The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-26 00:00:00

ntaa 2itatt

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1850.

discussion on previous occasions and under different
circumstances. What Mr. HUMS demanded was

the emulation of the conduct of the Dean and
Chapter at Westminster Abbey by the
ecclesiastical authorities of St. Paul's Cathe-
dral. Thanks to the former, a considerable por-
tion of the great national edifice near the Houses of
Parliament has been recently thrown open to the
multitude, no charge for admission being required
excepting to one or two of the minor chapels ;
whereas the vergers and other attendants at St.
Paul's Cathedral are still permitted to deny access to
its interior unless twopence be given in one quarter,
and sixpence in another, and a shilling in another,
the scale of these fees ascending in proportion ap
patently to the altitude attained by the visitor. Any
thing more disgraceful than this system of transforming
a noble religious structure into a sort of gigantic
peepshow can ecarely be imagined. The indecency
of the proceeding has long been recognized and de-
plored. Efforts have repeatedly been made to render
its continuance impracticable. Unfortunately those
endeavours have hitherto been unsuccessful. The
subordinate officials at the metropolitan cathedral have
clung with unconquerable tenacity to a plan so ma-
terially tending to their emolument ; and their su-
periors have refrained, from a feeling of false
economy, from compensating them by some reasonable
arrangement for any loss that might accrue from the
discontinuance of these perquisites. As Mr. Hume
last evening reminded the House, an energetic effort
was made to dissipate the evils of the existing system
immediately after the accession to the throne of the
present SOVEREIGN. An address to her MAJESTY,
signed by 600 gentlemen connected with art, science,
and literature, besought the interference of the Crown
for the purpose of rendering the public edifices of
the metropolis more accessible to the multitude.
Gradually, it is true, the prayer of that address has
been answered in one or two directions, the people
being enabled to visit such places as the British
Museum without any charge being demanded at the
doors for their admission. How far they have responded
to this confidence in them by the Government has
been long recognized in the decorum of their beha-
viour. Nor can we doubt that the same sobriety of
bearing which has been displayed in purely secular
establishments like these, would be displayed by
them even to a greater degree in fanes consecrated to
religion, and dedicated to the service of the GOD of
Christianity.
The absurdity of the present restriction imposed
upon the population becomes more conspicuous than
ever when we bear in mind the fact, that many of
these public structures have been built at the
public expense, and that the monuments, for
a glance at which the people are required
to pay hard cash, were erected many of them from
funds raised in tha form of national subscriptions.
So notorious are these and other similar grievances,
that the exclamation with which LAURENCE STERNE
adorns the first page of his " Sentimental Journey"
has passed almost into a proverb—" They manage
these things better in France !" In that country the
churches are open at all reasonable hours to the
curious as well as to worshippers. The foreigner as
well as the French citizen can wander without ob-
struction among the tombs and cenotaphs of
the illustrious men who have lived under the
monarchy, the empire, and the republic, without
being pestered for a few sous by some mendicant
servant of a pauper establishment. Not so with our-
selves. We must pay the showmen who stand with
their money-boxes in the vestibules of our cathedrals,
before we can be allowed to make a pilgrimage to the
grave of a NELSON, or the monument of a WREN, or
the statue of an ABERCROMBIE. Those who have
scrutinized the national peculiarities of England have
remarked that we can never achieve any
triumph, warlike or pacific, social or po-
litical, but we must needs celebrate the cir-
cumstance by a dinner. Those who have re-
marked as much might with equal truth have ob-
served that we can never build a church or erect a
mausoleum but we must invariably send round a hat
to spectators, like some itinerant juggler or peripate-
tic musician. The Christian temples, after a lapse ofl
more than eighteen centuries and a half, require that
the money-changers should be scourged out of them
quite as much as ever did the Jewish synagogues.
From the motion made yesterday in the House of
Commons by the Honourable Representative of Mon-
trose, and especially from the resolute manner of his
remarks, we are sanguine that something may at
length be effected in the way of securing this par-
ticular improvement. Mr. HUME, by his observa-
tions last evening, has formally pledged himself to
bring the matter seriously under the consideration of
Parliament ; and from the arguments secured in
favour of his proposition by the experiences of the
public behaviour, both at the British Museum, and
more recently at Westminster Abbey, we are filled
with hope that the advantages so long desiderated by
the well-wishers of the community may be ultimately
obtained through the interposition of the Legislature.
Towards this end the explanation given last evening
by the Right Hon. Baronet her MAJESTY'S Principal
Secretary for the Home Department was uninten-
tionally directed. For, according to the statement of
Sir GEORGE GREY, the moneys collected at the door
of St. Paul's Cathedral are appropriated to their own
use, by the vergers and other attendants, no ac-
counts of them whatever being furnished to the Dean
and Chapter. The carelessness of the whole ar-
rangement consequently reflects the greatest dis-
credit upon those ecclesiastical functionaries, de-
monstrating more clearly than ever the ne-
cessity incumbent upon them of preventing
the continuance of these precarious and intermittent
charges, and the distribution in lieu of them of cer-
tain stipulated salaries to the servants of the esta-
blishment.

Some difficulty is experienced it seems in effect-
ing any such innovation, in consequence of the con-
trol exercised over the funds of the Chapter by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But we doubt not
that due decision on the part of the Government
would tend to the immediate removal of all obstacles,
however apparently insurmountable.

