The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-05 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, AUG UST 5, 1850.

SUN,

Pease was admitted in that way by resolution, and an
Act afterwards passed declaring not what the live
was, but what it should be. That course
ought to have been pursued here. The Baron should
have been seated, and afterwards a declaratory Act
passed and tendered to the other House, to enable them
to confirm the decision. However, he was quite pre-
pared to take his Honourable Friend's amend-
ment as it stood, and -he should certainly Tole
for it. But, with regard to the speech of his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Attorney- General, he must confess
that be was more than ever deeply involved in the
mazes of astonishment and perplexity. How such a
resolution as the first could have' proceeded from the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman be was at a loss to under-
stand, but being heralded by such a speech as they had
heard from him was still more surprising. What did
his Hon. and Learned Friend say? The case,
he said, was unprecedented, and therefore the
conclusion he bad come to was to disfranchise
the Honourable Member for the city of London. The
Hon. and Learneed Gentleman, however, was not always
of opinion that a Jew was bound to prove his right to
enjoy the privilege of his fellow-subjects, for in 1847
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman told the House of Com •
mons that the onus of proof rested with those who denied
the right. Now the opinion of a pour barrister like
himself, whose professional income did not exceed 500/.
a year, might be worth very little, but, the decision he
had come to was the result (,f mature deliberation, and
though it might be erroneous it was sincere. His opi-
nion was that the Baron ought to be allowed
the benefit of the doubt, and to take his seat. But what,
said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. " Why," said
be, "I am called upon to expound the law, and you
must take it upon my exposition; but then I must tell
you that the law which I so expound is monstrous and
absurd." Now, suppose a client was consulting the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman upon a point of law, and
he gave such an opinion as that it struck him
forcibly that the client would immediately
seek another professional adviser. Now that
was precisely the position in which the House
was placed by the extraordinary speech of the Honour-
able and Learned Attorney-General, and they had to
choose between the law laid down by him and
that laid down by those who were called the friends of
Baron Rothschild. Well, then, what did the latter

say? Why. they, said that there was no precedent
like this case, and therefore they had no right to
make one. They said Baron Rothschild was free, and
therefore they had no right to disfranchise him.
They said it was at the beat a doubttul
point, and therefore let their own Member
have the benefit of • it. Now, which was
the more reasonable course of the two ? He
paused for a reply, but he thought the
House would decide in favour of the Baron.
His friend did not tell them that their law was mon-
strous and absurd, but said the Hon. and Learned At-
torney-General, if you pusue that course, you will
lay the Baron open to heavy penalties • but no
court of justice would venture to inflict any
penalties upon him when they were told that he took
his seat not only under the sanction of the House,
hut in obedience to an order of the House.—(Hear.)
No court of justice would for a moment dream of ques-
tioning that decision ; but if there was any danger of
that, would the House be more considerate
for Baron Rothschild than he would be
for himself? Baron Rothschild said he was
willing to take the risk. Did the Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen (the Attorney-General) mean to say that
his mind was perfectly clear that the oath
Of abjuration could be tendered to any
Member of that House at all without an alteration
being made in the terms of it by the decision of that
House ? That was one of the points which he had to
determine. • The Hon. and Learned Gentleman quoted
statutes which had no force—statutes of William 111.
and George I.—but what did he say of the
ssatute of George 111., under which alone
the oaths taken at the table could be administered to
any Member ? Two important events bad happened
since the oath 'of abjuration bad passed, which mate-
rially altered the case; the princely Stuarts were no more,
and George the Third had long been gathered to his
fathers. The aid of Parliament had therefore ceased to
be applicable, and the oath could not be administered at
this day. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by stating,
that whether the Hon. Member for Montrose proceeded
to a division or not, his vote should be given against the
monstrous and unconstitutional resolutions which had
been proposed by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. DISRAELI then rose and said—The previous
discussion which has taken place this session respecting
the seat of the Hon. Member for the city of London,
and ;the deliberations upon it, appear to me to be
of so strictly a legal character, that I have refrained
obtruding myself on the attention of the House. But,
Sir, the resolutions which have been placed
on the table to-day have departed from that limited
character which future resolutions proposed to our
consideration ' have profesied. The resolutions
which the Learned Attorney-General has brought
forward are, one of law and another of po-
licy. I therefore think the House will excuse
me if, under these circumstances, I venture to make a
few observations as to the position in which the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the city of London, who has
not taken his seat, finds himself, and also as to the posi-
tion occupied by the House. The course which has been
pursued by the Member for the city of London, by the
electors of the city of London, and by her Majesty's
subjects professing the Jewish religion, in their attempts
to obtain an amelioration of the grievances which
they feel, and the disabilities under' which they
are placed, this year differs from that course
nhich they have hitherto pursued. I understand this
arises from the impatience—he would say natural im-
patieoce—wh ich the electors of London and her Majesty's
subjects professing the Jewish religion feel at the posi•
tion iu which they now had themselves. But I would
;ask the House here to consider whether that position,
grevious as they may feel it to be, is the consequence of
having pursued a constitutional course' to release them-

