excluding the supremacy of any foreign Power. These three were important oaths and declarations which Members of Parliament were required to make. Baron de Rothschild, having been elected to this House at two repeated elections, was ready to take the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and, when called to the table of the House, he was admitted to take those oaths. But because he did not repeat certain words at the end of one of the oaths, which were not intended as the substance of the oath, but implied that the person taking it appealed to a higher Power on the faith of a Christian, the House declared that Baron de Rothschild could not take his seat in that House without using those words. Upon that there arose considerable debate, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General maintained with great power of argument that, as those words were not binding on Baron de Rothschild's conscience, he need not use those words as part of the oath. That argument was supported by one of the highest authorities to whom they had looked on these subjects; it was supported by the authority of the late Mr. Charles Wynn, who made subjects of this kind his peculiar study, and than whom no authority could be higher. He (Lord John Russell) confessed that it appeared to him that the weight of the argument inclined-but only inclined to the side that Baron de Rothschild could not take his seat. But there was another reason beyond that, which, he thought, gave a slight preponderance to the argument in favour of that side of the question, which made him most unwilling to come to a resolution by which the words in question should be passed over. He was afraid it would appear as if that House were taking a legislative power upon itself, and that the House of Lords might consider that on a question in which their concurrence was necessary, another branch of the Legislature had decided without submitting the matter to their deliberation, and asking for their consent. He saw very great evils in taking a course which might entail such consequences; but he should say that that House, having acted with such deference towards the other House of Parliament on this subject, on a question affecting the election of Members to that House of Parliament, affecting the rights of every elector in the United Kingdom, was entitled to have from the House of Lords a fair consideration of their difficulty, and that, as they had shown Lord John Russell they would not step a single inch beyond what the letter of the law would authorise, the House of Lords ought, on the other hand, to consider what was fairly due to the people of the United Kingdom, and to the privileges of the Commons' House of Parliament. And in that respect, he said this question was in a different position from that in which it had hitherto stood. He believed no man would deny, so far from there being any other objection to the Jew taking his seat in that House, that if he, like Lord Bolingbroke or Mr. Gibbon, felt no objection to use the words in question, no Election Petition or Election Committee would afterwards, in conformity with the law, be able to disturb his seat. That, therefore, was the position in which the House stood; and it was a position in which they ought not to be placed with regard to a gentleman elected by a large body of the people. The only argument he had heard that evening which had the appearance of novelty in it, was the argument used by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram), who said that the position which he (Lord John Russell) had always held in that House, and which many other hon. Members had also held, that they ought not to deprive the subjects of Her Majesty of any civil or political privilege on account of their religious opinions, was begging the question, and that it was, in fact, not on account of their religious opinions that Jews were debarred from taking seats in Parliament, but that it was because the House would not enjoy the confidence of the people of this country if Jews were admitted into Parliament; and that every Legislature was bound to take care that it framed its oaths in such a way as to obtain the respect and confidence of the people; and the hon. and learned Gentleman also said, that if he were advising a Jewish legislature, he would certainly advise them to exclude Christians from it. That seemed to be changing the ground of the question, when it was, in fact, only moving it a little further; because when they came to consider the framing of their oaths so as to obtain the confidence of the people, they must remember that they were representing the country, and could judge for themselves whether the country would or would not lose their confidence in the House of Commons because Jews were elected to Parliament. The presumption was entirely against the hon. and learned Gentleman; for, in the first upon Earl of Brocklehurst, J. Grenfell, C. W. Harris, R. Hastie, A. Hawes, B. Henry, A. Heywood, J. Heyworth, L. Hobhouse, T. B. Hogg, Sir J. W. Humphery, Ald. Hutchins, E. J. Jermyn, Earl place, Baron de Rothschild had been elect- | Arundel and Surrey, Grenfell, C. P. Question put, that the word "now" stand part of the Question. The House divided:-Ayes 202; Noes 177 Majority 25. Duke, Sir J. Johnstone, Sir J. Matheson, Col. Melgund, Visct. Milner, W. M. E. Mitchell, T. A. Morris, D. Mulgrave, Earl of Muntz, G. F. Murphy, F. S. Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Ellice, rt. hon. E. Evans, J. Norreys, Lord Norreys, Sir D. J. Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W. Pechell, Sir G. B. Foley, J. H. H. Glyn, G. C. Peel, F. Granger, T. C. Rice, E. R. Estcourt, J. B. B. Farnham, E. B. Floyer, J. Forbes, W. Fuller, A. E. Galwey, Visct. Gooch, E. S. Goold, W. Noel, hon. G. J. Plowden, W. H. C. Wellesley, Lord C. Whitmore, T. C. Wigram, L. T. Williams, T. P. Willoughby, Sir H. Wodehouse, E. Worcester, Marq. of Wynn, H. W.W. Yorke, hon. E. T. TELLERS. Newdegate, C. N. Plumptre, J. P. Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday, 12th May. CIVIL BILLS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL. Order for Second Reading read. MR. SADLEIR said, that he appealed to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland not to proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill in the absence of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as it was one of strictly legal character. If, however, his right hon. Friend persisted, he would proceed to state his objections to the measure. He had no objection to that portion of the measure which consolidated the statutes regulating the jurisdiction of assistant barristers. As regarded that part which was intended to alter the laws of landlord and tenant, he of that law, as prepared in this Bill-its simplicity, efficiency, and economy. He approved of the payment of the assistant barristers by salary instead of fees; and the expediency of allowing barristers to practise in the Civil Bill Courts. He admitted that the Bill had no tendency to centralisation. In fact, the only objection he shadowed out to the Bill was with reference to the 50%. clause, which was merely an assimilation to the English law that had been passed in that House, notwithstanding the opposition given to it by the Gentlemen of the long robe on both sides. His hon. Friend went even farther, for he not only admitted the necessity of passing such a measure as that now before the House, but required something more. So far as to the merits of the question. Now, as to the fairness of throwing any impediment in the way of the Government, with reference to this Bill, he (Mr. French) asked the House to carry in mind that the necessity of a measure of this nature was so strongly felt, that so far back as the Session before last, a private Member of this House brought forward a Bill to carry into effect the same objects that are now embodied in the proposed measure. He withdrew that Bill on a pledge having been given by Government to introduce a complete measure on the subject. Last Session a deputation most numerous and influential, and composed of all shades of politics, waited on his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, calling on him to introduce a measure similar to this. In ac thought the time for that alteration was very unfortunately chosen. Throughout the 160 clauses of the Bill there was not a line to secure to the improving tenant any compensation for his outlay. He objected to this alteration in the law of landlord and tenant. With regard to the extension of the jurisdiction of the local courts, he hoped that the Government would also deal with the abuses that still existed in the procedure of the superior courts of equity and law in Dublin. He complained of the modes of procedure in those courts, and not in any manner of the learning or ability of the eminent Judges who presided over them. The extension of the jurisdiction of the local courts would give to Ireland the same advantages as England already possessed. He hoped that in Committee some clauses would be introduced improving the manner of executing the decrees of the assistant barristers' courts, which was at present very objectionable. The Irish people were exposed to great evils by the practices in the diocesan courts; and he hoped the Government would transfer to the assistant barristers much of the jurisdiction of these courts. The only qualification at present for a diocesan judgeship was the being able to show that you were not a Papist. He was anxious that the judges of the local courts should be well worked, well paid, and liberally pensioned, and it would be a great advantage if they could hold monthly sittings. A new and unexpected feature in the Bill was, that it proposed to return, in the case of ejectments, to the old sys-cordance to the pledge given by his right tem of exacting heavy stamp duties. He believed the returns moved for would show that this was quite unnecessary, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see it right to revise the scale. He also strongly advised the Government to keep up the scale of professional fees, so as to secure the aid of a class of respectable and able practitioners in the county courts, otherwise the attempt, like others made before in the same direction, might fail again for similar reasons. MR. FRENCH considered there was scarcely a necessity for any remarks on the proposed measure, as the speech of the hon. Member for Carlow, though purporting to be against it, was