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

IRE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 22, 185 7 of his health, 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 short 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 proceed with the petition. BANKING BILL. if he had rec3ived any information respecting the recent trials at Sligo, arising out of the late elections, and the systematic exclusion of all persons professing the Roman Catholic religion from the juries emi_annelled to try the parties accused of rioting. Mr. H. A. HERBERT had not received any such in formation. THE MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL. Mr. TOLLE HA.CHE asked Sir J. Graham a question on the subject of the remarks that fell from him in de livering the decision of the committee on the Mersey Conservancy Bill. He understood that the right bon. baronet, in delivering the decision of the committee said that they were relieved from theneeessity of considering the principle of the 13,11, as the house, by passing the se cond reading without a division, had sanctioned it ; he wished to know from 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. TOL LEM.A.CHE considered the question one of great importance and begged to appeal to the Speaker fur his opinion on it. The SPEAKER did not consider he had the facts be fore him so as to enable him to express any opinion on the point raised by the hon. member. (Hear.) Mr. TO LLEMACHE 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 he ought to answer the question ? Mr. WALPOLE considered the question raised to be one of great importance, and if his hon. friend wished to hare 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 for ward 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 next he would move the issue of a new writ for the county of Mayo. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TESTAMENTARY On the motion that the house go into committee, Mr. 11EADLAM 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 banks, based upon the principle of limited liability, but in the present state of the house b e appealed to his hon. friend the Vice• President of She Board of Trade not to press forward the bill at a, morning sitting. He doubted much if there were sufficient members present to constitute a house legally, and 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- IMO was to withdraw the bill altogether for the present session. Mr. LOWE reminded the house that the bill 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 hon. member, if he thought proper, could bring for ward his amendment upon the bringing up of the report. After a few words from Mr. GLYN, 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 baying complained of being compelled to proceed with his amendment in so thin a house, proceeded to explain that some time ago 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 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 limited 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 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 said, 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 dice. It allured parties to speculate to the extent of 20,000/ , although only possessed of capital to half that amount. He looked upon tie limited liability system as one which will prove most disastrous to the trade and commerce of the country. The hon. member 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 of the house, he would postpone the notice which stood in 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 end Mr. GREER 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 he wished to put 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 lord 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 same object and pur pose as the 7 or 8 other bills that had 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 bills for the same purpose and object ? The act which the noble for now proposed to amend had been introduced into the other house by Lord Denman in 1838. He (Mr. Ne wde gate) had not been able to ascertain whether there was a similar standing order in the House of Lords, but he found that en 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 hich I have to make to-uight 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 Quakers, 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 t 3 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 au amending bill in the manner in which he proposes. 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 his duty to bring forward this amendment at a morning sitting. The limited liability principle, during the time it had been in operation, had not bad 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 holdings. If such a plan was adopted he thought loss would scarcely ever occur in ease of the failure of the concern. Mr. BRISCOE opposed the amendment. He con- sidered the limited liability principle to be a total failure. In the year 1837 no less than 600 banks en the limited principle failed in America. Mr. BTJCHANAN opposed the amendment. He thought the most reckless set of trustees were thnse who transacted their business on the limited liability principle. Mr. RIDLEY said be 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 hon. colleague. Sir J. GRAHAM said be thought order 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 would be unfortunate for the bon. member for Newcastle even to push this amend ment to a division. He thought it inexpedient that the Government shonkl be called upon to express an opinion upon the subject at that time, and he therefore again appealed to the hon. gentleman to withdraw his amend ment. Mr. LOWE thought the righthon. baronet, the mern• ber for Car'-isle, hat given the house good advice, and he hoped the hon, gentleman would assent to his pro position. Mr. HEA.DLA.M said after the remarks he had just heard he should not trouble the committee to divide. The amendment was then negatived without adivision. Clauses up to 11 wen agreed to. On clause 12 being prep ised, Mr. SHERIDAN wished to know why the govern ment bad fixed the shares of joint stock banks at lOU each. He thought ouch a determination was most ex traordinary ; as he could not see why 10 shareholders of 10/, were not as good as one shareholder of the larger sum. Mr. LOWE said there was strong reason why the shares should be fixed at 1001. The existing law fixed the amount at 1001. and as this act wag to supersede that hw that sum hal been retained. His object in fixing upon that amount for this bill was for the convenience of calculating, supposing the limited liability principle was extended to joint,stock banks, the value of each member's share. Mr. SHERIDAN said he did not feel satisfied with the explanation, avid he should therefore move that the shares be fitAl at 101. Mr. FITZROY &Aid it was not competent for the hon. member to 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, as were the remaining clauses of the trill. LOAN SOCIETIES BILL. This bill was read a thir I time and passed. COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. BOUNDARIES OF LAND. This bill was also read a third time and passed. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was real a third tine anal pawed. LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. PUBLIC HEA.LTII (ALDERSHOT) BILL. This bill was also read a third time and passed. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRE. LAND) BILL. The amendments on this bill were considered and agreed to. MA LDON ELECTION. Sir J. TROLLOPE brought up the report of the committee appointed to try the merits of a petition against the return of the sitting members for the borough of Maldon. The report stated that Tnotnas Sutton Western, Esq., and John Bramley Moore, Esq , ha been duly elected. Tuat bribes were offered by an elec tor named John Riley, bat it was not proved to have been done with the cognizance of the sitting member or his agents, and that the petition against the return of J. 1 1, Moore, Esq., was frivolous and vexatious, having been preheated fir the purpose of inducing the withdrawal of the pstition again:t the other sitting member. The sit t i ng of the house was suspended. The Srzauf t resumed the chair at six o'clock. LISBURN ELEC HON. The SPEAKER informed the house that he had r.