The Express.
London, England, 1850-08-05 00:00:00

N. Away said bs had ondand with the Marta
lioftheblla. ash
to It was am Ms wish that dm maim of
althea 'math Om bar Aosta be /aft Ithesegh
sass. Us should mist to see dm sinentheasi of the hoa.
anew
.iiioros althosith ha Ma sot Ohms tho
&this o sibs by the sermapeitheas. H.
shield
lave withal that, sma baton thn athath pawed a
aeg. Wm MOWN bed NOMN Mali NMI 1
" toy la is tike sass dkr. Pew.
li
eeti. ow
Way ammo,. mothalai to take the samathaset as
da regard is tho speak of the Niamey-
Gears]. ha was MN Ilion over aseathisdiboa. bow sash a
rosaktila mall ham be.. latrothasd by a
ewe of
sash laws aad Need stplothes. Ho mid Ile ass was
unproesthatod. sad Ithoshos bimetallism waellimmobine-
mat. Wm he al of that miles? Oa a thrum awn
aka deo lamas% the member fa the
17thamaley M Oalhal task the vim of the ems
that lame Rotheshill should prom Ids Alb* at
damsel,. Oa Ohm asomisa Fr Z. Lathy mid it was Wits
to blityintheyir
=Vale Saes mans was sot matted to
Atha as/ tho oath of moth, that they
woo meallsit la the.. Mtn &pled Ibsen That
was the maim el Da Imasarstas mambos he Devoe-
pert beams lo berate lb. AtomesspAwayerm'sei et
Mon km
Majesty's His Ob. ) *
wes so sad maimed he mai set even
reader vets Iht the k t. If she kammable
ramake M.OtMd was Mary to them Me samahmatt that
~eaMg MS MI." pint wilide the
So Om dq. be wadi sow seta erhorillaftipethesps
.tuck is km am. What was Jim hos. mei hawed pa-
ea'. epthfM. than with it be had shmasil It already.
Tits selmasho et Mason Msdashild Ida Wes woo so posse-
nosh altsinvothin yea hat no lAA smudge eel Ilse Fes

frois, is am ithatemitha Did they telemethei
the law was ameatrous and absurd? No • they stood
on the richt sad the law as thew maned it es.
bled. With regard to the smiths saidwily to be likely
to bo 'maned, ware to those
who ends**. oaththeys, but ken thlibitt had takes the
oaths, and tM jounals of the he... would be saffloint to
prom It is a court cf law, or would any court crasetioa the
death" tithe oath. The mien that they wore thost to dia.
framithe the harmout at Noise roped fir him was a filmy
oaf. sad ialloas Maim oadommes erbith had ban made
to NM the gantna. DM Oa loth awl lessuod gentlesma
mum to ear that the oath of ahluention mull sot be ten-
dered to any member without sem aliamties in it The
terms of the oath of objurgate antsiand by ath Geo. 111.
bad ceased to be applkebith sail maid out now be adminis-
tered at the table. Then was a miss is Charles IL, called
Sir Edina Coke's sass. He refused to take the
oath prescribed for sheriff, became it dinned them to panne
and take Lsllards and other heretics. He argued that it
was an oath prescribed by • statute applicable only to popish
times. It was brought before the oeurte,which derided that it
wee en illegal oath, butane preseribed b •• astute no longer
he fen% The preamble of sot the oath recited
that this was to be • sew oath, as on amount of the death
of the lint pretender, it was ausessery to make as alteratioa.
Surely, the., In masequeme of the satin/aim of the de.
scondents of James 11. and the death of George 111., some
alteration should be made in the oath, as the ciannostimes
had changed, and it was no kept applicable. In the mean
time Bayou Rothschild claimed to take his seat without taking
the oath of abjuration. The noble Lord (J. Rummell)
on the 12th of March, distend that if the house was
Justified in aimittiag Mr. Peen there was so necessity to
par as act of parliament al.orwards. Did the noble lord
comelier the words "on His true faith of a Christian" to'
apply to the substance or the solemnity of the oath ?
Ia his speech In first istroducusg the bill
for the relief of disabilities, be said it woe
• mistake to suppose that the postscript or fag end of
as oath was an essential part of it. They ccu'd not evade
the effect of the decision they name to in allowing the
Jew to be swcrn in the manner most binding on
his conscience, and say now that he could not take
his seat till he took as oath "on the true faith of a
Christian." They refused to allow that Baron Rothtchild
could not sit in the house, and yet by deciding that the seat
wee full they prevented the City of L ndou from being re.
presented. He did not think the Howe. of Lords would
legislate on the subject, but if they did it would not
rescue them from the humiliation of having submitted their
privileges to the decision of the House of lends
11 Whether the amendment was pressed to a division or not, he
should vote against the monstrous proposition made by the
Government in their new character of disqualificators of
electors.

Mr. DISREALI said the former disennions wars so
strictly of • legal character that he lad hitherto ab-
stained from entering into the debate. Bat the reso-
lutions brought forward now being one of law and the
other of policy, ke might be excused if ha made a few ob-
earvatious on the relative positions of the member for
London who had not taken his seat and the house. The
attempts which had been made to relieve the disabilities in
question had differed this yeas from the course
taken in former years. It arose, he considered,
from the impatience felt to runes this grievance. But
would ask the continuance of the grievance was owing to
pursuing • constitutional course or deviating from
that coarse. There was no clue of rei,,ionists
that had less reason to complain of the spirit of
the community and legislature than Englishmen pro-
fessing the Jewish religion. When he contemplated
their civil and serial perition now and that they held twenty
years ago, while glid to find it what it was, he was bound
to say that positi in had been obtained in far less time than
any other elan of religionists. The Roman catholic'
and dissenters had had to endure a more prc
longed struggle to get! rid of their disabilities. It was
incumbent on the house to take a calmer and more
temperate view of the case. If Englishmen professing the
Jewish religion hid little to complain of bigotry and in-
tolerance in that house, had they more to complain
of as regarded the other house of I. gisla•tei, which
had been censured with some little "injuries.
Three years ago this house passed a bill removing the di -
abilities of Baron Rothschild. That bill revived a proper
consideration in the House of Lords, and was rejected by
not an overwhelming majority. It was • bill which prc-
posed large alterations, which might have been view, d with
some anxiety if not jealousy by the people. In the followicg
year another bill was introduced, which war discussed in the
other house in a spirit of less hostility, and rejected by •
smaller majority. What was there then to justify the strong
language of reprobation used spinet that house. After
this • cimmstaace of a significant nature took
place. The Berea Rothschild accepted the Chi!.
tars Hundreds, and was returned by a triumphant and
overwhelming majority. This was • matter which no doubt
should have been taken into eousideration by wise and
politic men, in Madam to this question.
(Left speakiag.]