in reality in favour of almost every principle put forward in it. His hon. Friend had stated the necessity that existed for a reform of the law in relation to the Civil Bill Courts. He approved of the consolidation and codification hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, and in compliance with the wishes of the deputation, consisting of thirty-five Members of that House, the Government have introduced this Bill, prepared with the greatest care and ability, and which he (Mr. French) had no hesitation in saying was one of the most important and valuable Bills, both as to the administration of justice and improvement of the law, that had been introduced within his memory. Hitherto the sole objection to the progress of the Bill, while approving of its principles and details, was for the purpose of having it referred to a Select Committee. This point having been pressed on a former occasion on the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, was acceded to by him on a distinct understanding that the second reading was to take place without any discussion; and he (Mr. French) would leave to the House to HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Ennis- judge with what fairness that pledge had | been redeemed in the opposition now made. If there were any Amendments necessary to the details of the measure, there would be ample opportunity in the Committee for a full and fair consideration of them; and he (Mr. French) trusted his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland would not consent to any further postponement of the second reading of the Bill. SIR W. SOMERVILLE said, he would refrain at that hour from adverting to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sadleir) in reference to the Bill; but as it went to a Select Committee, both there and after it came back to the House, there would be ample opportunity to consider its provisions. The Bill was one that he had already pledged himself to introduce, and he had now the honour to propose the second reading. It consisted of 160 clauses, and repealed, in part or in whole, thirty Acts of Parliament. Out of doors, it was the most popular Bill which he ever had the honour of introducing to that House. It was an understanding before Easter, that if it were postponed till after the holidays, the second reading would be taken without discussion, in order to its being sent to a Select Committee, and he now hoped the House would adhere to that understanding. MR. S. CRAWFORD wished, before they proceeded, to protest against that way of dealing-bringing in Bills, no matter how important soever the subject, at any hour of the night. MR. SCULLY hoped, if it was referred to a Select Committee, that they would be allowed to examine witnesses, and so to consider the subject with the fullest information before them. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee. The House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock. AYLESBURY ELECTION. MR. ROUNDELL PALMER said, he had to present a petition from an individual, who complained of a petition in his name having been improperly presented to that House, which he did not sign, against the late return for the borough of Aylesbury. As the matter appeared to affect the privileges of that House, perhaps he (Mr. R. Palmer) would be allowed to deviate from the usual course, and bring under its attention the statements of this petition. The petitioner stated that he was an elector for the borough of Aylesbury, and was registered "Thomas Bradford, householder;" his real name being Thomas Hughes Bradford; and that there was no other person of that name in Aylesbury-that at the late election for the borough he voted for the unsuccessful candidate-that on the 25th of April last he received a letter from a Mr. Strutt, a solicitor in London, desiring him to come to London on the following day, and promising that Strutt would pay all the expenses that the petitioner went to London on Saturday, the 29th of April, and met Strutt at the place appointed-that Strutt solicited him to sign a petition to that House, complaining of the return for Aylesbury, urging as a reason to induce him to do so, that a person of influence in the county (whom he, Mr. R. Palmer, would not name, because there was no imputation against him) was most interested in the matter, and was anxious that the petitioner should attach his signaturethat on the petitioner refusing to sign the petition, he was desired to go to a place in London and see the gentleman who was named in the petition-that the petitioner HOUSE OF LORDS, went and did not succeed in seeing the gentleman the first time, but he called Friday, May 2, 1851. again, and then saw him, and he told the petitioner that he had nothing whatever to PUBLIC BILL. 1a Royal Navy do with the matter. The petitioner said he returned the same day to Aylesbury, and at the railway station he saw Mr. Strutt, who endeavoured again to persuade him by a similar inducement and offers of reward to sign the petition, but this he again refused to do. On the same day a petition was presented to that House with MINUTES.] Several noble Lords presented Petitions, and after having gone through the business on the Paper, House adjourned to Monday next. |