3 AUGUST 1850, Page 2

Ilrhatto filth rurnbiug inVartiamtut.


Howe Or Loans. Monday, July 29. Royal Assent to Thirty-six Bills. Tuesday, July 30. Disputes between English and French Mid-Channel Fisher- men.

Thursday, August 1. Law of Landlord and Tenant ; Lord Monteaglefs Motion for a Royal Commission. Friday, August 2. The Hyde Park Show—Civil List discussion, raised by Lord Brougham—Mercantile Marine Bill, read a second time.

Hausa OF COMMONS, Monday., July 29. Baron Rothschild's Claim; adjourned de- bate resumed—Mercantile Marine Bill, read a third time and passed—Marlborough House for the Prince of Wales ; resolution carried by 68 to 46—Navy Estimates ; vote for Marines carried by 128 to 72—Fees (Court of Chancery) Bill, withdrawn— Public Libraries and Museums Bill, read a third time and passed. Tuesday, July 30. Baron Rothschild; , Administration of the Oaths : Sir F. Thesiger's Motion for New Writ, negatived; Mr. Page Wood's Amendment that the seat be declared full, negatived by 221 to 117—Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill; Lords' Amendments on the Franchise, negatived by 213 to 91; on the Registry, by 179 to 109— Marlborough House— New Writ for Lambeth, in room of Mr. Charles Pearson, resigned. Wednesday, July 31. Sunday Trading Prevention Bill, thrown out on the motion to gointo Committee. Thursday, August 1. Australian Colonies Bill ; Lords' Amendments discussed, and agreed to—British Claims on Tuscany, stated by Lord Palmerston—Supply : the Marble Arch : the Duke of Cambridge's Annuity—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill; second reading opposed, with divisions;and carried. Friday, August 2. Crime and Outrage Act, withdrawn on a point of order, and brought in afresh—Supply Committee: Votes for the New Houses of Parliament, and other purposes—Inspection of Coal Mines Bill, read a second time. T I 11 E -VA /31.E.

.c.-Ties Lords. The Commas.

_nlour of Hour of , Hour of Hour of

*Heeling. gAdjuarnment." Meeting. Adjournment. Monday .... . 5h -.. 3b625m %Honda') ....,-... ...... Noon .... 3h 15m 4th sps) ih 45m Tuesday — 'Mb era Ttienday Noon .... 4h 15m 611. (ns) 111 1501 Wednesday No Sitting. Wednesday Noon .... 6h Om

Thursday Noon 2h 2001

Thursday 5h 8b 25m 5h (no) 2h 30m Friday Noon ... 31; 30m

Friday 5413. '(n) lh 30m Sittings this -Week, 9 Time, 52h 4501 — this Session,139; —9901, 13m


The House having gone into "Conimittee to consider the appropriation of Marlborough 'House for the Prince of -Wales dnring.the joint lives of the Queen and himself, and the provision Of a coach-house -and stables out of the Crown land revenues, Mr.'Humn objected, that the resolution is premature, as the Prince-of Wales is but nine ye,ars old, and the ar- rangement is . not to take effect till he is eighteen. It was under- stood when Marlborough House was -voted to the _Queen. Dowager, that she was to keep it in order herself; but.it turned out that the natio to do this, at a cost of 44,0001., and at tt further yearly outlay. JonN RUSSELL reminded the House of-the arrangement respectin Tie Vernon pictures ; her Majesty's grace in that -respect Should not be for- gotten in considering the ease. Ministers thought it right to- seek the'ap- propriation now, lest it .should come to be thought that the picturei had so long occupied the house that it would be wrong to-give it to the Prince without having mentioned it before. 'Lord SEYMOUR explained as to the stables. Stables in connexion with Canton Rousehad been given to the Queen Dowager When those of Marlborough House were pulled down. There is now du opportunity of removing the Records, getting rid of the Riding- house,.. and.extending Darlton-Terrace ; and-it will be well to .get rid of the stables .and replace those Of 'Marlborough House. The Crown re- venues will be benefited .by-about' ayear. Mr. HUME denied. that 'Marlborough House belongs to. the Crown, .-as Ministers assume ; :it was built for the Duke of -Marlborough, and afterwards reverted to- the nation as national property. It might be well to sell it, and diminish the encumbrance of so many palaces. Of what use is Kensington Palace, now tenanted by people with no more right in it than Mr. Hunie himself ? Mr. HIDILEY saw no reason for hampering- the House, and the Crown, with what is' to happen mine years hence. The Prince of Wales may not then be alive ; great changes of opinion may have taken place,- and the House may have to buy him out because of some change of opinion as to-what is desirable. Alderman 'Sumer ob- served, that the 'Prince may-liable 'Marlborough House for a-residence when-he becomes eighteen.

The present vote, following a recent vote with regard' to another member of the 'Royal Family, which was regarded as a piece of., great extravagance out of doors,. might lead the public to -infer that the House had nothing to do with their surplus revenue but to find palaces for theBoyalTamily. (Cheers.) On a division, the Ministerial resolution was carried, by 68 to 46.


