment of Maynooth ; h,w he rejected Christianity. (Oh, oh.) On that occasion others were d ee ply interested in the ballot; others in the he (Hr. Newdegate) ventured to put a question as to the repeal of taxes, and the abolition of church rates, or par- form of the resolution, and the answer was that there was liamentary reform. To all these questions the abrogation nothing in its form requiring it to be rererred to a Colll - that rule which the noble lord proposed would be aP- mutes of the whole house. Now, he had since referred plicable as m uch as to the subject of the present bill, to the standing order, and he found it say " That no bill The noble 1 ird might object, and urge that this measure relating to religion shall be brought in until it has been was not the same as that which had been brought in by considered in committee of the whole house." He asked, the noble viscount (Palmerston). B ut th oug h in letter then, bad the house been following a proper course for this might be so, in spirit the two measures were identi- the last ten years in considering a religious question cal. The noble viscount urged the passing of this bill on which had not previously been referred to a committee grounds of civil and religious liberty ; the noble lord of the whole house. He must of course how to whatever had rested the claims of his upon th e u n j us t exelusion should be the decision of the house, but his own conviction of the Jews on account of their religion. Passing, how- was that the noble lord, in introducing this bill, was vie ever, by this. objection, he should oppose the introduc- lating the standing orders of the house. He could tell the tion of this bill—if upon no other g roun d at least upon house what was the urgency for this measure. Baron this, that it would bring the house i n t o direct collision Rothschild, at the late election for London, pledged him with the House of Lords, in which case th e degradation self emphatically not to present himself again to the elec. and humiliation of the House of Commons would be tors should the bill be rejected, and the noble lord was more severe than it had been. There was yet another therefore aware that if something was not dune this session objection to the introduction of the measure in the late- the Baron was pledged not to persevere in a course of an ness of the period of the session at which they had ar- noyanee to the Houeo of Lords. That was his (Hr. New rived, and the great mass of public business which stil degate'e) interpretation of the urgency of the case, and awaited the consideration of Parliament. They had to he was sorry that the noble lord should lend himself to discuss several bills of the highest importance ; they had the wishes of a portion of his constituents, in order to to go into supply ; they had to discuss one of the most bring about a collision between the two houses of Par important events which had ever come before that house, 'lament. It was said that such a conflict should be pre an event which affected not only a constituency, but the cipitated solely in the interest of Baron de Rothschild. whole empire. With these great questions before them, The noble lord endeavoured to raise a doubt as to the ho would put it to the house whether at the end of July question of law—whether the words "on the true faith e ilord d to askedshow the for it was a fitting moment for the introduction of a measure of a Christian " were or were not of the essence of the like this. Without therefore entering upon the merits of oath. He (Mr. Newdegate) would read the opinion on housete bill, th h a e t that point of those who must command respect. The noble lord had quoted Baron Alderson, but he had ought not to be granted. But though he did not intend omitted to note the result to which that learned judge thoughtthe leave he whichh had stated the sufficientnokl to discuss the 'merits of the question, there were some arrived after full consideration of the whole case, viz., remarks of the noble lord which ought not to be passed that if the words were mitten the oath was not taken by. The noble lord had told them that the words, "on at all. The opinion of Lord Wensleydale and the Lord the true faith of a Christian," were not part of the cub- Chi e f B aron were t o th e same e ff ect. H ow flimsy, then, stance of the oath. (Cheers from below the gangway on was the pretence of the noble lord, that it was necessary the Ministerial side.) Those gentlemen who cheered. t o i n t ro d uce a d ec laratory ac t, w h en the courts had dis were perhaps not aware that when this view was main- tinctly declared that there was no doubt about the law tamed by the Vice-Chancellor Wood, the noble lord of the case, but that the words, "On the true faith of himself ably answered the learned judge's argument. a Christian," did constitute an essential part of the Since that time, however, the subject had been before oath. He protested against the attempt now being the highest tribunals of the country. It had been ably made to mislead the house into the belief that no prir - argued before them, and everything bad been stated ciple was violated by this attempt to coerce aco ordinate which the ingenuity of counsel could suggest. The re- branch of the legislature: (Hear hear.) The House cult arrived at was this—the judges of the Court of Ex - of Lords represented the be s t f ee lings of the country ; chequer, by a majority of three to one, and the judges of if it were nut so