- ceived a letter trora.the art•ents for the petitioners com plaining of an u n d ue return for the borough of Lisburn, stating that it wa s not their intention to proceed witn the petition., THE INSPECTOR OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN IRELAND. CAIRNS asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the state ment w hich had appear e d i n the public new spapers, that Dr. Hatchell had been appointed Iu Ppectfx of Lunatic A.yl ums in Ireland was co t ; 'Te e if so, whether Dr. Hatchet! had had any, and what tx perience, in the management of lunatic asylums, or i , the treatment of the insane ? Mr. 11. A. HERBERT replied that the statement a s to Dr. Hatchell's appointu on; was quite correct. Triat gentleman never bwd any connexion with a lunatic asy lum, but he bad beon professionally employed in a mode which frequently brought him into communication with lunatics. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DUBLIN AND LONDON. Mr. REPTON asked the Secretary to the Trea3ury, if the Goternment had finally settled the arringerner t for an improved communication between London awl Dublin, and vihetherhe would have any objection to lay the minute on the table! Mr. WIbSON• said that in consequence of the ab sence of Lord "Chandos, the arrangements had not been definitively concluded, but would in a few days. THE SLIGO ELECTION. my, SOMERS asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland support strenuously such a bill as the one I now , pro pose to bring in—if they are inclined to give it a better chance in the House of Lords than their late bill lal, we might look to the end of the questior. (Hear.) If they are not prepared to do so, it is not my intention, 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. (Real, hear.) I shall" now eater 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 ceremony that are binding on the consciences of the persons taking the oatb. Taat prin cipal, as far as regards witnesses in courts of justice, was laid down in the case of " Omichund and Barker." In that case the law was laid down 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 Evangelists. 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 cere• mony whieh made it solemn and binding onthe conscience of the person taking it. But lam told, as we heard the other 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 is liable to penalties, and so is the Jew, and no one can say that the cne 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 Mahomeda n a n d 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 Waling 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 Eng'ancl, which are the birthright of the people of this country. It is declared by statute that unless a person is absolutely disqualified by law be sho.ild 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 years 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 advantages which, if there was no law against them, would belong to them. For instance, not to speak of the law with regard to minors, it was once the policy of this country to exo:ude Roman Catholics, to impose upon them a declaration against transubstantiation. The in tention of the legislature in asking for that declaration was to ex-elude 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 declaration against transubstan tiation. 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 judges, 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 acd 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 LediAsture has laid down particular wordp, 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. I 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 statement borrowed from what is now perfectly well known—namely, the history of a treatise which was found in the Bodleian Library. It appeared from that treatise that the doe rine of the Je , mits at that time Lord J. RUSSELL th ereu p on rose an d sa id—Si r , I was that they might evad e th e wor d s , an d were not b oun d to p te t p he t i h r eLr ith promises ,evi e w r i e th bo h u er n ei d t c o s ; but if they swore now propose to go on with my motion. 1 would propose to bring in a declaratory bill, declaratory of what I con- as not to violate the oath they had t p a a k y en so . m a u t c sva r s eal e 3 era t e ceive to be the existing law, declaratory of what I be- the view of binding persons who had imbibed the doctrine liege to be the general principle of the law of thi s coon - of the Jesuits that the oath was establish e d i n it s presen t try, and defining the law as it should be administered form. Those persons were only portio ns o f th e R oman games 1., and the J in the high court of Parliament as w e ll as a t o th er places, Catholics of this country at the time o words "on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced It was stated the other night, and no doubt it will he into the oath immediately after the discovery of the Gun stated again, that it was an extraordinary thing to pr a ponder Plot. It is therefore clear from the origin of this o pose any bill which if successful in this house wou ld oath that it was intended as a form more bindi ng th an have the effect of submitting to the House of Lord s a any other, as a form more binding than th e wor d s " so help me God," or any other words, in order to bind Ro proposition for admitting the Jews into Parliament, a man Catholics in their allegiance to ' the Crown. With resolve which taey have already declared themselves to respect to the oath then introduced, as with respect to be opposed to. Well, I admit that, although I can c as- the oaths since, the object was not to have a test of the ceive I am perfectly justified in point of form, an d Christianity of the person swearing, it w as riot to require any pecial declaration of faith, but to obtin although the the motion itself ie extraordinary, yet the pre acmes of loyalty to the sovereign, an assura a nce an that the sent position of this question is'more extraordinary still. person swearing would never plot against the sovereign, The house is aware that four times this house has sen t b ut wou ld l oya ll y d e f en d t h e sovere i gn against any claim to, the House of Lords bills relieving the Jews from their ant to the throne whatsoever. If this was the origin of t disabilities ; they are aware that in the present sess i on the oath, in the next occasion on which it appe are d th ere a bill was sent up for that purpose, alteri ng th e oat h is further evidence that such was the intentio n . By th e oath of William 111., it was declared that refu s i ng th e altogether indeed, and making direct provisio n f or the oath of abjuration, which was then for the first time intro admission of Jews into Parliament, and that bill was duced with these woris "on the true faith of a Christian," rejected by the majority of the House of Lords. (Hear, should subject a person to be deemed a popish recusant hear.) Now, sir, Ido not believe that it has ever convert to all intents and purposes. Now does that mean occurred in the parliamentary history of thi s country the Jew? IS it not perfectly evident to th e h ouse th a t it was intended thereby to say that Roman C a th o li c persons that a measure sO approved by th e H ouse o f Commons who refused to take the oath should be treated as Popish has been so continually rejected by the House of Lords. recusants, and not entitled to sit in Parliament ? It :s (Hear.) I believe it will b e f oun d th at the House of clear that such was the mea n ing and object of the oath . , Lords have rejected m easures i n thi s way, b ut then they b ut I come now t o th e secon d proo f t h at these words ar e have passed this house by narrow ma j or i t i es only. No not part of the substance, but only part of th e ceremony less than three times th e H ouse o f L ords rejected bill' and form. That proof is, that whenever P ar li amen t to relieve Roman C a tholic s f rom di sa bili t i es ; but when has dispensed with the taking of the whole o f th e oat h, it became