The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-22 00:00:00

IRE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 22, 1857

of his health, and under the circumstances he begged to
be excused from attending on this committee.
Mr. BASS bore testimony to the correctness of this
statement.
After a short discussion, the hon. member was excused
from attending.
BERWICK ELECTION PETITION.
The SPEAKER read a letter from the agents of the
petitioners against the sitting members, stating that it
was not intended to proceed with the petition.
BANKING BILL.

if he had rec3ived any information respecting the recent
trials at Sligo, arising out of the late elections, and the
systematic exclusion of all persons professing the Roman
Catholic religion from the juries emi_annelled to try the
parties accused of rioting.
Mr. H. A. HERBERT had not received any such in-
formation.

THE MERSEY CONSERVANCY BILL.
Mr. TOLLE HA.CHE asked Sir J. Graham a question
on the subject of the remarks that fell from him in de-
livering the decision of the committee on the Mersey
Conservancy Bill. He understood that the right bon.
baronet, in delivering the decision of the committee said
that they were relieved from theneeessity of considering
the principle of the 13,11, as the house, by passing the se-
cond reading without a division, had sanctioned it ; he
wished to know from the right hon. baronet whether he
considered that the House of Commons, by agreeing to
the second reading of a private bill, should be held, ac-
cording to the present practice, to have so far affirmed
the principle as to bind the committee.
Sir G. GREY submitted to the house that this was a
question as to a matter of opinion which the right hon.
baronet was not called on to answer.
Mr. TOL LEM.A.CHE considered the question one of
great importance and begged to appeal to the Speaker
fur his opinion on it.
The SPEAKER did not consider he had the facts be-
fore him so as to enable him to express any opinion on
the point raised by the hon. member. (Hear.)
Mr. TO LLEMACHE would put the question in ano-
ther form. Did the house by passing the second reading
of a private bill, affirm the principle of it ?
The SPEAKER, as we understood, appealed to the
house whether he ought to answer the question ?
Mr. WALPOLE considered the question raised to be
one of great importance, and if his hon. friend wished to
hare the decision of the house on it—(and the house might
ultimately decide, whatever opinion the Speaker might
then express)—he ought to bring it for ward on notice,
and not trouble the Speaker to express an opinion when
the facts were not before him. (Hear.)
MAYO ELECTION.
Col. FRENCH gave notice that on Thursday next he
would move the issue of a new writ for the county of
Mayo.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TESTAMENTARY

On the motion that the house go into committee,
Mr. 11EADLAM said he had a very important mo-
tion on the paper respecting this bill, it was to
move an amendment to provide for the formation
of joint-stock banks, based upon the principle
of limited liability, but in the present state of the house
be appealed to his hon. friend the Vice• President of
She Board of Trade not to press forward the bill at
a, morning sitting. He doubted much if there were
sufficient members present to constitute a house legally,
and as the measure was one that would require the
greatest attention he hoped that the committee would
be postponed until a future day.
Mr. HADFIELD thought the best course to pur-
IMO was to withdraw the bill altogether for the present
session.
Mr. LOWE reminded the house that the bill was to
establish a system of winding-up, in place of that which
bad proved to be so disastrous in the case of the Royal
British Bank. The subject was of such importance to
the commercial community that he could not consent to
postpone the progress of the measure for a single day.
The hon. member, if he thought proper, could bring for-
ward his amendment upon the bringing up of the report.
After a few words from Mr. GLYN,
The house went into committee on the bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2 being read,
Mr.HEADLAM moved the omission of certain words
at the end of the clause, for the purpose of introducing
words to provide for the formation of Joint-Stock Banks
upon the principle of limited liability. The hon. mem-
ber baying complained of being compelled to proceed
with his amendment in so thin a house, proceeded to
explain that some time ago he had to investigate the case
of several Joint-Stock Banks in the north of England ;
the result was, that he became thoroughly conscious
that the principle of unlimited liability, as applied to
Joint-Stock Banks, was attended with very great
and it was to put an end to such anomalies as he then
discovered that the present amendment was proposed.
Having entered into a statement of the evils of unlimited
liability, the honourable member said he believed that
the direct tendency of the present law was to lower the
character of the shareholders in such companies. Un-
limited liability prevented the establishment of joint-
stock banks, for but few gentlemen would be found
disposed to enter into a concern by which they ren-
dered themselves liable for every shilling of the liabi-
lities of the company. He looked upon joint-stock banks,
in which there was unlimited liability, as possessing a
character purely fictitious. The business transacted was
of the same nature, and it sometimes happened the whole
capital was frittered, and cases had occurred in which,
he was sorry to say, it had been traced into the hands
of the directors. He maintained that the existing sys-
tem did not work well, on the contrary, he thought it
was impossible to exaggerate the evils it occasioned ;
bearing out this view of case he need only point to
the Tipperary Bank—(hear, hear)—as an illustration of
the bad effects of the system, and then again the Royal
British Bank, at the constitution of which it was said to
be based upon limited liability, but the shareholders had
found to their cost that it was not so, but on the con-
trary, they were liable for the debts of that bank to their
last farthing. If his amendment was agreed to cases
similar to those he had mentioned could not occur.
Mr. BERNARD said, as a very large shareholder in
certain joint stock banks, he gave his cordial support to
the amendment of the gentleman opposite. The un-
limited liability principle had proved to be erroneous by
the failure of the Royal British Bank.
Mr. HASTIE thought the principle of limited liability
was most dangerous, and he looked upon a person enter-
ing into one of these company's as one playing with
dice. It allured parties to speculate to the extent
of 20,000/ , although only possessed of capital to half
that amount. He looked upon tie limited liability
system as one which will prove most disastrous to the
trade and commerce of the country. The hon. member

JURISDICTION BILL.
Lord PALMERSTON said it might be convenient to
the house to know that he proposed to take supply on
Thursday evening. The committee on the Testamentary
Jurisdiction Bill, which stood for that evening, would be
postponed to that day week.
Mr. CAIRD said that as he did not wish to stand in
the way of the house, he would postpone the notice which
stood in his name until after that of the noble lord the
member for London—(hear, hear) —provided other hon.
members did the same, and would allow him to come
after the noble lord.
Mr. MACKINNON postponed his motion until the
11th of August. (A laugh.)
Mr. STAPLETON end Mr. GREER also gave way.
OATHS VALIDITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to bring forward his
bill, but was interrupted by
Mr. NEWDEGATE, who said he wished to put a
question to the Speaker before the noble lord proceeded.
On every previous occasion when a bill had been intro-
duced for the purpose of altering the oaths to be taken
by members, a resolution on which to found the bill had
first been proposed and agreed to in a committee of the
whole house. It was true the present bill of the noble
lord was nominally only a bill to amend the Act 1 and 2
Vic., c. 105, but it was, in point of fact, a bill to alter
the oaths to be taken, and for the same object and pur-
pose as the 7 or 8 other bills that had been introduced in
as many previous sessions. He had never known any
one instance in which the ordinary practice of the house
had been departed from, and he begged to ask the
Speaker whether, as the bill of the noble lord had the
same object as these other bills, he ought not, in com-
pliance with the standing order which required all bills
relating to matters of religion to be moved in a commit-
tee of the whole house, to follow the same course as had
been adopted on previous occasions with bills for the
same purpose and object ? The act which the noble for
now proposed to amend had been introduced into the
other house by Lord Denman in 1838. He (Mr. Ne wde-
gate) had not been able to ascertain whether there was a
similar standing order in the House of Lords, but he found
that en bringing up the report of the bill several clauses
were struck out which would have accomplished the ob-
ject the noble lord had now in view.
The SPEAKER was about to reply, when
Lord J. RUSSELL said, before you answer the ques-
tion, sir, I beg to explain to the hon. gentleman and to
the house that I do not propose to make any alteration
in the oaths. Whenever I have done so I have always
done it in a committee of the whole house, in compliance
with the standing order. The proposal hich I have to
make to-uight does not alter in any way the oath to be
taken ; it only affects the manner in which these oaths
may be taken ; it rather resembles the bill with regard
to the oath to be taken by Quakers, which did not alter
the oaths, but the mode of taking them.
The SPEAKER said—Looking at the notice of the
noble lord, and considering his proposal, as far as I am
able t 3 understand it, and the form in which it stands
upon the order book, it does not appear to me to be
irregular for the noble lord to introduce this as au
amending bill in the manner in which he proposes.

for Newcastle bad totally failed to prove the superiority
of the limited liability principle, and therefore he trusted
the house would refuse to adopt the amendment.
Mr. GLYN regretted that the hon. member for New-
castle bad thought it his duty to bring forward this
amendment at a morning sitting. The limited liability
principle, during the time it had been in operation, had
not bad a fair trial, owing to the state of the money
market. He thought the present was not the best time
for bringing forward the amendment, and that it would
be much better to leave the subject in the hands of the
Government, in order that next session a measure might
be brought forward which would meet the views of a'l
parties.
Mr. SHERIDAN said he should support the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Newcastle. He thought
the liability of shareholders should be fixed at three
times the amount of their holdings. If such a plan was
adopted he thought loss would scarcely ever occur in
ease of the failure of the concern.