it could not have resisted the various the Exchequer Chamber, unanimously decided that the successive measures of the House of Commons on this words were an essential part of the oath. (Hear.) But subj • ect ; and if any attempt were made to arouse popu yet the noble lord came down to the' house and stated lar excitement in reference to it, the religious feeling of that the words were n ot an essential part of the oath. the country would awake, tes it did awake io 1754, in Lord J. RUSSELL explainedthat his ass e rtion wa s that resisting such an attack upon the Christian character of the ground of the judges' decision rested upon their not the legislature. (Hear, hear.) considering thems lees at liberty to dispense with w ord Mr. COX a ssure d t h e h on. gent l eman that he had forming part of an oath imposed by an act of Parliame. t.s no desire,. in voting for the admission of Baron Mr. WALPOLE would satisfy the noble lord by re- Rothschild to unchrietianise the House of Commons. ferring to the authority of a statute passed in the reign The question was one of civil and religious liberty. of Geo. 11. upon this subject, and relating to the cold- Having granted emancipation to the Roman Catholics, nies. That statute runs thus :—" Whereas the follow- and abolished the Test and Corporation Acts for the re ing words, upon the true faith of a Christian,' are con- lief of the dissenters. It was no more than simple justice tamed in the oath of abjuration as part of the oath, be that when a constituency elected a Jew as their repre it enacted that when any of his Majesty's subjects of the sen.ative in parliament he should have the right to take Jewish persuasion shall be required to take such oath, his seat, and carry out the duty to which he bad been he may omit these words.' Thus, the noble lord would delegated. (Hear.) He had prepared a resolution, see teat the Legislature had treated these words as es- which he had intended to move by wa y of amendment to sential parts of the oath. In another portion of his the noble lord's motion, declaring that the house had speech the noble lord, in substance, said that in his opi- the right to alter the oath as it might see fit, and that mon the house ought not to leave this matter as it stood upon any member appearing at the table to be sworn, —(cheers)—but ought to take some step immediately and objecting to the words "On the true faith of a Chris either by bill or .by resolution—(cheers and counter tian," the clerk should be directed to administer the oath , cheers)—to settle the question which was then under omitting those words. Some of his hon. friends who agrecd - with him on the general qufst'on did not coa cur in the propriety of his submitting this amendment, and he was theref4re teluctan;ly induced to abandon the intention. It was-said that such a proposition was rV . • !utionary. (Pear ) Bit was t'ae house inast..?r of its own proceedings or not ? (dear.) Had the house the right to alter the oath ? (Ones of "No, no," from the Opposition.) Why, they had altered the oath. (dear.) They had altered it on th e i r own respons ibili' y t o facili tate the admission of Quakers An HON. MES/BER.—No ; under the authority of a e atu.e. Mr. COX contended that if they were ccmpetent to alter it in the case of the Qtakers by omitting the words " So bele me God," they were equally competent to direct the omission of the words "Oe the true faith of a. Christian" in the case of the Jews. (Hear.) He re greeted that the noble lord proposed to bring the house iota collision with the House of Lords—not that he eared for such collision, far the two houe33 had been in collision keretofore. Tony were in collision fcr two or three sessions on the Reform Bill, and be was not aware that either the country or the House. of Commons suf fered from it in the end. He was sorry to say that the House of Lords was too far behind the age. ("Oh," and laughter.) It was the House of Commons that repre sented the voice of the people, not the House of Lords, and let collision come when it might, the House of Lords must in the end give way. (Hear.) Mr. LIDDELL, as one of those who had given his vote in favour of the admission of the Jews, and who was prepared to t.ke th e same course again on -e very fitting occasion, wished te explain why he could not suppert the proposition of the noble 1 .rd. He considered it a flaw in the constitution to allow a person to be elected by the constituent body, and then for the tl-cted body to shut their doors against him when he came to take his seat. It was time that this unseemly contest between the electors of London and the elected should terminate. (Hear, bear.) But he looked with more anxiety upon the conte-t between the two branches of the legislature, and therefore he could not make up his mind to support the noble lord's proposition. He thought the noble lord had chosen a most inopportune moment for agitating the question. He should like to know what there was in this measure that.was likely to be more palatable to the other house than the bill which they had so recently rejeoteit? He did not see why the House of Commons should not take the responsibility upon itself of laying down a rule to admit those members it chose to admit. There was but one reason against it, and that was the question of penalties ; but that might be got over by a resolution declaring it to be a breach of privilege for any person to take an action at law against a member admitted by the