The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-29 00:00:00

LONDO N,

MONDAY EVENING, JULY 29, 1850.

Edward 1., there had been many transactions between
Jews and Christians, and these had led to litigations be-
tween them, and it was therefore absolutely necessary
that Jews should be morn, unless the courts had been
prepared entirely to rehiee justice to persons of that
persuasion. Accordingly, it was the eastern to hale
juries composed halt t.f Christians, who were called
sex probos et . legales &mines, and the other
half of Jews, called sex legales Juciccos. So
far it was true that Jews had been admitted to be
sworn according to the form of their religion, and to
the form which theysconsiderei as most binding on their
consciences. There were many instances of this in the
reigns of John and Henry 111., but it was observ-
able, with regard to the oath, that there was no
Act of Parliament prescribing the form of oath, but
from the earliest period it had been the custom
of the judges to vary the form in order to meet the dif-
ferences of consciences, until at last it was decided by
the Chancellor and the three chief judges, that a
Gentoo could be sworn in a court or justice. But
it was observable that although the judges varied the
form of oath to meet the exigencies of the occasion,
they were not at liberty to dispense with the
oath, and it was net until the 7th and Bth of Wil-
liam 111. that the affirmation of Quakers was
allowed to be taken. It was a very remarkable thing,
and one which would assist them presently
still further in the consideration of the point,
that for 130 years up to the 9th of George IV:
affirmations were not received in criminal
casts. The law with regard to oaths in a court of
justice undoubtedly was, that, ex necessitate, for the
purpose of preventing justice from being defeated, they
had permitted persons to be sworn in courts of justice
according to the form of their religion, or according to the
form most binding on their consciences. This was the
case only with regard to assertory or juridical oaths, but
did not apply to promissory oaths ; aed his proposi-
tion was, that the principle which was sought to be
applied to all oaths in general, was, upon the
authorities, to be applied solely to juridical oaths.
Such being the state of the case, he would now consider
what the oaths were that were to be taken. They were
not oaths of a juridical character, but were what
was called promissory oaths, and the question
was whether such being the case, and it being prescribed
that they were to be token in a particular form, that
form applied to the present case. The oaths of allegi-
ance, supremacy, and abjuration were all required
to be taken by Aet of Parliament in the Christian
form, and the form proposed to be adopted on the pre-
sent occasion, which ho would call ,the Jewish form,
was excluded by the teems of the different Acts
of Parliament. They had bud the benefit of a
, report on the, subject, Which *ould very much
facilitate the disatthtion and determination of Members.
It was true, es had been stated, that the first Act re-
quiring Members of Parliament to take oaths
was the sth of Elizabeth, and by that Act the
oath of supremacy was considered as a corporeal
oath to be taken on the Holy Evangelists. By the 3d of
James I. Members were required to take the oath of
allegiance, and that oath, as the Act prescribed
at the End of it, was to be taken on
the true faith of a Christian. Under the 30th of Charles
11. Members were required to take three oaths,
but the manner of taking them was not altered from
that prespribed in the- Acts of Elizabeth and James I.
So matters remained till Ist William and Mary, when
an Act was passed repealing the 30th of Charles, but
requiring that the oaths substituted should be
taken Rin the same form as was prescribed by
the Acts of Elizabeth, James 1., and Charles 11.
Was it therefore not clear that the oaths were to be
taken upon the Evangelists.. His friend, the Hon. and
Learned Member for the city of Oxford, was not quite