In Committee on the Duke of Cambridge's Annuity Bill, Mr. Hume' was rivalled by Mr. ROEBUCK in his economical assaults on the toaliberai provision of 12,0001. a year. Mr. HUME, wishing to carry ri majority with him and 4! do a little business," ,moved that the sum, be 10,000/. ; .making reference to the precedent of the allowance of the late Duke of Gloucester. -Mr. Rommucvhoped Mi. Hume " would hardly- move 10,0001." It is certainly right'to -provide well for the Royal Family, but itbecomes of importance to know -when that family should cease to have a claim- on the public. There is 24,0001. granted to thefasnily of the late Duke. The Queen has a family of seven ehildren, every one of whom has the same claim on the country as the Duke of Cambridge, and every one of whom may help' to mul- tiply the number of the Royal Family. It may appear ungenerous thus to discuss the provision ; but really where is the provision to end ? 'The sum given to the family of the late Duke of Cambridge goes a great way beyond the proper object ; -which should be the maintenance of these royal persons in decent splendour. He proposed to fill up the blank with 5,000/. ;,an, ad- dition to the Duke's professional income which should enable him to live as an honest English gentleman. Mr. Roebuck did not see that the Duke should ape the dignity and state of the Sovereign. Mr.' VERNON SMITH objected to 5;0001. as too little. His Royal High- ness has appointed two or three Equerries: no less, it seems, was expected of him. The proposal of Mr. Hume was a fair one. Mr. DISRABLI expanded the ease of 'Royal disabilities—the position in which the Legislature has placed Princes of the Blood : isolated -from patrician families—whose wealth has been created, in the course of cen- turies, by marrying heiresses, to an extent of which few are aware ; cut off from political distinction and the rewards of political success; shut out from ell the public offices for life, with the- exception of the militarjr. Distinctions unnatural and unjust, but, -while they last, proper -to in- fluence mu-consideration. Mr. Bawler -echoed strictures on the mina- tural and wicked Royal Marriages Act ; but he -believed that most persons on the Ministerial side of the House consider-that the Minister had pro- posed too much, whilst out of doors the grant is almost without exception regarded as extravagant. • An episode of confused excitement was here created by Mr. .ANSEET, who at this time became irrepressibly impatient for the promised Govern- ment resolutions on Baron de Rothschild' s ease. Mr. Anstey increasing in impatience, at last moved that the Chairman do report progress,—re- solved that not a farthing of public money should be granted in supply, for the Duke of Cambridge or anybody else, till redress of grievances met with more faithful consideration. Mr. Nee WOOD and Lord Dr-romt. STUART somewhat sympathized with Mr. Anstey's ebullition ;-but Mr. Hull; Mr. COBDEN, and others, deprecated the pressing of his motion, and at last he withdrew it Mr. Roebuck's amendment was negatived without a division : Mr. flume's amendment was negatived by .105 to 76—majority 29. Mr. Hume demanded to know if Ministers mean to persist, alter such a divi- sion—which if you subtract dependents and expectants in office, and ex- pectants looking to get into office, on both sides of the House—left the. Government in a decided minority ? Lord JOHN Russem.eaidYes. Mr. Ihuoirr, with some acerbity, caused by a passage with' Mr. Fox Meade, in the absence of the reporters during the division, asked for an answer, without quibbling, to the plain *question whether Mr. Fox Manic did not know that it is decided that the Duke of Cambridge is to have . Sittings thils Week, 4; Thne, eh 52m — this Session, 91 ; —2851,2601

I • I

the -vacant regiment of Guards. Mr. Fox Maims said, " No, Sir, .1 'do Thelilank was filled.up -with 12,0001. ; the annuity to begin from .the list of July 1860.


, The 'debate on Baron Lionel de Rothschild's claim to take his seat for the City of London was resumed at noon on Monday. Before taking up the regular thread of -discussion whore it had been dropped on Friday— .at the point where Mr. Hume was just about to move his amendment on :Sir :Robert Inglis's eriginal motion—the House had some preliminary ...discussions on minor formalities. Mr.. HENLEY suggested, that it would be well to get upon the records of the House that Baron de Rotheebild, one of the Members for the City of London, desired to take the oath in the way he required, because that was the form of oath most binding on -his conscience. Sir FREDERICK THESIGM pointed out, that Baron de Rothschild's answer, already given, was no answer to the question put ; and moved that he be recalled, and that the Speaker should ask for an -.answer to the question already put to him by the officer of the House, "what oath he daims to take, the Catholic or the Protestant oath ?" Mr. °swarm thought that, at least, if the Member. for London were ques- .-tioned at the bar he should be warned that it -was in his discretion only to -answer such-questions as he thought 'fit Sir Jamas GRAHAM suggested, that in a proceeding of a judicial character it was of the last importance that order should be preserved ; therefore no question should be put ex- mept 'through the Speaker, and it should-be put in writing, and moved and seconded before being-put. Lord Join' RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES 'WOOD concurred in these suggestions ; and Sir Charles moved, -"That the -Baron' Lionel de Rothschild, one of the Members for the City of London, having demanded to'be sworn on the Old Testament,' he be called to the table, and that Mr. Speaker do ask him why he demanded to be sworn in

