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

BILL.

ThA order of the day for the resumption of the ad-
journed debate nn tile amendment moved on the third
reading of this Bill was read, and thi. debate resumed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having proposed a aeries
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 Hunourable
Gentleman the Member fur 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,
end 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 fur 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 the Speaker from the
earliest times Members had 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
binding on
trepetrson could take the oath of abjuration on the Oid
quiteia ignsoptieshailbslecotonsciene
that that was the form of oath most
separatee. Htheeehebeltiweveedqueist
were involved and blended to tiwonosu;ldthebye
together; and if a Member
coming to the table could notg
take the oath of abjura-
tion in the Jewish form
thought the House wou find,he(Sir F. Thesiger)
deli-
beration of the subject, hon careful
no right whatever, accordingtit
he could have
law, to take any of the oaths in that to established
Although, it might be perfectly truetatif.articular form.
which was put by the clerk at the tablet was
the question
rised question, and that no Member comianseainoutnhaeutho-
was bound to answer that question, yet th it question table
b
been put—(Hear)—and answered, and the question andad
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 therefiro entitled 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 Roman Catholic religion were required
to take, namely, the oaths of allegiance, supremacy,
and abjuration. It was impossible to separute one oath
from the other, and until he could take all the oaths be
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