The intelligence which it is our painful duty to
communicate this day to our readers will be received
with mingled feelings of surprise and indignation
throughout the country. The Marriages Bill, after
having been carried triumphantly through all its
stages in the House of Commons, has been with-
drawn in the Lords', and is thus lost for the present
session. This untoward result is the more provoking
inasmuch as it has not been produced so much
through the strength of its opponents, as from
the neglect and apathy of its avowed friends.
If defeated in a fair and manly contest
—if left in a minority on the second reading—there
would have remained some consolation. It would
have been known that every exertion had been made
to ensure success, which had been fully deserved,
although it could not be commanded. New exertions
might be made to obtain the expression of public opi-
nion, and the hereditary Legislators would not have
been spared the obloquy that would necessarily follow
the rejection of a measure which is essentially one
affecting the civil and religious liberties of the people.
But the spirit of Englishmen is ever opposed
to " striking the colours " before there has
been even a show of combat, before a single blow has
been inflicted on either side, before even friends
or enemies could be properly distinguished, or could
select the respective standards under which they were
disposed to serve. The most signal defeat would
have been preferable to a pusillanimous flight—re-
treat we cannot call it. Any course would, in fact,
have been preferable to that which was so unhappily
adopted.

We confess that we entertained serious mis-
givings when we found the Noble Lord who had
charge of the measure bandying compliments
with its opponents, and, on the very first show of re-
sistance, taking time to consider of the course he
ought to pursue with regard to the measure. His
response ought to have been manly and straightfor-
ward. He should at once have expressed his unalter-
able determination to press the measure forward with
all convenient speed, to lose no opportunity of ad-
vancing a stage in its progress i he should
have assumed a firm and unyielding aspect,
and not have encouraged the opponents of
the Bill, of which he was the legislative sponsor, by
the appearance of vacillation ; but, in place of so
doing, he listened to all the plausible but conflicting
reasons for postponement, and was willing to disap-
point the well-founded expectations of thousands and

Yesterday the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Montrose brought under the consideration of the
Commons a subject of no inconsiderable importance
in relation to the moral and social improvement of the
Community. Having already given notice of his
motion, the matter could not be considered a surprise
tg the House, especially seeing that the question in-
volved is it was one repeatedly brought under public

THE SUN,

LONDON,

tens of thousands of his countrymen rather than re-
fuse the bland request of some brother Peer.

Let us for a moment consider the nature of the
objections that were put forward, which were of so
stringent a nature as to enforce immediate obedience.
One Noble Lord complained that " the Bill
had lain on the table for a week or ten
days without a single step being made in its pro-
gress ;" another that " the notice fur the second
reading was too short," with a hope that " the Noble
Earl would consider the propriety of fixing a later
day for the second reading ;" while a third, who
described himself as "a sincere friend to the object of
the Bill," recommended his Noble Friend "to take
no further step with regard to it during
the present year." The general complaint, how-
ever, and the only one worthy of notice, was, " of
the late period of the session it was in-
troduced into their House, and the consequent
impossibility of bestowing on it that full, free, and
impartial discussion which its importance demanded."
Something was also said respecting " the absence of
Noble Lords who intended to oppose the Bill."
Now, with respect to the time of introduction to the
House, it is well known that measures of the deepest
and most vital, as well as those of very trivial, impor-
tance have been brought forward at even a later
period of the session, and that they have still been
carried through successfully and passed
into law. The hurried manner in which
Bills are disposed of in the Upper House
during the month previous to the prorogation has
been justly complained of; but the evil is common to
the great majority of Bills introduced in the repre-
sentative branch of the Legislature, and, if invariably
allowed, a practical check would be interposed to all
legislation. We should gladly see a fitting remedy
afforded for this unquestionable evil, but we earnestly
protest against its being considered sufficient to
warrant the withdrawal of the Bill during
the present year. We venture to say that
many measures which have not yet been read a second
time in the Lords, even some which have not yet
come up from the Commons, will still be carried
through the House and receive the Royal assent be-
fore the close of the session. Why, then, should the
Marriages Bill have been so rigidly dealt with ? To
which side was the delay now complained of
attributable ? Was it not the procrastinating and
vexatious course adopted by its opponents, who
desired to keep the consciences of their fellow-men
trammelled and bound, and to prevent all who
thought differently from themselves from exercising
the most sacred privilege that belongs to a freeman ?
Never had any intended measure been more closely
canvassed, more calmly and deliberately resolved
upon. The Royal Commission, "to inquire into the
state and operation of the law of marriage as relating
to the prohibited degrees of affinity, and to marriages
celebrated abroad and in the colonies," had been ap-
pointed in the month of June, 1847, in consequence
of an address to the Crown by the House of Com-
mons. It sat during 1847 and 1848, and in the
latter year presented the lucid and admirable report,
that must convince the mind of every unprejudiced
person, of ordinary common sense, of the injustice
and impolicy of the existing restrictions. In February,
1849, a Bill was brought forward founded on that
report, the principle of which was affirmed, on the
second reading, by a majority of 34. Its various de-
tails were carried by decisive majorities in Committee ;
but unfortunately, owing to various postponements
obtained by its opponents, it was withdrawn a few days
before the prorogation, when it stood for a third
reading. It was again introduced in the first week
of the present session, and it cannot be forgotten
that on one occasion repeated adjournments were
moved by its opponents, which led to a delay of an
entire month ; and this unfair proceeding on the
part of its opponents is actually made the ground of
another delay for an entire year. We must implore
the friends of the measure not to remain passive or
inactive under their injury. Let them agitate boldly,
energetically, and unceasingly, and be well assured
that they will ultimately succeed to the extent of
their most sanguine hopes and anticipations. Magna
est veritas et prcevalebit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

VACANCY FOR LAMBETH.

RESIGNATION OF MR. C. PEARSON.

Mr. Charles Pearson resigned his seat for Lam-
beth this morning,- and we understand that a portion
of the Liberal electors have determined to ievite
Mr. W. Williams, the late Member for Coventry, to
become a candidate. Another large and influential
body of the electors have set on foot a requisition to
Mr. Alderman Salomons, who will, without doubt,
answer to the call.