that 'form:" Seconded by Lord HARRY VANE, this motion was carried. Baron Lionel de Rothschild advanced to the table, and the Siosetza. ad-

dressed him—" Baron de Rothschild, you have demanded to be sworn on the Old Testament, and I am directed by the ' House to ask you why you have demanded to be 171W0111 in that form." Baron DE -ROTHSCHILD re- plied—" Because thaf.is the form of sweating that I declare to be most .binding on my conscience." On the withdrawal of the Member-for London,, additional points were 'mooted by:Sir FREDERICK THESIOER and Mr. WORTLEY. Sir Frederick -still-insisted that no answer had been given to the original question, and - contended that one should be.given : he moved accordingly, but the ge- .neral sense being against him, he did not persevere. Mr..Wortley de- clared the course of special-pleading taken by Baron de .Rothschild's

- :friends to be trifling and injudicious. He held that all the three oaths ,must be .taken . jointly ; and he would bring Baron de .Rothechild's in- tentions on that point to issue, by moving that the Speaker do ask him this question—" Are you willing to take the oaths required bylaw to be 'taken by Members of Parliament before admission to their seats I" This motion was seconded,. and.put to the vote ; but negatived, by 118 to 104, majority 14.

Then was resumed the adjourned dobatemn Sir Robert Inglis's.motion, ;thus-molded- _"That from the earliest times of the miistenee of -a Legislature in Eng- land,. no man was ever admitted to.take any part therein except under the I sanction of a Christian oath ; and that the Baron Lionel Nathan de Roth- child having requested -to-take the oaths on the Old Testament,. and having, I in consequence, been directed by Mr. Speaker to withdraw while the House *deliberated, this House refuses to alter the form of taking the oaths." - 'With a few-words on civil rights, Christian principles, and persecution ' "That Beni rrn Lionel-Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the -of Dissenters .Mr. Hsts moved the following amendment,

City of London, having presented himself at the -table ;of the House, and having previously to taking-the oaths requested to be sworn on the Old Tes- tament, (being the form which he has declared at the table to be most bind- ing on his conscience,) the Clerk he.directed to swear him on the Old Testa- ment accordingly." .

Sir FREDERICK THESIGER opposed this course with legal argumenta- tion; premising hopes-that the House would -dismiss all party heat, and deal.with the question in a strictly judicial spirit. He hardly thought Sir Robert Inglis's motion unobjectionable: it was not necessary. for that side to affirm the practice ; the onus was on the other side tosustify departure from the usual course.