selvestiom Those grievances, or whether it be in con-
sequence of having: deviated from that constitutional
course which they had hitherto pursued? Now, Sir,
with respect to Englishmen professing the
Jewish religion, I am bound to say that no class of
religionists in this country have less cause to complain
of the spirit of the community, or of the temper of
the Legislature, than Englishmen professing the Jew-
ish religion. When I remember, Sir, what was
the position of such men a very brief period back—
hardly a quarter of a century ago—when I contrast that
position of social degredation and political die-
ability with the position which they now oc-
cupy and enjoy, I am proud and gratified
by the contrast; and I am bound W. say that it is one
which is far more favourable than that which any other
body of her Majesty's subjects not professing the
religion of the state could have relied upon in so
brief a space of time. The Roman Catholics.
for example, were for a much longer period disqualified
for:the possession of any offices and enjoyments and many
more rights than the Jews were. Every class of Dis-
centers also had to undergo a more prolonged and
more severe struggle than Englishmen professing
the Jewish religion in order to obtain those rights which
they now enjoy; and, Sir, I think at a moment like the
present when we admit the impatience and naturally the
impatience evinced by the electors of London at not imme-
diately accomplishing the results which they desire. hay,
Sir, I think i; is expedient to take a calmer and more
comprehensive view of the circumstances of the case

than the electors of the city of London, and taking
that more comprehensive and calmer vier,
I arrive myself at a result much more favourable to the
enlightened spirit of the community, and temper and
moderation of the Legislature of this country, than some
opinions which have been expressed out of
this House and in this House on the
subject. But, Sir, if Englishmen professing the
Jewish religion have little cause to complain of the
bigotry of the country in which they live, or the want of
toleration in the spirit of the age in which they
exist—have they a fair quarrel with the con-
duct of another branch of the Legislature, who.e
conduct in these discussions has been subjEcted
to some criticism which, on examination, I think will be
deemed not only harsh but unjust. It is barely three
years ago, when, after a prolonged discussion in this
House in consequence of Baran 'Rothschild being elected
for the city of London, a Bill was passed which removed
disabilities which prevented that Gentleman taking his
seat. It received the solemn and deliberate consideration of

the House of Lords, but it was not passed by that House
A Bill was certainly proposed which made great altera-
tions ; that Bill received a full and temperate discussion,
and it was objected to, not by a . majority of a
startling amount. The Government brought in another
Bill, and it was discussed with mitigated hostility in the
House of Lords, and he wanted to know what bad
taken place in that House to cause the reprobation
and the language that had been used with respect to it.
—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, it was true, had
been returned again for the city of London by an over-
whelming majority, and if after such a demonstration
the House of Lords had objected to the Bill, he admitted
that it would have been to blame.—(Hear.) It ought to
be remembered that the late triumphant return
of the Baron Rothschild bad not been brought forward
as a data in the House of Lords, and if it bad, be had
very little doubt different results would have taken
place.—(Hear, hear.) It the second election of the,
Baron Rothschild was, as. he admitted it would, be, a nig-
nil:leant demonstration of public opinion on the subject,
was not that an additional reason that the Bill should
have been again brought forward, and the opinion of the
House of Lords taken upon the subject?—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the natural impatience felt by the city-ot
London bed no foundation against the community or the
House of Lords; but that if any persons were responsi-
ble for the situation in which tbo city of London was
Placed, it was her Majesty's Government.—(Hear,
hear.)tn
the
e s
He 0 a
sobservations ,_ He had thought it his duty to make
occupied upeno
n the
of the Legislature had
light.— (Hear, hear.) N
tioas that had been
he felt boundto
e question, pe si
tiee
because
b
thought the course that had been
pursuby pursued that branch
not been looked upon in a just
Now, with respect to the res.lu-
n proposed by the Attorney-Ge-
neral,make a few observations.
The first resolution was declaratory a the law,
felt bound to confess, an extremely
pro-
ceeding.—(Hear.) The other resoluetio'
tion pledging the house on a subsequent
a subsequent session; that,
it, was not a very politic not, he
nnstwitutional
occaassioanraerdliL
certainly, to say the least of 1
piocceding—(llear, hear)—
and Was one that ought not • to be adopted except
in a case of extreme necesssity..—(Flear, hear.) Now
where, he would /telt, did the necessity for such a pro!.
needing exist ?—(Hear, 'hear.) Where was the neces-
illy for the House to take such a course? He would
venture ta -say it was not to be found in the community
—that it was not the temper Of 'the' community that
had been the great impeniment, noit, was' it the
temper of the House of Lords—(Hear, bear)
that House bad considered the subject to the best of
their abilities, and they had come to that decision which