clear that a large majo r ity o f t h e House 'of it has relieved persons from the words, " o n th e t rue Commons was favourable to th e measure , the other faith of a Christian," while it has not relieved th em f rom the substanoe of the oath. Such was the case w ith re 'noti,e accepted it and thereby affirmed th e bill of the Bard to the Quakers. (Hear.) By the B t h o f Willi am House of Commons. Sir, it may be said—p oss ibl y, it ITI., Quakers were relieved from these word s ; b u t th e has been said--that there WAS this difference, that th e a Roman Cathslics in Ireland were then so turb u l en t and ct relating to Quakers has been renewed f rom ti me t o disaffected that they were on th e eve of a c i v il war , an d time. It was renewed in the reigns of Georg e 1., G eorge IL, and George 111., and when Mr. Pease took hi s sea t therefore it was expedient to yield. But Id e no t thi n k the last of these acts was passed, which provides fo r an that the rejection of your bill wou ld b e ren d ere d more reasonable by your being t o ld th a t no argument would affirmation, in which the words "on the true faith of a convince the other hou se , a n d th a t no thi ng b ut a state Christian" are left out. Now what is the purpose of thi s ? of disquietude and u neas i ness , verg i ng a l most on disaf- It ie not, the Quaker is not a Christian. Is it becau se a fection and civil war wou ld i n d uce th e ot h er house to Quaker could object to decline, that if the Society of agree in opinion with thi s h ouse . (H ear. ) It is, there- Friends took the whole substance of the oath, he de fore, sir, in these extraordinary circumstances that I am- Glared against the Stuart family, and any other pre sider some course mus t b e ta k en b y th i s house. There tender to the throne, which is the substance of the oath, "is another view of the su bj ec t , h owever, which affects but he did not declare that on the true faith of a members who sit on thi s s it e o f t h e house. It will be Christian." (Cheers.) Truth i n p roo f o f t hi s i s w i t h re remembered that during th e e l ect i ons, whatever might respect to the Jews themselves, when Parliament wish e d he the opinions of the p eo pl e a t l arge respecting foieion to relieve the Jew, which it id from certain penalties affaire, there was in m an y count i es an d many boroughs with regard to the non-register of th e i r es t a t es . If th ey did not take the oath of abjuration, the words " on the an unequivocal demonst ra ti on i n f avour of the extensa n of the suffrage, and o f o th er measures having relation true faith of a Christian" were not applied to the case . to parliamentary r e f orm . Wh en t h e members who were Bet, sir, there is a further proof in what the parliam en t elected upon their d ec l ara ti on o f t h e i r ent i re sympathy of this country required at the time when it did wish for a in these wishes a r ri ve d an d t oo k t h e i r seats in parlia- religious profession. There was a time, it was during meat, they were tol I by th e no bl e l or d at t h e head of the Commonwealth, when it was thought advisable, but it has not since, to obtain a positive profession of faith the Government that it was no t i nten d e d to i ntroduce from mearbers of the Commons House of Parliament. It any measure upon that s u bj ec t i n th e present session. Accordingly not only w as any genera l measure not pro- was then enacted that the following declaration should " posed, but vari ous m i nor bill s f ur d o i ng away with pro- be made : I, A. B, do in the presence of and in the perty qualification, f or exten di ng t h e r i ght of voting in name of Almighty sod, promise and swear that I will, counties, and r egu l a ti ng t h e manner of registration to the utmost of my power in my place, uphold and were all overthro wn or w i thdrawn, in consequence of that maintain the true reformed Protestant Christian re on and te hy th conta the declaration. But the Gov ernmen t w hi c h have thus put l esi Hely , Scriptur h es aut orit ereof as of the Old and New Testa ined in ments, and a stop in the ee resent session t o a ll mot i ons f or re f orm, t undertook of their o wn accor d and of their own motion to encourage the profession and the prof e s sors o f th e " to relieve the Jew s f rom ex i st i ng disabilities. Now that Now, is this the sort of declarati on th a t par same. question of Jewish di sa biliti es, w i thout speaking in de- liamert would have enacted if they had w i s h e d rea ll y ferenee to those reap .c a bl e men o f the Jewish persuasi n P for a declaration of faith. If they bad wish e d f or an y pro who are aggrieved by the pr esen t state of the law does fession of that kind, there was a di rec t mo d e o f d on; in it, and if honourable gentlemen who hav e ra i se d a con happen to form the only remai n i ng l in k of disabilities test with respect to any alteratio ns i n th e oat h s w i s h to foie the repeal of the Navigation L aws was the crowning this country on account of reli g i ous op i n i ons. As there bring this matter to a fair decision, they s h ou ld propoun d e point of free trade, so likewise the r emova l of the Je wi l l some positive declaration of Christi an i t y b y w hi c h t h eir disabilities would he the capital and crown of religious i principle could be effected, a principle which they have always declared to be the principle of Parliament, but liberty. (Coeers.) It is for this reason therefore that the measure in the eyes of all who value religious liberty is which is not and never has been. (Hear.) Th en , I con of peculiar importance. Well, sir, this measure is rejected tend from all these things ; from the origin of th e oa th by the House of Lords after having b een carried n this in the time of James I. ; from the enactment of th e O at h of Abjuration in the time of William 111. ; from th e l aw house by a majority of 140, and the q ues ti on now ie e what is to be done? Hon, gentlemen o p pos i te say, ne !xempting the Quakers in certain cases, and the J ews turally enough, and Ido not quarrel with th em for it. front the Oath of Abjuration ; and lastly, from the posi• , tive declaration contained in the Act of the Common let us lay the question entirely asid e f or t h e presen t Sear, year, and bring in a similar bill next y e a r , an d t h e text wealth ; from all these circumstances I contend that it year, and the year after that, having them rejscted b . clearly appears that the words "on the true faith of a similar majorities in th e H ouse o f L or d s . N ow, I co n Christian" form no part of the oath, but that they are tend that the majo r ity o f th e H ouse o f C ommons, who part of the form and ceremony i n troduced to make have affirmed this principle of re li g i ous liberty, ougat the oath more bi n di ng on Roman Catholics, but not to allow themselves to be so baffled ; and be the which are much out of place at present. I con measure of redress what it may, be it such a bid as my ceive, therefore, nothing can be clearer than the pro noble friend at the head of the Government introduced, position that the words "on the true faith of a Chris tian" aro not part of the substance of the oath. I come t b i e o it by such a bill as I now propose, or be it by resi,ll - the d — i . e o l . i ito e y er a , n ) d — o p f ri t v h il i this privileges lain f convinced, ethat more t thanconcernsl verseit!