The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-22 00:00:00

THE CAGLIARI.

The Earl of MALIIESBURY laid on the table ad-
ditional papers respecting the capture of the Cagliari
steamer.

OATHS BILL.

Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the
City of London in lav,mr of the Oaths Bill,
The Bishop of OXFORD presented a great number
of petitions againA the Oaths' HI.
Earl of DERBY presented a similar petition.
THE OATHS BILL.

Lord LYNDHURST, in moving the second reading
of the Oaths Bill, said he should make but a very short
explanation in moving the second reading r f this bill.
It had been objected ou a former occasion by a noble
earl near him (Earl Derby) to the form of the bill. He
objected to the oath of abjuration and that excluding the
rho Jews from Parliament being so mixed up together
as to prec:ude the possibility of taking a vac.. on each
separate question. Tnat of ection had been remedied
by the pre,ent measure. With respect to the oath
f abjuration, the alterations were not very eaten•
sive ; they amounted to this, that all those parts relating
to the ascending cf the Pretender had been struck out,
and the remainder which was added t, the oaths of al-
leg ante and supremacy, formed but one oath. The first
part of this bill, no doubt, would be assented to unani-
mously by this house. In the fifth clause of this bill, the
vett:ion of the admission of the Jews to Parliament was
e.uteed, and the bill provided that on a member of the
Jewish religion presenting himself at the table to
take the oath, the words, "en the true faith
of a Christian," should be omitted. Now it
Wa3 competent for any of their lordships to mote
the omissi'm of this clause in committee, but in order to
arrive at that stage it was absolutely necessary that the
bill/should be read a second time. He had considered
this question over and over again, and he felt certain
many of their lordships would agree with him that it
would be idle to have two discussions on the merits of
the bill, and he proposed they. La.° that the bill should
be read a second time, .cr postpone the discussion on
the Jewish disablities until they went into committee on
this bill. He, therefore, simply moved the second read-
ing cf the bill.
Earl of DERBY said he hoped the suggestion of the
noble and learned lord would throw such weight
with their lordships as to lead them to its adoption.
The existing oath, it could not be denied, required alters•
tion, as a great portio❑ had now become obsolete. He did
❑ot see any objection to the course proposed, and he
was prepared to, give his support to the bill as
Far as the first portion of it was concerned, which
did away with the absolute part of the oath, but
with regard to the latter part of the bill which rendered

the question of the adwi-sion of the Jews into Parlia-
ment, he was still of the same opinion he had expressed
ou former occasions, and could not take a different
course than h'e had formerly taken. In committee
he should move the omission of the clause
by which Jews would be enabled to take their seats in
Parliament.

Earl GREY regretted the course the noble earl had
decided on adopting, especially as the bill had been so
strongly adopted by the other house. He felt
it would most likely lead to a collision with the
other house. The present, he contended, was a fitting
oppertunity to concede the measure, for it would bu
idle to suppose that the house could much
longer withstand the gro,ing feeling with
respect to the bill. He advised the noble
lord to fellow the course pursued by the late Duke of
Wellington in 1828 on the Test Act, who, although he
disapproved of the measure, conceded to the general
wish, and agreed to the bill.
Atter a few observations from the Earl of WICK-
LO W, the bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(This Evening.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The falowing bills were ordered for third reading :
—Alyth Railway, Peni.,ton, Thurlstone, and Oxspring
Gas ' • the Chelsea Hospital and Waterworks Exchange
of Lands Bill was read a second time.
WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE OF CON-
SPIRACY AGAINST DR. BERNARD.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked the learned Attorney-General
whether he could infcrm the house if it was the inten-
tion of her Majesty's Government to proceed with the
indictment against Dr. Bernard for conspiracy
Tile ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained the course
pursued by the late Government with reference to the
charge before the magistrate.
Sir G. GREY—For conspiracy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The charge preferred
against Dr. Bernard, after evidence had been taken,
resolving itself into a capital charge of felony, as the
magistrate before whom it was brought considered it
his duty to commit him, said, that as the prisoner had
been acquitted by a jury, and as the charge of con-
spiracy rested mainly on the same evidence, he had con-
sidered it inexpedient to proceed with the conspiracy,
and Dr. Bernard might consider himself entirely dis.
charged.
Sir R. BETHELL said there was sufficient evidence
to just,fy a charge of conspiracy being preferred against
Dr. Bernard, but after the present Government came
into office Mr. Bodkin said bef,ire the police magistrate
that he was instructed to proceed against Dr•
Bernard
f the capit a off R
ence. He (Sir R. Bethel])
G wvernment
nisbeto
know if Mr. Bodkin was instructed by the o
to change the charge against the prison_ er
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL saidt:themre
Bodkinr. e
some mistake about it. He doubted
made such a statement.
Sir R. BETIIELL said he had not received a plain
answer to a Orin question.
The ATTORNEY-GENE
RAI. said he was ready
at any time tocdgenic,!
U OF DIVORCE.
,pis conduc
Mr. AYRTON asked the Attorney-General whether
wasit intention of her Majesty's Government to
introduce
bill to facilitate the taking of affidavits
any
in the Courc of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes ?
T,„ ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would make
enquiries of the judge of the court, and if the mischief
compliined of existed, Lally steps should be takel to
remedy ii.