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Lord LANGDALE.) ,
CREAK P. IRVINE.
The arguments in this caw, which have already occu •
pied the Court two days, were resumed again this morn-
ing by Mr. Campbell.
The facts of the case were wholly uninteresting, and
the only question involved in it had reference to the
right of the plaintiff to certain leases of property situated
in Bermondsey, which were held by the defendant as
security for money advanced to the plaintiff.
The case was likely to occupy the Court the whole
day.

MARLBRO'-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
ASSAULT.—Patrick Keene was placed before Mr.
Hardwick, charged with assaulting Paul de la Rose.
Complainant, whose face was much bruised, stated,
that about ten o'clock last night he was proceeding
down Ryder's-court, Leicester-square, when some boys
who were passing commenced hooting at and abusing
him. He caught hold of one of the boys, and was re-
monstrating with him on his conduct, when the pri-
soner came up, and, without uttering a word, struck
complainant a blow in the face and knocked him down.
His nose bled profusely and both his eyes wero black-
ened. The prisoner was proceeding to use further
violence, when a constable came up and took him into
custody.

The prisoner, who did not deny the charge, was fined
20s, and in default committed for fourteen days.

THE LATE STEAM-BOAT EXPLOSION AT DEVON-
PORT.-Mr. David Mitchell, the engineer and part owner of
the Queen steamer, blown up here some time since, died on
Wednesday last, having been suffering severely ever since
the accident.

THE HARVEST IN FRANCE.—We learn that in
France the rye is being cut in several districts, and that se-
veral samples had already been exhibited on the Paris
market. The quality is stated to be good. In the neigh-
bourhood of Paris the wheat, oats, and barley, are reported
to be in the best possible condition.
PATENT GLASS SILVERING.--This patent, which
was taken out in the names of Messrs. Varnish and Mr.
Hale Thomson but a few months since, is making great ad-
vances. We learn from Professor Donaldson that " its ex-
pense of working has been reduced within such limits as give
every prospect of its adaptation to a multitude of useful and
ornamental purposes." Those to which it has already been
applied are highly creditable to all concerned, and these united
efforts being brought together under one roof at 48, Ber-
ner's-street, are now courteously exhibited to all interested.
It is a rare power to obtain gorgeousness without a sacrifice
of taste, bat here it has been effected, and effected with an
amount of success inappreciable by any but those who have
witnessed the display under notice. Great expectations are
raised in regard to the application of this discovery to look.
ing-glasses, and, from the warm tone obtainable by its means,
a more faithful reflection of natural objects is arrived at than
by the cold hues of the ordinary silvering. The mirrors
made in perfect spheres have a glorious effect when placed in
the centre of a handsome room.

LIGHTS AND SHADES OP MILITARY LIFE. EDITED
BY LIEST.-GINERAL SIR CHABLIS NAPIER, G.C.8.,
1 Vol.—Perhaps there is not any class of publications pos-
sessing a deeper or more varied interest than those which
record the experience, perils, and vicissitudes of a soldier's
life. To this class has been added a work which is one pre-
ferring peculiar claims to the notice of all who read either
for amusement or information. We allude to "Lights and
Shades of Military Life," in which, to say nothing of the
pathetic narratives, piquant anecdotes, and personal adven-
tures with which the work abounds, the comments of the
editor, General Sir Charles Napier, sometimes profound,
sometimes playful, and always original, will be found fraught
with instruction for officers of every rank.—Evening Paper.
[ADVERTISEMENT.)—BeIre Life in London, of
Sunday, July 28, will contain the programme of Goodwood
Races, with " Anticipations" by Pegasus, and all other
particulars connected therewith. A sixpence enclosed to
ThAe resale
losfH.BeN'ONEestffeTeaxcueTeuds.....2B,Ci.
Mr. Clement, jun., 170, Strand, will insure a copy of Bell'e
Lyre to any part of the United Kingdom by return of post.
the reader will say ; and so it is. But
Singular
what heado
ing
thirtilki osf
a fellow who cries out "My ()tatall
oes are gone," and who
has got 36,. an acre for them?' We have heard of a person
who has alarmed a whole neighbourhood within this county
with this cry—" My potatoes are all
they were gone in one sense, as a man •
might be said to be
gone who had left the country. These potatoes were pur-
chased at a good price, and taken away, and were therefore
gone out of the country—gone at 361. an acre—gone at a fine
profit to the grower—but not gone to rot, as people might
suppose from the apparent sorrow with which their lucrative
" departure" was announced. Now is not this what may
be called a dishonest truth.—Cork _Examiner.

THE LATE FIGHT.—DEATH or GRIFFITHS.—The
vanquished combatant in the pugilistic contest of Tuesday
last, diet at a few minutes after nine the same evening, at
Frimley. From the period of his last fall he scarcely rallied,
and expired soon after being bled by a medical gentleman,
who had been sent for to attend him. Gill, his seconds, and
backers, are of course, " out of the way," awaiting the result
of the coroner's inquest.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS DAY.)

