The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-23 00:00:00

NG, FEBRUARY 23, 1849

the same course that Lad been taken since he had been a
member of any Committee of the House.

LEGAL EDUCATION.

Mr. EWART gave notice that on an early dsy he
would put a question to the Attorney-General respecting
legal education.
NEAPOLITAN ARMY IN SICILY.
Mr. BANKES gave notice that be would, on Tuesday
next, move for copies of certain information received by
the Government respecting the Y.apolitan army in
Si2ily.

the oath eva:: to t objcejol,?.,6l( to the t,f
that, faitl., but not of a inp.ttir• to Lleviit The c!e,.-
racter W. that T:,e 'Zeman Cathelie
merely subscribed to Ile, ea:11 a hie!. oft Veit
leavieg him at liberty- to ioterpret it,
as he pleased. When the oath was proposed
in ]829, by Sir Robert Peel, very little was said in sup-
port of it. Indeed. Chief Justice Bushe said that "no
danger could result from it, and certainly no security."
If it del riot exclude members of that faith
term tsltii,g part in ail debates, he comes-eel
he did not see the re ces,ity of r: t.tining it. It that oath
was not dancernus and }et was productive of ro
security. he though they might sa;el} expunge it from
:he statut-bio)k. The oaths of supremacy, abjuration,
and suet-55ton were unnecessary at a time when no One
doubted the right of succession, and with
respect to the oath of allegiance great disparity
existed between that taken by a Protestant and a
Roman Catholic—the one said "on the true faith
of a Christian," whilst the other swore "he would
do no injury to the Estaidished Church."
It, was just as likely to be irjured by those persons who
wished to support the State as by chose who, professing
another religion, might not he so hostile to the esta-
blishment as Protestant Dissenters. He totally differed
from the Honourable Member for the University
of Oxford on the high stand he had taken in advocating
the retentien of those words, " on the true faith of a
Christian." He (Mr. Vernon Smith) must say, when
members of the different sects of Christianity met.
at the table of the House and said they took the
oath on " the true faith of a Christian."
he could not say what was meant by the word " faith,"
because the true faith of a Christian differed as widely
among Christians, in many instances as it did in the faith
of a Jew ; and, therefore, he should object to the words
on " the faith of a Christian," particularly because
these words being so inserted, and so adapted, would
lead to a result which he wished particularly to avoid.
His Noble Friend said there were three different oaths
to be taken by Members professing three different reli-
gions. There was one taken by the Protestant, arid
that was to be taken by the Jew too; but when
the Jew came to the words on " the true faith of a
Christian," there he was to stop and these words were to
be omitted. Well, now he (Mr. V. Smith) said such a
proceeding as that was very unbecoming of that House,
and it ought to be put a stop to. The next oath was that
which was to be taken by the Roman Catholic Members,
and that oath was entirely different. both from that taken
by the Protestant and that taken by the Jew. The Roman
Catholic was not called on to take the oath on "the
true faith of a Christian." He (Mr V. Smith) should
like to know why ? Now, he thought it a most un-
seemly thing that Members coming up to the table of
that House should be asked what was their particular
religion before they were permitted to take the
oath at the table of the House. He
thought the House would agree with him in
thinking that all that was contained in the oath of su-
premacy and the oath abjuration was embodied in the
oath of allegiance, which could not be more simple than
it was ; and therefore he thought that the House should
adopt the oath of allegiance. It was with those objections
that they were bound to consider the question of the
oath as tributary to the Jews in their present disabili-
ties, that he had thought it right as a Llember of that
House to state the way in which those
objections could be achieved in the simplest
possible manner, and one most in accordance
with the feelings of the public, and of the majority of the
Members of that House. He begged leave, under those
circumstances, to propose the amendment which he had_.
read.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think there was any
sufficient cause to be dissatisfied with the oath, He
thought the oath was a security, and he_abould,:,there,.
fore, oppose the amendment of his Host. Friend.
'Mr. HUME said the great object to be attained ap-
peared to him, in avery transaction, that they had to re-
duce as much as possible unnecessary oaths. By
the Duke of Richmond's Bill there had
b: en twenty millions avoided.—(Cries of " Hear.")
Since then twenty millions more had been abolished,
and he was not aware that the slightest dishonesty had
ever been discovered in consequence.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it ....
Majority against it — 72
.

Mr. BANK bud given notice of an amendment, but
the proper time for proposing it was when they got
into Committee on the Bill. He wished therefore not to
be precluded from moving it on the Bill if he abstained
from moving it then. lie had no objection to an altera-
tion of the oaths, but he certainly should object to any
proposal for con:erring upon Jews the right of sitting in
the House.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was glad that thr.
Hon. Member intended to reserve his amendment to the
Bill before the House. The Hon. Gentleman surely could
not think that there was any danger of Jews subverting
or overturning the Established Church.—(hear, hear.)
What he understoood him to say was this—that
he wished the words promising not to subvert
the Established Church should be introduced into the
oath taken generally by Members. Now that was a very
different question, uud instead of being the terms of an
admission, they were the terms of a restriction.—(Hear,
hear.) Ile (Lord John Russell) would object to the
words being introduced with regard to Jews, or to any
other class except Roman Catholics.
Mr. GOULBURN could not conceive that the intro-
duction of the words would have a prejudicial effect upon
any class of persons.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said a most important point was
to be decided by the House, viz., whether certain Mem-
bers stood in the same position and with the same full
powers another Hon. Members in that House.

[LEFT SPEAKING.]

COURSE OF EXCH
Amsteriain .....••• .. 12 2

LNGE.--(THIS DAY.)
dibraltar• • . • • • • • • • •• • •
Leghorn ........ ...... 32 20
Genoa ... • 26 60
Venice.... .. • • ....
Naples ...... • • .... • • 323 i
ealermo, peroz 1:8
Messina •••••••••• .• •. 119
Lisbon.... • 524
Oporto • • .. • • .... • • .. 5234
Rio Janeiro • .......
Buenos Ayres ........ --
New York, 21 days'sight
Philadelphia ..........
?BIM OF BULLION, ?BL oS
Foreign Gold in bars.. £3 17 9
Portugal Gold Coin • • 0 0 0
Spanish Doubloons .. 0 0 6
New Dollars ••,... 0 0 0
Silver in bars ...... •• 0 0 0

Ditto, at sight ...... 12 0
Rotterdam .......... 12 21,4
tntwerp• .
llamburgh ......M.B. 13 11%
Attona ...... ••
earis,.3 days'slght .... 25 20

_
Ditto, 3 months .... 25 47%
71arseilles ........,... 25 47
80urdeanx......... . 25 50
Frankfort OH Maine.... 111
Peterspurgh, Sil.ltble.. 36%
Berlin
Vienna, effec. 80.-- 11 26
Trieste, ditto.... • • .... 11 27
............ 49
Cadiz ............. 49
Bilbao •• .........,
Barcelona • • •
Seville. ••• •• •••• •• •

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)
DISTURBANCE AT THE OLYMPIC THEATRE.—A young
man, who gave the name of John Ellis, was charged before
Mr. Jardine with creating • a. disturbance in the gallery of
this theatre last night. It was -proved that the prisoner,
who was intoxicated, amused himself and disturbed the
audience by making such outrageous noises that the per-
formances had to be suspended for twenty minutes, until he
was expelled.—He was fined 20s.