house to take his seat. There was a precedent for a resolution of that kind, but there was none for the course proposed to be taken by the noble lord of reviving in the sane session a question already settled by a decision of one branch of the legislature. He could not stultify the vote he had already given in favour of the admission of the Jews by voting aga:nst the noble lord's bill ; and as he esul4l not vote for it, for the reasons he had stated, he should not vote either way. Mr. AYRTON, as one of the constituents of Baron Rothschild, said he was prepared to justify the opinion which he had expressed at the election, as quoted by Mr. Newdegate. When the baron heard of the decision of the House of Lords he wished to resign immediately; but he (Kr. Ayrton) desired him to do no such thing, but to abide by the course recommended by his friends. He now held his seat at the wish of many of the elec tors, in order that the question might be thoroughly dis cussed. (Hear, hear.) He (Kr. Ayrton) was prepared to support the bill, though aware that the house bad the power t proceed by resolution. Icdeed, he hdi that the house was the only tribunal which could deter mine on what conditions persons elected should take their seats there. This was fully established by what are called the Aylesbury resolutions, which mainiained the right of the house to determine all questions of this kind, unless they had previously abdicated that right by consenting to an act of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Sup pose Baron Rotta'aill were to adopt the course which Mr. Salomons had pursued, the house would have to consider how it should proceed, and to guide itselt by the decisions of the courts. The house would have felt bound by those decisions ; it was now a settled point that the words " On the true faith of a Christian" were an integral part of the oath. Such being the law, if the house proceeded by resolution, they could only resolve that Baron Rothschild was not entitled to sit. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He deprecated further discussion of the question, unless it were proceeded with iu an earnest desire to legislate, and such desire should be made manifest to the other house of Parliament. Mr. PACKE said a resolution would draw the house into a collision with the courts of law, and the bill cf the noble lord would lead to a collision with the House of Lords, and both were to be seriously deprecated. Lori PALMERSTON—I shall support the motion of the noble lord for bringing in this bill ; at the same time, as the description of the bill is not very complete— (hear, hear)—l shall reserve for future consideration to what degree we shall think it right to support it in its future stsgts. I need not tell the house that I and my colleagues, equally with the noble lord, desire to settle satisfactorily this question of the admission of Jews into Parlament, and the oniy question is as to the best and most likely method of arriving at that resalt. In assenting to the bringing in of the-hitl we reserve to ourselves the power to act as we shall deem it consistent with our duty when we see what the provisions of the bill are. But 1 ?oking to the present period of the session, and the many important measures •till pending. lat afraid that I cannot undertake to postpone Govern meat business fur the purpose of pushing this bill forward to the exclusion and preference of other business. With this explanation of my intentions, I very cordially agree to the motion of the noble lord. (Loud laughter.) Mr. GLA.DSTONE, after stating that be had boon unaele to be present to vote for the amendment of the honourable member for York to the bill which was .re jected by the House of Lords, said ho viewed with the greatest apprehension, mistrust, and dislike, any step which was likely to bring about a political crisis: He had voted in favour of the Jews and Catholics, and he thought they would do wisely to trust to the progress of their principles, to the good sense of the House of Lords. He was a: xioue to maintain the independence of the louse of L :rds, which he considered to be only second to that of the House of C Ammons. He was not prepared to give any vote, unless under circumstances of the gravest character, which might tend to bring about a political crisis. When he remembered that the Test and Corporation Acts, the repeal of the corn laws, and other great measures bad received the sanction of the House of Lords, he did not despair of such measures as that which they had PO often passed in that house being ul timately succes.ifu'. He-thought there were great ob jections to a resolution upon this subject. Ho thoug4 they were not to hazard a conflict with the courts of law. If Baron Rothschild were admitted upon a resolu tion it would be the duty of the house to protect him at all hazard?. If they were to introduce Baron Rothschild teat night, they would to-roordSw have to introduce a bill of indemnity; and how would that fare in the House of Lords ? Now, was the hi lof the n ble lord a repeti tion ,of the proposal which had already been made to the Houie of Lords ? lie did not think the case before them was cne of such gravity as to justify them in departing from the usages of Parliament, and setting at defiance the usual course of legislation to send up to the other house a repetition of the bill which had been rejected. Ho could not, ho Never, say that this bill was a repeti tion of the bill which had