they considered just. The case was clear to them, they
had a novel and important proposition before them, to
which they gave an impartial and solemn consideration
on two instances, and although they rejected
the measure they never rejected it by an
overwhelmning or an overbearing majority, but upon
the last occasion by a majority diminished in numbers.
—(Hear, hear.) Su far as the temper and community
of the Legislature was concerned, there was nothing to
discourage those who believed they were pressing a just
claim, nor was there anything to justify the impatience
which had been naturally shown by the electors of Lon-
don.—(Hear, hear.) Then they came to the fact which
no one could deny, that it was the conduct of the Go-
vernment which had brought the House of Com-
mons to a proposition that was made as if
it were the opinion of the Government that there
was no other means of extricating them from
the difficulties and embarrassments in which they now
found themselves.—(Hear, hear.) The House of Com-
mons then was to take the most unusual—not to say a
most unconstitutional course, and one which none
but the gravest circumstances could vindicate or justify..
—(Hear, bear.) And now for myself (continued the
Hon. Gentleman), speaking only for reyself, especially
upon this question, I decline to take that course ;
I shall not vote for either of these reso-
lutions. ( Cheers. ) I leave the law as I
find it, and if there he any necessity to change the law
I call upon the Government, who have expre,sed on
more than one occasio❑ an um quirocal opinion upon this
subject as regards a matter of policy, to remedy the
grievance which they have aLknowledged.—(Cheers.)
I want to know what excuse can be made for Govern-
ment for not having the moment Parliament met
introduced a Bill upon this subject. If it was desir •
able in 1848 or 1849, it was witch more desirable
in 1850, after the recent election for the city of London.
—(Cheers.) if the first election produced such an effect
as to induce the Ministry to believe the city was ripe
for legislation merely, the second election for the city of
London renders that course much more imperative and
clear, and one, about which not a moment ought to have
been lost.—(Cheers.) I may be told that there was a Com-
mittee formed to inquire into the nature of the oaths taken
by Members of Parliament, and that Government, until
they received the result of the labours of that Committee,
were incompetent to advise Parliament upon the ques-
tion.—(Hear, hear.). Does the Government mean to say,
then, that they have been acting upon imperfect infor-
mation upon a subject of such importance, of such
peculiar delicacy and interest. Have they rushed into
the House of Commons without due deliberation and
research, and. counselled the Legislature on the subject?
—(Hear, hear.) Is that the policy of the Government? I
am in the correction of the gentlemen learned in the law,
from Mr. Attorney-General to the Hon. ant Learned
Gentleman who had been so frank upon the extent of
his practice this morning—(A laugh)—and even in
the presence of all these learned gentlemen, and
of all these gentlemen of the long rube, I
venture to say that however extensive may have been
their researches—however profound might have been the
investigations of the Committee over which the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford
presided, they did not succeed in producing a new fact,
or in eliciting any new result to those which had been
arrived at by those who had given any previous study or
investigation to the subject.—(Loud cheers.) Well,
then, Sir, I consider it .a mere mockery on
the _ part of the Government to pretend their
project of legislation was retarded. because they
wailed the results of the investigation of the Com-
mittee on oaths. I shall use no violent language upou
the subject; but I say, the Government having brought
themselves into this condition, we ought not to do any..
thing to extricate them from the consequences of
their own mitconduct, or the consequences •of
their unfounded clamour; against the constitutional
proceedings of another branch of the Legis.
lature a clamour, not only. unfounded, buf