Mr. BRISCOE opposed the amendment. He con-
sidered the limited liability principle to be a total failure.
In the year 1837 no less than 600 banks en the limited
principle failed in America.
Mr. BTJCHANAN opposed the amendment. He
thought the most reckless set of trustees were thnse
who transacted their business on the limited liability
principle.
Mr. RIDLEY said be was not yet certain that the
principle of limited liability could with safety be adopted,
and for these reasons he could not support the amend-
ment of his hon. colleague.
Sir J. GRAHAM said be thought order all the cir-
cumstances, the state of the house, and a committee now
sitting on banking upstairs which was examining the most
important questions, it would be unfortunate for the

bon. member for Newcastle even to push this amend-
ment to a division. He thought it inexpedient that the
Government shonkl be called upon to express an opinion
upon the subject at that time, and he therefore again
appealed to the hon. gentleman to withdraw his amend-
ment.

Mr. LOWE thought the righthon. baronet, the mern•
ber for Car'-isle, hat given the house good advice, and
he hoped the hon, gentleman would assent to his pro-
position.
Mr. HEA.DLA.M said after the remarks he had just
heard he should not trouble the committee to divide.
The amendment was then negatived without adivision.
Clauses up to 11 wen agreed to.
On clause 12 being prep ised,
Mr. SHERIDAN wished to know why the govern-
ment bad fixed the shares of joint stock banks at lOU
each. He thought ouch a determination was most ex-
traordinary ; as he could not see why 10 shareholders
of 10/, were not as good as one shareholder of the larger
sum.

Mr. LOWE said there was strong reason why the
shares should be fixed at 1001. The existing law fixed
the amount at 1001. and as this act wag to supersede that
hw that sum hal been retained. His object in fixing
upon that amount for this bill was for the convenience
of calculating, supposing the limited liability principle
was extended to joint,stock banks, the value of each
member's share.

Mr. SHERIDAN said he did not feel satisfied with
the explanation, avid he should therefore move that the
shares be fitAl at 101.

Mr. FITZROY &Aid it was not competent for the hon.
member to move the amendment. The question was
that the clause stand part of the bill, therefore no
amendment could be put.
The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining
clauses of the trill.

LOAN SOCIETIES BILL.
This bill was read a thir I time and passed.
COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
BOUNDARIES OF LAND.
This bill was also read a third time and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill was real a third tine anal pawed.
LAND AND ASSESSED TAXES (SCOTLAND)
BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
PUBLIC HEA.LTII (ALDERSHOT) BILL.

This bill was also read a third time and passed.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRE.
LAND) BILL.

The amendments on this bill were considered and
agreed to.

MA LDON ELECTION.

Sir J. TROLLOPE brought up the report of the
committee appointed to try the merits of a petition
against the return of the sitting members for the borough
of Maldon. The report stated that Tnotnas Sutton
Western, Esq., and John Bramley Moore, Esq , ha
been duly elected. Tuat bribes were offered by an elec-
tor named John Riley, bat it was not proved to have
been done with the cognizance of the sitting member or
his agents, and that the petition against the return of J.
11, Moore, Esq., was frivolous and vexatious, having been
preheated fir the purpose of inducing the withdrawal of
the pstition again:t the other sitting member.
The sitting of the house was suspended.
The
Srzauft resumed the chair at six o'clock.
LISBURN ELEC HON.
The SPEAKER informed the house that he had r.-
ceived a letter trora.the art•ents for the petitioners com-
plaining of an undue return for the borough of Lisburn,
stating that it was not their intention to proceed witn
the petition.,
THE INSPECTOR OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN
IRELAND.
CAIRNS asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
whether the statement which had appeared in the public
newspapers, that Dr. Hatchell had been appointed Iu
Ppectfx of Lunatic A.yl
ums in Ireland was co t ;
'Tee
if so, whether Dr. Hatchet! had had any, and what tx-
perience, in the management of lunatic asylums, or i,
the treatment of the insane ?
Mr. 11. A. HERBERT replied that the statement as
to Dr. Hatchell's appointu on; was quite correct. Triat
gentleman never bwd any connexion with a lunatic asy-
lum, but he bad beon professionally employed in a mode
which frequently brought him into communication with
lunatics.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DUBLIN AND

LONDON.
Mr. REPTON asked the Secretary to the Trea3ury,
if the Goternment had finally settled the arringerner t
for an improved communication between London awl
Dublin, and vihetherhe would have any objection to lay
the minute on the table!
Mr. WIbSON• said that in consequence of the ab-
sence of Lord "Chandos, the arrangements had not been
definitively concluded, but would in a few days.
THE SLIGO ELECTION.
my, SOMERS asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland

support strenuously such a bill as the one I now, pro-
pose to bring in—if they are inclined to give it a better
chance in the House of Lords than their late bill lal,
we might look to the end of the questior. (Hear.)
If they are not prepared to do so, it is not my intention,
after introducing the bill, to mislead the house by telling
them that I think the bill is likely to receive the appro-
. _ .

bation of the other house. (Real, hear.) I shall" now
eater into a statement of the bill I propose to introduce.
I have said it will be a declaratory bill. Now, the first
proposition I propose to make is, that according to the
general principle of the law of England, when oaths are
to be taken, they are to be taken in the manner and
with the forms and ceremony that are binding on the
consciences of the persons taking the oatb. Taat prin-
cipal, as far as regards witnesses in courts of justice, was
laid down in the case of " Omichund and Barker." In
that case the law was laid down by Lord Hardwicke,
assisted by the Chief Justice and the Chief Baron. The
house is well aware that in that case it was contended
that the Hindoo witnesses to be examined must be sworn
upon the Holy Evangelists. The case was argued
at considerable length, and we have the authority of
these learned judges in favour of taking an oath in the
manner most binding upon the conscience of the person
to be sworn. In the course of the discussion the Chief
Baron said, " It is objected to us, that we are imposing
upon our own authority a new oath ; but Isay this is no
new oath." The Chief Baron thereby meant to imply
that he was not altering the oath, but that the substance
of the oath was entirely distinct from the form and cere•
mony whieh made it solemn and binding onthe conscience
of the person taking it. But lam told, as we heard the
other night, that there is a distinction between a witness
taking an oath for the purposes of justice and persons
taking an oath to qualify themselves for office or seats
in Parliament. Now what I maintain is, that in princi-
ple there is no distinction whatever. Upon what can
you ground that distinction ? Can you say there is more
importance attached to the oath of a sheriff, who is to
administer the law, than to the oath of a Jew who is
seeking to recover a debt before that officer ? The she-
riff is liable to penalties, and so is the Jew, and no one
can say that the cne is more important than the other.
It is of the. highest importance that the ends of justice
should be obtained ; it is of the highest importance, if a
murder is committed, and none but a Mahomedan and a