Mr. WOOD would easily cerrecf that mistake by i
calling him in future the Honourable Member for the
city of London.—(Greet cheering.) If the Honourable
Member for the city of London should take his seat
without taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy,
which he had tendered himself to take, if he was com-
pelled to seat himself in that House without taking
those oaths he would immediately by Act of Parliament
bo made a Christ'an—(Great cheering)—a Popish re-
cusant convert.—(Cheers.) The oath of abjuration
was imposed by Act of Parliament, of the 13th William
the Third, and between the first and thirteenth year of
that reign Baron Rothschild could not have been ex-
cluded from Parliament. The Member for the city of
London had tendered himself to take the oath, and he
assented so to do in the way in which persons of his
persuasion have been allowed to take them every-
where.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, in a case be-
fore Lord Hardwicke, where a Jew came forward
to be sworn, arid where that Noble Lord was asked to
alter the commission in that respect, that Noble Lord
held that a Jew might be allowed to swear upon the Old
Testament, on the ground that a man taking an oath
called upon God to punish him if he told an untruth.—
(Hear, hear.) And the Noble and Learned Lord,
in that instance, directed the words " upon the
Evangelists " to be omitted, and the corporeal oath
to be administered, and the principal of the judges de-
cided, upon review of that decision, that it was correct.—
(Hear, hear.) Administering the oath upon the Old
Testament to the Member for the city of London was
not a now mode of procedure, and that had been clearly
laid down by some of the first judges of the land.—
(Hear, hear.) All that was necessary to their
administration of an oath being the appeal of the party
taking that oath to the Supreme Being, believing Him
to be the rewarder of truth and the punisher of false-
hood.—(Hear, hear.) He must deny, therefore, the ac-
curacy of the statement of the Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Oxford, that such an oath was never administered

In consequence of the general understanding that it
was the intention of Baron Rothschild to present him-
self at the table of the House of Commons to-day, and
require to be allowed to take his seat as one of the
Members of the city of London, long before twelve
o'clock the lobbies of the House of Commons were
crowded to excess by members of the Jewish persuasion,
anxious to witness the arrival of the Baron. This
anxiety was also manifested on the part of lion.
Members, who flocked in crowds to the House in order to
be present at the novel ceremony of one of the
Jewish nation presenting himself at the table of the
House as one of its Members, and de‘iring to be sworn
on the Old Testament. Baron Rothschild appeared in
the lobby at twelve o'clock, and was loudly cheered.
The Baron was accompanied by a host of friends, among
whom we noticed Mr. Page Wood and Mr. J. A. Smith.
He appeared in the enjoyment of excellent health and
spirits, and seemed delighted with the excitement which
he appeared to have created.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock, when
there was an unusually full attendance of Members.
NEW MEMBER.

The SPEAKER, before the busiieas of the day was
gone into, announced that Members to be sworn must
advance to the table.

The Hon. W. 0. STANLEY, the new Member for
Chester, in the room of Sir John Jervis, was then in-
troduced by Sir W. Hayter and Lord Marcus Hill, and
took the oaths and his seat. Some disappointment ap-
peared to be felt at the non-appearance of Baron
Rothschild.

The business of the day was then proceeded with.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—

Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland.
Timber Preserving Company.
PETITIONS.
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from Banff
against the admission of Jews into Parliament.
Mr. D'EYNCOURT presented a petition from Lam-
beth complaining of the grossly defective sewerage of that
borough.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from Carlisle
in favour of the Copyholds Enfranchisement Bill.
PRIVILEGE.—BARON ROTHSCHILD.

to a person of the Jewish persuasion, although that as
sertion was made in the good company of Lord Coke.
Sir R. INGLIS bad said that such an oath had no
been taken by a Jew in the Legislature. _ _