absolutely most unjust, and one which II believe
the candid, arid just, and generous people of this country
will never countenance, and never approve ot.— (Cheers.)
I have taken the liberty of makierg these few observe•
tiona. I have, 'as the House will perhaps con-
descend to remember when the question of the
removal of the disabilities of Englishmen pro-
fessing the Jewish religion has ever been
brought before the House--I have recorded my vote in
favour of their removal.—(Hear, hear.) I have been
accused sometimes of not accompanying the exercise of
the suffrage with any observations on the subject itself.
I remember the Noble Lord the First Minister, not very
courteously, and certainly not in a hearty manly way,
reminded me last year that my vote was a silent one.
Now, if I thought anything I could say could accomplish
what is so dear to my heart and convictions my
vote would not have been- a silent one, but, inasmuch as
I believe my opinions upon the subject were not shared
by. a single Member on either side of the House, I
thought it was but good sense and good taste that, alter,
having unequivocally exp.r ssed the grounds upon which
my vote was given, I should have taken refuge in si-
lence, which at least could not offend the opinions or
prejudices of any gentleman.—(Cheers.) Those
opinions, however, I now retain; they are un-
changed, and if it were not presumption to speak of
human opinion being unchangeable, I would express my
belief that they never will be changed.—(Cheers.)
this were a Pagan country, I can easily conceive and
comprehend how the claims of Englishmen being Jews
should be politically resisted, and to a certain degree
with a show of reason opposed.—(Hear, hear.) But,
Sir, it is a Christian country, and because like
every other Christian country, it owes its 'Chris-
tianity to the agency and influence of the House
of Israel, I cannot believe that the course which is pur-
sued at present by the Legislature of England is a jest
or 'slap one—(Cheers)—and though I may abstain some-
times from dilating upon feelings and views which may
not be prevalent or popular in this House, I will never
retract them, and even now shrieking from offending the
feelings of any one, I will express my hope that full and
complete justice will speedily be done to the descendants
of a race which we acknowledge to be sacred, and the
protessers of a religion which we adroit to be divine.
Sir R H. INGLIS did nut think it necessary to follow
the HA. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire
in his elaborate defence of the House of Lords, or his
briefer attack upon the Government; but his Hon.
Friend must forgive him for saying that, like himself,
hit opinions upon this subject were unchanged,
and as far as human opinions could be,
unchangeable. These opinions he had entertained ever
since he had held a seat in the House. It mattered no
to him from whence these resolutions came, he should
treat them as he found theme—(Hear, hear.) The British
Legislature had never sat except under Christian sanc-
tion. The question in the case of the. Quakers was a
question of difference of Christianity. But the ques-
tion was different now. If the Iluu,e admitted Jews
into its assembly, they would admit those to legislate for
our Christian country and our Christian Church who
themselves would feel it a grt at affront to be described as
members of our Church and cur Christian Government.
—(Hear, bear.) He (Sir R. Inglis) would remind every
Member in that House, that on his single vote might
depend that constitution which had never sat except
under Christian sanction, and the question whether that
constitution should continue to he bound by Christian
sanction. Believing as he (Sir Robert Inglis) did
that the profession of our common Christianity
was the birthright of this nation, and that they shou:d
would nutitundervalueth3cb iid
might
g i th,— t furnish a s at
not lighly sell that birthright for any such advantage,—
wanhdichhe
t(hSe e Bu
i ou
to their deliberetiens, still when he (Sir R. Inglis)
considered what they were to pay fur that advantage he
could not agree with his Honourable and Learned
aHe
wpaosuslidugopproesgereatny
ththinagt
whsiocmheshoud
Friend (the Attorney-Generai) in expressing even
ledlahyaveshtohueldbe
opposed to the admission of such a men.
effect
of making that House anything but what it was now, a
Christian Legislauture, of which every Member must
profess himself a Christian, or else be unable to take
his seat. Under these circumstances he should feel bound
to oppose the proposition which was laid on the table.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he was pretty well con-
vinced that whatever might be said the question was
now_settled.—(Hear, hear.) Though ho had come to
that conclusion, and was petty. well 'satisfied as
to the result, he could not say that the mode
which they would arrive at those results would r«fleet
much credit on the House. The qnestion before them
was no longer a mere legal question—it was a question
of policy, and he must protest against the mode in which
that policy was sought to be carried out. The House
was no longer sitting in a judicial capacity, but they
were deliberating on a voluntary proposition on the part
of the Administration. It was a proceeding on the part
of the Administration. It was no longer a Bill pro-
pounded by the Member for the City, but a re-
solution' propounded by the head of her Majesty's
Gavernuient; and they could not, with common
honour, fail now to puieue the proposition of
the Attorney-General. It must be propounded in this
House in the shape of a Bill; it must be carried through
that House, and carried through the House of Lords
successfully, or the honour of , the Ministry would be
forfeited. When Baron Rothschild was first returned
for London, feeling a great interest in the settlement , I
the question he (Mr. Roebuck) had pressed to bring it
to a speedy issue. The answer was that the matter was
in the hands of his colleague the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government. Well, a Bill was brought in, but the Bill
did not pass. Well, the matter was delayed, and the
answer he always got to his remonstrances was that the
Bill was coming in time, and he was told not to be im-
patient and in a hurry. But at the time he prophesied
that the Bill would not come, and bade them mark his
words at the, time. He knew that :the Government
would never dare a difficulty.—(Hear, hear.) When a
question was importaut, and excited immediate and great
Interest, it became an open question in the Cabinet; but
when matters swam smoothly it remained a Ministerial
qnestion. It was the duty of the Noble Lord to have
propounded that Bill, and to:have gone through with it.
But as long as they could, they eluded the question; and
when the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford's Cum-
mittke was proposed, they took it quite as a God-send.
Will, then, after the required precedents were found, and
the report was laid on tee table of the House, what was
the conduct of the Noble Lord? Promises were made,
and those promises had been broken,--(dear, hear.) At
last, when the House was tired of all legislation, and bu-
siness of all sorts had been postponed until a future
session, what did the Learned Attorney-General take
upon himself to do? He said there was a monstrous
state of law and
but and that, mind, was not the description
g
which they
which be gave—be said , there e
a monstrous state of law, and the sooner they got rid of
it the better. He would' ask the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman whether he believed that that House was a
fit tiibneal to decide upon a question of law? And he
would ask whether, as a matter of policy, there was no
other course open to him than the, one he had taken? It
Was admitted that there were doubts on the correctnessof the conclusions which had been come to, but tbcre
were no doubts as to the facts; and yet he asked them
to assume to be what they were not fit to be, judges of