conversant with how matters stood between the Ist and
13th of William 111., when he stated that during
that time a Jew might sit in Parliament.
The oath of abjured( n, almost in its present farm, was
introduced by the 13th and 14th of William 111., and it
contained the words " 611 the true faith of a Ceristian."
Now, all Members of Parliament were required to take
that oath ; they were required to take it, together with
the oaths of allegiance end supremacy, and his Learned
Friend was under a mistake in suppoeing that there was
any doubt whatever tnat after the Ist of William and
;Miry, c. 1, there was any necessity for Members of
the House of Commons to be sworn lei fare the Lord
Steward, because his Learned Friend said that the sth
of Elizabeth and the 7th of James the First were not re-
pealed by the Ist of William and Mary, c. 8, but his
Learned Friend would see, if he turned his attention to
the 30th of Charlet 11., that the oath was required to be
taken at the table of the House. It seemed to him (Sir
F. Thesiger) throughout quite clear that there was no
necessity for Members to take any other oaths than
those provided by the Ist of William and Mary.
He was not aware that this point was one of very great
importance, but it was necessary they should be correct
as to what was the nature and effect of certain Acts of
Parliament.. Now the 13th and 14th of William 111.
introduced the oath of abjuration with the important
words " on the true faith of a Christian," and from the
passing of that statute up to the Ist George 1., to which
their attention would be particularly directed, there
was no substantial alteration in the form of the oaths of
abjuration,; at all events, in regard to this question; and
the oaths which were required to be taken continued to
be these oaths of abjuration and supremacy which were
taken as provided iu the Holy Evangelist, and the oath
of abjuration on the true faith ' of Christians,
which of course could only be taken in a Christian
form.—(Hear.) He now came to the 3d of Geo. 1.,
which contained the three oaths of allegiance, supremacy,
and abjuration, pretty much in the same form in which
they were now taken, eexcept with regard to the
alteration provided for in that Act regarding
the oath of sijuratiou, And the question which
they were now called upon to decide was whether,
in a historical review of the different statutes on the
subject, the Ist; of George I. repealed those Acts which
required the oaths to be taken on the Holy Evangelists.
Now, could it for a moment be considered that the object
of the Legislature was to allow a person to comedo the
table of the House, and take these oaths, not in the
Christian form, but in the Jewish form or any other
form which his notions of religion or anything binding
on his conscience may induce lrm to take?—(Hear.)
Now, he would say that the Ist ofGeorge IV., following
the other Acts which had been alluded to, manifested,
as strong as language could, that it was the
intention of the Legislature that the only binding
form in which these oaths could be taken and ad-
minstered was the Christian form, in which form
it had been taken from the earliest time, and which
had not teen interfered with by the Ist of George 111.
Now, suppose there was any doubt as to the legitimate
construction of the Aot of Parliament, they had only to
follow the unquestionable rule of lawyers and decide the
doubt or ambiguity by contemposezpositio. Now, what was
the contemporaneous exposition of this Act of Parliament?
Why, they learned from the highest authority in that
House, that from the time of George I. down to the pre-
sent time, this was the first occasion upon which any
person had presented himself at the table of the
House desiring to be sworn by any other
mode than upon the New Testament. Any other
form but the Christian form then would not be binding.
This was not a question depending upon the law
and usages of Parliament. It was a question of
law, expressly fixed and established by Acts
which he had adverted to, and he would venture