Mr. PAGE WOOD did- not care whether it
was in the Legislature or not.—(Hear, bear.) No
one had acquiesced in that view of Lord Coke; but
the Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University now
says, that this has never been done in the Legislature.
Now he apprehended what they were standing upon was
this. Here was a party who was a British subject, who
had unquestionably the right of a British subject, who
bad the property qualification required for a
Member of Parliament, who had been elected
by his fellow-citizens, against whom, moreover, a
petition had been presented but not prosecuted—
and yet this Gentleman, so qualified, and having
these privileges and these duties imposed upon him, was
excluded from his seat, although there was nothing to
justify that exclusion, if he took the oath prescribed by
the Act of Parliament.—((sheers.) The Act of Parlia-
ment prescribed no definite oath, but if it did, he called
upon the Hon. Member for the University to prove it;
oaths were prescribed either by the common law or the
statute law. Now, the authorities which he had cited
clearly established that the common law prescribed no
specific form of oath, nor did the statute law, except in the
case of Quakers, who took no oaths at all. The Jew
in all acts was left to take the oath in the manner which
he considered the most binding and the most solemn.
Nor did the matter rest here, for in order to prevent all
disputes about it there had been a declaratory Act of
Parliament passed to settle the question. Now the Act Ist
and 2d Viet., chap. 105, provides as follows:—" And be
it enacted, that in all cases in which an oath shall be
lawful or shall be administered to any person, either as
juryman or witness, or deponent in any proceedings
civil or criminal, in any court of law or equity in the
United Kingdom, or on any appointment to any office, or
on any occasion whatsoever (did not this apply to oaths
when taken in that House?) such parties shall be bound
by the oath administered, provided the same shall have
been administered in such form and with such ceremo-
nies as such person may declare to be binding." Now he
maintained that this Act applied to Parliamentary oaths,
and this gentleman had a right to be sworn in the
manner which he thinks best. The Hon. Member had
a right to come there and demand to be sworn in the
manner which he considered the most solemn and bind-
ing, and if the Honorable and Learned Attorney-Gene-
ral had not moved his amendment, he should have
moved another, which would have authorised the clerk
at the table to administer the oath in the manner pro-
posed by the Hon. Member himself.—(Cheers.) Now
that was what he thought this gentle-
man was entitled to. He quite admitted that
they were proceeding gravely. Ii his part he wished
it not to be taken as a party question, but really he did
not think that it was for the credit of the House or the
law officers of the Crown that a point so clear as this
should be treated as a disputed point.—(Hear, hear.)
He therefore found himself in the position of being
obliged to vote both against the original motion and the
amendment.—(Cheers )
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, considering the nature of
this question as affecting theprivileges of this House, and
considering the position ol the Honourable Member
who had offered himself at the table to be sworn, it was
impossible to overrate the importance of this subject.
(Hear, hear.) He could not too strongly give his con
currenee to the opinion of the Hon. and Learned Attor-
ney-General, that this proceeding must assume a judi-
cial character, and it was therfore essential for the dig-
nity and character of the House that they should pro-
ceed with due delihoration.—(Hear, hear.) And further,
he thought it would be wise on this occasion to follow in
the steps of those who had preceded them, and to take
the course which they had done under similar circum-
stances. He was, therefore, prepared to a great extent
to vote for the amendment; but, in re erring to the
instance which the Honourable and Learned Attor-
ney-General had called attention to, he must
allude to one important step taken on that occasion,
which he thought on this occasion was even more neces-
sary than then.—(Hear, hear.) It was well known that
Mr. O'Connell was about to tender himself at the table
of the House, that he was about to take an objection to a
Particular form of oath; but he (Mr. Wortley) believed
that until 12 o'clock last night the vast majority of this
Rause was ignorant of the step about to be taken by the
Honourable Member for the city of London.—(Hear.)
For his own part he ventured to say that until a few
hours ago he had not the smallest notion that the House
would be called upon ito come to a decision, at least at
that hour of the day, upon that question. He had not
had the honour of being a Member of that Committee
of which the Honourable Member for Oxford had
spoken, and therefore he had not the advantage which
he possessessed over the rest of the House in being per-
ft oily cognizant with the subject. He had, however,
read the report, but when the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government introduced a Bill, he had thought that
that report had been abandoned. When the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman drew the distinction between
the oath taken on the faith of a Christian and the simple
oath of allegiance, and claimed that the only question
before the House whether the Honourable Individual
was entitled to be sworn upon the Old Testament, he
thought it was impossible to consider the question with-
out reference to the full difficulties even of that mode of
putting it. Both questions were questions of grave im-
portance. He was one of those who had supported
measures for the admission of Jews into Parliament, but
he had ventured to caution the House at the beginning
of the present session against taking any indirect mode
of deciding the question, and be was quite sure that the
House would not allow itself to be taken by surprise in
the matter—(Hear, hear)—and of all persons the Hon.
Individual would be the last to wish to gain by surprise
that which he sought openly and fairly. Iu the case of
Mr. O'Connell it had been thought advisable,
upon the suggestion of the late Sir Robert
Peel, to adjourn the debate from Friday until Mon-
day, in order to give time for consideration, and at pre-
sent, considering the little notice the House had had, and
that most of the Members bad not bad an opportunity of
acquainting themselves with the subject, he thought it
advisable that they should follow that precedent. - Mon-
day, perhaps, would not suit the convenience of the Go-
vernment, but he would propose that they should adjourn
the debate until Tuesday, at twelve.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he thought that when
any Hon. Member asked that that debate should be ad-
journed, considering that up to last night no one ex-
pected that Baron Rothschild would claim his seat, he
owned that he considered that that proposal was but
reasonable, and was so conformable with the character of
the House, and he thought that time ought to be allowed
for deliberation. lie did not think that the Hon. Gen-
tleman was quite right in his precedent, he would find
that when Mr. O'Connell made his claim it was proposed
that he should be heard at the table of the House in
support of his claim. Mr. Peel was in doubt,
and adjourned the debate until Monday, to
take time fur consideration. Mr. Peel then
proposed that instead of being heard at the
table he should be heard at the bar, which motion was
adopted. The House was not, however, in the same
condition then as it was now, for, as the Hon. Member
stated, he could not be content to receive the resolu-
tion, since Baron Rothschild had not asked to
be heard in support of his claim, and that such
a resolution could not be carried unless he made
such a claim as had been made by Mr. Archdale
by letter, and Mr. O'Connell by letter. He (Lord J.
Russell) though it would be advisable to give him the
the opportunity of choosing whether he should be heard
by himself, or his counsel, or his agents, in support
of his claim, or whether he would be content to allow
the matter to be decided entirely by Parliament
in its present state. Certainly, if the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman opposite complained
that he had not had his attention sufficiently turned
to the subject, it was very likely that there were
many other Members in the House ,
similarly situated.
He hoped the House would now make up its mind on
the question before them, and that they would, on some
day next week, come to a decision on the subject. He
should rather wish that the Hon. Member himself, who
claimed a seat in this House, should have his conve-
nience consulted with respect to the day that should be
named. He (Lord J. Russell) did not wish to prolong
the argument on the subject at present. If the House
should wish to ask any further question as to the oath
to be taken by the Hon. Member who claimed to sit, and
if the Hon. Member should prefer one day to another fur
that purpose, that day ought to be fixed. He (Lord J.
Russell) would beg the House to consider that this
was not a question merely of general principles
which should guide that House, but it was one
involving the very form and consttution of the House,
and that in deciding that question they would make a
most important precedent. He (Lord John Russell) like
his Hon. Friend (the Attorney-General), did not propose
to say a single word on the merits of this question • but
he (Lord John Russell) really did hope that this douse,
although they must come to a decision in the end with
respect to the rights which the Member for the city or
London might claim, would endeavour in the prelimi-
nary stagfs to come to a decision without any great
difference of opinion.—(Cheers.)
Sir B. HALL entirely agreed with the observations