It is plain that 'Baron de Rothschild does- not desire to take the Roman Catholic-oath—the House bearing in mind that only one oath is-required of Roman Catholics under the 10th George IV. But if -he does not demand the single oath of the 'Roman Catholic:sr-there remain only the three oaths always administered to Protestants. .All these oaths are tendered together;, but one of them must be taken " on.the true faith of a Cluistian " ; Baron Se Rothschild has therefore precluded himself. He demands, however, to .take them in the form most binding on his conscience. Without reference to the usage of Parliament, the law of the land prevents this. In our courts of justice, Jews have been sworn as jurors and witnesses, but they are sworn under the comnion law. 'They are sworn there in the manner binding on- their conscience, first; became it is a rule of the ancient common law that no evidence shall be received except on oath, and secondly, because no act of Parliament prescribes any form of oaths in our courts of justice. But it is keing-too far to say as a general principle that oaths must be admitted in _every. ease in the form most hindmg on the conscience of the swearer : the Aging:pie is confined to assertory or juridical oaths, and is repudiated in re- spect-of promissory oaths, such as those taken on accepting office, &c. The promissory oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, are required by a -series of statutory enactments,. -which from the first of them, in Queen Eliza- beth's time, down to the act of George L, that sets forth the oaths as they are now taken, have in spirit required them to be taken in the Christian manner. The early acts declare that. the oaths of allegiance and su- premacy axe to be taken on :the Evangelists ; the later acts imply the continuance of that form of administration ; and the now operative act ex- pressly requires the further oath of abjuration to be made on the true faith of a Christian. The inference drawn from the act let and 2d Victoria cap. 105 is weak : that act, which was a declaratory, and not an enactive act, does not provide any new mode of taking oaths ; it merely declares that' all oaths taken with ceremonies which the swearers -declare binding on their con- science shall make the swearers legally subject to the technical and penal incidents of perjury: It is not now necessary to meet the argument that the words " on the true faith of -a. Christian' are only a part of the jurat and not a substantive part of the oath, and are therefore omissible. The express exactments in the 10th George I. and the 13th George I.—that, for the special purposes of those acts, thew words might be omitted from those oaths when they are :administered to Jews—have compelled the Attorney- General to yield his former general opinion on this point. - Lord-Anti lusszu. applauded the judicial and purely argunieutative tone adopted by Sir Frederick"Thesiger. Conceiving himself bound by the acts which require the oaths, he still en- tirely doubts the policy of such acts ;' he thinks those statutes have rather tended to entangle consciences-and perplex minds than to afthrd further se- curity for.tillegiance, or make better provision for legislation' in that Rouse. -Sir Frederick Theeiger's .historie deductionsas to-the mode of administering the oaths are very weakly founded on the fact that the earlier oaths were lo be taken on the Evangelists ; for Lord Chancellor Hardwick° has decided, after Hole himself, that.when it is laid in an indirtment that the Jew was BROM on -the Evangelists, that wordis "- answered by the Old Testament, which lathe evangelium of the Jews." Lord Join]. confessed that the statute of Victoria is not conclusive in providing. that oaths binding on the con- science shall induce the penalties of perjury ; and that the words of the sta- tutes of the 10th George I. and 13th George I., allowing the omission in par- ticular cases of the words " on the true faith of a Christian," do preclude the House from omitting them in this case. On the whole, he thought The House should declare that Baron de Bothechild should have his claim com- plied with, to be sworn in the form most binding on his conscience ; but at the same time he thought -that the House could not leave out any part of the oaths without the sanction of an act of Parliament—" I conceive that if those most opposed to the admission of the Jews were of opinion that the Baron de Rothschild could lawfully take his seat, whatever politic...11 con- sequences they might think would follow, and whatever results they might fear from what they considered an abandonment of the Christian character of _this House, they ought at once to assent to his admission. But, on the other -hand, if you do-not think that the law enables him to take his seat in con- sequence of the oaths now in force, no opinion that is favourable to tho claims of the Jews, and to enabling them by.a legislative measure to sit-in -this House, ought to induce you to go one step towards giving him admission. I say, Sir, if yell...were to take any other course—if you were to take a course that would bring this House into collision with the courts of law, and if you were not justified in that course by the words of the act of Parlitunent—most serious evils might be the result. I should-not be afraid, however, if I were perfectly -convinced that we were in the right, of meeting with privilege:airy claims for the decision of a court, of law. But there is a question oven be- yond this : if you are not fully convinced that you are acting according to law—if you propose to act according to party, because you are acting for the -promotion of civil and religious liberty—you will be, in fact, exercising a dispensing power, the exercise of which by the Crown led the people of this country, justly and manfully, to a revolution. I should be sorry indeed if this House, which has now much of the power that formerly belonged to the Crown, should attempt to exercise any such power." Mr. OSBORNE felt placed in a dilemma by Lord John Russell's extra- ordinary speech.

. If his own opinion had any weight with the gentlemen on his side of the House, they would grant no supply to the noble Lord till he brought in a -bill for the -remedy of the grievance now under the notice of the House. After his speech, Lord John was bound to proceed by bill immediately ; and -they ought to refuse him supply at present if he refuses.

When 'the time approached for adjournment of the House till the even- ing, cries suggesting the adjournment of the debate till " tomorrow " weft heard. Mr. OSBORNE immediately moved the adjournment of the debate tall five-o'clock that evening ; and at last this was agreed to.

. In the evening sitting, Mr. Anstey, Mr. Page Wood, and Mr. Stuart Wortley: were the only speakers. Mr. ANSTEY showed, by citations from the Groat Roll and. the Close Roll, that Jews sat in Parliament beforethe ordinance which expelled -them from tho.kingdom ; and that in those times there-wero "no oaths imposed which any Jew or any heathen might not take--inothing required, either by the common or the statute law, inconsistent with the principles of any church orsect."

Mr. -Paor Woo]) had never heard of a tingle authority in favour of the 'peculiar limitation made by Sir Frederick Thesiger with respect to pro- missory oaths as distinguished from assertory ones ; whilst there are abundant authorities, in general jurisprudence' -directly the other way.

