The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-18 00:00:00

Smith]. Well, then, the matter was still worse if theright hon.
gentleman sought to prove his case by appealing to a pablio
letter which hid not been laid before the hous..,. He (Mr.
D sraoli) could not forget that before the late dissolution c f
Parriamett hon gentlemen opposite had cheered 13:!c4u.,,e
Canton had been bombar led, rind that at present they
cheered because that city had not bnn bombarded. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said he apprehended that the
principle which governed the reading of letters was, that if
a minister used in his place a communication of either a
public or private character, he was bound to lay before the
house that portion of it which he had quoted ; and if the
house should think that any portion of it which he had
not read night alter the impression created by that por-
tion which be had read, he might be fairly required to pro-
duce the entire document. But he (Lord Palmerston) could
Rot admit that a minister might not, like any other mem-
ber make use of informaticn conveyed in a private letter;
and, indeed, the house-frequently evinced its dash e to re-
ceive such information. ( Hear.)
Mr. WHITE said that Canton was certainly not bom-
barded in the sense in which the word was ordinarily un-
derstood both by civilians and by members of the military
profession, which was the pouring in of shot and shell to
the utter destruction of the town to compel submission.
They had only poured shot and shell into the Government
offices to show what they could do. Whether judicious or
injudicious, that was not what was usually associated with
the word bombardment. (Hear.)
After some further discussion, in which Sir Cli!trles
Napier, Mr:. Henley, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
took part, the motion was carried.

_ .
On the vote of 4,0001. ' fur the expenses connected with
the war in China,

Mr. PALK said he was at a loss to comprehend whether
we were at war with China or not.

Lord PALMERSTON said we were not at war with the
Chinese empire, but we had cause of complaint against in
offieer of the Emperor, for which we sought redress.
The vote was granted.
On the vote for 2, 'OO additional men for the sea service,
Lord A. V. TEMPEST said this brought up the whole
question again, and though he was one of those who sup-
ported the Chinese policy because he thought our flag had
been insulted, he must say, with the right hon. member
for Bucks, that the tone of Government was far different
from that which they adopted just before the dissolution.
Simultaneously with the war expedition to Persia, and
the arising in this country of an uncomfortable feelin as
to the stability of our Indian empire, there has been an
enormous reduction of our forces. He would ask why they
had not some proposition for increasing the number of
men in the army, by replacing the 20,000 men who, they
were told, were about to proceed to India. He was asto-
nishe.l at the contradictory statement which had been made
by different members of the Government as to the mode in
which the reinforcements were to be sent to India. He
could not sanction, after the attempt to stop discussion,
that the vote should be taken, and heshould move that the
chairman report progress.
Sir C. WOOD deprecated the inconvenient mode
which the hon. member had taken to introduce a discus-
sion on the army, when the committee was occupied with a
vote for the navy. The right hon. baronet insisted on the
great value which the proposed addition to the navy would
be, in the war being carried en in the China Seas. He
trusted the noble lord would not persist in his motion for
reporting progress,
Admiral WALCOTT sincerely concurred in the vote, and
was only sorry that it was not for 5,000 instead of 2,000.
The navy was at present far from being in a state of
efficiency to meet any sudden emergency which might arise
at a moment's notice. There was not a single line of
battle ship at home manned and in a state of efficiency.
He hoped, therefore, the hon. baronet would re-consider
his determination and ask for a greater number of men.
He would receive the support of the house and of the coun-
try in that course.
Sir C. NAPIER supported the view of the hon. and gal
I lant member.
Mr. HENLEY moved that the chairman do report pro-
gress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not un-
derstand that the vote was objected to. If the house
passed that vote he would postpone the other two votes till
Monday, when it was proposed to go on with the com-
mittee of supply.
Sir C. WOOD urged the same view.
Colonel KNOX protested against a vote for the navy
being taken without stating the objects for which the Go-
vernment intended to employ the force sent to India, and
without stating their intention to supply the deficiency
thus created in the home defences of the country.
Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would agree to
the vote. The Government could supply the deficiency in
the forces of the army by recruiting immediately. If that
were not sufficient they would have to consider other
means. The vote then before the house was one for sup-
' plying such deficiency as had been alluded to.
Admiral DUNCOMBE could not conceive what reason-
able objection could be urged to the vote. Ships were not
of any use without men.
Mr. I3ENTINCK wished to know, if the vote were
agreed 'to, whether a full and' ample opportunity would be
given to discuss the matter on bringing up the report.
Sir C. WOOD would bring up the report the first thing
on Monday.
Lord ADOLPHUS V. TEMPEST then withdrew his
motion, when the vote, as well as the votes of 70,0301. for
wages of seamen, and 28,276/. for provisious, were agreed
to without discussion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the report would stand the first order on Monday next.
The house then resumed.
ILLICIT DISTILLATION (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
The Reformatory Schools Bill as amended was con-
sidered.

The Turnpike Acts Continuance bill was raad a second
time.

The Land and Assessed Taxes, &c., (Scotland) Acts Amend-
ment Bill. and the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Act
Amendment Bill were read a second time.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) ACT (1836) AMEND-
MENT BILL.

Tho Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to.