At this moment Baron Rothschild aipeared at the
bar of the House, introduced by Mr. Page Wood and
Mr. John Abel Smith. As the Honourable
Gentleman advanced up the floor of the
House to the table he was loudly cheered
by Mei:eters on both sides. The clerk at the table
placed the customary oath in his hands and was about
to swear the Honourable Gentleman upon the New Tes-
tament, when be was interrupted by
Baron ROTHSCHILD, who said in a loud and clear
voice, "I desire to be sworn on the Old Testament."—
(Loud cheers.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS—I protest against that.— (Loud
cries of disapprobation.)
The Hon. Gentleman was then ordered to withdraw.
Sir R. H. INGLIS then rose and said—He believed
that he beard distinctly the words " I desire to be sworn
on the Old Testament." From the time that this had
bean a Christian nation, and that House had been a Chris-
tian.Legialature, no man had ever presumed to take his
seat there unless be was sworn in the name of the Com-
mon Redeemer upon that Book which contained His re-
vealed will, or at least upon some symbol of the common
redemption. He did not undervalue—and God forbid
that he should undervalue—the Old Testament, but if
the Hon.,lndividual who came to the table of the House
and asked to be sworn upon the Bible, though be had
known what his mind was, he should have objected to
that; but when, by the terms of his proposition, he vir-
tually abrogates the second part, how much more was
he bound to object? They had not an Old Testament in
their collection. It might be found in courts of criminal
judicature—(Hear, hear)—and if this were a court
of criminal judicature, and the Hon. Individual had
been a witness, the case would have been entirely
different, but when they knew that ho came forward to
claim his right to legislate for a Christian people, he
should never, while be had strength to resist, have his
sanction.

Mr. P. WOOD—Sir, I rise to order.
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman has posses-
sion of the House, and is quite in order.
Sir R. H. INGLIS resumed—He never would, what
ever might be the decision of the House on the present
occasion, cease from striving to render the House, in
name and profession, as he prayed it always might be
in heart and mind, a Christian Legislature for a
Christian people. If it were neceseary to conclude
with a motion, he would do so in these terms:—
That it had been the practice of this country ever since
it had been Christian to regard all the Members of its
supreme legislature, whether Lords or Commons, as
bound by Christian obligations; and, therefore, when any
one approached that table to take part in the delibera-
tions of that House, he ought not to be permitted to take
such part without first having taken upon him the obli-
tions of a Christian solemnity. The Hon. Member then
reduced his motion to writing, having first substituted
the name of Baron Rothschild for the words " Honour-
able Member," and handed it to the Speaker.
Mr. HUME salted if the Hon. Baronet would have any
objection to embody in his motion the words that Baron
Rothschild had been chosen and elected by the citiasns
of London?—(Cheers and uproar, in the midst of which
Sir R. Inglis's reply was lost, if reply he made.)
Mr. HOPE rose to order.—(Loud cries of " Order,"
whereupon the Hon Member resumed his seat.)
The SPEAKER having read the motion,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—Mr. Speaker,
I rise to suggest to the House that it should take that
course which I apprehend will be consistent with the
due dignity of the House upon an occasion of the present
importance and gravity. The House will observe that it
has in this case a judicial duty to psi. form—(Har, hear)
—and that no feelings of party consideration ought to
enter into the decision which the House comes to on the,
present occasion.—(Hear, hear.) I propose, therefore,
without at present expressing any opinion of my
own—(Hear, hear)—upon the subject which is now
before the House, to ask the House to adopt a
course similar to that which it adopted when
Mr. O'Connell was elected for the county of Clare, and
came to the table of this House and declined to take the
oaths which were then in usage in this House to be taken.
On that occasion, after au adjourned debate, it was moved
by Sir Robert Peel that Mr. O'Connell be heard at the
bar of this House upon his claim ; and I propose to ask
the House to follow a similar rule on this occasion, and
to adopt a resolution in conformity with the one come to
lretephattoesviseoll;
enooufnt.inserting " that Baron Rothschild, a
I prose,aßlalrthe words after the word " that,"
onpeots iars
ita nI
nagml es
tom e net s
kt o
tt
hh
ee
motionofi
on,
ro
utshee that
spooo occasion.
Member for the city of Lendon,be heard at the bar by him.
self, his counsel, or agents in respect to his claim to vote
and sit in Parliament."— [Up to this point the resolution
is identical with that moved by Sir Robert Peel,
as copied from the journals of the House.] —ln
respect t) his claim to sit and vote in
Parliament, upon taking the oaths on the Old Testa-
ment—(Elear, hear)—l apprehend that is the course
which it would be consistent with the dignity of this
House to observe on the present occasion, and that it
would then appear what grounds Baron Rothschild has
to allege—fur what he claims as a right—to take the
ge eady on
nothingthat occasion
p v e e
nbty
respectinghim ps e l or
mh hits
oawncounsel,dneooptopinion
o
tnoao wouldnj
this
si e
si fittingjudicial
subject.
je etht
decision: tih
se
on
Ina ol
the
House
ee
oaths on the Old Testament, and that after hearings
courseh
merelyo u d deliberatet
bwebtaatkieant.o Ibeshaalllel
these are the identical words of Sir Robert Peel's
motion, which was adopted by the House without any
division, and in conformity with which Mr. O'Connell
was heard at the bar of the House.
Mr. PAGE WOOD said it would be scarcely necessary
for him to follow at any length the somewhat singular
address of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the
University of Oxford in moving his resolution. In start-
ing with an avowed declaration of his Christian principles,
a declaration which he (Mr. Wood) should have thought
extremely unnecessary, because those principles were
common to the whole House—(Hear)—and instead of
taking that view which he apprehended to be the con-
stitutional view of the subject, via., whether or not a
gentleman who was twice returned as a Member—
(Cheers)—of the metropolis of our own country—one
among the largest constituencies in the country, con-
sisting of Christians as distinguished—he wished to
make no invidious distinctions—but he would say, as
distinguished as the Right Hon. Baronet himself; but
he said whether the constitutional question be whether or
not a person so returned and so elected is or is not en-
titled to those privileges which it must be admitted were
the common privileges of every British subject until the
law be pointed cut debarring it from them—if the Right
Hon. Baronet had entered into that question the address
which he offered to the House might have been pertinent
to the subject before the House, but as his whole argu-
ment proceeded on a principle with which he entirely
agreed, he held himself excused from saying one word
more on the arguments which he addressed to the
House. The Attorney-General had met that Right
Hon. Baronet's resolution by an amendment which did
seem to him to meet the case before the House.—(Hear,
hear.) He might observe here that there was one im-
portant question which appeared to have been overlooked.
Mr. Baron Rothschild, as in the case of Mr. O'Connell, had
not been required to be heard by counsel. It would be
recollected that an amendment was proposed by Lord
Duncannon that Mr. O'Connell should be heard
by counsel at the bar, and was acceded
to by the House. In the present case
there were two different branches which had to be con-
sidered ; one arose on the oaths of supremacy and al-
legiance. Now Mr. Baron Rothschild was prepared to
take those oaths in a mode to which he thought no
lawyer in the House could offer the slightest objection.
Indeed, he should like to 8t e any lawyer in the Honse
rise in his place and say, that any gentleman taking
those oaths in the ordinary form, "So help mo God,"
was acting contrary
to the principles of the New Tes-
tament. A Committee of the House had deli-
berated on this question, and referring to their
report, it would be found that Mr Alderman Salomons,
in filling the office of Sheriff of London, did take the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy, in that form and
under the same statute, by the provisions of which Mem-
bers in that House took their oaths. But the question
did not rest here. The oaths of allegiance and supre-
macy, and oath of abjuration, were imposed by differ-
ent statutes. The former by the Ist of William and
Mary, the latter by the 30th of Charles 11.
Mr. A. HOPE rose to order. The Hon. Baronet had
called the Honourable Gentleman Baron Rothschild.
Now he believed, according to the English Constitution,
no person was allowed to be so addressed, unless he had
beau created by ter.)
her Majesty.—(Great laugh

FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 2 1850.

which had fallen from his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Oxford (Mr. Page Wood), and he should
feel it his duty to vote against the proposition
of the G overnment.—( He ar, hear.) He denied
that he and his friends, in counselling Baron
Rothschild to tender himself •at the bar of the
House, had any desire to take the House of Commons
by surprise; and he could assure the House that the
Hon. Member (Baron Rothschild) himself did not de-
sire to become a party to any such proceeding.— (Hear,
hear.) In the early part of the se,sion the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, who had the
charge of the Parliamentery Oaths Bill, stated his
intention over and over again to bring that measure
before the House, declaring most emphatically that he
would take the opinion of the House as to whether the
Member for the city of London should take his seat or
not.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir B. Hall) believed that so
late rs Saturday last it was the intention of the
Noble Lord to bring forward a measure of that de-
scription at no very remote day—(Hear, hear)—and
in forty-eight hours afterwards, on Monday evening,
the Noble Lord stated that it was not his intention to
bring forward a measure during the present session.—
(Hear, hear.) Yesterday a large and influential meet-
ing of the citizens of London determined that, as the
Noble Lord had abandoned this subject for this
session, they would not be any longer trifled with.
Now he would ask the House whether it had any
doubt with respect to the meaning of the Act which had
been referred to by his Learned Friend below him; and
whether it did not think that the proposition of the Go-
vernment was to create still further delay in the settle-
ment of this question?—(Hear.) He saw no reason
why Mr. Baron Rothschild should have been sent from
the table without being sworn on the Old Testament. If
Jews were allowed to take an oath on that book in the
House of Lords, and other courts of justice, why should
Gentlemen who were elected Members of
that House not be permitted to do the
same ?—(Hear, hear.) Thinking, therefore, that
the best course they could pursue was to allow the Hon.
Gentleman to be sworn on the Old Testament, as pre-
scribed by the Act of Parliament, and in the event of
his stopping at certain words in the oath, to give him an
opportunity of availing himself of the precedent which was
adopted in 1829, he should oppose the adjournment of the
question. The provisions of the statute on the subject were
so clear, plain. and concise, that little, if any, doubt could
be entertained with respect to them, and entertaining
that opinion, he should give his cordial assent to the
amendment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Mr. ANSTEY stated that on the occasion of Mr. O'Con-
nell refusing to take the oath, Mr. Brougham moved
that he should be heard at the bar of the House,
whereupon Mr. Field moved that the debate should be
adjourned until the Monday following, with the view
of enabling the House to look into precedents, and to see
whether he ought to be heard at the bar or at the table.
On Monday Mr. O'Connell was called back, and beard at
the table, and Mr. Secretary Peel, in opening the debate,
on his own amendment, that he be beard at the
bar, stated that according to precedent Mr. O'Connell
ought clearly to be heard at the bar, and
moved accordingly, stating that the House should com-
mence and finish the debate that night. That was the
case, and no case had occurred like it since the time of
William 111. Since that time, however, matters
had altered. There was the case of Mr. Pease,
the Quaker. He deprecated the course that load been
adopted by the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment to exclude bis own colleague from the House,
namely, that the debate should be adjourned to seek
for precedent. There was no necessity for the adoption of
such a course, precedents were in existence, and to his
mind it was perfectly obvious what was the meaning of
the different motions that had come from each aide of the
House. If the proposition of the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government was adopted the fish dinner
would not be postponed. (Laughter, and
cries of " Oh, oh.") It was notorious that
last night the leading Members, as they were
called, on both sides of the House had come to the
determination to obstruct the claims of Baron Roths-
child.—(Cries of "No, no.") He said yes, yes; the
House bad now the best opportunity of repair-
ing the blunder they had committed in not disc
cussing the Jewish claims.—(Hear, hear.) He cared
not what might be the consequence to himself per-
sonally, but he must say that he thought it
was the bounden duty of those who advocated
the claims of the Jews to insist upon the debate pro-
ceeding at tho present moment. It was clear to his
mind that if an oath was to be taken of a Jew at all,
it must be on the Old Testament.---(Hear, hear.)
Thee° who opposed the admission of this gentleman
wanted an authority for the oath he was prepared to
take. Well, be would give them one. Suppose Baron
Rothschild had been called to the bar as a witness,
could they administer to him an oath but the cne he
was now ready to take as a Member? Consi-
dering, then, the insignificance of the objection,
the conduct of the Government, the lateness
of the session, and the consequence of delay,
he was prepared to give his vote against the motion for
adjournment, and every other motion for adjournment
or postponement of the proceedings necessary for a
final decision of this all - important question of
privilege.
Mr. NEWDEGATE declared, that at twelve o'clock
last night but few Members were aware of this
question coming on to-day. He hoped the House
would therefore consent to the adjournment. A sudden
decision, however, would contrast very badly with the
previous conduct of the House on the question. They
were asked to decide this question in a moment, which