All that you can say in reference to oaths is, that there was no doubt at one time in this country an assumption that every person was a Christian ; and that from that assumption grew up the custom ef administering the oaths on the Gospel. But the moment the question arose whether or not that particular mode of administering the oath would be binding on the con- science of the individual to whom it-was administered, with that keen com- mon sense which always distinguished the laws of this country, it was at once determined, in conformity with the practice of other countries from the earliest periods, that the only thing they had to inquire in the administra- tion of an oath was, whether they had got a religious sanction ? The law of the Church was liberal enough. In St. Augustine's 154th Epistle, he says, "If you will not admit the oath of an idolater, there is no adequate method of forming a covenant with him, or of binding him to keep his word, or "- and Mr. Wood called the attention of the House particularly to this with reference to the oaths of office—" of preserving the public peace. Nor is it forbidden by any law of God to empkty for a good purpose the oath of that man whose faith consists in swearing by false gods, but who keeps tho faith which he has pledged." In the laws of those most Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, not particularly favourable to Jews or Moors, is an actual formula for swearing Jews and Moors according to their conscience. Under the Code Napel6on, the universal mode of swearing, "Pc le jure," is laid down ; yet under that law a Jew was allowed to be sworn his own way; and subsequently when Jews were put on the same footing with others, it was again cletennined by the Courts that they should be awe& in their own way. Mr. Wood fepelled Mr. Wortley's accusation of special-pleading ; but de- clared, that inasmuch as it is by purely technical means that a very impor- tant civil right is to be negatived, Baron do Rothschild will take every pos- sible advantage, under the ablest and best advice, for establishing his posi- tion. It has been hinted 'that he means to demand the administration of the

Roman Catholic oath—from its omission of offensive formalities : but tbat

report is a most grievous misrepresentation and falsehood. Such a proceed- ing never once crossed his mind : when it was suggested it was instantly re-

jected. Ile will take every advantage the law gives; but probably he will think it his duty not even to take legal advantages without letting the House have full notice of his intention.

Mr. WORTLEY did not rely much on the Holy-Evangelist inference.

If he were to form an opinion at the present moment, he believed it would be in favour of the more liberal !view of the question, that the party swear- ing—whether it were a.promissory oath or a Jul-id:cal oath—should 130 sworn in the form most binding on his conscience. But he repeated, that it is manifest trilling to aeik. the honourable Member to take two oaths, with all the solemnity of kissing the Old Testament, when they knew that at the next step, upon the.occurrence of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," :they must turn upon him and shut the door against his admission. The sense of the House was first taken on the question whether the words of the original motion by Sir Robert Inglis should stand part c

the question put. It was resolved without division that they should not ; and thus that original motion was negatived. The words of the amend- ment moved by Mr. Hume were then inserted instead ; and in this shape the affirmative was carried, by 113 to 59. It was then ordered, that the Clerk should swear in Baron Lionel de Rothschild on the Old Testament. But as the tlinh for taking the oath is limited by act of Parliament to the hours between nine and four, that ceremony was deferred till noon of next day.

At noon on Tuesday, on the usual summons by the Speaker for the ad- vance to the table of Members to be sworn, Mr. ROTTISCHILD approached, amidst the cheers of the Liberal party, between Mr. J. A. Smith and Mr. Page Wood, and offered himself to be sworn. The resolution of the House was read which ordered the Clerk to administer the oaths on the Old Testament. The Clerk handed to Mr. Rothschild a small copy of the Old Testament, "the exterior of which the honourable Member cu- riously examined." The oaths of allegiance and supremacy were audibly repeated by him after the Clerk ; and at the close of each he put on his hat, as is the form with Jews in the act of swearing, and solemnly said, "So help me God." In the oath of abjuration, he repeated all the words without hesitation as far as, and including, "All these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain common sense and under- standing of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatever ; and I do make this recognition acknow- ledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly " : but instead of proceeding to say, in the form of the oath, "upon the true faith of a Christian," he said, "I omit these words, as not bind- ing upon my conscience" ; and, kissing the book with his head covered, he concluded, "So help me God." The act of swearing in this way, ac- scompanied with this explanation, elicited repeated bursts of cheering from the Liberal party.

Mr. Rothschild took up a pen, with the object, it is presumed, of sign- ing his name to the Parliamentary test-roil; but Sir FitanEarex THESIGER rose, and much excitement prevailed on all sides ; in the midst of which the SPEAKER said—" The honourable Member must withdraw." (Loud cries of" No, no !" " Take your scat!" " Chair !" and "Order !") Baron Rothschild, however, withdrew.

Sir Frederick Thesiger had the eye of the Speaker; but Mr. HumE rose to order, and objected to the direction that the Member for London should withdraw—

He had declared to the House what form was most binding on his con- science ; the House had resolved that he should take the oaths in that form ; and he had now taken the oaths in that form. He had complied with the requisitions, and Mr. Hume moved that he do take his seat.

SPEAKER—" The honourable Member rose to order, and not to submit a motion." The honourable Member for the City of London had been di- rected to withdraw because he did not take the last words of the oath pre- scribed by the act of Parliament. The House could now decide on that case.

Sir FREDERICK TRESIGER, without preface or remark, moved- " That Baron LionelNathan de Rothschild, one of the Members returned for the City of London, having refused to take the oaths prescribed by law to be taken before a Member can sit and vote in this House, Mr. Speaker be in- structed to direct a warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to issue a new writ for the election of a Member for the City of London, in the room of the said Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild."

MT. PAGE WOOD now argued at great length in support of the proposi- tions Lions that the oaths had been duly taken, and that there was no vacancy. I in the seat.