-) not part of the substance of the oath to be omitted when the Jew comes to the table of the house to be sworn ? I little has been the pr.)ogrestshtinnakdeibt be baffled. (Cheers y c a a r n g n u o m t e b n e t d d en , i . ed t. Now, sir, with regard to that subject, is it to be said , so by the voter of this house, that of thuebrleic. opinion, that this house has not the ability er the power as a past 10 years on the weight 'Ling- 3° single house of parliament which is possessed by the as shown is no chance of the judnearer to the relief of the . ges of the land. Practically, we have the power, next 10 years bringing us any u 4 n r l . ess we adopt a new if we thought fit to exercise it, by stating in a resolu- Jew than aarr,etaetarpresent, y B. i h n a g ;e ti w ta i n sised tb t i3 o initle;- lion that the words "on the true feats of a Christian" course. are not part of the substance of the oath, and that Bane , but t ait . l;•• ' pose a measure ahieh might not partake of the an q a . t ' :i: Lion to be a very serious one i , d e Rothschild, being admitted to the table, shall take the n oath in the form binding on his conscience —namely, of resting content with what has been done, without these words. (Cheers.) But it is a question out going to the extreme of a resolution of this hon. 0 whether we should not lose by that step—whether we and thereby increa - ing the risk of a conflict with th-e, should not be expo s i ng ourse l ve s to the contest that House of Loren. If the Government are prepared t.) may arise will the Lords. On looking tarouelle the discussion. (Cbeers from the ministerial side below the gangway.) If he compreheraled those cheer-, it was time that the two sides of the house understsod each other. (Cheers and counter cheers.) The noble lord had made some remarks upon the power of Parliament-, and bad quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Furteseue upon the point. But if it were meant to be 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 up by the house, and the result would appear in the journals of the house. The first resolution appeared on t e 4.tit of Jan. 1648, when it was resolved that what 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, in which it was re solved that the House of Lords was useless and dangerous; and on the following day a third resolutioa was agreed to, resolving that the effice of king was useless, dangerous, and burdensome. Ho 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 ca , e of Loro 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 Roths&iild into that house as identically the same. The fact was, that the House of Lords had the 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 exerci•ed it ulichallenged, in its election committees, of deciding upon the right of its members to take their seats, when their tile thereto—which was based upon the legality of their election—was impeached. But to make the case of the two houses parallei they must suppose that Baron Rothschild being made a peer chimed to .take 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. (Hear.) He trusted that the house would refuse to read this bill a second time. Mr. DILL WYN remarked that the hon. gentleman a ho had read them 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 bad hereto. fore, from time to time, been, in order to meet the re• quirements of the age. He believed that he and those who had acted with him had kept to that object in the course which they had taken. In search through the library of the house for precedents in point upon the subjeet : he had found one which went very closely 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 thorefore 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 house itself." He hoped that after that quotation hon. members on the liberal side of the house woul I not bo accused of taking a revolutionary course. He was desirous of avoiding collision with tee 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 befsre a court of law, en tered upon a weak and undignified course, and one which in any case must have ended in their discomfiture. Sup pose that the case of Jewish admission had been carried to every court in succession, and decidedjfavourably in all, the Lords wound still have the last word as the final court of appeal, and there was no doubt but that they would reverse all that had been done before. This was a very grave questios, one that seriouslyaffected their pti vileges. He wished to take every step before he resorted to what was called on the otherside a revolutionary mea sure, and therefore be would in the present instance, vote with the noble lord the member for London. Mr. PALK opposed the motion. 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 S,r Page Wood when he was a member of this house, now one of the Vice-Chancellor,, 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, then, 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 I , as been introduced ; if we could obtain the assent of both Houses of Parliament to a delaration upon this sul - j?.ct —a declaration which I believe would be in entire con formity with the law—it would be a far better mode of ending this question than using our extreme powers by admitting Baron Rothschild, of our own decree and authority, to take the oath at the table with the omission of these words. (Hear, hoar.) 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 out. There was a man then who led the conservative party, who united great 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 hare formed a decided majority of the bottle, re frained from opposing it, and the bill was carried into law. With respect to another measure, to which I have al ready adverted, and which was brought in when I had the nonour 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 remember ; 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 f 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 batty 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, wi,h 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 houte, 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)—be 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 sigh and mighty that it may make law, and make that not law which is law. This is a question of privilege, and it bath 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 Chief Justice Fortescue, a declaration made when this house was using, I will not say powers beyond its rights, but greater than it has ordinarily sought to enforce. An hon. geteleinan, who spoke the other night, seemed to suppose, in reference to the decision of the House of Peers in the case of Lord Wensleydale, that I disputed the competence of the House of Lords to decide the question. I did not dispute their competence in any way, but at the same time, considering that Lord Coke had given it as his opinion that life peerages might be created, and that Lord Redesdalo had declared that a life peera,,e carried with it the right to a seat in parliament—l must say that it was going to the utmost extent of the privi leges of the house, when a peer came with a patent granted by the advice of the Lord Chancellor, ar.d pre sented that patent, to refuse to that peer admittance to the house. (Cheers.) The House of Lords have so exercised their privilege. I have no doubt they exercised it upon a conscientious conviction, after examining the authorities—which were examined by some of the most learned members of the house—that such a power was vested in tem. Bit I must hold that it is somewhat grating—finding that the House of Lords can exercise that power without question, the government not pro posing (and being well advised, as I think, in such a course), to bring the question before courts of law—it is, I repeat, somewhat grating to us, it is somewhat grating to my constituents of the City of London, to be told that we have not the power of introducing a member of our house legally elected, and allowing him to take his seat among the Commons of England, as by his due election he has a right to do. (Cheers ) It is impossitd.e, I think, that the House of Commons can continue much longer in this state—(cheers)—which I cannot but con sider to be a state of degradation. (Cheers.) I there ' fore ask the house to allow me leave to introduce this bill ; I ask this that members may see the bill, and may form an opinion as to whether or not it will solve the difficulty. Ido not think that hon. gentlemen opposite have a right to flatter themselves that this question is to be allowed to sleep for the next ten years. (Cheers.) I think we are bound to pursue it in one form or another. (Hear, hear.) Let us do so with as much moderation as we cm. We have already shown much modera tion—(cheers)—the City of London has shown much patience ; but I do not think that it is a period in which we ought to adopt a precedent showing that, whatever may be the powers of the House of Lords, whatever may be the