Jew should have been witnesses of it, that they should
be able to give evidence in a court of justice according
to the form of oath Waling on their consciences. No
person would dispute the importance of that mode of
taking the oath ; but if it is important in view of the law
of England, it is equally important in view of the liber-
ties of Eng'ancl, which are the birthright of the people
of this country. It is declared by statute that unless a
person is absolutely disqualified by law be sho.ild ob-
tain the office to which he is legally appointed or he
should obtain the seat in Parliament to which he is le-
gally elected. No man at this time of day will dispute
that maxim. It was asserted in the House of Lords 150
years ago, that there could be no greater hardship to an
Englishman than deprive him of this object of ambition.
Well, sir, I do not doubt, I do not question that there
may be particular statutes depriving the subjects of this
country of advantages which, if there was no law against
them, would belong to them. For instance, not to speak
of the law with regard to minors, it was once the policy of
this country to exo:ude Roman Catholics, to impose upon
them a declaration against transubstantiation. The in-
tention of the legislature in asking for that declaration
was to ex-elude them from Parliament ; but they now
make no such declaration. It would be obviously an
infringement of the very purpose of the law, if when a
Roman Catholic came to the table to be sworn, he should
be required to make a declaration against transubstan-
tiation. Instead of there being any principle which
makes a distinction between an oath as it affects a seat
in Parliament, as it affects office, and as regards wit-
nesses in courts of justice, I think the only proper dis-
tinction is that which was taken by the learned judges,
who gave their opinion against Alderman Salomons,
when he sat one on occasion in this house. They said,
there is a great difference between what judges can do
with common law, where they may interpret according
to whatever they believe to be the dictates of reason acd
common sense, but with regard to the interpretation of
a statute, in which express words have been laid down
by the Legislature, they said, "We are not at liberty
to deal with a statute the same as the common law ; it
is in our power to modify that from time to time, so
as to make it concert with the interests of society ; but
when the LediAsture has laid down particular wordp,
it is not for the judges to say with what purpose they
have laid down those words, or to question what their
meaning shall be ; it is beyond our province to question
that." But if this is beyond the province of the judges,
it is not beyond the province of the High Court of Par-
liament; on the contrary, it is the privilege, it is the
duty of Parliament—it was what was the intention of
the words of the oath to be taken. (Cheers.) I now,
sir, come to my second proposition, which is, that in
the oath of abjuration as taken at the table, the words
"on the true faith of a Christian" are not part -of the
substance of the oath, but are of the solemn form in
which the oath is administered. I think this point can be
made clear in various ways. In the first place, it is made
clear by the history and origin of the oath. I referred
the other day to Mr. Baron Alderson's statement—a
statement borrowed from what is now perfectly well
known—namely, the history of a treatise which
was found in the Bodleian Library. It appeared from
that treatise that the doe rine of the Je,mits at that time

Lord J. RUSSELL thereupon rose and said—Sir, I was that they might evade the words, and were not bound
top tetphetihreLrith promises,evi ewriethbohuerneid tcos ; but if they swore
now propose to go on with my motion. 1 would propose
to bring in a declaratory bill, declaratory of what I con- as not to violate the oath they had tpaakyenso. mautcsvarseale3erate
ceive to be the existing law, declaratory of what I be- the view of binding persons who had imbibed the doctrine
liege to be the general principle of the law of this coon-
of the Jesuits that the oath was established in its present
try, and defining the law as it should be administered form. Those persons were only portions of the Roman
games 1., and the
J
in the high court of Parliament as well as at other places, Catholics of this country at the time o
words "on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced
It was stated the other night, and no doubt it will he into the oath immediately after the discovery of the Gun-
stated again, that it was an extraordinary thing to pr a ponder Plot. It is therefore clear from the origin of this
o
pose any bill which if successful in this house would oath that it was intended as a form more binding than
have the effect of submitting to the House of Lords a any other, as a form more binding than the words "so
help me God," or any other words, in order to bind Ro-
proposition for admitting the Jews into Parliament, a man Catholics in their allegiance to' the Crown. With
resolve which taey have already declared themselves to respect to the oath then introduced, as with respect to
be opposed to. Well, I admit that, although I can c as- the oaths since, the object was not to have a test of the
ceive I am perfectly justified in point of form, and Christianity of the person swearing, it was riot to require
any pecial declaration of faith, but to obtin although the the motion itself ie extraordinary, yet the pre-
acmes of loyalty to the sovereign, an assuraancean that the
sent position of this question is'more extraordinary still. person swearing would never plot against the sovereign,
The house is aware that four times this house has sent but would loyally defend the sovereign against any claim-
to, the House of Lords bills relieving the Jews from their ant to the throne whatsoever. If this was the origin of
t
disabilities ; they are aware that in the present session the oath, in the next occasion on which it appeared there
a bill was sent up for that purpose, altering the oath is further evidence that such was the intention. By the
oath of William 111., it was declared that refusing the
altogether indeed, and making direct provision for the
oath of abjuration, which was then for the first time intro-
admission of Jews into Parliament, and that bill was duced with these woris "on the true faith of a Christian,"
rejected by the majority of the House of Lords. (Hear, should subject a person to be deemed a popish recusant
hear.) Now, sir, Ido not believe that it has ever convert to all intents and purposes. Now does that mean
occurred in the parliamentary history of this country
the Jew? IS it not perfectly evident to the house that it
was intended thereby to say that Roman Catholic persons
that a measure sO approved by the House of Commons
who refused to take the oath should be treated as Popish
has been so continually rejected by the House of Lords. recusants, and not entitled to sit in Parliament ? It :s
(Hear.) I believe it will be found that the House of clear that such was the meaning and object of the oath.,
Lords have rejected measures in this way, but then they but I come now to the second proof that these words are
have passed this house by narrow majorities only. No not part of the substance, but only part of the ceremony
less than three times the House of Lords rejected bill' and form. That proof is, that whenever Parliament
to relieve Roman Catholics from disabilities ; but when has dispensed with the taking of the whole of the oath,
it became clear that a large majority of the House 'of
it has relieved persons from the words, " on the true
Commons was favourable to the measure, the other faith of a Christian," while it has not relieved them from
the substanoe of the oath. Such was the case with re-
'noti,e accepted it and thereby affirmed the bill of the
Bard to the Quakers. (Hear.) By the Bth of William
House of Commons. Sir, it may be said—possibly, it
ITI., Quakers were relieved from these words ; but the
has been said--that there WAS this difference, that the
a
Roman Cathslics in Ireland were then so turbulent andct relating to Quakers has been renewed from time to
disaffected that they were on the eve of a civil war, and time. It was renewed in the reigns of George 1., George
IL, and George 111., and when Mr. Pease took his seat
therefore it was expedient to yield. But Ide not think
the last of these acts was passed, which provides for an
that the rejection of your bill would be rendered more
reasonable by your being told that no argument would affirmation, in which the words "on the true faith of a
convince the other house, and that nothing but a state Christian" are left out. Now what is the purpose of this?
of disquietude and uneasiness, verging almost on disaf- It ie not, the Quaker is not a Christian. Is it because a
fection and civil war would induce the other house to Quaker could object to decline, that if the Society of
agree in opinion with this house. (Hear.) It is, there-
Friends took the whole substance of the oath, he de-
fore, sir, in these extraordinary circumstances that I am- Glared against the Stuart family, and any other pre-
sider some course must be taken by this house. There tender to the throne, which is the substance of the oath,
"is another view of the subject, however, which affects but he did not declare that on the true faith of a
members who sit on this site of the house. It will be
Christian." (Cheers.) Truth in proof of this is with re-
remembered that during the elections, whatever might respect to the Jews themselves, when Parliament wished
he the opinions of the people at large respecting foieion to relieve the Jew, which it id from certain penalties
affaire, there was in many counties and many boroughswith regard to the non-register of their estates. If they
did not take the oath of abjuration, the words " on the
an unequivocal demonstration in favour of the extensa n
of the suffrage, and of other measures having relation true faith of a Christian" were not applied to the case.
to parliamentary reform. When the members who were Bet, sir, there is a further proof in what the parliament
elected upon their declaration of their entire sympathy of this country required at the time when it did wish for
a
in these wishes arrived and took their seats in parlia-
religious profession. There was a time, it was during
meat, they were tol I by the noble lord at the head of the Commonwealth, when it was thought advisable, but
it has not since, to obtain a positive profession of faith the Government that it was not intended to introduce
from mearbers of the Commons House of Parliament. It
any measure upon that subject in the present session.
Accordingly not only was any general measure not pro- was then enacted that the following declaration should
"
posed, but various minor bills fur doing away with pro-
be made : I, A. B, do in the presence of and in the
perty qualification, for extending the right of voting in name of Almighty sod, promise and swear that I will,
counties, and regulating the manner of registration to the utmost of my power in my place, uphold and
were all overthrown or withdrawn, in consequence of that maintain the true reformed Protestant Christian re-
on and te hy th conta the
declaration. But the Government which have thus put l esi
Hely, Scripturhesaut orit ereof as
of the Old and New Testained in
ments, and
a stop in the ee resent session to all motions for reform,
t
undertook of their own accord and of their own motion to encourage the profession and the professors of the
"
to relieve the Jews from existing disabilities. Now that Now, is this the sort of declaration that par-
same.
question of Jewish disabilities, without speaking in de-
liamert would have enacted if they had wished really
ferenee to those reap .cable men of the Jewish
persuasi n
P
for a declaration of faith. If they bad wished for any pro-
who are aggrieved by the present state of the law does fession of that kind, there was a direct mode of don;
in
it, and if honourable gentlemen who have raised a con-
happen to form the only remaining link of disabilities
test with respect to any alterations in the oaths wish to
foie the repeal of the Navigation Laws was the crowning this country on account of religious opinions. As there-
bring this matter to a fair decision, they should propound
e
point of free trade, so likewise the removal of the Je will some positive declaration of Christianity by which their
disabilities would he the capital and crown of religious i principle could be effected, a principle which they have
always declared to be the principle of Parliament, but
liberty. (Coeers.) It is for this reason therefore that the
measure in the eyes of all who value religious liberty is which is not and never has been. (Hear.) Then, I con-
of peculiar importance. Well, sir, this measure is rejected tend from all these things ; from the origin of the oath
by the House of Lords after having been carried n this
in the time of James I. ; from the enactment of the Oath
of Abjuration in the time of William 111. ; from the law house by a majority of 140, and the question now ie
e what is to be done? Hon, gentlemen opposite say, ne!xempting the Quakers in certain cases, and the Jews
turally enough, and Ido not quarrel with them for it. front the Oath of Abjuration ; and lastly, from the posi•
,
tive declaration contained in the Act of the Common-
let us lay the question entirely aside for the present
Sear, year, and bring in a similar bill next year, and the text wealth ; from all these circumstances I contend that it
year, and the year after that, having them rejscted b
. clearly appears that the words "on the true faith of a
similar majorities in the House of Lords. Now, I con Christian" form no part of the oath, but that they are
tend that the majority of the House of Commons, who part of the form and ceremony introduced to make
have affirmed this principle of religious liberty, ougat the oath more binding on Roman Catholics, but
not to allow themselves to be so baffled ; and be the which are much out of place at present. I con-
measure of redress what it may, be it such a bid as my ceive, therefore, nothing can be clearer than the pro-
noble friend at the head of the Government introduced, position that the words "on the true faith of a Chris-
tian" aro not part of the substance of the oath. I come
tbieoit by such a bill as I now propose, or be it by resi,ll-
-
the
d—i
.eol.iitoeyera,n)
d— opfritvhili this
privileges
lain
fconvinced,
ethat
more
t thanconcernsl
verseit!-) not part of the substance of the oath to be omitted when
the Jew comes to the table of the house to be sworn ?
I little has been the pr.)ogrestshtinnakdeibt
be baffled. (Cheersycaarngnuomtebnetdden,i.ed
t. Now, sir, with regard to that subject, is it to be said
, so
by the voter of this house, thatof thuebrleic. opinion,
that this house has not the ability er the power as a
past 10 years on the weight'Ling- 3° single house of parliament which is possessed by the
as shown
is no chance of the judnearer to the relief of the . ges of the land. Practically, we have the power,
next 10 years bringing us any
u4nrl.ess we adopt a new if we thought fit to exercise it, by stating in a resolu-
Jew than
aarr,etaetarpresent, yB.
ihnag;etiwtainsisedtbti3o initle;- lion that the words "on the true feats of a Christian"
course.
are not part of the substance of the oath, and that Bane
, buttait.l;•• '
pose a measure ahieh might not partake of the anqa.t':i:
Lion to be a very serious onei,de Rothschild, being admitted to the table, shall take then
oath in the form binding on his conscience—namely,
of resting content with what has been done, without these words. (Cheers.) But it is a question
out going to the extreme of a resolution of this hon. 0 whether we should not lose by that step—whether we
and thereby increa-ing the risk of a conflict with th-e, should not be exposing ourselves to the contest that
House of Loren. If the Government are prepared t.) may arise will the Lords. On looking tarouelle the