The statutes regulating the oaths of allegiance and supremacy declare that any person offending against those statutes shall be adjudged a Popish recu- sant, be disabled to hold office civil or military, and "be disabled from thenceforth to sit or vote in either House of Parliament." So clearly had the Legislature spoken when it meant to declare a seat void. The first sta- tute regulating the oath of abjuration, 13th William I11. cap. 6, in like manner made the offender a Popish recusant convict, and disabled him from office, and from sitting in Parliament : but the later statute settling the oath of abjuration, that of George I. cap. 13, deliberately omits both the clause as to Popish recusancy and the disability to sit in Parliament, while inserting all the penalties of the former statute. The later act alters the form of the oath; rejects the old penalties, and imposes new ones. Therefore, if the oath of abjuration be not taken at all, the Member still does not forfeit his seat, although possibly he makes himself subject to the other penalties. I The oath of abjuration has been duly taken. The words "on the true faith of a Christian" are a portion of the invocation which sanctifies the tooth, no part of the body of the oath : this appears from the histou of the relief given to Quakers. The 7th and 8th William III. cap. 34 made it lawful that where an oath in courts of justice is required, Quakers might, • instead of the usual form," take a solemn affirmation or declaration. The object was to relieve them respecting the mode by which and not respecting the matter to which they swore. An act of Queen Anne had prescribed an oath of abjuration respecting special matters in Scotland, and had declared that Quakers, instead of swearing in the usual form, might declare • the whole substance and effect of the oath" on solemn affirmation : a statute of George I. cap. 6, in specific reference to this relief, gave a form of affirmation, embracing such "whole substance and effect" of the abjuration oath : this form omits the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" : the Legislature plainly considered those words not a substantive part of the oath, but a part of the invocation or jurat—not a part of the matter sworn to but a part of the form sworn by ; and so it omitted them in giving relief to the Quakers as to their scruples on the formality of swearing. Indeed, if the I utterance of these words were not swearing, the Quaker would not be at liberty to omit them from his affirmation : yet they were never included in any affirmation, and are never uttered by any Quaker.

The case ofMr. Pease was peculiar. He could point to no statute which would enable him to dispense with the oath, except the statute of 1st George I. But the declaration of that statute did not relate to the same subject ; it mentioned the then Pretender, and a variety of persons no longer ex- isting. He was obliged, then, to go back to the old acts, which say, I generally, that Quakers than affirm instead of swear, and which at the same time discard the words "on the true faith of a Christian" from the af- firmation. The House did not accept any specific affirmation. It resolved the oaths directed to be taken at the table of this House." The officers of simply, "That it appears to this House, that Joseph Pease is entitled to take his seat upon making his solemn affirmation and declaration to the effect of the House framed a new affirmation ; and Mr. Pease has declared to the Se- lect Committee—"I am quite sure that in the affirmation X took, the words 4 on the true faith of a Christian' were not contained."

The acts 10th George L cap. 4, and 13th George IL cap. 7, afforded only a shadow .of an argument to Lord John Russell. The first was palmed before the case of Omychund versus Barker, decided by Lord Hardvneke and the

other great Judges, had affirmed the liberal doctrine of the law ; and the second, passed when that decision was still new, only recited that the omis- sion of the words from the oath of abjuration " may " exclude Jews from receiving the benefits of the act—not " will " so exclude them : at the ut- most, the act suggested a " doubt" and a possible difficulty.

If this case were to come before a court of law, they would find that the words " on the true faith of a Christian " were words that Baron de Roths- child had refused to take, and that he had taken the oath in his own form. The court would at once say, " We will see what was the occasion of the law. Was it levelled at the Jews or not ? We will look into the- act to see the meaning of it." Well, looking into the act of Parliament, what would the Judges find ? They would find, that if a man did not take the oath he would become a Popish recusant convict. Could they persuade themselves that the Legislature ever intended that two magistrates might go to a Chartist meet- ing, and select a Jew, and ask him to take the oath of abjuration, wholly and entirely, and if he did not, to punish him as a Popish recusant convict? When the Judges came to look at this, they would say it was nonsense—it could not be. There could have been no intention of applying the act to Sews. The House should not, by a narrow adherence to what it might choose to consider the letter of a law, deprive of the immense privilege of representing the Metropolis of England a gentleman who had been twice elected the representative of that city—who bore in himself the rights and privileges of that Most important community ; the principle of excluding him on the mere ground of his being a Jew being now emphatically and perma- nently repudiated by the House.

Mr. Wood moved, "That this House is of opinion that the seat of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, as one of the Members for the City of London, is full" ; and resumed his seat amidst cheers from all parts of the House.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Romilly) observed, that the House had not received in this case, as in that of Mr. O'Connell, a distinct re- fusal to take the oaths. A locus pcenitentise should be afforded to Baron de Rothschild, and the question whether he still refused to take the oath in the ordinary form should be again put to him, before a new writ were issued.

