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

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the or-
der of the day for the consideration of the Commons'
amendment to this Bill be discharged.—Agrced to.

ENIIGRANT SHIPS.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL drew the attention
of the House to the fact, that a man named W. Pieycr,
who was a passenger on board an emigrant-ship from
Liverpool, on board of which were 490 passengers, had
had his arm, which was broken by accident, amputated by
an unprofessional person with a carving-knife, and i❑
consequence of which he died, and asked if it was in-
tended to make a bye-law incumbent on all emigrant
ships to carry a surgeon?
Earl GREY said that emigrant ships going to North
America were not required to carry surgeons. The
Hemisphere, en board which the accident happened, was
not required to carry a surgeon, but on board the
ship there chanced to to a German surgeon,
who operated with a carving knife and afterwards
dressed the wound; the man was afterwards landed and
removed to the LiVerpool Hospital where ha died, but
the accident which had occurred to him was of such a
severe character that no surgical aid, it was understood,
could have saved his life.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHELL thought that all
emigrant ships should be compelled to carry surgeons.
Earl GREY said this was au accident that happened
not to an emigra,it, but to a sailor, and it might have
happened to any sailor of any vessel navigating the
Mersey. He would have no objection to produce the
report of the Emigration Commissioners on the subject.

'The Earl of IibUNTCASLIELL moved for the re-
port.

After a few words from the Marquis of BREA-
DALBANE, the motion was agreed to.
LEASEEIOLD TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND)

BILL.

The order of the day for the resumption of the ad-
journed debate on the amendment moved on the third
reading of this Bill wan read, end the debate resumed.

The LORD CHANCELLOR having proposed a series
of amendments which were agreed to,
The Bill as amended was read a third time and passed.
The Borough Court of Records (Ireland) Bill went
through Committee.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 29,
BARON ROTHSCHILD-ADJOURNED DEBATE.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sir F. THESIGER regretted that the Honourable
Gentleman the Member for Montrose had introduced
the subject of religious liberty into this discussion, be-
cause they were not considering whether it was ex
pedient that Baron Rothschild should be allowed to take
his seat, but all they were called upon to decide at the
present moment.`was, whether, in 'the particular mode
proposed, a person who came to the table of the House
for the purpose of being sworn, and proposes to be
sworn upon the Old Testament as the form most
binding upon his conscience, could be permitted
to take the oaths, and having so taken them,
whether he can take his seat accordingly.
Now that was the question, and the only question which
the House had to decide. It had very properly been
called a question rather of a quasi-judicial character,
and he did really trust the House would argue it in the
spirit of such a question—(Hear, hear)—that they
should not introduce into the subject any passion or feel-
ing, but calmly and dispassionately consider whether, ac-
cording to the existing law, what was now proposed to be
done could be done. He confessed it appeared to him
that, it being of course desirable they should discuss
that question with most convenient form, what had been
proposed by his Hon. Friend the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) was altogether objec-
tionable, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) would suggest that
his Hon. Friend should withdraw his motion, and that
the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Montrose should be substituted as a substantive
motion. (Cries of " No, no.") According to
what had fallen from th© Speaker from the
earliest times Members bad been sworn on the
New Testament. He (Sir F. Thesiger) appre-
hended, therefore, where it was disposed to depart from
that practice on the present occasion, that those who in-
sisted on departing from the practice had the onus
thrown upon them to show that it was lawful to do so.
There were two distinct questions to be decided, but in'
reality they resolved themselves into one; and the first
was a preliminary question, whether Baron Roths-
child could be admitted to take the oaths on the
Old Testament, and the next question was whether
r%pusedtrai snmogne
on cnt
professing
ril dso
fec takesosnins
etgihetenhcoaeat.t
thh
laiot
ef
wasabjurationthem
oto
fnwo
aot
thuhel
would be
Ibqiuite impossible to separate those two questions; they
i
were involved and blended together;
and if a Member
coming to the table could not take the( oath of abjura-
tion in the Jewish form h© s
thought the House would find, z F. Thesiger)
on careful deli-
beration of the subject, that he could
no right whatever, according to established
have
law, to take any of the oaths in that particular form. Although, it might be perfectly true that the question
which was pat by the clerk at the table was an una.utho
rised question, and that no Member coming to the table
was bound to answer that question, yet that question had
been put—(Hear)--and answered, and the question and
answer appeared on the votes, and would in due time be
transferred to the journals of the House. It was quite
clear from his answer, that Baron Rothschild did not
desire to take the Roman Catholic oath. He (Sir F.
Thesiger) was therefore entiOel to assume that Baron
Rothschild did not profess to be a Roman Catholic, and
did not desire to take the Roman Catholic oath. If he
did not desire to take the Roman Catholic oath, and
did not profess the Roman Catholic religion, all that
remained was that he must take the other three
oaths, which all persons who did not pro-
fess the R:unan Catholic religion were required
to take, namely, the oaths of allegiance, supremacy,
and abjuration. It was impossible to separate one oath
from the other, and until he could take all the oaths he
could not be regularly sworn.—(Hear, hear.) The
amendment of the Hon. Member for Montrose assumed
that. It was quite clear that what were called the Pro-
testant oaths were distinguished from the Roman Ca-
tholic oath, fur there was only one oath to be
taken by the Roman Catholic, namely, the
oath under the 10th Geo. IV. Baron Rothschild
must therefore have all the oaths tendered to him, and