discussion. (Cbeers from the ministerial side below the
gangway.) If he compreheraled those cheer-, it was
time that the two sides of the house understsod each
other. (Cheers and counter cheers.) The noble lord had
made some remarks upon the power of Parliament-, and
bad quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Furteseue upon
the point. But if it were meant to be said that the
power of the House of Commons was the power of Par-
liament, the sooner it was avowed the better. (Cheers
and counter cheers.) There was a time when such a claim
was set up by the house, and the result would appear in
the journals of the house. The first resolution appeared
on t e 4.tit of Jan. 1648, when it was resolved that what-
ever was enacted and declared by the Commons in Par-
liament should have the force of law. The next resolution
was on the 6th of the following July, in which it was re
solved that the House of Lords was useless and dangerous;
and on the following day a third resolutioa was agreed
to, resolving that the effice of king was useless, dangerous,
and burdensome. Ho would rather that fifty Jews had
seats in Parliament than that the House of Commons, by
tampering with the constitution, should enter upon such
a course. One other remark of the noble lord he must
notice, and that was with reference to the ca,e of Loro
Wensleydale, The noble lord, in the way which he hal
of treating such matters, treated the question of the ad-
mission of Lord Wensleydale into the other house and
Baron Roths&iild into that house as identically the same.
The fact was, that the House of Lords had the privilege,
when a peer presented himself with his patent, of deter-
mining therefrom his right to take his seat. So, the
House of Commons had the privilege, and exerci•ed it
ulichallenged, in its election committees, of deciding
upon the right of its members to take their seats, when
their tile thereto—which was based upon the legality
of their election—was impeached. But to make the case
of the two houses parallei they must suppose that Baron
Rothschild being made a peer chimed to .take his seat
in the House of Lords. In such a case he did not hesi-
tate to say that that house would not have a right to
admit him. (Hear.) He trusted that the house would
refuse to read this bill a second time.
Mr. DILL WYN remarked that the hon. gentleman
a ho had read them such a lecture to the house upon the
dangers of tampering with the constitution was himself
the author of one of the most democratic proposals that
had ever been made in that house—viz , to confer the
suffrage upon all men in the militia. (Cheers and laugh.
ter.) He (Mr. Dillwyn) was as little desirous as any
one to tamper with the constitution, but he did sincerely
desire to see the constitution moulded as it bad hereto.
fore, from time to time, been, in order to meet the re•
quirements of the age. He believed that he and those
who had acted with him had kept to that object in the
course which they had taken. In search through the
library of the house for precedents in point upon the
subjeet: he had found one which went very closely to
the matter before them. He referred to the case of Mr.
Pease. He would venture to call to the attention of
the house the statements which upon that occasion were
made by Mr. Speaker's predecessor, Mr. Sutton, a
gentleman connected by birth and antecedents with
the conservative party in the house. The right hon.
gentleman said : "I was sure that the house would
feel, as it has felt, that not only the law and privileges
of the house, but also the personal interest of the hon.
member, were concerned, and thorefore it was necessary
that a deliberate construction of the law as it existed
should be obtained. That deliberate construction can
only be pronounced by the house itself." He hoped that
after that quotation hon. members on the liberal side of
the house woul I not bo accused of taking a revolutionary
course. He was desirous of avoiding collision with tee
House of Lords—he thought all collisions undesirable.—
(a laugh)—but he thought that the course he proposed
offered the best possible means of avoiding it. The late
House of Commons in going befsre a court of law, en-
tered upon a weak and undignified course, and one which
in any case must have ended in their discomfiture. Sup-
pose that the case of Jewish admission had been carried
to every court in succession, and decidedjfavourably in all,
the Lords wound still have the last word as the final
court of appeal, and there was no doubt but that they
would reverse all that had been done before. This was a
very grave questios, one that seriouslyaffected their pti-
vileges. He wished to take every step before he resorted
to what was called on the otherside a revolutionary mea-
sure, and therefore be would in the present instance,
vote with the noble lord the member for London.
Mr. PALK opposed the motion.