to say that no authority in this country could change
that law Except with the authority of the Legisla-
ture.—(Hear, hear.) • Now
he apprehended his
Lordag Chief Justice
with Lord
W
Honourable and Learnedh i
3 Frienddisputeleadintgh that; eM e
formb
authority
in r t
h of ono v
r thisothry
e
subject, city ofh a Orford x
referredf o rd
not
ease to which the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man c
ellsuice:
ohti s p
radmirableomissory
judgment,su agreed
oaths could only be altered through the interference
of the Legislature.—(hear, hear.) But ho did not mean
to omit from his consideration of this question an argu-
ment upon NV bich great stress had been laid, arising out
of au Act gef Parliameht which was mentioned in the
House
trustedhad not e
the s ho
effectu be
upon alele
report of the Committee. Very great stress had
by the
whichsiro plgyatvnces risee. to
A
been fairly and properly laid upon ICat Act of Parlia-
ment,us e but
that he
itadvocates tohtfoi s questiontshhoowotht he
i
side.
dheic. which
Itlvytiosa
ti4n,seirsoteetth
o circumstanceson
the introduction of that Act ? Why,
case occurred in Ireland where Dr. Cook, the President
of the Provincial Synod of Ulster had had his house
broken into and roobed, and the Doctor happened to
be the principal a itness in the trial of the
accused of the robbery I efore Mr. Justice Lefroy. When
he came to be sworn ho proposed to be sworn by hold-
ing up his hand, and not by kissing the book in the
ordinary way. The Learned Judge entertained some
doubt about the matter, but nevertheless he.allowed the
doctor to be sworn in tleit way, and reserved the point
for the opinion of the twelve Judges. Ultititifely the'
twelve Judges decided that the oath was not binding
nor legal. ttNow if this case had arisen in Env-
laud, there would have been no doubt at all
that ;the oath was perfectly good, because it was decided
in a case as long ego 1857, where the Vice-Chancellor
of Oxford appeared before Chief Justice Glynn
as a a itncas. He objected to kiss the
book, but stated he would be sworn by
having the book open before him, and holding up his
right band. Gillet Justice Glynn held that to be a
good oath, and ever since there had been no
question that that oath was good which was binding
upon the conscience of the party who took it. Now,
under those circumstances, Lord Denman thought it
right to introduce a statute for the purpose of enabling
persons to swear according to the forms which
was binding upon their consciences, but the sta-
tute introduced was what wasnalled a declaratory Act,
which was an Act in furtherance of the law
as it already existed. The Act which was in-
troduced on that occasion, the Ist and 2.(1 Victoria,
ueinietered, either by a-•
or a deponent in , any
enacted that in all cases in which caths may be lawfully
taken, or shall have been ad
juryman, or witness,
civil or crimit al proceeding, or on the
shall by the office, or on any occe-
be bound h
2wii ai
appointmentc%h't i as
shall °f;B
l
e n ,suche nhe saga is binding on his conscience. Now,
v Y
per
persondrsifioion s °
itttred in the form which
it would be observed that that was an Act in af-
firmance of the law as it would be declared by the Le-
gislature to have existed.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Members
knew very well the distinction bete eau affirmatory sta-
tutes, declaring the law, and repealing statutes, altering
the law; and he ventured to contend that that Act of
Parliament had no e -oration whatever upon any existing
law, and that if any la trevieusly existed by which au oath tstcsi)
was to be taken in any articular form, there was no
abrogation M all of that law, and that it had a declara-
tory and no repealing effect. If the argument was good
for an)thing it must be carried out to its fullest extent.
Could it be serioutiv contended that in the case of its
being required of a Member under the Act or George
the First to take the oath of abjuration—that oath con-
taining the words -t' on the true faith of. a Christian"—
that
person might say he would take that oat '