powers of the other branches of the Legislature, the House of Commons is utterly powerless on a question of grave public policy, on a question relating to civil an d re li g i ous l i b er t y , on a question involving the highest prin c ipl e s of law—that upon such a question we are utterly impotent and have nothing to do but to sit down with degradation. (Cheers.) The noble lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill. Mr. WALPOLE regretted that the noble lord shoul.l have asked the house for leave to introduce a bill which was substantially the same as a measure upon which in that very sesion Parliament had already decided. The noble lord said the house was in a peculiar position. By whom was it placed in !bat position ? (Cheers and coun ter-cheers.) no believed that the noble lord himself was not blameless upon that point No rule was better known or more universally recognised than that when Parlia ment had once in a session decided upon a question, that question should not again be argued during the same session. If a member possessing the weight and experi ence of the noble loid violated that iule in favour of a measure in which he left interested, was it to be supposed that other hon. members would not follow the precedent? Thera were many subjects upon which different members took great interest—an interest which was shared by large bodies of persons oat of doors. Many took a great interest in the question of the endowment of Maynooth ; others were deeply intereste I in the ballot; others in the repeal of taxes, and the abolition of church rates, or par liamentary reform. To all these questions the abrogation of that rule which the noble lord proposed would be ap plicable as much as to the subject of toe present bill. The noble lord might object, and urge that this measure was not the came as that which had been brought in by the noble viscount (Palmerston). But though in let•er this might be so, in spirit the two measures were identi cal. The noble viscount urged the passing of this bill on grounds of civil and religious liberty ; the noble lord bad rested the claims of his upon the unjust exclusion of the Jews on account of their religion. Passing, how ever, by this objection, he should oppose the introduc tion of this bill—if upon no other ground at least upon this, that it would bring the house into direct collision with the House of Lords, in which case the degradation and humiliation of the Louse of C iromons would be more severe than it had been. There was yet another objection to the introduction of the measure in the late ness of the period of the session at which they had at-- rived, and the great mass of public business which still awaited the consideration of Parliament. They had to discuss several bills of the highest importance ; they had , to go into supply ; they had to discuss one of the most important events which had ever come before that house, an event which affected not only a constituency, but the whole empire. With these great questions before them, he would put it to the house whether at the end of July it was a fitting moment for the introduction of a measure like this. Without therefore entering upon the merits of the bill, he thought he had stated sufficient to show the house that the leave which the noble lord asked for ought not to be granted. But though he did not intend to discuss the merits of the question, there were some remarks of the noble lord which ought not to be passed , by. The noble lord had told them that the words, " on I the true faith of a Christian," were not part of the sub stance of the oath. (Cheers from below the gangway on the Ministerial side) Those gentlemen who cheered were perhaps not aware that when this view was main tained by the Vice-Chancellor Wood, the noble lord himself ably answered the learned judge's argument Since that time, however, the subject had been before the highest tribunals of the country. It had been ably argued before them, and everything hal been stated which the ingenuity of counsel could suggest. The re sult arrived at was this—th e judges of tho Court of Ex chequer, by a majority of three to one, and the judges of the Exchequer Chamber, unanimously decided that the words were an essential part of the oath. (Hear.) But yet the noble lord came down to the house and slated that the words were not an essential part of the oath. Lord J. RUSSELL explained that his assertion was that the ground of the judges' decision rested upon their not considering themselves at liberty to dispense with words forming part of an oath imposed by an act of Parliame• t. Mr. WALPOLE would satisfy the noble lord by re ferring to the authority of a statute passed in the reign of Geo. 11. upon this subject, and relating to the colo nier. That statute runs thus :—" Whereas the follow ing words, upoe, the true faith o ‘ f a Chrstian,' are con tained in the oath of abjuration as partof the . oath, be v of his Majesty's subjects of the it enacted that when an lord would oath , , Jewish persuasion shahs' re,ii,Z i u r : d o t e o n t o a b - le e he may omit these words.' aied. these words a w s oth s d see teat the Legi-lature had trs In a. said t p a o t rt . ion of heis sential parts of the oath• speech the noble 1 :rd, substance, b in his opis moo the house ought not to leave this matter as it stood —(cheers)—but ought to take some step immediately Either by bill or by resolution—(cheer,' and counter cheer:.)—to settle the question which wat . l then under Mr. GILPIN said that this question had long since ceased to be a question of Jew or no Jew, and had become one of political principle and of civil and religious liberty, being also, secondly, but hardly secondly, a qoesti-n of the privileges and liberty of the House of Commons. When the right hon. member fur Cambridge University talked so loudly of the privileges of the House of Lords, he seemed to leave the privileges of the House of Commons out of consideration altogether. He (Mr. Gilpin) asked the house to consider whether they were from ten years to ten years to go on submitting to be roughridden, for it came to that, by the other branch of the legislature. The right hon. gentleman said that the house was in an extraordinary position, but who had placed it in that position/ He our. Gilpin) should say the right hon. gentleman's self and colleagues. And when the right hon. gentleman spoke of the c m,titution of the country, he (Mr. Gilpin',) reading told him that it was never in tended teat two integral portions of the con titution— the Sovereign, as represented by her Ministers, and that house—should be subservient to the will of a third. An other hon. gentleman talked of infidelity, but what he meant was infidelity to his own peculiar views. Ortho doxy it seemed was the hon member's doxey, and hetero doxey was any other man's doxsy. (Laughter.) It re minded him of the lines of Thomas Hood : " A man who cries church, church, at every word, Is not more pious found than other people. A claw is not a most religious bird Because it caws frdm every lofty steeple." He did not think that any religious principle was in volved in the liberation of the Jews, for the fact was that the Jew was excluded fur his conscientiousness. Let him only swear " on the true faith of a Christian," and no one cmild refuse him admission. (Hear.) A collision with the Lords was of course to be deprecated, but there was one thin. , still more to be deprecated, and that was that the freely-elected representatives of the Commons of England should , allow their majorities to be over ruled, and their principles to become a dead letter, be cause there was an adverse majority in the Lords. The hon. member alluded to the übsence of p ipular excite ment on this subject ; this was certainly a new doctrine coming from a quarter which had always deprecated sub_ mission to popular excitement. (Hear.) Ile (Mr. Gil pin) did not mean to undervalue the force of public opi nion collected at public meetings, but he thought the wisest way in reference t 3 a question of principle would be not to wait until a pressure from without took away the grace of free concession. But the fact was that the question resolved itself