MP. PAGE WOOD—" No, no."

The Arroassey-GENBRAL—Well, then, if the Baron refused to avail him- self of this further opportunity, certainly there seemed no ground on which to refuse the motion of the honourable and learned Member for Abingdon. His own assent to that motion was personally most painful to him; but the House was sitting judicially on this question, and if called upon to decide, solemnly and judicially, whether Baron de Rothschild had taken the oath of abjuration in the form prescribed by the statute, he must decide that the Baron had not so taken the oath. Once admit the principle that this or that portion of a legislative direction might be dispensed with to meet the par- ticular notions of individuals, and there would be an end to the force of law. Baron de Rothschild objected to the words in this particular oath "on the true faith of a Christian" ; his reason being, that he did not deem those words binding on his conscience. Admit his objection, and who was to say what other portion of the oath somebody else might not object to, on the same ground?

Mr. ANSTEY quoted the report of the Committee, to the effect that in 1701 the House used its privilege of " tampering " with the forms of oaths appointed by the statute ; made sundry additions in the body of the oath, and erasures from it. In the following year, an act of Parliament declared that the amended form. should be the one Used in future. In the ease of Mr. Pease, the objectionable words were struck out of the oath ; and an act of Parliament next session ratified that alteration. Lord John Russell in March last declared the case of Mr. Pease to be strictly in point, and to be ,a good precedent.

Mr. HUME, Calling on the Attorney-General for his opinion on the point that the seat is not vacant, Sir J mix ROMILLY stated his opinion that there has been no specific repeal of the act of William III. which dis- ables persons refusing the oaths from sitting in Parliament ; and he dis- sented from Mr. Wood's view that that act was virtually repealed by the later acts substituting other penalties. The act of William is still in force. Sir GEORGE GREY recapitulated very clearly the heads of this branch of the argument ; and, while expressing his strong opinion that the act of William III. is still in force, admitted that the House would do well to consider maturely the point on which Mr. Wood and the Attoxney-Gene- ral are at variance.

Mr. WOOD announced, on the authority of Baron Rothschild, that what had passed was to be taken as a refusal to take " those words." [Still no refusal to take "the oath."] •

On a division, Mr. Page Wood's amendment, that the seat "is full," was negatived, by 221 to 117. A desultory conversation then ensued; in the course of which Sir FREDERICK Thrstrozit provoked laughter by declaring himself "anxious to receive the directions of Lord John Rus- sell as to the course to be pursued." Lord Joust RUSSELL moved that the debate be adjourned till twelve o'clock on Thursday next : "the At- torney-General will then propose such a resolution as he and I shall think most conducive to the dignity and usages of the House." Liberal Members clamoured to have Sir Frederick Thesiger's motion affirmed or negatived at once. Sir FRRDERICK. THRSIGER declared himself ready to withdraw it, on the understanding that his object was only to make way for the proposition of the Government. Mr. Hymn resisted the with- drawal, and stoutly insisted upon a direct negative. At last, the Speaker put the resolution. There were a few "Ayes," and a great majority of " Noes " : amidst some laughter, the Speaker delared that the " Noes " had it ; so the resolution was negatived without a division.

The resolutions, to be moved on Monday next, were laid upon the ta- ble of the House some time after midnight on Thursday; not without repeated questionings and reminders by several Members, who accused Ministers of want of faith in delaying the presentation of the resolutions for more than twelve hours. They are as follows- " 1. That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not entitled to vote in this House, or sit in this House during any debate, until he shall take the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law. "2. That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in the next session of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form of the oath of ab- juration, with a view to relieve her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion."

IRISH FRANCHISE, AND Rasura" The amendments of the Lords on the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill were brought under the consideration of the House of Commons by Lord Joins Russmi.

The bill as passed by the Commons proposed an eight-pound county qua- lification; as amended by the Lords, the bill proposes a fifteen-pound quali- fication. At present the percentage of electors to the adult male population is • 32 per cent in Wales, 25 per cent in Scotland, in England 28 per cent; the

percentage in Ireland is less than 2 per cent The forty-shilling freehold qinthfication is the prevalent one in England. In Ireland it is abolished. In Bedfordshire, the freeholders are to the 50/. tenants as 3,274 to &53; in Herefordahire, they are as 5,280 to 1,639; in Lancashire, as 16,064 to 3457; in Middlesex,. as 10,408 to 1,307 ; in Sussex, as 3,769 to 1,059. An " eight-pound rating will give Ireland 330,224 voters; a fifteen-pound rating 180,328—deducting one-fifth for double occupations, 264,180 and 144,263 respectively. Lord John proposes to reduce the fifteen-pound rating, fixed by the Lords, to a twelve-pound one • which will give 227,590 voters—minus one-fifth, as before, 172,072. This will raise the number of voters from 2 pr cent up to 10 per cent of the adult male population.