in a Jewish form ? His Honourable Friend's
argument must go that entire length or it was absolutely
good for nothing. Ile (Sir F. Thesiger) contended that
affirmative statutes of that kind would have no operation
on the ea :sting law, much less a repealing ca er.ttion. It
would be coite uenceessery for him to argue that the
woiels "on the true faith et a Christian" acre essential
or substantial words in that oath of abjuration. It was
quite impossible that any person could take that oath
omitting those words.—(Hear.) He took it for granted
that Hon. Members were not to be so entirely deprived
of all previous knowledge on this subject; they were
not to have their eyes so entirely shut on this question,
as to be supposed that they wanted the information
that Baton Rothschild was a Jew. But he (Sir F.
Thesiger) would venture to assume that he -was of the
Jewish persuasion. He would also venture to call the
attention of Hon. Members to the evidence. of Mr. Alder-
man Salomons. The chairman of the Select Committee
asked him what objection he had to the oath of abjuration.
Alderman Salomons replied that ho bad no objection
whatever to the oath of abjuration, except to the words
"on the true faith of a Christian." He considered it
was quite impossible that the oath could be taken by
Baron Rothschild in the form in which it was put to
him. It was a direct presumption against this mode of
strivisig to introduce Baron Rothschild into the Legisla-
ture without the consent of the Legislature, that nobody
ever dreamt of that course before the present day. The
Noble Lord at the head of the Government had shown
his view, by the introduction of the Bills Which he had
laid upon the table—that he considered that this could
be done only by an Act of the Legislature. He must
call upon the House to pause before it took the present
step, which was one of vital importance. It was :ad-
mitted that the occasion was novel and unpre-
cedented—it was perfectly clear that if they admitted
Baron Rothschild to be sworn after his own mode
they would depart from precedent, and, as he:considered,
violate the statutes of the land. They would also he
brought into collision with the courts of law and the
House of Lords. He was quite sure that the Noble Lord
would not think it desirable that this course should be
pursued, unless they were quite certain, it being ad-
mitted that the Acts of Parliament pronounced nothing
decided and express upon the subject. They ought to
consider whether they were prepared for a contest irato
which they would go against the authority of law and
precedent, to which he could not help looking forward
with great dissatisfaction. He trusted then he
had fairly submitted his view of the question to
the consideration of the House. He had endeavoured to
avoid dwelling upon extraneous topics, and he had
rested his observations upon the Acts of Parliament, be-
catise it was with reference to these Acts Of Parliament
that this question must be decided. lie contended that
at the present day no person could claim to be a Mem-
ber of the Legislature without taking the three oaths of
al'egiancp, supremacy, and abjuration, in the form which
the Legislature had provided, namely, in a Christian
form and in no other form.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, I am anxious to follow the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, not only because he has
most ably stated the arguments upon this question, upon
which be founds his opinion that Baron Rothschild
ought not to be permitted to take the oaths at
the table of , this House upon the Old Testa-
ment, but also because he has treated the subject,
and I think it can only be treated strictly as a judicial
question. Before I sit down I may have to notice some
representations which have been made to this House to
induce it to treat the question in a different spirit; but
at present I shall refer immediately to the arguments
of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. He has
laid it down that oaths promissory have always been
taken in a Christian form, and that the House
is bound not only by usage, by law, and by custom, but
also by positive statute upon this subject. The prin-
ciple upon which I wish to proceed is this—the electors
of Louden have sent a gentleman to this House elected
by a majority of themselves, and not only once but twice
returns d him, and I say it is due to thrm and to the whole
body of the electors of this kingdom to see that nothing
short of a positive obstruction of law prevent us from
allowing that gentleman to take his seat in this House.
Sir, the Hun. and Learned Gentleman I think has been
obliged upon this subject to deduce rather from
Acts of Parliament that which is no; in their
letter--that which is not eh arly prescribed
by them, but to deduce inferences from farmer Acts of
Parliament, some of which have been revealed, but which
ho thinks ought to bind us. I venture to ask
in , the spirit I have referred to whether
there is in these Acts of Parliament such provisions as
refuse to allow Baron Rothschild to take the oaths in a
manner which he says will be moot binding on
his conscience. I entirely doubt the policy of the Acts
to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman has referred,
and I think if we are bound to conform to the letter of
those Acts, that they have given us no additional
light upon the subject, but have tended rather to en-
tangle and perplex the mind, and have not tended either
to give auy better allegiance or better legislation.
I believe rather that the wisdom of ancient
legislation, before the unhappy differences arose
between various classes of people—l rather be-
lieve that ancient legislation was far better
than that which succeeded it. It certainly is
important to see that we do not deviate from the ancient
mode of legislation. Let it be admitted that there-
was an Act of Elizabeth which required
that corporeal oaths should
.be taken on the
Holy Evangelists, let , it be admitted also that there
was an Act of James I. with the same provisions.