into a question of earnestness or want of earnestness on the part of the Treasury Bench. If it were once understood that the noble lord at the head of the Government was determined to carry this bill, the bill would be car ried. (Hear, hear.) It was for the noble lord to say to the upper house. " Princes and peers may flourish or may fade, A breath can make them, as a Breath has made." Let him make them understand that their numbers might be increased, and then depend upon it the bill would be carried without any such exercise of the prerogative. Mr. NE WDEGATE said that this question had always been treated us a religious question. When Baron Roths child presented himself at the table the words of inspira tion were tendered to him, and the house remembered h )W he rejected Christianity. (Oh, oh.) On that occasion he (Mr. Newdegate) ventured to put a question as to the form of the resolution, and the answer was that there was nothing in its form requiring it to be referred to a corns mhtee of the whole house. Now, he had since referred to the standing order, and he found it say " That no bill relating to religion shall be brought in until it has been considered in committee of the whole house." He asked, then, bad the house been following a proper course for the last ten years in considering a religious question which had not previously been referred to a committee of the whole house. He must of course bow to whatever should be the decision of the house, but his own conviction was that the noble lord, in introducing this bill, was vio lating the standing orders of the house. He could tell the house what was the urgency for this measure. Baron Rothschild, at the late election for London, pledged him self emphatically not to present himself again to the elec tors should the bill be rejected, and the noble lord was therefore aware that if something was not done this session the Baron-was pledged not to persevere in a course of an noyance to the House of Lords, That was his (Mr. New degate's) interpretation of the urgency of the case, and, he was sorry that the noble lord should lend himself to'' the wishes of a portion of his constituents, in order to bring about a collision between the two houses of Par liament. It was said that such a conflict should be pre cipitated solely in the interest of Baron de Rothschild. The noble lord endeavoured to raise a doubt as to the question of law—whether the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were or were not of the essence of the oath. He (Mr. Newdegate) would read the opinion on that point of those who must command respect. The noble lord had quoted Baron Alderson, but he bad omitted to nwe the result to which that learned judge arrived after full consideration of the whole case, CZ., that if the words were omitted the oath was not taken at all, The opinion of Lord Wensleydale and the Lord Chief Baron were to the same effect. How flimsy, then, was the pretence of the noble lord, that it was necessary to introduce a declaratory act, when the courts had dis tinctly declared that there was no doubt about the law of the case, but that the words, " On the true faith of a Christian," did. constitute an essential part of the oath. He protested against the attempt now being made to mislead the house ieto the belief that no pro - ciple - was violated by this attempt to coerce a co ordinate branch of the legislature. (Hear, hear.) The House of Lords represented the best feelings of the country ; if it were not so it could not have resisted the earioui successive measures of the House of Commons on this subject ; and if any attempt were made to arouse popu lar excitement in reference to it, the religious feeling ef the country would awake, as it did awake in 1,54, in resisting such an attack upon the Christian charoiter of the legislature. (Hear, bear.) Mr. COX assured the hon. gentleman that tie had no desire, in voting for the admission of Baron Rothschild to unChristianise the House of Commons. The question was one of civil and religious iberty, Having granted emancipation to the Roman Catholics, and abolished the Test and Corporation Acts for the re lief of the dissenters. Itsivas no more than simph justice that when a constituency elected a Jew as their repre sentative in parliament he should have the righl to take his seat, and carry out the duty to which he bad been delegated. ,(Hear.) He bad prepared a 'volution, which he bad intended to move by way of amendment to the noble lord's motion, declaring that the louse bad the right to alter the oath as it might see fit and that upon any member appearing at the table to 3€l sworn, and objecting to the words " On the true faith A a Chris tian," the c!srk should be dii ected to administer' the oath omitting • those woyds. Some of his hon. fuendo who agreed with him on the general question did not con cur in the propriety of his submitting this amendment, and he was therefore reluctantly induced to abandon the intention. It was said that such a proposition was r lutionary. (Ei-ar ) Bat was the house ma-ter of us own proceedings or not ? (Rear.) Had the house the right to alter the oath ? (Cries of "No, no," from the Opposition.) Why, they had altered the oath. (Float) They had altered it on their own responsibility to facili tate the tidinission of Quakers An TION. MEMBER.—No ; under the authority of a s atu:e. nothing but reason and fair argument to go upon, appeared to the ho n . gen tl eman t o b e a goo d reason for not: legislat ing on the subject,. He had already stated the generalpur pot tof the bill, but he would repeat the substance. The Ant of the let and 2d Vic., c. 105, applied to the courts of law, contained the words "and on any other occasion what ever," and it might refer to any authority superior to the courts of law, such as the House of Commons and the Queen's Privy Council. It also referred only to persons taking the oath. His proposal was to extend in both re spects by saying, in the first instance, that it shoal d refer to persons taking an oath in the High Court of par liement, and also to persons administering oaths. }lc did not mean to disguise that if the bill became bit that the house would not do what he conceived it could now do without an act of Parliament, namely, administer the oaths to the Baron Rothschild according to the form ne.ert binding oa 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 b e believed the oath of abjuration taken by members at that, time was different to the oa th o f a bj ura ti on o f t h e ti me 01 George 111., which related to the old Pretender, whereas dr. Pease was called upon to abjure other persons altoge' they. 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, en d that Mr. Pease took the affirmation according to the general analogy of law. With regard to what had been stated hY the noble lord at the head 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 Governmen t deer was, however, obvious, for although he (Lord J. Re sell) intended to introduce the bill, it was utterly impo 6 ; Bible for him to find Wednesdays enough before the term' nation of the session—(laughter)—in which he could hoe to carry the measure. He did not know the precise nom' ber of days which the Government intended the session w last, but he would take no other course than to introduc e the bill, and he wool t not 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 th ere f or e Oi l dude by stating that his view of the bill v at totally of t , site to that stated by hon. gentlemen opposit e . H e :,houg e u e tt was natural that after the rejection of th e bill by th e House of Lords, there would be considerable irritation ce the part of his constituents and of 'those who had suet ported it, and that possibly Baron R o th sc hild migh t be advised to come and take the oath most Weal on his conscience, and that as this might lead to o ,llision with the House of Lords, it would be d e , sirable to make an amicable adjustment of different; with that branch of the Legislature if possible. 