The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-16 00:00:00

SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE POST-OFFICE.

In answer to a question from Mr. Marrs,
Mr. WILSON said that pursuant to tho recommenda-
tion of the commissioners for inquiring into Sunday-work
at the Post-office, when an assistant was so employed that
he could not attend Divine Service upon Sunday, an ar-
rangement had been made by which a substitute was pro-
vided in his stead every other Sunday, at the expense of
the Government.

OATHS TAKEN BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir G. GREY said that without referring to what had
taken place in former Parliaments, it was well known that
a bill had been lately introduced for the purpose of remov-
ing the disabilities imposed upon persons of the Jewish
faith by the oath to be taken by members of Parliament
as it now stood. That bill, after receiving the assent of
this house, had been rejected elsewhere. Subsequently a
bill had been proposed in the other house of Parliament
by a noble and learned lord (Lord Lyndhurst) of great
weight and ability, the object of which was to simplify
and alter the oaths taken by members. This bill, how-
ever, had not become law. The noble lord the member
for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) had stated that
it was not the intention of Government to bring the sub-
ject under the consideration of the house in any shape dur-
ing the present session. In that determination he (Sir G.
Grey) perfectly concurred. He wished, however, to ask
the noble lord—considering the unsatisfactory state of the
law upon the subject—whether it was the intention of the
Government next session to amend the law relating to
this matter, either by a separate bill or by a provision in
the bill which was to be brought in for the general amend-
ment of the representation of the United Kingdom.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the state of the law
with respect to the oaths taken by members of Parliament
was such that no one could consider it satisfactory. As
the house was aware a trial had taken place upon the at-
tempt of a gentleman to take his seat without taking the
oaths as they at present stood. One of the learned judges
upon that trial declared that he thought that the oath
could be well taken without the addition of the words
"on the true faith of a Christian." Another learnedjudge
stated that it would be much more, satisfactory if Parlia-
ment would settle this question, by declaring its opinion
upOn the oaths. Since then the noble and learned lord
(Lord Lyndhurst) to whom reference had been made, had
proposed to the other house to put the law with regard to
this question upon a better footing, but that proposal had
led to no satisfactory result. He (Lord J. Russell) thought
it was not advisable, considering the state of business and
the vote of the other house, to bring the question forward
again during that session. He should, however, certainly
think it his duty to submit the question to the house in
the next session of Parliament. Whether this were done
in a separate bill or as part of a larger measure for amend-
ing the system of representation, he should not bring for-
ward a bill for the relief of the Jews specially, but to place
the oaths taken by all members upon a simple footing,
doing away with the ridiculous intolerance and practical
absurdity at present existing. (Cheers.)
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT BIRMINGHAM.

Lord D. STUART wished to call the attention of the
noble lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department
to the treatment to which prisoners had been subjected by
the governor of the borough gaol at Birmingham. It ap-
peared that the noble lord had sent an inspector of prisons
specially down to Birmingham, who had made a report
upon the matter. His report stated that a great deal of
cruelty had been exercised towards the prisoners. He
(Lord Dudley Stuart) understood that a counter statement
had been made to the noble lord (Palmerston), and he
therefore now wished to ask him whether he was prepared
to give any further information upon the subject?
Lord PALMERSTON said it was quite true that in con-
sequence of representations made to him, he had caused
this matter to be looked into and a report to be made. He
would abstain from characterising the proceedings which
were disclosed in that report further than to say that they
appeared to him to have been perfectly illegal, and ex-
tremely cruel and unjust. He was about to submit a case
to the law officers of the Crown, in order to ascertain what
steps could be taken upon the subject.
CONSOLIDATED ANNUITIES (IRELAND).

Viscount MONCK asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer whether it was his intention to include in the remis-
sion of the Irish consolidated annuities the loans for which
certain Irish proprietors rendered themselves personally
liable in P 316-7, under pe authority of Mr. Labouchere's
letter.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not
enter into any statement of reasons in answer to the ques-
tion ; but had simply to say that the money to which the
question had reference, and which was generally called the
Labouchere letter money, was not included within the
scope of the bill which he had that evening laid on the
table for the remission of the consolidated annuities. He
might further say that he did not knows any principle on
which it would be possible to include that money which, if
consistently carried out, would not lead them to the re-
funding. to every benevolent individual of all RAMS whereby
out of their own private resoureeit, they relieved distress
in Ireland.
is l:L FlTZW11.1.1.t":11 A.ND ri NAL
Mr. BRIGHT gave notice that, in pursuance of the
statements and prayers of petitions which he had on former
evenings presented from inhabitants of Peterborough, com-
plaining of the interference of Earl Fitzwilliam in elec-
tions for that borough, he would on Monday next move
for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into
the whole subject. He believed that he would he able to
make the motion the first thing on Monday, the petitions
involving a question of privilege.
THE SIX-MILE-BRIDGE AFFAIR.
On the question that at its rising the house adjourn to
Monday,
Mr. MILES put the question of which he had given
notice—Whether it is the intention of the Government to
proceed against the Rev. John Burke and the Rev. Michael
Clung., Roman Catholic prie4s, who have been reported by
t i
nh e
of 2 2
election, day o f
an election committee of this house—the former to have
excited the people, and to have taken part in the riot, and
the latter to have excited the people to take part in the
roit, which occurred at
destroyingSSix-mile
'nie
ribdeg ;n oeln t
•rjetililtylerleB(lsv2o, ildvhi the which,
by
return of the two knights of the shire,
elected to serve in Parliament for the countB
y of Clare at
the general election of 1852.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that he tmi h e without
offence complain of the course which the hen.
gentleman
pursued on this occasion, because, havingn,
notice of his intention to put a question, merely given
he entered into the
details, and opened an elaborate discussion on the
It was said that it was a long lane that had no end, subject'
and
he trusted that the longest bridge, even the
ix mile bridge,
would come to some end. (Laughter.) The subject hid
of Parliament,
been discussed many times in both houses
and the decision of the house
hadbe
en taken upon it.
Her Majesty's Governnieut had,
as was known intended
to institute a prosecutiOn for the conductin the
Six-mile-bridge affair, and the Irish Governpursuedment
.was
in-
formed that such was the desire of her Majesty's Govern-
ment. But the Irish law officers to which the Irish
Government referred the matter, judged differently, and
the Government, after cousideria-
g the grounds on which