I will admit all that, but then the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman says it is quite clear, if oaths are to be
taken upon the Holy Evangelists, that they must be
Christian oaths, and we are bound to consider that any
oaths to be taken must be Christian oaths. Now
I stop here. I find that a gentleman, that
had been duly elected, is proposed to take: the
oaths in a form unusual to this House; there
is no precedent of any gentleman having
refused to take the oaths ; he came before
us asking the privilege of taking the oath in the way he
considers most binding upon him, and it be-
hoves us, in my opinion, to consider how we
are to construe the Aats we are bound by.
Having no precedent, I naturally go to the usages in
courts of law, and then I come to the distinction be-
tween promissory and juridical oaths. Now, I
find that Lord Hardwicke says that if a Jew
should be indicted for perjury, he would be as liable to
be punished for the oath he had taken as if it had
been taken on the New Testament. When
I find this to be the case, I say at once
that I do not think the words contained in the Acts
of Elizabeth and James are conclusive ; but, beyond
this, I find two very remarkable circumstances—the
one with respect to the Act of George 1., which re-
gulates our proceedings, I do not find any similar direc-
tion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman dwells very
properly upon that Act, but I submit that if
that Act repeals former Acts, why, then, we are
not bound by it. Even if the words the Holy
Evangelists are in it, it is not an Act
at the present moment which binds us to administer the
oaths on the New Testament. It is indeed a very
important consideration that from the Ist to the
13th of William 111., there was no oath which
directly excluded the Jews that might come to
this table. It has been urged, and it may be
rightly, that the Jews were prevented by our
statutes and the law of the land from having a
right to sit in Parliament, but the question is
wbether there was anything at that time to pre-
vent them from sitting in Parliament, for at that
time the words "on the true faith of a Christian"
were not in the catb. I come now to consider what
is the manner in which the oaths have been
taken; the Honourable and Learned Gentleman says
they have been always taken in a Christian form;
but at the same time the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman contended that this was matter of
positive statute, but he failed to make out that by posi-
tive statute we are bound to administer the oaths
according to certain provisions. Unless you
point out some statute which prevents an oath being
administered on the Old Testament, I do not think that
you ought to, insist on an objection which would at
once reject a Member who had been duly elected.
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman endeavoured
to answer the arguments which had been taken
from an Act of Parliament very recently passed, which
says that if any person is sworn on any occasion what-
ever, snub person is bound by the oath administered.
Now I confess I do not think that statute is completely
conclusive on the subject, but at least it does this—
it makes a person guilty of perjury subject
to the same penalties which another person would be
subject to supposing he took an oath in the acaustomed
form. You obtain that security at least by the statute.
Well, then, what are the oaths which the Member for
London has to take.
.The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
complains that those oaths are of that nature that they
Ural a conclusive objection in the firet instance against
'the Hon. Member being sworn on the Old Testament,
Now it appears to me that you ought not to go so far BS
to preclude argument on this subject. It did appear to me
that those Acts, to which the Hon. and Ls arned Gentle-
man refers, viz., 9th Geo. I. and 13th Geo.ll.—that those
r-) But,
e to
words giving exemption to the words on the true faith
of a Christian in a
pereerotiatlidncctahsiess
Housethere natmro, on
named and d escr bed
appear to m
Sir, the question now is, whether the Member fUirin London
then
should be allowed to go so far as ta, be sworn on the Old
Testament, and to state, either by himself or counsel,
what oaths he is ready to take, and in what sense he is
ttLoo
words on the true faith of a Christian.---(lle
ready to take them. some have contended, and con-
tended
hvreisrytiapuro,,paerrelyo,otit",;tthtehesawnocrtdios"n aonndtheeonttfluremaftalothu
them-
selves. Now, Sir, I think whatever may be the
wei"ht of that argument, that the Member
who alleges it should be at liberty to show that by ar-
gument, and not be sent away at once from this House
without being at liberty to offer or save any explana-
tion. If he had stated, .‘ I am a Christian," or "I pro-
&as myself to be a Christian," it .might be incensistent
with that oath that he should in the first instance
be sworn on the Old Testament, but that is riot
the present case; the circumstances are entirely differ-
ent. The original intention of putting the words " on
the true faith of a Christian " appears to have been to
give a solemnity and sanction to the oaths with regard
to one class of Christians, viz., the Roman Catholics, a ho
might be suspected of being disaffected from the crown and
not for the purpose of excluding the Jew.—(Llear.) I
have stated that I think it is not in the power of the
House to dispense with those, words—(lier.r, hear)—
and when the question comes to be (rebated; I shall
certainly, having given considerable study to
the subject, feel myself compelled to oppose
the omission of these words from the oath; but I do riot
ookiinog the iftOrtmhis mostas
think you are enabled at present to declare that
Baron Rothschild shall not bea shorn
binding to his conscience; ant! looking
a matter for grave deliberation, I think you
shouid allow the Member who proposes to
be sworn at the table, every latitude in order to have
his case fully and amply staged.—(bear, hear.) I think