PROBITES, &c.
Mr. COWAN asked the Lord-Advocate if it were
}is intention, with the essential co-operation of the other
law officers of the Crown, to introduce one or more bills
whereby, by one operation, probate, or letters of admi-
nistration in England or Ireland, and a confirmation of

executors in Scotland, whether of testate or latest+,
succession, might be rendered valid and effectual through-
out Great Britain and Ireland, so that the benefits parti-
ally obtained by the act of last session might be placed
within reach of all the subjects of her Majesty !
The LORD ADVOCATE said there were some diffi-
calties surrounding the question. He had the subject,
so far as related to Scotland, under consideration, with
a view to the introduction of a
DR. BERNARD.
Mr. Serjeant KINGLAKE altered the following
question on the paper—" Whether the Secretary for the
Home Department, in the late prosecution of the Queen
v. Simon Bernard, charging him as an accessory before
the fact, and also as a principal, to the murder of Nicho-
las Battie was instituted in pursuance of advice given
by the law officers of the Crown, to the effect that, as•
suming the alleged facts to be true, the offence charged
was punishable as a felony under the existing law of
the realm ; and he asked whether the Secretary for the
Home Department would lay any opinion which might
have been given by the law officers of the Crown rela-
tive to the said charge on the table of the House
but we were unable to get it in its corrected form.
Mr. WALPOLE said the effect of the advice given
by the law officers, and the opinions given by them was
not a inatt:r for him to consrannicate to the house, but
rather a matter for which he and the law officers were
responsible. (Hoar, hear.) As the question had been
altered in its terms, he saw no objection to answer
it. The proceedings in the case of Dr. Bernard were
taken under the assistance and advice of the Attorney.
General, and he (Mr. Walpole) should have been ashamed
of himself if, in the matter of a prosecution, he should
have given directions of any kind without such assistance
and advice. There was nothing to keep back, and in
vindication of the Attorney-General, proceedings were
propery ' taken by the late Government against All-
sop, not for a misdemeanour, but for a felony, that
must have been prosecuted in the same manner as in Dr:
Bernard's case. Doubts a ere from the first expressed as
to the efficacy of the law ; and as the trial failed on facts,
the question of law still remained unstt,led. The diffe-
rence between Alisop and Bernard's cate, was the ftr•
mer we. a British-horn subject. Ac the trial failed on
the facts, it would have been a most improper thing to
have again proceeded on the same evidence with the
charge of misdemeanour.
CHELSEA NEW BRIDGE.
Sir J. SHELLEY asked the First Commissioner of
Works what were the intentions of the Government
with reference to tho foot toll on Chelsea New Bridge ?
Lord J. MANNERS said he had givea'nstzuctiove for
the preparation of a bill, which he would not say would
relieve foot passengers. He, however, thought it would
be found a fair arrangement, but he reserved his expla-
nations till he introduced the bill.