they had been considering and debating for two ses-
sions!, and with reference to which the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government had introduced a Bill,
which had been before the House all the session, and
which had only been withdrawn with the view of its
re-introduction next cession. Now what were they
asked to do? Why, they were asked to declare that they
had been debating a question which, in fact, had no
substance; that they bad been attempting to decide a
point which, in fact, they were already precluded by law
from doing. Well, then, would the House agree to
determine tbat its own proceedings had been so
ridiculous—to confess that it bad wasted the
time of two sessions—and that the House of Lords
had been betrayed into conduct equally absurd?
He trusted that the Noble Lord would persevere in his
determination, and he would then be prepared to show
tbat the arguments of the Hon. Member for Oxford were
utterly false.
Mr. B. OSBORNE would not have presumed to offer
himself to the House at such an early period of
the debate had not he been the representative
of a large constituency—the county consti-
tuency of that person who had been called the
individual," but whom he would term a high-spirited
gentleman. When they were told by the judicial
accents of the Treasury bench to proceed in this ques-
tion with due deliberation, he would put it to
the House whether, on this question, which
had been deliberated for three sessions, and
which bad been affirmed by large majorities
of that House, they were to fight a sham battle, and to
postpone the great question of civil and religious liberty,
because it was not convenient for the Government, and
because it was disagreeable to their friends on tho oppo-
site side.—(Hear.) He, for one, would be no party to
such a proceeding. The Noble Lord was greatly to
blame, and he did not think he had shown
himself in the most advantageous light.—(Hear.)
Ho had postponed the cause of religious liberty,
because these Jews were a small body; but that would
nut have been done if they had been able to annul the
Cabinet or to interfere with his return. He (Mr. Os-
borne) was not content to address himself to this as a
question of precedent or black letter. The citizens of
London would not be content to see the House
delaying from day to day a question upon which
they had already piles of evidence. It had been said
that this was no party question; he maintained it was a
party question, and the greatest party question of the
day: it was one of prejudice against progress, of
intolerance and bigotry against civil and religious
liberty.—(Hear, hear.) If there was any Liberal party
in that House, if they were not content to drag for ever
at the heels of an equivocal Government, he called upon
them to come forward upon the present occasion. It bad
been said that Mr. O'Connell's case was a precedent, but
there was this difference between the two, Mr.
O'Connell refused to take the oath, and prayed to be
heard by counsel. Baron Rothschild did not refuse to
take the oath, and did net ask to be heard
in support of his claim. He called upon the
Speaker to answer this question—if the judges of
the Court of Queen's Bench were authorised to
administer the oath to Jews, whether he did not feel
himself empowered to administer the oath to Baron
Rothschild, in the same way as the judges of the
land ? He called upon the Liberal party to come for-
ward to oppose the Government, and, it need were, to
throw them out on this question—(Laughter)—to stand
by the motion, and to affirm that Baron Rothschild had
a right to take his seat in that House.
The SPEAKER said that with regard to the lion.
Member's question, this was a point which did not de-
pend upon any opinion of his. When an lion. Member
came forward to the table of the House to be sworn
in a manner unusual to the Members of the House,
it was not in his (the Speaker's) power to adminis-
ter the oath in any different mariner from that
always employed without the authority of the House.
Mr. GOULBURN was of opinion that the oaths,
when tendered to a Member should be tendered ,
alto-
gether.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. O'Connell made a distinc-
tion between the oaths he could take, and those he
could not take. He said, when he appeared at the
table, that he could take the oaths of allegiance
and abjuration, but that he could not take the oath of
supremacy. He (Mr. Goulburn) thought the more con-
venient course for the House to take was to discuss the
whole question of the oaths in their entirety, rather than
any particular portion of them.
Mr. AGLIONBY said, as one of the constituency of
the city of London who had advised Baron Rothschild
to take the course which he had adopted, he thought
the best thing the House could do was to consent
to the motion for the adjournment of the debate
until a future day, when the; whole question
might be discussed. For years they had waited pa-
tiently in the hope that the House would do something
to award persons holding the persuasion of Baron Roths-
child the rights and privileges of Englishmen, and it was
only after repeated disappointments that they had re—
solved to be no longer deluded by the attempts to
pass a Bill on the subject, and bud advised Baron
Rothschild to throw himself at once upon the House,
and, if necessary, the country.
Sir F. THESIGEIi said it appeared to be the inten-
tion of Hon. Members opposite to divide and to consider
separately questions which seemed to him to
be necessarily and inseparately connected together.
He thought ',tat the proper course to adopt would be to
take the whole question together, and not divide it as
had been suggested by the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth.

Mr. HUME had no objection that the question as
propounded by the Honourable Baronet tho Member

4-0
~ it-,v,, • .
i „.;,4 -•
_.-.,
:
G,T ,JI • M,
#l.
5
-. r& •• - ' 'N P4lll ~ '' ''
,•, - . 'ilk -•• .• '''''
•-.P__L221,0, 4.. r. •31 )...,,, 45,4.0• Vii. ' . a it-6
1 ' 1. A ', • .
r. - , , • ‘,„
.;...