arguments which have been used by learned men
upon this subject—on looking at the arguments that
were used in a most able speech of S,r
Page Wood when he was a member of this house,
now one of the Vice-Chancellor,, on the subject,
I find that though he used arguments which I
must say are convincing to my mind with respect to the
nature of the oath itself, I confess do not find in any of
the speeches a solution of the practicable difficulty in
which we should be involved if we attempted to make
the change by resolution. Sir W. Page Wood said, on
one occasion, that there were many questions in which
the house might decide differences of law, and that we
ought not to be deterred from it by the fear of coming
into collision with another place ; that may be so, but I
conceive there is no case similar to this where that course
could be followed. Well, then, sir, it appears to me, in
the present state of this question, that if we could obtain
our end by a bill in a different form from any that I,as
been introduced ; if we could obtain the assent of both
Houses of Parliament to a delaration upon this sul-j?.ct
—a declaration which I believe would be in entire con-
formity with the law—it would be a far better mode of
ending this question than using our extreme powers by
admitting Baron Rothschild, of our own decree and
authority, to take the oath at the table with the
omission of these words. (Hear, hoar.) I have stated at
the beginning that it must depend upon the government
in a great degree whether there shall be any chance of
carrying this measure. I cannot think that, with a
majority of 140, and the support of the country, which
the ministers say they have—and I believe truly—that
the opposition of the House of Lords cannot be over-
come. It has been overcome in so many instances, such
as the settlement of the Roman Catholic question, the
corn law question, and many others, that I cannot be-
lieve that it would fail to be overcome in this instance.
(Hear, hear.) I remember perfectly well there was a
strong objection on the part of many members of the
House of Lords to a bill that we passed here with re-
spect to the temporalities of the Irish church, and many
persons expected that the bill would be thrown out.
There was a man then who led the conservative party,
who united great authority to a long life of glory and
distinction, and the greatest wisdom and prudence, and
by the advice of that man a great many of the Lords, who
would hare formed a decided majority of the bottle, re-
frained from opposing it, and the bill was carried into law.
With respect to another measure, to which I have al-
ready adverted, and which was brought in when I had
the nonour of being a member of her Majesty's councils
—namely, the repeal of the navigation acts, which my
right hon. friend below me, the Secretary for the Colo-
nies, will well remember; for he was the person who had
the honour of carrying it through this house, the govern-
ment declared that they had made up their minds to ac-
cept a defeat on that question as a vote f want of confi-
dence, and the bill was carried. Yet I candidly believe
that to this day it was the particular wish of a portion
of the House of Lords that the navigation laws should
not be repealed. There was upon that subject opinions
as batty and strong as some of those which are professed
upon this question of the admission of Jews into Parlia-
ment ; but, after all, they are more prejudices or fancies
than any real or settled convictions. Well then, sir, wi,h
regard to the authority of this house, I beg leave to quote
a statement that was made by Chief Justice Fortes-
cue, which has been referred to often of late years.
With respect to the privileges of this houte, when the
Chief J ustice was asked with respect to one of your pre-
decessors in the chair, sir, whom it was proposed to ar-
rest—(a laugh)—be said : "Chief Justice Fortescue and
all the judges say that they ought not to be called upon
to answer that question, for it pertains to the privileges
of Parliament, and Parliament is so sigh and mighty
that it may make law, and make that not law which is
law. This is a question of privilege, and it bath afore-
time been adjudged that the determination and know-
ledge of the privileges of Parliament belong alone to the
lords of Parliament itself." Such was the declaration of
Chief Justice Fortescue, a declaration made when this
house was using, I will not say powers beyond
its rights, but greater than it has ordinarily sought
to enforce. An hon. geteleinan, who spoke the
other night, seemed to suppose, in reference to the
decision of the House of Peers in the case of Lord
Wensleydale, that I disputed the competence of the
House of Lords to decide the question. I did not
dispute their competence in any way, but at the
same time, considering that Lord Coke had given
it as his opinion that life peerages might be created, and
that Lord Redesdalo had declared that a life peera,,e
carried with it the right to a seat in parliament—l must
say that it was going to the utmost extent of the privi-
leges of the house, when a peer came with a patent
granted by the advice of the Lord Chancellor, ar.d pre-
sented that patent, to refuse to that peer admittance to
the house. (Cheers.) The House of Lords have so
exercised their privilege. I have no doubt they exercised
it upon a conscientious conviction, after examining the
authorities—which were examined by some of the most
learned members of the house—that such a power was
vested in tem. Bit I must hold that it is somewhat
grating—finding that the House of Lords can exercise
that power without question, the government not pro-
posing (and being well advised, as I think, in such a
course), to bring the question before courts of law—it is,
I repeat, somewhat grating to us, it is somewhat grating
to my constituents of the City of London, to be told
that we have not the power of introducing a member of
our house legally elected, and allowing him to take his
seat among the Commons of England, as by his due
election he has a right to do. (Cheers ) It is impossitd.e,
I think, that the House of Commons can continue much
longer in this state—(cheers)—which I cannot but con-
sider to be a state of degradation. (Cheers.) I there-
' fore ask the house to allow me leave to introduce this
bill ; I ask this that members may see the bill, and may
form an opinion as to whether or not it will solve the
difficulty. Ido not think that hon. gentlemen opposite
have a right to flatter themselves that this question is to
be allowed to sleep for the next ten years. (Cheers.) I
think we are bound to pursue it in one form or another.
(Hear, hear.) Let us do so with as much moderation
as we cm. We have already shown much modera-
tion—(cheers)—the City of London has shown
much patience ; but I do not think that it is a
period in which we ought to adopt a precedent
showing that, whatever may be the powers of the
House of Lords, whatever may be the powers of the other
branches of the Legislature, the House of Commons is
utterly powerless on a question of grave public policy,
on a question relating to civil and religious liberty, on a
question involving the highest principles of law—that
upon such a question we are utterly impotent and have
nothing to do but to sit down with degradation. (Cheers.)
The noble lord concluded by moving for leave to bring
in the bill.