111 / last argument was, that it was probable the House e t Lords might reject the bill. His strong opinion was, th e if the House of Lords were guided by anything approae!, ing that wisdom that had been recomme n ded to them 7, the lite Duke of Wellington, thio ques ti on wou ld be 'vea easily settled, There might be one or two members of tr a Jewish persuasion in the hou se • the house would then b. just as Christian as th e res t o f the country—(hear, hearto and Parliament-would at length have put an end to t u t very unseemly cont e st. Wh a t ever course th e h ous e naig e think proper to adopt with regard to Baron Rothschild ,' (Lord J. Russell) had at le a st 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 STATISTIC to Mr. CAIRD rose to move for leave to bring in a hi provide for the collection of agricultural statistics in t i l l land and Wales. He had no hope of passing the bill session, but he was desirous that those who were interest , in the measure should have it in their possession in the recT o i The whole of the inquiry provided by the bill would , P cost more than 20,0001. The measure would tend to `"? vent those fluctuations in the market which pressecie heavy on the working classes. There was no proviej o ' the bill that was compulsory. • eel' Mr. PACKE was glad to hear that there was no code sort' clause. Mr. BENTINCK said that if there was the least O r pulsion in the bill, it would be strenuously opposed. The motion was agreed to. NEW ZEALAND. al° Mr. J. A. EMIT Mr. COX contended that if they were competent to alter it in the case of the Qtakers by omitting the words "So help me God," they were equally competent to direct the omission of the words "Oa the true faith of a Christian" in the case of the Jews. (Hear.) He re gretted that the noble lord proposed to bring the house int ) collision with the House of Lords—not that he cared for such collision, f the two houses had been in cAlision keretofore. Tney were in collision for two or three sessions on the Reform Bill, and he was not aware that either the country or the House of Commons suf fered fro.n 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. (Elear.) Mr. LIDDELL, as one of those wh o bad given his vote in favour of the admission of the Jew., and who was prepa-ed to t eke the same courfe again on e very fitting occasion, wished to explain why he could not support the proposition of the noble lord. He considered it a flaw in the constitution to allow a person to be elected by the constituent body, and then fur the elected body to shut their doors against him when he came to take his sear. 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 bad 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 rejected ? 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 tae 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 against the noble lord's bill ; and as he could not vote for it, for the reasons he had stated, he shoul I 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 (Mr. 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 (Mr. Ayrton) was prepared to suppoit the bill, though aware that the house had the power to proceed by resolution. Indeed, he hell 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 main'ained 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 Rothschild were to adopt the course which Salomons had pursued, the house wr,uld 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 in an earnest desire to legislate, and sash 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 of the noble lord would lead to a collision with the House of Lords, and both were to be seriously deprecated. Lord 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)--I shall reserve for future consideration to what degree we shall think it right to support it in its future stages. I need not tell the house that I and my colleagues, equally with the noble lord, desire to settle satisfactorily this question of the adnuesion of Jew's into Pardament, and the only question is as to the best and most likely method of arriving at that result. In assenting to the bringing in of the bi'l 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 Lotting to the present period of the session, and the many important measures still,pending. I arm afraid that I cannot undertake to postpone Govern !flout business for the purpose of pushing this hill 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. GLADSTONE, after stating that he had been unable 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 he 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 anxious to maintain the independence of the House of Lords, which he considered to be only second to that of the House of Commons. He was not prepared to give any vote, unless under circumstances IA the gravest character, which might tend to bring about a political crisis. When be remembered that the Test and Corporation Acts, the repeal of the corn laws, and other great measures had received the sanction of the House of-Lords, he did not despair of such measures as that which they bad so often passed in that house being ul timately successful. He thought there were great ob jections to a resolution upon this subject. He thought 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 hazards. If they were to introduce Baron Rothschild that night, they would to-morrow have to introduce a bill of indemnity; and how would that fare in the House of Lords ? Now, was the bi lof the noble lord a repeti tion of the proposal which had already been made to the House of Lords ? He did not think the case before them was one 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. He could not, however, say that this bill was a repeti tion of the bill which had been rejected. Something was dpe both to the majority of the House of Lord 4, 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 be a reason able solution of the existing difficulty. That undoubtedly was a compromise, but it was no unfair compromise, and there was not that constitutional objection to making it to the House of Lords as there would have been in mak ing the proposition again, which had been rejected by the House of Lords. 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 bill 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 session, and an other form in another according to the temper of the house and not according to the law of the land, so that a . man might be admitted to one session and rejected in another. Ef that was settling the question he 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 hon. 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 Quakers was specially provided for by statute, the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., and if Lord Campbell could have found such a statutab!e provision with regard to Mr. Alderman Salomons 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 he could not congra . ulate the noble lord on his at tempts to remove doubts upon this subject. Mr. HILDYARD said the effect of having the noble lord's bill passed into law would be to introduce the Jew, and what that became of the House of Lords ? No mem ber of the house could doubt that thls was an attempt to coerce the House Lords. ___.r. .. _H moved for leave to introduce,- 4 0 for discharging claims of the New Z e al an d ComPaN the proceeds of sales of waste land in New Zealand. Sir J. TREL AWNY opposed the motion. Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it would be well to net discussion upon the bill, but he would not at present on into details. Mr. HORSMAN rose amidst loud cries of " divide, divide." An attempt to seat Baron Rothschild by reso lution bad been described as a revolutionary movement. A precedent bad been set which hon. gentlemen opposite ought not t) ignore, and that was with regard to Lord Wensleydale ; and he woul] be glad to know the die tiuctlon between the present case and that. Throughout the whole of the discusbion in Lord Wenbleydale'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. 