THE OATHS BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL then moved for leave to bring in the
bill of which he had given notice, to amend the act 1 and
2 Vic., intituled an act to remove doubts as to the validity
of certain oaths. The present act was brought in by Lord
Denman, and provided that any oath should be taken in
the way which was most binding on the conscience of the
party- taking it, and that the pains and penalties of per-
jury should be inflicted on those who violated Use truth
under those circumstances the same as if the persons had
been sworn. He proposed to extend that principle to the
House of Commons. •He would not detain them longer
at that early hour (two o'clock) than to move for leave to
bring in the bill.
Mr. WALPOLE said the statement of the noble lord
would not lead the house to any conclusion as to the
objects of the bill. His object was to try again in the
same session, to effect the admission of the Jews into that
house. The noble lord ha I confounded the object of the
act l and 2 Victoria, which was to prevent justice failing,
while the objecOof the bill was to admit Jews, and set
aside the deliberate judgment of the Court of Exchequer,
which had determined that the words "on the faith of
a Christian" were a part of the substanae, and not of the
form of the oath. The noble lord's attempt was a viola-
tion of the spirit of the rules of Parliament, which were
that a question should not be discussed twice in the
same session. The object was clearly not to convince, but
to overawe the other House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Such a course was contrary to the dignity and authority
of Parliament, and he should oppose the introduction of
the bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the words of the act Ist and
2d Vic. rendered the bill of the noble lord unnecessary.
Let the house consult their own lawyer on the subject,
and not be bound by the Court of Exchequer. That act
declared that in any case whatsoever where an oath was
administered, that form should be administered which was
binding on his conscience. There was a precedent in that
house in the case of Mr. Pease, who had left out the words
"on the true faith of a Christian." The House of Com-
mons were the fit judges of their own privileges as much as
the House of Lords, who in the case of Baron Wensleydale
had decided on their own privileges. But believing the
bill to be better than the existing state of things, he
should support the noble lord if he persisted, though be
should prefer to see him take the bolder course, in which
he was sure he would be supported by the people of this
country. He was willing to brave every danger, and if the
noble lord would only lead, he would find him a steady
supporter.
Mr. NE WDEG ATE moved the adjournment de the
house. The case did not apply to the House of Lora alone,
because the bill which they bad rejected and the present
bill would affect the House of Lords as much as the House
of Commons. There was no truth in the statements that
they exercised any right which they denied to that house.
It was a revolutionary attempt to coerce the House of
Lords in the exercise of their privileges. He therefore
moved the adjournment of the house that those facts might
be proved by discussion. (Time )
Mr. S ALISBURY contended that the course taken was
a constitutional course, he should therefore support the
noble lord, while the course of the hon. member for Shef-
field was unconstitutional, and he could not consent to
seat Baron Rothschild by such means.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment of the house 55
Against it lO9
Majority against the adjournment ... --54
Lord J. RUSSELL said that as hon. gentlemen seemed

to be determined to oppose, he could not help stating that
he proposed to bring in a bill quite different to that which
had been rejected. He purposed to submit his bill to the
House of Lords. They might approve of that mode of
carrying the object into effect A deference appeared to
be paid to the House of Lords which was not paid to the
House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) He was of opinion,
some years ago, that the oath of that house ought to be
put literally, but two cases had induced him to change his
opinion. He alluded to the cases of Mr. Pease and Mr.
Armitage, who had been allowed to affirm and to leave out
the words "On the true faith of a Christian." The noble
lord had quoted the opinion of Baron Alderson, that those
words were not introduced as a test of Christianity. His
belief was that this house, in the exercise of its privileges,
might admit Baron Rothschild to take an oath at the table,
and to omit those words, but he should be sorry to see
that course alopted, and it was for the purpose of obtain-
ing the assent of the House of Lords to what he considered
a reasonable alteration of the law that he had introduced
the bill. He wished the measure to be debated, but the
inclination of hon. gentlemen opposite was not to have it
d abated ; they wished to put an end to deliberation and to
all debate on the subject. (Hear.) The question was, was
there any obstacle to Baron Rothschild taking his seat in
that house ? It was a question concerning. the consti-
tuency of the City and all constituencies, and if the ques-
tion was not discussed Baron Rothschild would doubtless
feel it his duty to come to that table and demand to take
his seat there. That inconvenience to public, business
could be avoided by allowing the bill to be discussed.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that it was the noble lord who
had rendered all discussion impossible. The honourable
member for Sheffield proposed, by resolution, to break the
law of the land. If the noble lord desired to have the
question discussed, let him agree to tho motion for the ad-
journment of the debate.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the acceptance of the motion of ad-
journment of the house would have put an end to the bill.
Why had they not moved the adjournment of the debate
in the first instance? If Baron Rothschild came to the
table and objected to utter the words, " On the true faith
of a Christiln " he would move that he be admitted.
After some further discussion, in which Lord Lovaine,
Mr. Dillwyn, and Mr. Newdegate took part.
The house divided on the question of an adjournment.
The numbers were—
For the adjournment 52
Against it
Majority
Mr. HU ME then moved the adjournment of the house—
For the adjournment
Against it 57
Majority __46 •
Sir BROOKE BRIDGES rose to express a hope that r. . .