the law. Let them look at the thing in its present posi-
tion, and he would ask if that House was the place
where this proposition was to be met. The Attorney-
General, throughout the whole of his speech had placed
the House of Lords in a very invidious position. He
considered them to be persons of so idle a character,
and so easily impressed by Considerations so beneath
the character of legislators, that wat was true and right
MIS of no consideration placed by the side of personal
vanity. If they left the matter as it was then, he told
them, the House of Lords, would say why did not you
pass some resolution on the subject:-" but for his part
he (Mr. Roebuck) could not see how they could possibly
arrive at that conclusion. The whole of the argument
of the Attorney-General was that if they did not ac-
knowledge that Baron Rothschild had no right to sit in
the House without taking the oath, they would have no
chance of carrying a Bill through the House of
Lords. Despite of the assertion of the lion.
Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis). He believed that
at this moment there was a very strange feeling in the
country on that subject; but the reason was that a great
queation lay under this. They might pretend to say
that there was a large majority of perm ns in this coun-
try ready to stand up for the Protestant religion; the
majority of persons in this country were nut to be
caught by cobwebs like that. And then to say that they
al wa) s met with prayer and religious observances; how
could that bind such a man as Bolingbroke for instance ?
He would have taken not nine nor nineteen, but nine-
teen hundred oaths, if they made them. They could
not bind such a man. Whom did they bind? None but
the most conscientious men in the House, who least
needed it. When he heard the Hun. Member for the
City of London repeat the oath atter the clerk, and only
omit the last few words, which were not binding on his
conscience, he asked himself whether there was a
man in the House who really did not believe
that all the purposes of the oath had been answered.—
(Cheers.) This was said to be a Christian assembly,
but he thought that no really pious body of persons
would allow words of holy import to be applied in so
mischievous a manner on grave and serious matter?.
Now if they maintained these oaths for the purpose of
excluding certain Members, why should they not say so
at once? Let there be no side wind in securing such
an object ; let the House propound at once its desire,
and then pass a resolution that from this day
.henceforward no Jew should have a seat in the House.
—(Hear.) At the time when the oaths were first con-
cocted the Jews could not have been in the contempla-
tion of any parties. Improvement, however, marched
rapidly; and he was not, like the Hon. Member for Buck-
inghamshire, surprised at the advance which the ques-
tion had made within the last quarter of a century.
We were very different to what our ancestors were, and
if we were desirous to understand clearly the difference
between the past and the present we had nothing to do
but to refer to the history of those oaths. A more
painful part of our history could not be concealed.
—(Hear.) From their first inattlution they were cha-
racterised by bigotry and hate, but they were gradually
improved, and we were now endeavouring to do away
with the last wretched remnant of bigotry which still
remained. He hoped the House would not only get rid
or that, but would go still farther and grappel with the
whole question in a fair and honest spirit. The course
proposed by the Attorney-General was not generous,
safe, or candic. He had no right to assume to him-
self the privilege of stating what the law was;
he acknowledged that he was not infallible, and that
this House was a bad tribunal, but he could not deny
that there was another course to adopt which would meet
all difficulties, and prove—which his resolution would
not do—acceptable to a large body of conscientious men
in this country, and at the same time attain every end
which be said he wished to attain, viz., doing away with
this most monstrous state of the law, which he acknow-
ledged was a disgrace to the country, and which
might at once subject the Honourable Member
for the city of London to all those pains
and penalties which the Attorney. General kindly and
considerately begged and entreated the House not to in-
flict upon him. Now, could not Baron Rothschild take
care of himself—(Hear)—could they not let him run the
same risk as Mr. Pease, whose case he understood the
Attorney-General to say was attended with the same
difficulties.—(Hear.) If the House had no power to
alter the oath fur Mr. Pease, as stated by the Attori.ey-
General, why, as he was now living,,he might any
day be called upon to pay all these fines and
penalties. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said he
should vote against the proposition of the Government,
believing it to be not only unsuited to the circumstances
of the case, but also unjust and reprehensible.—(Hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS rose amidst loud cries of divide,"
and finding himself unable to proceed, said he would
either go on or move the adjournment of the debate.—
(Loud cries of "No" and " Go on."
The motion for the adjournment having been put by
the SPEAKER,