been rejected. Sernethieg was due both to the majority of the House of Lord?, and the majority of the House of Commons, and there fore what the noble lord proposed was, that it shall lie in the discretion of either house to decide upon the form of the oath which the members of either body should take. That would he a reason able solution of the existing difficulty. That undoubtedly was a compromise, but it was no unfair co.npromise, and there was not that constitutional objection to making it to the House of Lords as there would have been in mak ing the prorosition again, which had been rejected by the House of Lerde. He therefore thought his noble friend's bill was entitled on the whole to the favourable reception of the house. Mr. WHITESIDE could not accurately understand the bid of the noble lord. If this bill should pass, which it never would, it would enable the house to direct the clerk of the house to administer the oath in an particular time, in a particular form of oath in one se,sion, and an other form in another according to the temper of the house and not aceordi , g to the law of the land, so that a man might be admitted to one session and rejected in another. If that was settling the question ho did not know what a settlement meant. But on a future occa sion the noble lord might be enabled to give a more ac curate description of his measure. The hoe. member for Finsbury, in support . of recourse being had to resolution, had referred to the case of the Quakers, but he seemed not to know that the case of the Qiakers was specially provided for by statute, the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., and if Lord Campbell could have found such a statatable provision with regard to Mr. Alderman Selomons he would have given full effect to it. But the courts of law could not make the law, nor could that house make any law. Suppose this bill should be introduced, why nothing of it would be made for the rest of the session, and there fore ho could not covgraoulate the noble lord on his at tempts to remove doubts upon this subject. Mr. HILDYARD said the effem of having the noble lord's bill passed into law would be to introduce the Jew, a nd what then became of the House of Lord s ? N o mem! her of.the house could doubt that this was an attempt to coerce the House of Lords. - 11.1 r. HORSMAN rose amidst loud cries of " divide, divide." Ao attempt to seat B aron R ot h sch il d by reso lution had been described as a revolutionary movement. A precedent bad been set which hon. gentlemen opposite ought not to ignore, and that was with regard to Lord Wensleydale ; and he would be glad to know the die tinction between the present ewe and that. Throughout the-whole of the discus ion in Lord Wenehydale's case, the principle was laid down that each house was the sole judge of its own privileges. Lord J. RUSSELL replied, amid impatient calls for a division, and observed that the hon. and learned gentle man the member for Whitehaven must confess that his constituents had shown extraordinary patience, because it appeared, according to his own account, that a clause in a bill having been affirmed three times it was rejected by the House of Lords for the first time in 18:54, and that he had expressed a determination not to tolerate this act on the part of their lordships. Yet the constituents of the Ci'y of London had submitted to the repeated rejections of the House of Lords for ten years, andhad exhibited fargreater equanimityof temper under adversity than had character ised the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. The hon. gentleman the member for Devonshire had said that there wasno danger to apprehend, that there was no sedition or tumult to warrant the introduction of the bill. This ar gument pot him in mind of the old couplet— " The King to Oxford sent a troop of ho!fi , , For 'folios own no argument but force." The fiot that there was no disturbance, or no sedition and THE MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL Mr. TOLLEMACHE asked Sir J. Graham a question on the subject of the remarks that fel from him in de livering the decifion of the committee on the Merse,y Conservancy Bill. He undertood that the r gnat bon. baronet, in delivering the decision of the committee said that they were relieved from Vlenecessity of considering the principle of the bill, as the house, by passing the se cond reading without a division, had sanctioned it ; be wished to know fr. m the right hon. baronet whether he considered that the House of Commons, by agreeing to the second reading of a private bill, should be held, ac cording to the present practice, to have so far affirmed the principle as to bind the committee. Sir G. GREY submitted to the house that this was a question as to a matter of opinion which the right hon. baronet was not called on to answer. Mr. TOLLE M.A.OHE considered the question one of great importance and begged to appeal to the Speaker for his opinion on it. The SPEAKER did not consider he bad the facts be fore him so 39 to enable him to express any opinion on the point raised by the hon. member. (Rear.) Mr. TOLLEMACHE would put the question in ano ther form. Did the house by passing the second reading of a private bill, affirm the principle of it ? The SPEAKER, as we understood, appealed to the house whether be ought to answer the question ? Mr. WALPOLE considered the question raised to be one of great importance, and if his hon. friend wished to have the decision of the house on it----(and the house might ultimately decide, whatever opinion the Speaker might then express)—he ought to bring it forward on notice, and not trouble the Speaker to express an opinion when the facts were not before him. (Hear.) MAYO ELECTION. Col. FRENCH gave notice that on Thursday nex% he would move the issue of a new writ for the county of Mayo. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL. Lord PALMERSTON said it might be convenient to the house to know that he proposed to take supply on Thursday evening. The committee on the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, which stood for that evening, would be postponed to that day week. Mr. CAIRD said that as he did not wish to stand in the way cf the house, he would postpone the notice which stood iu his name until after that of the noble lord the member for London—(hear, hear) —provided other hon. members did the same, and would allow him to come after the noble lord. Mr. MACKINNON postponed his motion until the 11th of August. (A laugh.) Mr. STAPLETON and Mr. GREEK also gave way. OATHS VALIDITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to bring forward his bill, but was interrupted by Mr. NEWDEGATE, who said be wished to pot a question to the Speaker before the noble lord proceeded. On every previous occasion when a bill had been intro duced for the purpose of altering the oaths to be taken by members, a resolution on which to found the bill had first been proposed and agreed to in a committee of the whole house. It was true the present bill of the noble lard was nominally only a bill to amend the Act 1 and 2 Vic., c. 105, but it was, in point of fact, a bill to alter the oaths to be taken, and for the earns object and pur pose as the 7 or 8 other bills that hal been introduced in as many previous sessions. He had never known any one instance in which the ordinary practice of the house had been departed from , and he begged to ask the Speaker whether, as the bill of the noble lord had the same object as these other bills, he ought not, in com pliance with the standing order which required all bills relating to matters of religion to be moved in a commit tee of the whole house, to follow the same course as had been adopted on previous occasions with bilis for the same purpose and object ? The act which the noble lort now proposed to amend had been introduced into the other house by Lord Denman in 1838. He (Hr. Newde gate) had not been able to ascertain whether there was a similar standing order in the House of Lords, but he found that on bringing up the report of the bill several clauses were struck out which would have accomplished the ob ject the noble lord had now in view. The SPEAKER was about to reply, when Lord J. RUSSELL said, before you answer the ques tion, sir, I beg to explain to the hon. gentleman and to the house that I do not propose to make any alteration in the oaths. Whenever I have done so I have always done it in a committee of the whole house, in compliance with the standing order. The proposal which I have to make tc-night does not alter in any way the oath to be taken ; it only affects the manner in which these oaths may be taken ; it rather resembles the bill with regard to the oath to be taken by Qaakers, which did not alter the oaths, but the mode of taking them. _ The SPEAKER said—Looking at the notice of the noble lord, and considering his proposal, as far as I am able to understand it, and the form in which it stands upon the order book, it does not appear to me to be irregular for the noble lord to introduce this as an amending bill in the manner in which he proposes. Lord J. RUSSELL Hereupon rose and said—Sir, I now propase to go on with my motion. I would proposo to bring in a declaratory bill, declaratory of what I con ceive to be the existing , law, declaratory of what I be lieve to be the general principle of the law of this coon try, and denniug the law as it should be administered in the high court of Parliament as well as at other places It was stated the other night, and no doubt it will be stated again, that it was an extraordinary thing to pr,)- pose any bill which if successful in this house would have the effect of submitting to the House of Lords a proposition for admitting the Jews into Parliament, a resolve which t'aey have already declared themselves to be opposed to.. Well, I admit that, although I can cm. ceive I am perfectly justified in point of form, and although the motion itself is extraordinary, yet the pre sent position of this question is more extraordinary still. The house is aware that four times this house has sent to the House of Lords bills relieving the Jews from their disabilities ; they are aware that in the present session a bill was sent up for that purpose, altering the oath altogether indeed, and making direct provsion for the admission of Jews into Parliament, and that bill was rejected by the mej erity of the House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, Ido not balers: that it has ever occurred in the parliamentary history of this country that a measure so approved by the House of Commons has been so continualy rejected by the House of Lords. (Hear.) I b I.evo it will be found that the House of Lords have rejected measures in this way, but then they have passed this house by narrow majorities only. No less than three times ti e House of Lords rejected to relieve Roman Catholics from disabilities ; but when it became clear