1854, 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 hoe. gentleman the member for Devonshire had said that there wasno danger to apprehen.l, that there was no sediti on or tumult to warrant the introduction of the bill. This ar gument put him in mind of the old couplet— " The King to Oxford. sent a troop of ho For Tories own no argument but force." The fact that there was no disturbance, or no sedition and Leave was then given to bring in the bill. MILITIA ESTIMATES. . Sir J. RAMSDEN moved for a select committee to, rit pare estimates of the charge of the disembodied roilitegli Great Britain and Ireland, for the year ending MareW 1858—Sir John Ramsden, the Judge Advocate, Mr..'ipt pole, Mr. Ellice, Col. North, Col. Wilson P a tten,_.j, Smyth, General Peel, Col. Gilpin, Mr. Massey, Mr. 11- 7,, it Mr Chichester Forteseue, Earl of Mulgrave, and all " nels of militia. In answer to Col. FRENCH, Sir J. RAMSDEN said that all instalments of w -t \leo would be paid this year, whether the militia were c` i out or not. The motion was agreed to. SLIGO BOROUH ELECTION. On the motion of Sir G. GREY, Sir J. Pakingt ° ' added to this committee. A NEW BRIDE. t On the motion of CHELS Sir E B. HALL, it was agreed t- 4 je select committee be nominated by the committee 0 f r tion. MERCHANT SHIPS. Mr. STAPLETON moved for leave to bring in s 1 : 4 0 1 secure the observance of better discipline in merello, ships. He knew that there was no chance of carryinto3J bill this session, but ho desired that it might. be P 1 Be lr and considered by those who took an interest in the 0 ject. The object was to protect the seamen by securi°s entry of any punishment inflicted. lU The motion was not seconded, and of course fell t° ground. OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. 1 ,i4 1 This bill was read a second time and p asse d. Theo ';“ is to extend the time of the University commission f or months. ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BIL L ' This bill passed through c-onmittee. NEW ZEALAND LOAN GUARANTEE. ej! The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER vil j:0 0 resolution for a loan to New Zealand of 500,000/. - 0 ; 0 0 that further information would be given on the 6e reading. ing. Sir J. TRELAWNY said he should oppose the ra ° in its future stages. e on The resolution was agreed to and reported to the . 1 VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) A(' AMENDMENT 'BILL. This bill passed through committee. INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. On the order for the third reading of this bill, Mr. COBBETT opposed it. The house divided, and the numbers were— -56 For the third rea di ng Against it " 2 1 35 Majority The bill was then read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at ten minutes past one. Country Markets. LIVERPOOL—JULY 21. Oar Corn Exch ange o p ene d l angu idly thi s morninpl business in wheat beiag influenced by the 3/ 0 0 0. report of yesterday. Two or three forced sales of tv, i, occurred early at a decline, but it was subsegneo covered, and we closed with more confidence at the r e , of Friday. Fl o u r was ra th er eas i er i n price. Indi e V brought f u ll quo t a ti ons , w ith a l arger d ema nd. ~.110 and peas eac h comman d e d i s t o 2 4 a d vance . Oats, P"" and oatmeal sustained previous rate.. HULL— JULY 21. tb e , f : A small attendan ce a t o ur m a r k e t to-day, arl —A „A s has been only a sma ll s h ow o f w h ea t. Th ere wagoa i position to follow the decline of Mark-lane, and vo 3 reduce our quotations more than 2s per qr. At a tl further redaction there were many buyers. A O r) IP ' business in Spring corn, and no alteration in v a lue. • th seed firm. Cakes easier to buy. Wheat, English red, 60s to 63s ; whit e 62 s t o 6 60 ,i fi rel i c i 28s to 303; barley, 403 to 46s ; I n di an corn, 40s ;to cakes, Hull, 10112 s 6d t o 10/15 s ; ditto, oreignL7l,oo' 15s; rape cakes, 6/ ss. t o 6/ 7s 6(1; guano, FL to 1 0 " bones, 117 s Gd.; flour, 30s to 325; tares, 30s to Oa. LEEDS, Jut 21. , - O f° ar e b 0 We are fairly supplied with wheat. Holders - I)%in 1 demanding within is per qr. of last Friday's ratighto millers req u i re a greater reduction ; the resu lt i 5 '0 NO ircely any b us i ness i s t ransacte d . Barby 11°0 Isl' Beans fully as dear. Other articles unaltered. Average prices of grain—Wheat, 66s 41d ; basla ° ' Od ; oats, 294 Hid ; beans, 41s 3id ; peas, rye, —s. Od. FIRES --Yesterday morning, a fire broke out l>a ;Of no,* houses , belonging to Mr. Ambridge, in Siiti 0 0r, Nev Park. The cause is supposed to be the carel° 9 oof, of a boy carrying lighted shavings. The housellierdol. no, inhabited.—Between two and three o'clock Yel st f riir morning, a fire broke out on th e p rem i ses of Mr. dlO 4 Hum, silversmith, Craven-building s , City.road• I . fr e hi use and its contents were destroyed. Anotb e tlok place yesterday morning o n th e p rem i s es °f 0 0 ( Durrell, William-street, C ur t a i n - roa d. Th e fi r e vi ti extinguished wail the house was burnt out. BIRTHS. On the 20th inst., at 19, SON Margaret-street, Ca V " ) ,. i ao' square, the wife of Geo. H. Williams ' Esq.. solicito r ' or lei g On the 20th inst., at Kentish-town, Mrs. Henry ' OF A DAUGHTER. On the 19th inst., Mrs. Thomas Milo, 40 1 , Stran(l:, On the 21st inst., at 24, Queen's-road west, 11° '' park, Mrs. Henry Sargant. MARRIED. idg e { On the 21st inst., at All Saint's Church, Knightsbr IA tho Hon. Ashley Ponsonb Y' G second o Gordon, son on,d of au g t h h t e er ltt o 7l‘, de Manley, to the Hon. Louisa an d Lady Henry Gordon, and M a id o f H ono ur to li e " jest On i sl": the 21st inst., at St. Mary's Church, Choi ° 10. Alexander Thwaites,Esq., of Forast-gate, Essex, t° C 1 beth, eldest daughter of Geor ge R usse ll, E sq ., °` brook House, Cheltenham. D I E D.ll On the 17th inst., at Llandudno, North Wales, Itt :tl Bally Blakiston Houston, Esq., of Orangaeld, 00°- Down. we ld' On the 20th inst., M r . J. C. P err y, solicitor, 1 81, ' street, Southwark, aged 34. 4 0° On the 20th inst., at Peckham-rye, Huson Morr lo ' aged 41. h 0011 8°1 On the 17th inst., at Bath, Admiral Josef ) aged 97. Cli ° On the 19th inst., at St. Mary's Priory, Reading, li ~. Heard Wild, C.E., aged 38. o'iv ia On the 19th inst. , at Milton next Gravesen d, , Culleine, Esq., aged 74. too ll ' On the 13th inst., at Madrid, Dr. John Rober , spector-General of Hospitals. t r. 000010 °° 6, oe ls On the 19:h inst., at Lawn-house, Peckham, g' et.,stry only son of Henry Capel, Esq., of 17, Little Tow _d! and the Limes, Queen's-road, Peckham LONDON : Printed and Published by Ml7lO O 4( `_ ) ,, 1 0 ; of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Th e Sun o'loo 112, Strand, in tho Precinct of the Saver , in t ' j° of Middlesex, Wednesday, July 22, 1857. it' te4s of of Fort M. 11 0 ti The La shove r glitiorne 'WM he Et C PET [T] test bet Messrs. aee onim arnuserc Ight 0 klutissi Wl' voN Es n Leaving the f i nes , L ake an Saetur49qtie tendence anq the s Pictur e S ETIA.ST at the Al Ad Lloyd is th e nio , Is the fir; ren dered well deve Public (G in one) be TWO, and exPlinato In th e c after nye A Lectu on Neglee Dr. Ka U B^ The WA 111 te of 5 p ( "'Le read y I 4. leth Jul Prus reci wat t ... on ar S E V Dl} the Year ( ~ 41 t an A '''ailking i C harles ch " Pd St It aeon Alfre v th ,ge Clt• " - "atn - onath an , The Mar afterwards ~..Thete Ine for" - `, 26 ,810 ,!sri for 1 „ Abe Din rest balf.. y 44. I t ..heYeal 4,,tter Pa T0..,160 14s X 149 49 198 rebate „ -4 ' l Intere tAe t W a i n i 1 t bc rumours cl t o Of , th e Prop are b. With th a effect o f en Stre ngth T he Di a r ' ( irnmediate tisfactlo3 dra wn ha, co ons Year. " S everal Dir ector;' % Settle m e In foil —4I P owi nv , illo wne 7 p . f or r r e e. f e r i o nl b 'the re e p et C Ar'' "°lv ed a Ti l ed , c ' tr a l 'eclared to te of 8 "le taX P I k B l , !eaOlve ' d 2%,;;; „ Joh r chairnolve tit b t char a this Il lt eccolveci ailager, I le An kar] n sDeci thticsolved beed -ere s but abs t o i subject bar as at p Lualmurtcu C apital su ' fl aPital pat uliarantee rnent Se 4 cld intere liatt,lartee dt .anc e 841 ded ; 4,3 ka,king eas h in th tits CO • • str°lV-roc pretnis„ 10rDividend ~ the ,eEol 1:) y wid d e n half —onte of 11 : i n Et cl ace loss 1111 1 d 4, r t RI I) tNl7 h( t, 0 1e44 . 1 t; 1) clr bated ..`,---..--_ NEW 4 tezu Of ham 4 I ltlEs. s'Ncl of tr °l4 ti ~tren rest, "ba II tevu"' ItIAG,4I Zadteate /j r ,, rP . l G] C op t i ?' , oftb the Sri) ~~ ractcri, korni r Stalls r Vlv,r; hat at A' 1%1