Lord J. RUSSELL said, as it was now east 3 o'clock,
it would be advisable to adjourn if the House thought
the debate should be continued; but if the House was
ready to divide, of course be had no objection to that
course.—( Loud cries of " Divide."
Mr. REYNOLDS then withdrew his motion. He re-
joiced that though the Hun. Baronet the Member for the
University of Oxford had spent twenty years of bis po-;
laical life in fighting and speaking against his (Mr.
Reynolds's) faith, yet that the middle and trading
classes of Oxford, who returned his Learned Friend
behind him (Mr. rage Wood) were far more advanced
than the magnates of the University. The Hon.
Member for Warwickshire had the other night protested
against Mr. Berkley making any attack on the Yeomanry
of England from the other side of the House. Now, in
the same spirit he protested against the Hon. Member
for the University of °afar& occupying a seat on this
side of rho house.—(Cries of " near, and question.")
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had already made the greater part of his speech.
Mr. hEYNOLI denied that the grounds taken by
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire were correct
that the House of Lords was not to blame.—
(Hear, hear.) He begged to remind Honourable
Gentleman over the way that they were playing a des
perate game, and all that be would ask was, would they
beele tootstoal of another place ? (Cries of " Order.")
Because if they would, they might depend upon it the
people would ask the significant question, was the House
of Lords never to be reformed.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. WOOD rose amid loud cries of " Ad-
journ." It was impossible for him to allow
the debate to conclude without saying a few
words. They had asserted that the seat
was full, the House had asserted that the seat was va-
cant, because Baron Rothschild had not taken the oath.
On that side of the .House they contended that he had,
and he denied that any of the arguments that had been
put forward on behalf of Baron Rothschild had
been answered. He. protested as much as the
Attorney-General against its being supposed that
the House had a dtspensleg power, it certainly
had no such thing.—(Hear, hear.) It was said it was
dangerous to tamper with an oath; no one more fully
accorded with that doctrine than himself, but what he
asserted was that that which was proposed to the Baron
Rothschild was no oath at all to him, and therefore in
leaving out the word: he had done hetampered with no oa:h
at all. He thought that the course the House had adopted
was of the most inconsistent nature—they had decide.]
that the Baron Rothschild should take the
oath on the Old Testament, and yet they would
not permit him to take the only oath which
he considered binding on bis conscience.—(Hear, bear.)
He considered that the Baron Rothschild bad taken all
the oaths that could be required of him, and that
the House ought to allow him to take bis seat.
In a much weaker case than this the House had necided
favourably to the Member claiming his seat; and at the
instigation, too, of men, aot like himself, of small expe-
rience in the laws and usages of the House, but fully
versed in the privileges and practice of Parliament.
That man was 140 other than the Honourable Member
for the county of Nlortgomery, who would have come
down to support bins on this occasion had he not been
prevented treat doing so by illness.—(Cheers.) At that
time he would say no more. He had simply attempted
to vindicate the law of England, which recognised in
the highest degree the principle of common sense, and
which iu the highest degree respects the liberties of the
subject. The law held that no British subject could
differ from another British subject without an express li
statute could be produced to support the difference. The
moment the black man put his foot upon this country he
became free, and it was the same law which recognised no
difference between the Jew and the Christian as a British
subject, and therefore he contended that, by common
law, the Member for the city of London was entitled to
take his seat.—(Cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was anxious to say
a few words to justify and explain the vote
he was about to give. He regretted that he could not
arrive at the same conclusion as his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Oxford. This was a ques-
tion, however, upon which every man ought to
speak out according to his own conscientious
convictions. They were called upon not to pass a law,
but simply to expound .the law as it already
exists; and speaking, therefore, as a lawyer, it seemed
to him to be impossible to come to any other conclu-
sion than that the words "on the truth faith of a
Christian" formed substantially part of the oath.—
(Cheers.) Those words were introduced as an essential
part of the oath for' the purpose of binding Catholics;
and altough as in courts of justice they might permit par-
ties to take the oath in the manner which they declared
to be must binding on their consciences, they still bad no
power, without an Act of Parliament, to vary or alter the
substance or form of the oath.—(Hear.) In a court of
justice, a man was seem to tell the " truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth," and although
he might take the oath by touching or kissing the book,
he could not change the words. Now the Act which
established this oath was passed to meet the
cases of Roman Catholics who professed Jt,
suitical principles, and felt that in taking an
oath they could make mental reservations.—
(Hear.) buppose, then, a Catholic refused to make
use of these words, on the ground the ground that they
were not binding on his conscieitov. he apprehended that
he would not be permi, ted to take hisses% He apprehended
that eat clear and indisputable law. With regard to Mr.
Pease's case, as fur as it went, it certainly was a prece-
dent; but it did not go far enough to justify them in
seating the Member. for the city of London.—(Herr,)
Ile must say, looking to the general intentions of' the
Legislature in passing those various Acts, and looking
to those sp,cial Acts of Parliament made in the case of
the Jaws, it admitted of no doubt that those words were
of the very substance and essence of the oath; and he
fur one cruld not permit Baron Rothschild to use words
which were not in the form of the oath. Baron Rothschild
had defined to take one of the catbs—(Hear, hear)—in
the form prescri'oed by the Act of Parliament, and what
had been done? Had be been admitted to take his scat?
No ; Mr. Speaker directed him to withdraw. The ques-
tion then was-.would the 'House allow him to take his
scar, or would they not ? The House was in a false po-
sition. If Baron Rothschild was prepared to take his
seat, would the House allow him to take it? Ho (the So-