thus much is due to the electors of the city of London—
that thus much is due to their right to be represented in
Parliament—a right, be it observed, not for the benefit
of an individual, but a right for the benefit of the whole
people of this country.—(:Tear.) Now, Sir. I have said
that I would allude, before I ceeeluded, to the line c•f
argument pursued by some Hen. Member:. I feel
it ray duty to protest against their arguments.
It was said the other day in thg course of the debate by
an Hon. Member that this was a party question; that
it was the greatest party question of the age;
that it was a question of prejudice against
progress and intelligence, intolerauce and bigotry
against the principle of civil and religious
liberty. Now I entirely dissent from that.—(Hear,
hear.) If it were a question of civil and religious
liberty I have no doubt whatever, ,s..s I have repeatedly
told the House, that a man, whatever might be his reli-
gious views, ought to be admitted to sit in this House.
Sir, the question which we have now to consider is not
a party question—is nut a political question. It is
a question whether you are enabled by the laws as they
now act to admit a member claiming his
seat. I feel convinced that if you are opinion—if those
who are most opposed to the admission of Jews are
of opinion that it is lawful for Baron Roths-
child to ;take his seat, you ought by all means,
whatever political consequences may follow, whatever
you may tear, whatever you may consider about its
altering the Christian character of the House, you
ought et once to admit him.—(Cheers.) But, on the
other hand, it you do not think the law enables him to
take his seat according to the oaths now in force,
no opinion that is favourable to the Jews, or
to a legislative measure for admitting them
to seats in this Douse, ought to induce you to give way.
(Cheers.) Sir, I say, if you take any other course you
would take a course that would bring you into collision
with the courts of law, because you would
not be justified by the words of the Act of Parliament
upon which you are acting, and most serious evils must
follow.—(Cheers.) But I should not be afraid if I was
perfectly convinced that it was right of meeting
the privileges claimed by, or the decision of, any court of
law.—(Cheers.) But there is a question even beyond
this—(Hear, hear)—if you feel convinced that you are
not acting according to law, but still you propose to
act according to the dictates of conscience—if you pro-
pose to act in a particular way because it is in tie promo-
tion of civil and religious liberty, you will be in effect exer-
cising and dispensing a power, ►he exercise of which by the
Crown brought the people of this country, and
brought them justly and manfully to make revolution.
—(Loud cheers.) Sir, I should be sorry indeed
if this House, which has now much of the
power that formerly belonged to the Crown, should at•
tempt to exercise any such power.—(Cheers.) And,
Sir, most sorry indeed was I to hear it proclaimed
in this House that we ought to treat this
qnestion otherwise than as a judicial question—(Hear,
hear)—and I was happy, as I said at the com-
mencement of what I have addressed to the
House, to find the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
opposite ha 4 treated it in a different manner, and
I trust throughout the rest of the discussion it
will be so treated.--(Cheers.) Sir, I have stated
the result which I have come to on the present
question.—(Hear, hear.) I think the Member claiming
his seat—the Baron de Rothschild—should have his
Is demand complied with ; he should be allowed to be
sworn upon the Old Testament —that the House
should deal fairly and deliberately with everything
that can be urged on behalf of his taking his seat ac-
cording to the oaths now in force, but, according to my
opinion, I cannot lend myself to any vote or pro-
posal for altering the words of the oath without the
sanction cf an Act of Parliament for so doing.—(Cheers.)
Sir H. H. INGLIS acknowledged the moral courage
and forbearance of the Noble Lord's speech, and thanked
him for both; but if he were prepared to follow the
plan of tho Noble Lord, which he was not, in what
state would Baron Rothschild be if he came t 3 the table.
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord seemed to have for-
gotten that taking the book in one hand and kissing the
bock was not the first act but the last connected with the
taking of the calla The Hon. Member for the, city of
London must hold in one hand the three oaths and the
hook in the other, and by his doing so he binds himself
to all three.—(lleer.) Those were not the regulations
of the House, but the law, as established by Act of
Parliament, and only by Act of Parliament could it be
altered.—(Hear, hear.) Still, if it were the wish of the
House to take, the division on the amendment, he should
have no objection to withdraw his motion.—(Hear.)
He believed the Act of Lord Denman did not touch the
case at all.