that a large majirity of the House of C was favuureble to the measure, the other house accepted it and thereby affirmed the bill of the lietre of Commons. S:r, it may be said—possibly, it has teen sei.l--that there was this difference, that the 1t3M311 Oath 1 C 3 in Irtlind were then so turbulent and disaffected that they were on the eve of a civil war, and therefore it was expedient to yield. But Ido not think that the rijectien of your bill would be rendered more reaecnable by your being t dcl that no argument would convince the other house, and that notbiug but a state of di , quietnde and uneasiness, verging almost on disaf fection and civil war would induce the other house to agree in opinion with this house. (Hear.) It is, there fore, sir, in these a x' raorrlinary circumstances that I con eider some cauree mint be taken by this house. There is another view of the subject, however, which affects members who sit on this side of the house. It wi'l be remembered that during the elections, whatever might be the opinions of the people at large respecting tot eign affairs, there was in many counties and many boroughs an unequivocal demonstration in favour of the extension of the suffrag e and of other measures having relation to parliamentary reform. When the members who were elected upon their declaration of their entire sympathy in these wishes arrived and took their seats in parlia ment, they were told by the noble lord at the bead of the Government that it was not intended to introduce any measure upon that subject in the present session. Accordingly not only was any general measure not pro posed, but various minor bills for doing away with pro perty qual fication, for extending the right of voting in counties, and regulating the manner of registration were all overthrown or withdrawn, in consequence of that declaration. But the Government which have thus put a stop in the present session to all motions for reform, undertook of their own accord and of their own motion to relieve the Jews from existing disabilities. Now that question of Jewish disabilities, without speaking in de ference to those respsn able men of the Jewish persuasion who are aggrieved by the present state of the law, does happen to form the only remaining link of disabilities in this country on account of religions opinions. As there fore the repeal of the Navigation Laws was the crowning point of free trade, so likewise the removal of the Jewish disabilities would be the capital and crown of religious liberty. (Cheers.) It is for this reason therefore that the measure in the eyes of all who value religious liberty is of peculiar importance. Well, sir, this measure is rejected by the House of Lords after having been carried in this house by a majority of 140, and the question now is, what is to be donel Hon. gentlemen opposite say, na turally enough, and I do not quarrel with them for it, let us lay the question entirely aside for the present year, and bring in a similar bill next year, and the next year, and the year after that, having them rejected by similar majorities ire the House of Lords. Now, I con• tend that the majority of the House of Commons, who have affirmed this principle of religious liberty, ought not to allow themselves to be so baffled; and be the measure of redress what it may, be it such a bid as my noble friend at the head of the Government introduced, be it by such a bill as I now propose, or be it by resole tion—echeers)—of this I am convinced, that it concerns the dignity and privileges of this house more than reli gious liberty itself that we should met allow ourselves to lbiettlbeaffihaeds e e ( n C t h h e e e r p e . r ) o r l e s t s h n made b t ycaarngnnon argument d d e a n r i i e n d g , t h so e past 10 years on the weight of public opinion, as shown by the votes of this house, that there is no chance of the next c l ,l o a years a b r r e i n a g t i ng present,us any n u e ol ar e e se r to we adopttherel a iefof n t e h w e Jew course. (Hear, bear ) Considering, then, this ques tion to be a very serious one, I have wished to inter pose a measure which might not partake of the apathy o f res ting content with what has been done, but with out going to the extreme cf a rev.clution of this house, and thereby increa = ing th e ri sk of a conffet with th e House of Lords. If the Government are prepared to nethin; tut reason and fair argument to go upon, appeared o the hon. gentl eman t o b e a goo d reason for not legislat ing on the subject. He had already stated the geueralpur poi tof the bill, but he would repeat the substance. The Act of the let and 2d Vic., c. 103, applied to the courts of law, contained the words "andoa any other occasionwhat ever," and it might refer to any authority superior to the courts cf law, Buell as the House of Commons and the Queen's Privy Council. It also referred only to persons taAing the oath. His proposal was to extend in both re spects by sayin : e, iu the first instance, that it shoul d refer to persons taking an oath in the High Court of Par liament, and also to persona administering oaths. lie did not mean to disguise that if the bill became law that the house would not do wh at ho conceived it could now do without an act of Parliament, namely, administer the oaths to the Baron Rothschild according to the form most binding on his conscience. It was said that in the case of Mr. Pease the house had acted upon clear and de cided statute law. He demurred to that