Mr. WALPOLE regretted that the noble lord shoul.l
have asked the house for leave to introduce a bill which
was substantially the same as a measure upon which in
that very sesion Parliament had already decided. The
noble lord said the house was in a peculiar position. By
whom was it placed in !bat position ? (Cheers and coun-
ter-cheers.) no believed that the noble lord himself was
not blameless upon that point No rule was better known
or more universally recognised than that when Parlia-
ment had once in a session decided upon a question, that
question should not again be argued during the same
session. If a member possessing the weight and experi-
ence of the noble loid violated that iule in favour of a
measure in which he left interested, was it to be supposed
that other hon. members would not follow the precedent?
Thera were many subjects upon which different members
took great interest—an interest which was shared by
large bodies of persons oat of doors. Many took a great
interest in the question of the endowment of Maynooth ;
others were deeply intereste I in the ballot; others in the
repeal of taxes, and the abolition of church rates, or par-
liamentary reform. To all these questions the abrogation
of that rule which the noble lord proposed would be ap-
plicable as much as to the subject of toe present bill.
The noble lord might object, and urge that this measure
was not the came as that which had been brought in by
the noble viscount (Palmerston). But though in let•er
this might be so, in spirit the two measures were identi-
cal. The noble viscount urged the passing of this bill on
grounds of civil and religious liberty ; the noble lord
bad rested the claims of his upon the unjust exclusion
of the Jews on account of their religion. Passing, how-
ever, by this objection, he should oppose the introduc-
tion of this bill—if upon no other ground at least upon
this, that it would bring the house into direct collision
with the House of Lords, in which case the degradation
and humiliation of the Louse of C iromons would be
more severe than it had been. There was yet another
objection to the introduction of the measure in the late-
ness of the period of the session at which they had at--
rived, and the great mass of public business which still
awaited the consideration of Parliament. They had to
discuss several bills of the highest importance ; they had ,
to go into supply ; they had to discuss one of the most
important events which had ever come before that house,
an event which affected not only a constituency, but the
whole empire. With these great questions before them,
he would put it to the house whether at the end of July
it was a fitting moment for the introduction of a measure
like this. Without therefore entering upon the merits of
the bill, he thought he had stated sufficient to show the
house that the leave which the noble lord asked for
ought not to be granted. But though he did not intend
to discuss the merits of the question, there were some
remarks of the noble lord which ought not to be passed ,
by. The noble lord had told them that the words, " on I
the true faith of a Christian," were not part of the sub-
stance of the oath. (Cheers from below the gangway on
the Ministerial side) Those gentlemen who cheered
were perhaps not aware that when this view was main-
tained by the Vice-Chancellor Wood, the noble lord
himself ably answered the learned judge's argument
Since that time, however, the subject had been before
the highest tribunals of the country. It had been ably
argued before them, and everything hal been stated
which the ingenuity of counsel could suggest. The re-
sult arrived at was this—the judges of tho Court of Ex-
chequer, by a majority of three to one, and the judges of
the Exchequer Chamber, unanimously decided that the
words were an essential part of the oath. (Hear.) But
yet the noble lord came down to the house and slated
that the words were not an essential part of the oath.
Lord J. RUSSELL explained that his assertion was that
the ground of the judges' decision rested upon their not
considering themselves at liberty to dispense with words
forming part of an oath imposed by an act of Parliame• t.
Mr. WALPOLE would satisfy the noble lord by re-
ferring to the authority of a statute passed in the reign
of Geo. 11. upon this subject, and relating to the colo-
nier. That statute runs thus :—" Whereas the follow-
ing words, upoe, the true faith o‘f a Chrstian,' are con-
tained in the oath of abjuration as partof the. oath, be
v of his Majesty's subjects of the
it enacted that when an
lord would
oath, ,
Jewish persuasion shahs' re,ii,Ziur:doteontoab-lee
he may omit these words.'
aied. these words awsothsd
see teat the Legi-lature had trs
In a.
said
tpaotrt.ion of heis-
sential parts of the oath•
speech the noble 1 :rd, substance,
b in his opis
moo the house ought not to leave this matter as it stood
—(cheers)—but ought to take some step immediately
Either by bill or by resolution—(cheer,' and counter
cheer:.)—to settle the question which wat.l then under

Mr. GILPIN said that this question had long since
ceased to be a question of Jew or no Jew, and had become
one of political principle and of civil and religious liberty,
being also, secondly, but hardly secondly, a qoesti-n of
the privileges and liberty of the House of Commons.
When the right hon. member fur Cambridge University
talked so loudly of the privileges of the House of Lords,
he seemed to leave the privileges of the House of Commons
out of consideration altogether. He (Mr. Gilpin) asked
the house to consider whether they were from ten years
to ten years to go on submitting to be roughridden, for it
came to that, by the other branch of the legislature.
The right hon. gentleman said that the house was in
an extraordinary position, but who had placed it in that
position/ He our. Gilpin) should say the right hon.
gentleman's self and colleagues. And when the right
hon. gentleman spoke of the c m,titution of the country,
he (Mr. Gilpin',) reading told him that it was never in-
tended teat two integral portions of the con titution—
the Sovereign, as represented by her Ministers, and that
house—should be subservient to the will of a third. An-
other hon. gentleman talked of infidelity, but what he
meant was infidelity to his own peculiar views. Ortho-
doxy it seemed was the hon member's doxey, and hetero-
doxey was any other man's doxsy. (Laughter.) It re-
minded him of the lines of Thomas Hood :
" A man who cries church, church, at every word,
Is not more pious found than other people.
A claw is not a most religious bird
Because it caws frdm every lofty steeple."

He did not think that any religious principle was in-
volved in the liberation of the Jews, for the fact was that
the Jew was excluded fur his conscientiousness. Let him
only swear " on the true faith of a Christian," and no
one cmild refuse him admission. (Hear.) A collision
with the Lords was of course to be deprecated, but there
was one thin., still more to be deprecated, and that was
that the freely-elected representatives of the Commons of
England should , allow their majorities to be over-
ruled, and their principles to become a dead letter, be-
cause there was an adverse majority in the Lords. The
hon. member alluded to the übsence of p ipular excite-
ment on this subject ; this was certainly a new doctrine
coming from a quarter which had always deprecated sub_
mission to popular excitement. (Hear.) Ile (Mr. Gil-
pin) did not mean to undervalue the force of public opi
nion collected at public meetings, but he thought the
wisest way in reference t 3 a question of principle would
be not to wait until a pressure from without took
away the grace of free concession. But the fact was
that the question resolved itself into a question of
earnestness or want of earnestness on the part of the
Treasury Bench. If it were once understood that
the noble lord at the head of the Government
was determined to carry this bill, the bill would be car-
ried. (Hear, hear.) It was for the noble lord to say to
the upper house.
" Princes and peers may flourish or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a Breath has made."

Let him make them understand that their numbers might
be increased, and then depend upon it the bill would be
carried without any such exercise of the prerogative.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said that this question had always
been treated us a religious question. When Baron Roths-
child presented himself at the table the words of inspira-
tion were tendered to him, and the house remembered
h )W he rejected Christianity. (Oh, oh.) On that occasion
he (Mr. Newdegate) ventured to put a question as to the
form of the resolution, and the answer was that there was
nothing in its form requiring it to be referred to a corns
mhtee of the whole house. Now, he had since referred
to the standing order, and he found it say " That no bill
relating to religion shall be brought in until it has been
considered in committee of the whole house." He asked,
then, bad the house been following a proper course for
the last ten years in considering a religious question
which had not previously been referred to a committee
of the whole house. He must of course bow to whatever
should be the decision of the house, but his own conviction
was that the noble lord, in introducing this bill, was vio-
lating the standing orders of the house. He could tell the
house what was the urgency for this measure. Baron
Rothschild, at the late election for London, pledged him-
self emphatically not to present himself again to the elec-
tors should the bill be rejected, and the noble lord was
therefore aware that if something was not done this session
the Baron-was pledged not to persevere in a course of an-
noyance to the House of Lords, That was his (Mr. New-
degate's) interpretation of the urgency of the case, and,
he was sorry that the noble lord should lend himself to''
the wishes of a portion of his constituents, in order to
bring about a collision between the two houses of Par-
liament. It was said that such a conflict should be pre-
cipitated solely in the interest of Baron de Rothschild.
The noble lord endeavoured to raise a doubt as to the
question of law—whether the words "on the true faith
of a Christian" were or were not of the essence of the
oath. He (Mr. Newdegate) would read the opinion on
that point of those who must command respect. The
noble lord had quoted Baron Alderson, but he bad
omitted to nwe the result to which that learned judge
arrived after full consideration of the whole case, CZ.,
that if the words were omitted the oath was not taken
at all, The opinion of Lord Wensleydale and the Lord
Chief Baron were to the same effect. How flimsy, then,
was the pretence of the noble lord, that it was necessary
to introduce a declaratory act, when the courts had dis-
tinctly declared that there was no doubt about the law
of the case, but that the words, " On the true faith of
a Christian," did. constitute an essential part of the
oath. He protested against the attempt now being
made to mislead the house ieto the belief that no pro -
ciple- was violated by this attempt to coerce a co ordinate
branch of the legislature. (Hear, hear.) The House
of Lords represented the best feelings of the country ;
if it were not so it could not have resisted the earioui
successive measures of the House of Commons on this
subject ; and if any attempt were made to arouse popu
lar excitement in reference to it, the religious feeling ef
the country would awake, as it did awake in 1,54, in
resisting such an attack upon the Christian charoiter of
the legislature. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. COX assured the hon. gentleman that tie had
no desire, in voting for the admission of Baron
Rothschild to unChristianise the House of Commons.
The question was one of civil and religious iberty,
Having granted emancipation to the Roman Catholics,
and abolished the Test and Corporation Acts for the re-
lief of the dissenters. Itsivas no more than simph justice
that when a constituency elected a Jew as their repre-
sentative in parliament he should have the righl to take
his seat, and carry out the duty to which he bad been
delegated. ,(Hear.) He bad prepared a 'volution,
which he bad intended to move by way of amendment to
the noble lord's motion, declaring that the louse bad
the right to alter the oath as it might see fit and that
upon any member appearing at the table to 3€l sworn,
and objecting to the words " On the true faith A a Chris-
tian," the c!srk should be dii ected to administer' the oath
omitting • those woyds. Some of his hon. fuendo who

agreed with him on the general question did not con-
cur in the propriety of his submitting this amendment,
and he was therefore reluctantly induced to abandon the
intention. It was said that such a proposition was r
lutionary. (Ei-ar ) Bat was the house ma-ter of us
own proceedings or not ? (Rear.) Had the house the
right to alter the oath ? (Cries of "No, no," from the
Opposition.) Why, they had altered the oath. (Float)
They had altered it on their own responsibility to facili-
tate the tidinission of Quakers
An TION. MEMBER.—No ; under the authority of
a s atu:e.