licitor-General) contended the words which had been
omitted by Baron Rothschild were not intended to exclude
the Jews, and it appeared to him (the Solicitor-General)
that the House ought to take a fair and manly course of
either admitting or excluding him.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRlGHT—(Amidst loud cries of " Divide")—
said he had observed from the commencement of the
discussion on this question, that the case of Mr. Pease
had been alluded to by gentlemen opposing the
introduction of Baron Rothschild, and the case had been
treated as one of extreme difficulty. He (Mr. Bright)
thought he should show that the whole argument
which the Hon. Gentleman, the Solicitor-geeeral, had
made, had no foundation whatever. What did the
House do in the case of Mr. Pease? He (Mr.
Bright) came into that House and took his seat by vir-
tue of the declaration which Mr. Pt ase himself had made
when he was admitted into the House. Mr. Pease re-
fused to take the whole of the three oaths; and the
question was, what did he take? The House did not
even ask Mr. Psase to take the substance of
those oaths.—(Bear, hear. heir.) He did not
take the oath of fidelity ; to did not even
affirm it. Wish respect to the mai of supremacy, Mr.
Pease did not affirm or sweer that in any shape what-
ever.—(Hear, beer) Then he came to the oath of ab-
ju7ation. Mr. Pease did not affirm the substance of
that oath.—(Hear, hear.) In the affirmation which
Mr. Pease and he (Mr. Bright) made ht the table of the
House, there was not a 6iuglii word about " defending
the Qm en," tho wores `• will daft no" were entirely
omitted. He would ask the House it those words were or
were not a portion of the substance of the oath?
Mr. Pease was also allowed to affirm without declaring
in the words if the oath that he would '` defend the
succession." He (Mr. Btig,,t) undersioed those words
to be of the form and substance of the oath.—(Hear.
hear.) With regard to the words "on the true faith of
a Christian " they were not put to Mr. Pease or himself
at all.—(Hear, hear.) Was the House, then, asked
to do in this case one-tenth part of so
grave a thing as the House of Commons by
an unanimous vote permitted Mr. Pease, the Member
for South Durham to do in 1832. Ile (Mr. Bright) si as
of opinion that the House was not allowing an) thing to
be done half so serious as was done then. He was in-
clined to think that the House did right in the case ef Mr.
Pease, It might be a stretch of the orders of this House
to allow Mr. Pease to take his seat; the House was
asked now to do a much lighter thing, when leave was
asked for Baron Rothschild to enter his seat. The Houses
of Lords and Commons passed the Bill for admitting
Mr. Pease. He (Mr. Bright) said, that being so, it
would be scandalous indeed of him who sat there by
right of that whicri the House of Commons had done on
that occasion, if he did not give in every way in his
power the greatest, support he could to the proposition
that Baron Rothschild should be admitted to take his
seat.

After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN,
Strangers were tben ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—

For Mr. Hume's amendment lOl
Against it 163
Majority against the amendment -62
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. ANSTEY protesting against the assumption taken
by the Attorney-General, that the words "on the true
faith of a Christian" formed part of the main question.
The gallery was again cleared, and the House divided
on the Attorney-General's first resolution, when there
appeared—
For the resolution

... ... 166
... ... ... 92
... -74

Against it ...
Majority
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. V. SMITH addressing the House, and suggest
ing that the resolution should embrace an i[.quiry into
the whole oaths administered to Members of Parlia-
ment.

Lord J. RUSSELL said as the House had sat so late
it would be the most convenient course to continue
sitting until the Royal Commission, which set at a
quarter to five o'clock, and then adjourn after the Com-
mission for two hours. In answer to the Right
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) he had to
state that though these bad brought more prominently
under v,ew the real difficulties which stood in the way of
gentlemen taking the oaths at the table being deemed
Members of the House, yet, as the only point on which
an obstacle had arisen to Baron Rothschild taking his
seat, and which the Bouse had just declared
he could *not get over, bad reference to
the last few words of the oath of allegiance, it was de-
sirable that that question should be brought by itself
nudes the consideration of the House. He should be
sorry to injure Baron Rothschild and the constituent
body of England by mixing it up with other questions.
Mr. GOULIIURN said as the subject would un-
doubtedly come under the consideration of the House
next session, whether the resolution was passed or not,
when every Member would have an opportunity of ex-
pressing bis individual opinions, he should content him-
self on the present occasion with entering his protest
against the resolution, not simply with
reference to the admission of Jews into
Parliament, but because he objected to the
principle of the House pledging in one session
what it would do in the next. He thought it was most
impolitic and injudicious to make any plkdge of that
kind. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by protesting
against the alteration of the law with regard to the ad-
mission of Jews.

