The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-30 00:00:00

THE BRISTOL RIOTS.

Sir WILLIAM CODRINGTON threw himself upon
the indulgence of the House while he explained
a matter personal to himself'. On Friday last the
Hon. Member for Bristol, in alluding to him in his absence,
had made assertions with regard to him (Sir William
Codrington) which were not founded in fsct, and
therefore calculated to impugn his character and the
character of the troop of Yeomanry ho had the honour to
command. The Honourable Member for Bristol
on Friday night, comparing him and his troop
to a certain King of France, who marched
up a hill and then marched down again, said he (Sir
W. Codrington) and his troops marched into Bristol at
the time of the riots, and immediately afterwards
marched out again by the light of the fires. Now, in
answer to that statement, he had to say that the first
intimation he got of the Bristol riots was about three
o'clock on a Sunday afternoon, and he immediately'
called up his troop of yeomanry, consisting of 60 mem-
bers, and in less than four hours 59 of them were in the
saddle, while within four hours after that they reached
Bristol. As soon as the troop reache I Bristol he reportod
himself to the commander of the district, Col. Brereton,
who kept him in conversation for some time. He told
the captain that his troop had come a long march, and
were anxious to act immediately. but they could
nut act without a magi,trate. They endeavoured

to find a magistrate, but did not succeed, and then
Colonel Brereton said the troop had better leave the
town, remarking that he hoped there would be no more
blood shed, and the sooner they left the better. Now,
under those circumstances, what alternative had he but
to march out?—(Hear, hear.) He should have given
evidence before the court-martial, had not Colonel
Brereton terminated his existence, and he had, there-
fore, had no opportunity of making this statement.
Having made it, however, now, he would thank the
House for its kind attention, and leave it to decide what
amount of reliance was to be placed on the assertions
of the ion. Member for Bristol.
VENTILATION OF MINES.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know if it was the
intention of Government to take any steps to secure
the ventilaion of mines.

Sir GEORGE GREY said a Bill had come down from
the Lords with a view to that object, which stood for a
cond readiog to-night.
BARON ROTEISCRILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. C. ANSTEY then rose to resume the adjourned
debate, and commenced by complaining of the conduct
which Government had-pursued iu reference to this ques-
tion. It was hopeless; after what had fallen from the
Premier, to think -of asking the House to deal
with the third oath by way of resolution. The
lion. and Learned Member for Abingdon said that
Quakers, notwithstanding the Act which relieved their
consciences at the time of the revolution, were not ad-
mitted to give evidence in criminal cases until 1828. Was
the Lion. and Learned Member aware that Quakers had
been admitted to make au affirmation iu criminal courts
of justice from 1828 down to the present time, and
did be forget that Quakers were allowed to
take their seats in that House in the person
of Mr. Pease without any oath at all?
What the House of Commons was asked to do to-
day, on behalf of Baron Rothschild, was exactly
what was done in the case of Mr. Pease. Though
the forms of oaths of abjuration were very various,
yet he would venture to say there was not one of
them which a Jew or even a Heathen might not take.
The nearest form to the present Christian oath was one
concluding "So help me God and his Holy Gospels."
It was well known that tho courts of law had always

considered the Pentateuch to be the Gospel of the Jews.
Ile believed no one would deny that a common-law oath
was of as much authority as one prescribed by statute.
It was quite true that many of the oaths to which he re•
ferred were of a juridical character; but he could not
understand the distinction between juridical and pro.
miasory oaths. But allowing there was the distinction
contended for, still so early as the reign of Richard I.
Jews had been admitted to the office of ju age. There
was also a distinct recognition that the oath of fialty
might be taken by Jews in those days. There was nu
specific precedent of such an oath to be taken by Mem-
bers of Parliament, but there was an oath of office to be
found in the Statutes at Large which persons had to take
in the time of Edward k. on being admitted to the
King's Council. Of that council the House of Com-
mons might be considered a part, and he had no
doubt that thst oath was taken by barons, knights,
and* burgesses on admission to the King's Council.
The terms of that oath were to counsel the King—
to respect the privilege of debate —to maintain
the rights of the Crown— and it concluded with
the words "So help me God." Now that was an oath
which any Jew might take. At the first establishment
of Parliaments Jews were admitted, but shortly after-
wards by ordinance—legally or illegally—they were ex-
pelled the realm. In the time of Henry 111. a general
assembly was called for the purple of granting supplies.
and writs were directed to the Sheriffs of the different
towns in which the Jews resided, commanding them to
send to Westminster two or more Jews, according to
their number in the population. Either the Jews were
admitted to that assembly without an oath, or they took
the same oath as the other Members. Soon afterwards
the Jews were expelled the realm. At the Rest ration
there were only 12 Jews in the kingdom. Their number
ittcreased in the reign of Charles 11., and still more so
in the time of William 111., when large exemptions were
granted them. In that reign the question of the alien-
age of the Jews was brought bef pre Parliament by peti-
tion, but the House refused to receive it as it related to
a Bill not before them. In 1689, 100,0001 was levied on
the Jews, being a taxation of 10!. for (teen Jew. The re-
sult was, that in the first land tax Act the Jews were treated
not as aliens, but as natural subjects, and aliens were
taxed as before. With these Acta before them it was
impossible to agree with the views laid down by the
Hen and Learned Member for Abingdten. The Natu-
ralisation Act of George 11. related to foreign Jews re-
sident in the kingdom. Their object on the present oc-
casion was not to admit Mr. Rothschild as an alien, but
as an English Jew. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government said that this was not a question of civil
and religious liberts , but a judicial question. Why the
Noble Lord considered it a judicial question he did not
know, but this he knew, that the Noble Lord had pro-
posed the consideration of this judicial question by pre-
judging it, and without having heard a syllable which
bore on the third oath, an oath which he should en-
deivour to show was illegal, whether administered to
Christian or to Jew. The truth was that the question
was a question of civil and religious liberty. It was also
a judicial question, and if it was also a party question the
Noble Lord had himself to blame for making it so. He
should certainly vote as he had spoken, in favour of the
amendment of his Hon. Friend.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. WOOD cold not allow the question to go to a
division without making some observations. He re-
greVed that the 1%1...hie Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment should have thought it necessary to pronounce any
Opinion at all on what ,otne had called the second ques-
tion. At present the first question, and that only was
under their consideration. With respect to the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member fur the University of Oxford,
he thought it ought to be negatived. It was impos-
sible for any one to maintain what was asserted
in teat amendment, and it was contrary to
every day's experience to say that no person took an
oath wi.heat deel dine he was a Chr.stian. It was w,.11
known to many that Moravians and Friends took an oath
without any such declaraton.—(i-lear, hear.) ‘Vh,,n he
fornierly- addressed the House ho vetaw el to assert that
no lawyer would be found who would h, sitate to say
that by common law every individual had a right to be
sworn in the manner which he declared to be the most
binding on his conscience. It had been said, however,
that such a proposition should not be too widely laid
down, and that exceptions must, be made, first as re-
garded oaths of office and secondly as regarded some
peeD
culiar limitations relating to the oaths of Members of
heard single au-
Parliament. lie bad not, however,