assertion, for he believed the oath of abjuration taken by members at that time was different to the oath of abjuration of the time of George 111., which related to the old Pretender, whereas elr. Pease was called upon to abjure other persons altoge ther. He believed that Mr. Pease took the affirmation oath according to a form drawn up at the table, and that the house had decided the case upon its own authority, and that Mr; Pease took the affirmation according to the general analogy of law. With regard to what had been stated by , the noble lord at the heal of the Government, he did not mean to complain of the Government arrangements, which prevented a day being given up to the discussion of the bill. The consequence of the refusal to give a Government da— was, however, obvious, for although he (Lord 3. Ras sell) intended to introduce the bill, it was utterly irnpem sible for him to find Wednesdays enough before the tenni' nation of the session—(laughter)—in which he could hope to carry the measure. Re did not know the precise num ber of days which the Government intended the session to last, but he would take no other course than to introduce the bill, and he woull nct hold out to those who might be disposed to support it that it would be in his power to carry it in the present session: He would therefore con' elude by stating that his view of the bill a ai totally oppo site to that stated by hon. gentlemen opposite. He .shought tt was natural that after the rejection of the bill by the House of Lords, there would be considerable irritation on the part of his constituents and of those who had sup' ported it, and that possibly Baron Rothschild might be advised to coin° and take the oath most binding on his conscience, and that as this might lead to Ilision with the House of Lords, it would be de sirable to mike an amicable adjustment of difference with that branch of the Legislature if possible. The last argument was, that it was probable the House of Lords might reject the bill. His strong opinion was, that if the House of Lords were guided by anything approach ing that wisdom that had been recommended to them by the 1 to Duke of Wellington, this question would be very easily settled, There might be one or two members of the Jewish persuasion in the house ; the house would then be just as Christian as the rest of te country—(hear, and Parliament would at length have put an end to this very unseemly contest. Whatever course the house might think proper to adopt with regard to Baron Rothschild be (Lord J. Russell) had at least done his duty. (Cheers.) The house then divided— For the introduction of the bill 246 Against it Majority in favour of the intro duction of the bill AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS Mr. CAIRD rose to move for leave to bring in a bill 0 provide for the collection of agricultural statistics in Beg' land and Wales. He had no hope of passing the bill thiB session, but he was desirous that those who were intereste d in the measure should have it in their possession in therecos: The whole of the inquiry provided by the bill would 0" cost more than 20,0001. The measure would tend to pr e : vent those fluctuations in the market which pressed t heavy on the working classes. There was no provision I `` the bill that was compulsory. Mr. PACKE was glad to hear that there was no comP ill ' sort' clause. Mr. BENTINCK said that if there was the least 4 00' pulsion in the bill, it would be strenuously opposed. The motion was agreed to. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. J. A. SMITH moved for leave to introduce &b ill for discharging claims of the New Zealand Compani 011 the proceeds of sales of waste land in New Zealand. Sir 3. TRELAWNY opposed the motion. Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it would be well to take I/ discussion upon the bill, but he would not at present 00 6 into details. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. MILITIA ESTIMATES. Sir J. RAMSDEN moved for a select committee to pre' pare estimates of the charge of the disembodied militia Great Britain and Ireland, for the year ending March ) 1 ; 1858— Sir John Ramsden, the Judge Advocate, Mr. IS 3 1 pole, Mr. Ellice, Col. North, Col. Wilson Patton, Smyth, General Peel, Col. Gilpin, Mr. Massey, Mr. Brawn Mr Chichester Forteroue, Earl of Mulgrave, and all col d ' nels of militia. In answer to Col. FRENCH, tf Sir J. RAMSDEN said th a t a ll i ns t a l men t s o f bou . ;l e j would be paid this year, w h e th er th e m iliti a were CO' out or not. The motion was agreed to. SLIGO BOROUEI ELECTION. On the motion of Sir G. GREY, Sir J. Pakingtons tO added to this committee. CHELSEA NEW BRIDGE. the On the motion of Sir B. HALL, it was a greed that c , select committee be nominated by th e co m mitt e e of tion. MERCHANT SHIPS, Mr. STAPLETON moved for leave to bring in a secure the observance of better discipline iu iner~b an ships. He knew that there was no chance of carrying' t te j bill this session, but he desired that it might be prin b . and considered by those who to an interest in the fo l jest. The object was to protect the seamen by securing 3 entry of any punishment inflicted. The motion was not seconded, and of course fell to O p ground. OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. This bill was read a second time and passed. The Obj is to extend the time of the University commission for months. ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill passed through c .mmittee. NEW . ZEALAND LOAN Gi.TARANTEE. _ A • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER glo vv i d resolution for a loan to New Zealand of 5,0,000/. g ° s _"j that further information would be given on the 0 0°11 reading. {jai Sir J. TRE LAWNY said he should oppoee the motion in its future stases. se. The resolution.was agreed to an I reported to the he VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) M ANIENDAIENT BILL. This bill rassed through committe3. _ INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. On the order for the third reading of this bill, Mr. COBBETT opposed it. The house divided, and the numbers were-- For the third reading Against it ... ..... Majority _3s The bill was then read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at ten minutes past one. Country Markets. LIVERPOOL—JULY 21. tlO Our Corn Exchange opened languidly this mornirig , ,o business in wh ea t b e i ag inthtenJol by the Maricleol report of yesterday. Two or three forced sales of I " f e , occurred early at a decline, but it was subsequen tlY iee s coverad, and we closed with more confidence at the P r o m of Frid a y. Fl our was ra th er eas i er i n pr i ce. I n di a P.,c o s brought full quo t a ti ons , w ith a l arger d eman d. P ° 4, and peas eac h comman d e d i s t o 2 s a d vance . O a t s , bar' and oatmeal sustained previous rate.. HULL-- JULY 21. ber 6 A small attendan ce a t our mar k e t to-ay, and has been only a small show of wheat. There wa3 rro ` l3o t position to f o ll ow th e d ec li ne o f M ar k-l ane , an d we (. 7 1 0 ,. a bt reduce our quotations more than 2s per qr. At a siT a ll further reduction th ere wera many buyers. A very ". a , busine•A in Spring corn, and no alteration in value. seed firm. Cakes easier to buy. Wheat, Engli , h red, 60s to 63s ; white 62s to 665; ' o st6 ~.3 283 to 303; barley, 40.3 to 46s ; Indian corn, 40s ; cakes, Hull, 10/ 12a 6d to 10115 s ; ditto,. foreign, so° 103 15s ; rape cakes, 61 ss. to 61 7s 6 , 1; guano, 8/. to 131. bones, 117 s 6d.; flour, 30a to 325; tares, 30s to 40s. LEEDS, JULY 21. We aro fairly supplied with wheat. Holders are bst in deManding within is per qr. of last Friday's rates, b o millers require a greater reduction ; the result is se ircely any business is transacted. Barhy non's' Beans fully as dear. Other articles unaltered. Average prices of grain—Wheat, 66s 44d; barley, 0 4 04 ; oats, 29s llid ; beans, 41s 3/d ; peas, 3 83 rye, --s. FlRES. — Yesterday morning, a fire broke out in 1 no v -houses, belongi ng t o M r . Ambridge, in 11 1 0 1134 e 0 New Perk. The cause i s suppose d t o b e t h e ca relesso of a boy carrying lighted shavings. The houses vir d inhabited.—Between two and three o'clock yester",g, Itu a fire broke out on the premises of Mr. Hum, silversmith, Craven-building., City-road. s r, h( use and its contents were d es t r oy e d. A no ther.. o t)ok place 3 esterday morning on th e rrem i ses of P 4 Dural, William-street, Curtai n - roa d. Th e fi re was 1/". eringuished u the house WAS burnt cut. BIRTHS. OF A SON, On the 20th inst., at 19, Margaret-street, Cavendish' square, the wife of Geo. H. Williams ' Esq.. solicitor. ief , On the 20th inst., at Kentish-town, Mrs. Henry gar' OF A DAVGUTE!. On the 19th in: t., Mrs. Thomas Milo, 40?, Strand. f ir On the 21st inst., at 21, Queon's-road west, Rega n park, Mrs. Henry Sargant. MARRIED. On the 21st inst., at All Saint's Church, Knightsbrt'lgrei the lion. Ashley Ponsonby, second son of the late 0) , ( 1 de Manley, to the Hon. Louisa Gordon, daughter of and Lady Henry Gordon, and Maid of Honour to hot ix" jesty. got On the 21st lust, ' at St. Mary's Chu rc h, Ch e ßob . Alexander ThwaitEs.t,Egq., of Forest-gate, Essex, to " .1 L, both, eldest daughter of George Russell, Esq of ' brock House, Cheltenham. DIED.' , On the 17th inst., at Lland u d no , N or th W a l es , 1 1 ° 4 h 04 ; ot Bayly Blakiston Houston, E sq ., of Orangefield, coal"' Down. On the 20th inst., M r . J. C. P err y, so li c it or , 181, Toole , " street, the 20th inst Southwark, . , aged 31. s VP , On at Peckham-rye, Huson Morris , aged 41. Aso , On the 17th inst., a t B a th, Ad m i ra l Joseph 0 1 m" aged 97. ea.. On the 19th inst., at St. Mary's Priory, Reading, Heard Will, C.E., aged 38. On the I.9th inst., at Milton next Gravesend, 334111.° Cullerne, Esq., aged 74. pri On the 13th inst., at Madrid, Dr. John Robertson, spector-General of Hospitals. m ond , On the 19th inst., at Lawn-house, Peckham, 11. O s tre ch only son of Henry Capal, Esq., of 17, Little Tower -0 and the Limes, Queen's-road, Peckham. 015, LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO Y° pi of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Oftio°P o of 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the 0° • of Middlesex, Wednesday, July 22, 1857. .1n the after. tre A Lecti ea Neglec II vAT,IDs snore east ; aCI nets, sore the syster have rear to, and a a gt aMPeC Itegent.St at A s. T re ctiPt of S the nn Year < 4aakins The An made spe c Resolve t he Deed Were subs bat sobjec De r as at n ,olonacj Capital e r ,aPital p , u'rntra n i e ' , lent Add inter talan e It aiane: a nd de , 24,; making tt9l ' in t Bin s a d i. s r ' tie s Dreii4 Dividend for the nividend .ue h a . Itebate o stitan i o' fund 7: Lalancel T 1 BEND etnt per ite, me t and a Prietors the SII i 1 racter* Morn Stalls Po hzid at R eess of of Fort M. Dot The La .—____ A' above 1 Stumm Will be Dr. R o N.l 1%