The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 30.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.
This Bill was real a second time.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 2) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up.
HIGHWAY RATES BILL.
The Highway Rates Bill was read a third time and
passed.
FISHERIES ON THE FRENCH COAST.
ARREST OF ENGLISEI FISHERMEN.
The Earl of WICKLOW asked the Noble Marquis
whether he was aware that several English fishing-
boats had been lately seized and carried into French
ports, on the ground that they had been encroaching on
the rights of the French fisheries, and whether any
steps had been taken to remedy the grievances
of the English fishermen who had been con-
demned in large fines by the French authorities.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that f)r a long
time there had been disputes as to the rights of French
and English fishermen. In 1838 a treaty ha.l been en-
tered into, by which it was agreed that the ocean within
the coasts of the respective countries should be con-
sidered as belonging to those countries. There was
an exception to this rule, which was the coast be-
tween Jersey and France; there a certain line had
been drawn. Now it so happened that exactly upon this
line a bed of oysters had been discovered ; whether
these oysters had had private information of the
treaty, and had taken advantage of it, he did not
know—(A laugh)—but it was upon this bank
that the alleged encroachments had taken place.
The temptation to ercreachment was too strung for any
fishermen. Several French fishermen had been arrested by
the English authorities for encroachments, and had been
fined, and several English fishermen had been arrested
by the Reach authorities. By the treaty parsons so
arrested %ere brought before the magistrates of the
respective countries, and the consul was to attend
and watch proceedings, and if he thought injustice
had be2n done, it was his duty to report the same to his
Government. Several English fishermen had been
taken into Dieppe ; the consuls had attended and had
made no representations to the Foreign-office, and there-
fore the Government had no reason to believe that in-
justice had been done in any of these cases.
PROVISION FOR THE PRINCE OF WALES.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that au ad-
dreis be presented to her Majesty, in answer to her mes-
sage, assuring her Majesty that the House would adopt
mean 4 to secure to his Roysl Highness the Prince
of Wales the possession ot Marlborough [louse so
soon as he should attain eighteen years of age. The
apeessicy for asking this lipicion at presPnt was that
Marlborough Hoer e was to be devoted to the exhibition
of the pictures left to the nation through the patriotism
of the late Mr. Vernor.

Lord BROUGHAM seconded the motion, and in so
doing pa44ed a high eulogiurn on Mr. Vernon.
Lord REDE!a'll ALE thought it would be advisable to
fix on Marlb rough Houte ei a residence in'perpetuiry
for the fzu,e heirs of the Throne.
The motion wa.: then agreed to.
_ CANTERBURY SETTLEMENT BILL.

This Bill wa.-rParl a third time and passed.
FEES OF THE OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE.
_ _ .

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved a resoluTi:in
to the effect that the House concurs in the suggestions
of the Committee rrchimmending the reform of the foes
of the oalars of this Florae, and would carry the same
into effect.—Agreed to.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their _Lordship adjourned.