nothing but reason and fair argument to go upon, appeared
to the hon. gentleman to be a good reason for not: legislat-
ing on the subject,. He had already stated the generalpur-
pot tof the bill, but he would repeat the substance. The
Ant of the let and 2d Vic., c. 105, applied to the courts of
law, contained the words "and on any other occasion what-
ever," and it might refer to any authority superior to the
courts of law, such as the House of Commons and the
Queen's Privy Council. It also referred only to persons
taking the oath. His proposal was to extend in both re-
spects by saying, in the first instance, that it shoal d refer
to persons taking an oath in the High Court of par-
liement, and also to persons administering oaths. }lc
did not mean to disguise that if the bill became bit
that the house would not do what he conceived it could
now do without an act of Parliament, namely, administer
the oaths to the Baron Rothschild according to the form
ne.ert binding oa his conscience. It was said that in the
case of Mr. Pease the house had acted upon clear and de-
cided statute law. He demurred to that assertion, for be
believed the oath of abjuration taken by members at that,
time was different to the oath of abjuration of the time 01
George 111., which related to the old Pretender, whereas
dr. Pease was called upon to abjure other persons altoge'
they. He believed that Mr. Pease took the affirmation oath
according to a form drawn up at the table, and that the
house had decided the case upon its own authority, end
that Mr. Pease took the affirmation according to the general
analogy of law. With regard to what had been stated hY
the noble lord at the head of the Government, he did not
mean to complain of the Government arrangements, which
prevented a day being given up to the discussion of the
bill. The consequence of the refusal to give a Government
deer was, however, obvious, for although he (Lord J. Re
sell) intended to introduce the bill, it was utterly impo6;
Bible for him to find Wednesdays enough before the term'
nation of the session—(laughter)—in which he could hoe
to carry the measure. He did not know the precise nom'
ber of days which the Government intended the session w
last, but he would take no other course than to introduce
the bill, and he wool t not hold out to those who might be
disposed to support it that it would be in his power to
carry it in the present session. He would therefore Oil
dude by stating that his view of the bill v at totally oft,
site to that stated by hon. gentlemen opposite. He :,hougeue
tt was natural that after the rejection of the bill by the
House of Lords, there would be considerable irritation ce
the part of his constituents and of 'those who had suet
ported it, and that possibly Baron Rothschild might
be advised to come and take the oath most Weal
on his conscience, and that as this might lead to
o ,llision with the House of Lords, it would be de,
sirable to make an amicable adjustment of different;
with that branch of the Legislature if possible. 111/
last argument was, that it was probable the House et
Lords might reject the bill. His strong opinion was, the
if the House of Lords were guided by anything approae!,
ing that wisdom that had been recommended to them 7,
the lite Duke of Wellington, thio question would be 'vea
easily settled, There might be one or two members of tra
Jewish persuasion in the house • the house would then b.
just as Christian as the rest of the country—(hear, hearto
and Parliament-would at length have put an end to tut
very unseemly contest. Whatever course the house naige
think proper to adopt with regard to Baron Rothschild ,'
(Lord J. Russell) had at least done his duty. (Cheers.)
The house then divided—
For the introduction of the bill 246
Against it
Majority in favour of the intro-
duction of the bill
AGRICULTURAL STATISTIC to
Mr. CAIRD rose to move for leave to bring in a hi
provide for the collection of agricultural statistics in till
land and Wales. He had no hope of passing the bill
session, but he was desirous that those who were interest ,
in the measure should have it in their possession in the recToi
The whole of the inquiry provided by the bill would,P
cost more than 20,0001. The measure would tend to `"?
vent those fluctuations in the market which pressecie
heavy on the working classes. There was no proviejo'
the bill that was compulsory. • eel'
Mr. PACKE was glad to hear that there was no code
sort' clause.
Mr. BENTINCK said that if there was the least Or
pulsion in the bill, it would be strenuously opposed.
The motion was agreed to.
NEW ZEALAND. al°
Mr. J. A. EMIT

Mr. COX contended that if they were competent
to alter it in the case of the Qtakers by omitting the
words "So help me God," they were equally competent
to direct the omission of the words "Oa the true faith of
a Christian" in the case of the Jews. (Hear.) He re-
gretted that the noble lord proposed to bring the house
int ) collision with the House of Lords—not that he
cared for such collision, f the two houses had been in
cAlision keretofore. Tney were in collision for two or
three sessions on the Reform Bill, and he was not aware
that either the country or the House of Commons suf-
fered fro.n it in the end. He was sorry to say that the
House of Lords was too far behind the age. ("Oh," and
laughter.) It was the House of Commons that repre-
sented the voice of the people, not .the House of Lords,
and let collision come when it might, the House of
Lords must in the end give way. (Elear.)
Mr. LIDDELL, as one of those who bad given his
vote in favour of the admission of the Jew., and who
was prepa-ed to t eke the same courfe again on e very
fitting occasion, wished to explain why he could not
support the proposition of the noble lord. He considered
it a flaw in the constitution to allow a person to be
elected by the constituent body, and then fur the elected
body to shut their doors against him when he came to
take his sear. It was time that this unseemly contest
between the electors of London and the elected should
terminate. (Hear, bear.) But he looked with more
anxiety upon the conte-t between the two branches of
the legislature, and therefore he could not make up his
mind to support the noble lord's proposition. He
thought the noble lord bad chosen a most inopportune
moment for agitating the question. He should like to
know what there was in this measure that was likely to
be more palatable to the other house than the bill which