Sir GEORGE GREY proposed that the debate be ad-
journed.—(Cri,-s of " Divide.")
Mr. B. OSBORNE objected to the debate being ad-
journed until to-morrow. This being a question of pri-
vilege, the debate should be contiruud; and he thought
further, that after the somewhat extraordinary speech
of the Noble Lord, he (Mr. B. Osborne) and those
who supported this measure, were in a dilemma. Ile
should recommend the House to grant no supplies to the
Noble Lord until be brought in a Bill this session for
the admission of Jews to Parliament. He moved as an
amendment that the House should proceed with the de-
bate at five o'clock.

Mr. ANSTEY rose to give the Noble Lord (Lord J.
Russell) an opportunity of explanation. There was a
general question he wished to a.k before the Noble Lord's
unfortunate and ill-advised speech went forth to the
country—whether the Noble Lord proposed to give his
vote to those who hitherto, with much consistency, had
opposed the concession that Baron Rothschild should be
allowed to take hie seat?

Lord JOIIN RUSSELL would only say that ques-
ticn was, of course, not new to him, and that he was
told, both last and this year, that it would be
very likely that Baron Rothschild would be advised to
seek to take his seat, and of course it became his (Lord
J. Russell's) duty to consider tb e question very ma-
turely.—(Hear.) He did so consider it, and neither the
late nor the present Attorney-General having advised
that it would be desirable for the seat to be taken with the
omission of the words in question in: the oath, he (Lord
J. Russell) could do no other tban bring his own mind
to that conclusion, and with the best study he could give
the question he had come to that result which ha had
felt it his duty to state to the House.—(lear, hear.)
Mr. PAGE WOOD said th:4 he certainly thought
the &bate ought to be adjourned. He knew that many
Members had left, confidently expecting that the debate
would be adjourned.
__ _

The debate was accordingly adjourned until Five
o'clock.

The House then adjourned at Twenty minutes after
Three o'clock, until a Quarter before Five o'clock.

The House resumed at a Quarter to Five o'clock.
ROYAL ASSENT.

Immediately on the SPEAKER. resuming the Chair,
Mr. Pulman, the Deputy-Usher of the Black Rod, ad-
vanced to the table, and summoned the house to the
House of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given by Com-
mission to Eeve ra 1 Bills.

The SPEAKER accordingly left the House, accom.
panied by several ion. Members.
On his return,

The SPEAKER, read the titles of the different Bills
which had received the Royal Assent (for which see
Lords' report).
PRISONS DISCIPLINE BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up.
PETITIONS.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from
Westnainstrr against the Sunday Trading
NATIONAL LAND SOCIETY.
Mr. 11. BROWN presented a petition from certain
members of the National Lund:Society, which he prayed
might be read at length.

F. O'CONNoltobjected that it was the same
petition which had been presented at the commencan3ent
of the session.

Mr. W. PATTEN hoped that if. such were the case,
the Hon. Member would Lot press for its being read.
Mr. H. BROWN denied that it was the same petition.
The Clerk then read the petition, which was signed
by a considerable number of the allottees i❑ the National
Land Company,aud prayed for an inquiry into the whole
affeirs of tout undertaking.
Mr. BROWN gave notice that he would move tomor-
row that the petition be printed, with tae votes.
Mr. O'CONNOR said the petition was a verbatim
copy of the one which was presented at the beginnlng of
the session. Many of those who complained so loudly of
his conduct had received loans of 50/., ,tad had their land
highly cultivated, and yet they had paid not a farthing
of tent for at least twelve months. When the. Com-
mittee of the House entered into an investigation
of the company's affairs, they stated that the company
owed him (Mr. O'Connor) 3,4.001.; in the following year
they owed him an additional 1,2001.; and he was ready
to show to another Committee that it was indebted to
him to the extant. of 7,0001. or 8,0001., which he had not
41simed; and this was inn whioh ho raaaived
from these rulaans.—(A laugh.)