Mr. BRIGHT concurred in the propriety • of
passing such a resolutson, because it gave persons of
the Jewish persuasion and the constituency of London
a hold on the Government and the House, that this
question would be brought forward next session. lie
understood the Government as a Government,
intended to take up the question and would
stand or fall by the issue of it.—(Cheers and laughter).
He would not give a single snap of the fingers for the
sAution unless, the public and the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell) understood it in that sense.—(Cbcers, and
continued laughter.)
Mr. HUME observed that the Attorney-General's re-
solution only reicrred to the form of the oath, whilst his
related to the substnlicr.—(litar.)
Mr. AGLIONI3Y suggested' that the word "sub-
stance" should be inserted instead of " form."

Tee SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought ho had
clearly stated that ho intended the inquiry to extend to
the subs, EttlCC, to the form of the words, and to the man
ner in which it was taken.

Strangers► were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divide!, when there appeared— _

... 142
... 106
-36

For the second multi-lion
Against it ...
Majority for the resolution ..
The resolution was constquently carried.
ROYAL ASSENT.

Mr. Pulman, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod,
appeared at the table, and summoned the House to the
House of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given to se-
veral public and private B;11s. On the Speaker's return
he read ovur the titles of the Bills, for which see our
Lord's report.

The louse then adjourned at Twenty Minutes; paw
Five.

ROBBERY OF 1201. BELONGING TO
THE FILESMI VHS' SOCIETY.
The funds of the filestniths' society were a few days
ago rubbed of the large sum of 1201. by an executive
member of the trade. The delinquent is Samuel Paley,
a tile forger in the employ of Messrs. Blake and Parkin,
of Meadow-street, under contract. He has absconded,
leaving a wife and four helpless children, and has takt-n
with him an abandoned woman of the town. Paley was
a member of the filesuaith.' committee, and as such he
attended at the society's rooms, Cualpit lane, un the
evening of 'nestle), in last week. A good dt al of money
was turned over in the office during the evening, and
Paley assisted in counting it. The sum of 1201. iu coin,
and a like sum in Bank of England and local notes were
deposited in the iron sate, a receptacle provided with
three locks, one of the keys of which he carried. The
notes, rolled up together, were in an open case some-
thing like a pocket-book. The coin was in a bag. To-
wards nine o'clock in the evening, when the officers
were about to leave the place, a payment of a couple of
sovereigns that had been received late remained upon
the table. Paley remarktd that it ought to be put
into the safe, in the bag with the other cash; and, taking
out of his pocket his key, asked for the other two keys,
in order that he might open the safe for that purpose.
The keys were given to him, and he knelt down and un-
locked the sale. It was then dusk, and his movements
could not be distinctly observed, but no one present
thought it necessary at that time to watch him very
closely. A hard substance was heard to drop in the
bag, and then the sate was again lucked and the three
keys distributed as before. Almost immediately after-
wards the, parties separated, and the office was duly
secured as usual by Mr. Warren, one of the secretaries,
who resides on the premises. On the following Thurs-
day evening the members of the executive met by ap-
peintmont ; and Paley, whose term of office had
expired, ought to have come forward and given
up his key to his successor. He did " not come,
however, and hence arose it suspicion as to the
safety of the money. Inquiry heightened the suspicion
into alarm. On Friday merning the safe was forced
open, and it was then fonnd that all the bank-notes,
veluell2o/., had been abstracted. The locks had evidently
not been tampered with, and the safe appeared precisely
as it was when left on the Tuesday evening. The CQll-
elusion naturally come to then was, that Paley
while depositing the oddment of money, hau
taken the notes oat of the open case, squeezed them to-
gether in his hand—he had a large hand—and held them
there unobserved till he found a convenient opportunity
for depositing them in his pocket. The other money
put into the stile along with the notes, was all right, ex-
cept one sovereign, and it is supposed that Paley had
kept back one of the two sovereigns that he took off the
table under the pretence of putting them into the bag.
On inquiry it was ascertained that the traitor had ab-
sconded from the neighbourhood, in company with a
prostitute as already stared. anibtless he had pre-
viensly taken the precaution to convert the notes into
gold. On Friday afternoon Mr. Warren set off to
Liverpool and searched the Cambria steamer at the mo-
ment she was about to sail for America, but the fugitive
was not there. Mr. Kirk, the other secretary, went. to
Hull by train on Saturday evening, that being considered
a probable port for the delinquent to embark at.
Aided by a policeman Mr. Kirk found that a man
and woman, under the name of Mr. and Mrs.
Smith, in many important particulars corresponding
to Paley and his female companion, had been
staying a day or two at a lodging-house
near the railway station, and that they had
sailed by the Queen of Scotland steamer, on Saturday
evening, fer Hamburgh. Believing thatithese were the
parties he was inquiring after, Mr. Kirk abandoned the
search and forthwith returned to Sheffield. The trade
were called together on Monday morning, and in
pursuance of a resolution come to, Mr. Warren was
forthwith dispatched to llamburgle on the track of the
thief. Messrs. Blake and Parkin and several other par- I