they had-so recently rejected ? He did not see why the
House of Commons should not take the responsibility
upon itself of laying down a rule to admit those members
it chose to admit. There was but one reason against
it, and that was the question of penalties ; but that
might be got over by a resolution declaring it to be a
breach of privilege for any person to take an action at
law against a member admitted by the house to tae
his seat. There was a precedent for a resolution of that
kind, but there was none for the course proposed to be
taken by the noble lord of reviving in the sane session
a question already settled by a decision of one branch
of the legislature. He could not stultify the vote he
had already given in favour of the admission of the Jews
by voting against the noble lord's bill ; and as he could
not vote for it, for the reasons he had stated, he shoul I
not vote either way.
Mr. AYRTON, as one of the constituents of Baron
Rothschild, said he was prepared to justify the opinion
which he had expressed at the election, as quoted by
Mr. Newdegate. When the baron heard of the decision
of the House of Lords he wished to resign immediately;
but he (Mr. Ayrton) desired him to do no such thing,
but to abide by the course recommended by his friends.
He now held his seat at the wish of many of the elec-
tors, in order that the question might be thoroughly dis-
cussed. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Ayrton) was prepared
to suppoit the bill, though aware that the house had
the power to proceed by resolution. Indeed, he hell
that the house was the only tribunal which could deter-
mine on what conditions persons elected should take
their seats there. This was fully established by what
are called the Aylesbury resolutions, which main'ained
the right of the house to determine all questions of this
kind, unless they had previously abdicated that right by
consenting to an act of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Sup-
pose Baron Rothschild were to adopt the course which
Salomons had pursued, the house wr,uld have to
consider how it should proceed, and to guide itselt by
the decisions of the courts. The house would have felt
bound by those decisions ; it was now a settled point
that the words " On the true faith of a Christian" were
an integral part of the oath. Such being the law, if the
house proceeded by resolution, they could only resolve
that Baron Rothschild was not entitled to sit. (Cheers
from the Opposition.) He deprecated further discussion
of the question, unless it were proceeded with in an
earnest desire to legislate, and sash desire should be
made manifest to the other house of Parliament.
Mr. PACKE said a resolution would draw the house
into a collision with the courts of law, and the bill of
the noble lord would lead to a collision with the House
of Lords, and both were to be seriously deprecated.
Lord PALMERSTON—I shall support the motion
of the noble lord for bringing in this bill ; at the same
time, as the description of the bill is not very complete—
(hear, hear)--I shall reserve for future consideration to
what degree we shall think it right to support it in its
future stages. I need not tell the house that I and my
colleagues, equally with the noble lord, desire to settle
satisfactorily this question of the adnuesion of Jew's into
Pardament, and the only question is as to the best and
most likely method of arriving at that result. In
assenting to the bringing in of the bi'l we reserve to
ourselves the power to act as we shall deem it consistent
with our duty when we see what the provisions of the
bill are. But Lotting to the present period of the
session, and the many important measures still,pending.
I arm afraid that I cannot undertake to postpone Govern
!flout business for the purpose of pushing this hill forward
to the exclusion and preference of other business. With
this explanation of my intentions, I very cordially agree
to the motion of the noble lord. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. GLADSTONE, after stating that he had been
unable to be present to vote for the amendment of the
honourable member for York to the bill which was re-
jected by the House of Lords, said he viewed with the
greatest apprehension, mistrust, and dislike, any step
which was likely to bring about a political crisis. He
had voted in favour of the Jews and Catholics, and he
thought they would do wisely to trust to the progress of
their principles, to the good sense of the House of Lords.
He was anxious to maintain the independence of the
House of Lords, which he considered to be only second
to that of the House of Commons. He was not prepared
to give any vote, unless under circumstances IA the
gravest character, which might tend to bring about a
political crisis. When be remembered that the Test and
Corporation Acts, the repeal of the corn laws, and other
great measures had received the sanction of the House
of-Lords, he did not despair of such measures as that
which they bad so often passed in that house being ul-
timately successful. He thought there were great ob-
jections to a resolution upon this subject. He thought
they were not to hazard a conflict with the courts of
law. If Baron Rothschild were admitted upon a resolu-
tion it would be the duty of the house to protect him at
all hazards. If they were to introduce Baron Rothschild
that night, they would to-morrow have to introduce a
bill of indemnity; and how would that fare in the House
of Lords ? Now, was the bi lof the noble lord a repeti-
tion of the proposal which had already been made to the
House of Lords ? He did not think the case before them
was one of such gravity as to justify them in departing,
from the usages of Parliament, and setting at defiance
the usual course of legislation to send up to the other
house a repetition of the bill which had been rejected.
He could not, however, say that this bill was a repeti-
tion of the bill which had been rejected. Something
was dpe both to the majority of the House of Lord 4,
and the majority of the House of Commons, and there-
fore what the noble lord proposed was, that it shall
lie in the discretion of either house to decide upon
the form of the oath which the members of
either body should take. That would be a reason-
able solution of the existing difficulty. That undoubtedly
was a compromise, but it was no unfair compromise, and
there was not that constitutional objection to making it
to the House of Lords as there would have been in mak-
ing the proposition again, which had been rejected by the
House of Lords. He therefore thought his noble friend's
bill was entitled on the whole to the favourable reception
of the house.
Mr. WHITESIDE could not accurately understand
the bill of the noble lord. If this bill should pass, which
it never would, it would enable the house to direct the
clerk of the house to administer the oath in an particular
time, in a particular form of oath in one session, and an-
other form in another according to the temper of the
house and not according to the law of the land, so that a
.man might be admitted to one session and rejected in
another. Ef that was settling the question he did not
know what a settlement meant. But on a future occa-
sion the noble lord might be enabled to give a more ac-
curate description of his measure. The hon. member for
Finsbury, in support of recourse being had to resolution,
had referred to the case of the Quakers, but he seemed
not to know that the case of the Quakers was specially
provided for by statute, the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., and
if Lord Campbell could have found such a statutab!e
provision with regard to Mr. Alderman Salomons he
would have given full effect to it. But the courts of law
could not .make the law, nor could that house make any
law. Suppose this bill should be introduced, why nothing
of it would be made for the rest of the session, and there-
fore he could not congra. ulate the noble lord on his at-
tempts to remove doubts upon this subject.
Mr. HILDYARD said the effect of having the noble
lord's bill passed into law would be to introduce the Jew,
and what that became of the House of Lords ? No mem-
ber of the house could doubt that thls was an attempt to
coerce the House Lords.

___.r. .. _H moved for leave to introduce,-40
for discharging claims of the New Zealand ComPaN
the proceeds of sales of waste land in New Zealand.

Sir J. TREL AWNY opposed the motion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it would be well to net
discussion upon the bill, but he would not at present on
into details.

Mr. HORSMAN rose amidst loud cries of " divide,
divide." An attempt to seat Baron Rothschild by reso-
lution bad been described as a revolutionary movement.
A precedent bad been set which hon. gentlemen opposite
ought not t) ignore, and that was with regard to Lord
Wensleydale ; and he woul] be glad to know the die-
tiuctlon between the present case and that. Throughout
the whole of the discusbion in Lord Wenbleydale's case,
the principle was laid down that each house was the sole
judge of its own privileges.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied, amid impatient calls for a
division, and observed that the hon. and learned gentle-
man the member for Whitehaven must confess that his
constituents had shown extraordinary patience, because it
appeared, according to his own account, that a clause in a
bill having been affirmed three times it was rejected by the
House of Lords for the first time in. 1854, and that he had
expressed a determination not to tolerate this act on the
part of their lordships. Yet the constituents of the Ci'y
of London had submitted to the repeated rejections of the
House of Lords for ten years, andhad exhibited fargreater
equanimityof temper under adversity than had character-
ised the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. The hoe.
gentleman the member for Devonshire had said that there
wasno danger to apprehen.l, that there was no sedition or
tumult to warrant the introduction of the bill. This ar-
gument put him in mind of the old couplet—
" The King to Oxford. sent a troop of ho
For Tories own no argument but force."
The fact that there was no disturbance, or no sedition and

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

MILITIA ESTIMATES. .
Sir J. RAMSDEN moved for a select committee to, rit
pare estimates of the charge of the disembodied roilitegli
Great Britain and Ireland, for the year ending MareW
1858—Sir John Ramsden, the Judge Advocate, Mr..'ipt
pole, Mr. Ellice, Col. North, Col. Wilson Patten,_.j,
Smyth, General Peel, Col. Gilpin, Mr. Massey, Mr. 11-7,, it
Mr Chichester Forteseue, Earl of Mulgrave, and all "
nels of militia.
In answer to Col. FRENCH,
Sir J. RAMSDEN said that all instalments of w-t\leo
would be paid this year, whether the militia were c`i
out or not.
The motion was agreed to.
SLIGO BOROUH ELECTION.
On the motion of Sir G. GREY, Sir J. Pakingt°'
added to this committee.
A NEW BRIDE. t
On the motion ofCHELS SirE B. HALL, it was agreed t-4je
select committee be nominated by the committee 0f r
tion.

MERCHANT SHIPS.
Mr. STAPLETON moved for leave to bring in s 1:401
secure the observance of better discipline in merello,
ships. He knew that there was no chance of carryinto3J
bill this session, but ho desired that it might. be P 1 Belr
and considered by those who took an interest in the 0
ject. The object was to protect the seamen by securi°s
entry of any punishment inflicted. lU
The motion was not seconded, and of course fell t°
ground.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL. 1,i41
This bill was read a second time and passed. Theo ';“
is to extend the time of the University commission for
months.
ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL'
This bill passed through c-onmittee.
NEW ZEALAND LOAN GUARANTEE. ej!
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER vilj:00
resolution for a loan to New Zealand of 500,000/. -0;00
that further information would be given on the 6e
reading. ing.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said he should oppose the ra°
in its future stages. eon
The resolution was agreed to and reported to the .1
VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) A('

AMENDMENT 'BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
On the order for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. COBBETT opposed it.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
-56
For the third reading
Against it " 21
35
Majority
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at ten minutes past one.