110 USE OF COMMONS, July 30.
BARON ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
(Continued from cur Afternoon Edition cf yesterday.)
The AT FORNEY GENERAL said that he war
desirous of expressing as distinctly as he could the
view which he had formed upon this subject. He
could say that in coming to a conclusion he had en-
dearoured to disest himself of every persoral feeling.
Upon every previous occasion upon which this question
hid beeq brought before the House he had voted
fur the admission of Jeas into Parliament, and upon
a famer occasion he had expressed his opinion
upon the propriety of that measure.. At the same time
he considered that, on looking at this vestion, ho had
two things to consider with respect to tua wishes which
he himself might have upon the subject. Ile earnestly
wished that Baron Rothschild should be admitted a
Member of that House, and that all persons of the
!emie persuasion should sit and vote there like-
wise. But he was bound to discard every
feeling of that description—the functions which
the Maisel had t pedestal were purely judicial,
not quasi-judicial, but purely judicial, and it was de-
sirable to express this more strongly, because it was
impossible not to perceive that very strong personal feel-.
lags had been excited as to whether Baron Rothschild
could sit in that House.—(llear, hoar.) He con-
fessed that, on looking at this question it was
important to look at the position in which it now
stood. The Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon
hid moved for a new writ for the city of London, and
the 11,ni. and Learned Member for Oxford had moved
as an amendment that the seat was filled. He could not
think thus the course which the lion. and Learned
Member f Abingdon had taken was tho one best to
be pursued, even if his view of the case were correct.
He would now refer to w hat took place in the case of Mr.
O'Connell. lie was quite ready to admit that there was
some difference between the two cases. As it appeared
from the journals, Mr. O'Coneell was called upon on
Friday and asked if he would take tho oaths, and he
stated he was content to take the oaths of aPegiance and
abjuration but not the oath of supremacy; therefore the
debate was adjourned, and on' the Monday following he
was heard at the bar. Oa' the following day he was
caret again to the bar, andeMr. Speaker asked him if
he refused to take the oaths, and on his replying
that he did refuse, the House came to a resolution
that he was not entitled to a seat in the House.
But there was some disttnction between that case and
the present ; the lion. Member for the city of London
had not refused to take the oath of abjuration.—
(Cheers.) The House had, however, come to the con-
clusion that he had not taken the oath in the form
prescribed ; and, perhaps, out of respect to the firms
of the House, it might be proper to call him again to
the table, and ask him if he refused to take 'rho oath in
anY other form than that in which he had taken it.—
,(Cries of " No.") If he refused, then the view taken
by the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon might
be the most correct bun under the circumstances.
But with respect to the real question itself,
he confessed he had considerable difficulty in com-
ing to the conclusion which appeared to him to be
the right and proper conclusion, but which be admitted
ho had arrived at with considerable pain. If he were
sitting as a judge on this case, and had to decide' ac-
cording to the obligation of the oatb, and was anxious to
do justice between the parties, he could not say in
his own mind that the Hon. Member for the city of
London had taken the oath of abjuration iu the form
prescribed by the Act of Parliament.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.) He confessed he came to that con-
clusion with very great regret, but still it was
his duty to communicate it to the House.
(Continued cheering.) He had listened with
very great pleasure and interest to the extremely able
arguments of his Hon. and LearneciFriend the Member
for Oxferd (Mr. Page Wood)—(:Tear)—but though he
knew him to be actuated by the sincerest of motives, he
regretted that ho had cot produced the same effect
on his mind as he had done on , that of
his own. and that he (Mr. Attorhel-General)
was c.b:iged to coma to a different conclusion. He was
not able to get over what appeared to him to be the
plain and common sense meaning of the Act which im-
posed the oath. He could not, however, doubt that if
the question had beea raised before the affirmation had
been made on the oath of abjuration, that it was neces-
sary that he should affirm that he was a Christian.
Mr. Pease would have bad no objection to have made
such affirmation.—(Hear, hear.) It was clear that
affirmation by Statute was to be taken as equivalent to
an oath in the case of Quakers. With respect to the
observations that, had been made by his Honourable and
Learned Frie.ud ,it,, Member fot Oxford, upon the Sd
and 4thWiliiam It, passed subsequent to the case of Mr.
Peaie, they apt- eare4-.to him to hale a contrary tendency
to that which he contended for, no by that statute Par-
liament appeared determined to put an end to all doubt,
and if such an Act had been passed in the case:of Baron
Rothschild, all doubt would have been cured. But then,
supposipg it to be clear that Parliament meant in the
case of Mr. Pease to put an end to all doubt, the ques-
tion then would come round, would it be right for Par-
liament to pass an Act for a similar purpose in the case
of the Baron Rothschild. Another statute had been
pressed on the attention of the House as the mainstay of
the question; he alluded to the declaratory statute
of the Ist and 2d of the Queen. Now there was
nothing in that statute that required the oath to be
Provided a that
administered in a particular form, but the Act
particularwh f the party ptahrety
party
yd
sthakouenid
liable for the thebe
in the regular way-. consequencesuiassumouch as if it was taken
o. Friend had said that
the oath was no oath, or that if it
was it was of no use
at all. If such was the case the
to remove the statute which
,I;roe
r course would be
statue-book ; but if that coursered it from the
the House would be, in _ effect, saying adopted
oath was useless, and ought to , be disTalns:ld'at the
and that it had not the power to do except by an with,
garliarnent. He admitted what had been stated by Act
Hon. and Learned Friend, with respect to the courts of
law and the steps which they take in deciding the mean-
ing of Acts of Parliament, but he could not say that he
thought the rule of courts of law ought always to prevail in
that House. It was not at all uncommon for courts of law,
virtually to repeal -Acts of Parliament.—(Cheers.) . The,
statute of uses and the statute of frauds had been vir-
tually repealed by them.—(Cheers.) Well now, be had
always considered that it was not a wise course for a
court justice, of justice to pursue. Courts of how-
ever, ha-I been much stricter in modern times.
At no time was it a wise thing even for a court of justiee
to dispense with an Act of Parliament, or to argue itself
out ,of it; but it appeared to him to be still more incum-
bent upon the House to keep Acts of Parliament strictly
inviolable, and not to alter or change them in any way
withont the sanction of the other branches of the Legis-
lature. If it did the most dangerous results would
f ,liow. Observe what was to be done in this case. The
House was to strike out of the oath the words

- _
"on the true faith of a Christian," because
airon Lionel de Ruthschild did not thiiik
them binding, upon hip consoiencii. Well, but
was not it just possible if toy aAreod to that propoiitiou,
thi:t sorn3 other persous might fur the same
reason demand that some oitber part of the oath should
be omitted?—(Ceeers.) In voting that the-Baron de
Rothschild should be sworn upon the Old Testa-