The other alteration defeats the very design of the bill to make a self- acting registry: Lord John proposed that the House should simply disagree to that alteration.

Mr. Moons adduced the glaring instance of the recent Mayo election, where less than 250 persons voted. In a county having 390,000 inhabitants, three contested elections have taken place in six years ; at which the number of voters have varied from 900 the highest down to no more than 233. Nothing subjects the event of any election to the mob so much as the smallness of a constituency. A thou- sand electors scattered over a large county are wholly isolated from each other, and as unprotected as if in the midst of a pack of wolves.

Colonel RAWDON thought that the conduct of the Lords indicated that we are fast approaching a state of things which must cause great appre- hension to the friends of order.

Mr. Bum= said, this measure was considered the measure of the sea- son,—for they were about to separate without passing any measure of importance but this ; and it was to be passed in a mutilated shape. The noble Lord must take on himself the responsibility of what was done in the other Rouse: the conduct of Government there was not only directly opposed to the wishes of the House of Commons, but it gave the greatest ground to suspect an understanding with those Lords who altered the frau; chise. A considerable majority in the House of Commons had been defeated by the small majority of 72 to 50 in the other House. Lord John should be cautious how he allowed small majorities in another place to override the majorities of the House of Commons and the Ministers of the Crown on this question ; he ought to have stood by his bill, as he had brought it in, if he were satisfied that he was right Mr. Bright bore in mind, that Lord John had-said that some Members spoke with great ability on matters connected with trade, but that he was amazed at their narrow and small views when they came to discuss great constitutional questions. The noble Lord had discussed such questions all his life but found after all that he could not make his great constitution work. he noble Lord was now to make that House work in harmony with the other, but never did any man undertake a greater improbability. They had just had a specimen of the manner in which the two Houses were working together. Year after year the noble Lord passed a measure which went to the House of Lords, but there it was scarcely discussed; not only that House, but the Ministers, were treated with contempt, and the bill was kicked out as too absurd to be discussed. And xtow the noble Lord appeared to be carrying oh his Government on the policy of only passing measures suited to the very minute gauge of the House of Lords. It was rumoured that the noble Lord intended to add a little more to the democratic element of the House of Commons but if there were in it now too much of that element for the House of Lords, how could they get on more comfortably if they had added a few more Members to it who would vote against him when he did not go far enough in his measures of reform ? The result would be, either a greater difficulty to the noble Lord in working the constitution, or the constitution would be extinguished, because the noble Lord would have to succumb to that House. The noble Lord, when he brought in his bills and laid them on the table, might let the blouse know that he and his Ministry would not retain the responsibility of carrying on the Government if those bills were rejected : but the course he took now was destructive to the Government Mr. Bright regretted that the noble Lord would not lead on those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House in the principles he professed and they entertained, but kept them back from carrying those measures he was sent to that House to support.

If the noble Lord felt that he must take this twelve-pound franchise, they must do the best they could under the unfortunate dilemma into which he had allowed them to be brought ; but if he said he took this twelve-pound on the same terms as he intended the eight-pound franchise—as a settlement of the Irish franchise—then Mr. Bright hoped that in a session or two he would find a vast number of those who now support him would be disposed to go further, and restore this bill to what it was when it passed the House of Commons.

Lord JOHN Russma. could not avoid ionic discussion of principles thus laid down, which he conceived tended to disparage the present constitu- tion of the country. Fault was found with his proposal of something different from that which he originally proposed : but if Government is to declare at once what is to bathe rate of the Irish franchise, and is to listen to no sort of change or dis- cussion on the subject, there is an end to the balance of the constitution of the country. As long as you have two separate Houses,. the Commons must deal with the amendments of the other House as the decision of a branch of Parliament "Without discussing. the merits of our constitution, or any other, at the present moment, it is quite plain that what the honourable Member really proposes is an absolute democratic assembly, which shall have no barrier to its will—which shall meet with no opposition to its decrees, and before which all the estates and constituted powers of the country must bow. It may be that such a change is desirable ; all I can say is that I am not one of the persons who desire it. inconveniences—with from the OppositWn.) All I i can say , that I think, with all its tnconveniences—with its very long de- lays—with frequent rejection of measures that after some years every one admits to be useful—with lengthened discussions—with the many impedi- ments to legislation which arise in this country—with all these counteract- ing influences, yet the sum of good obtained under our constitution is so great, our institutions are in themselves so valuable, and their fruits so pre- cious compared with those which (with perhaps one or two exceptions) his- tory, either ancient or modern, shows to have been produced by any other form of government—by any other constitution devised by the wisdom of man—that for my own part I am not willing to change the constitution of this country for any-ether that the honourable Member may recommend." (Cheers from the Opposition.) Lord John reviewed the history of the politi- cal struggles in which he has taken part,—for Reform of the Representation, for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, for the Commutation of Tithes—with the object of showing what good he had been able to effect by fol- lowing a course very different from Mr. Bright's idea. "I have been able to effect great good by pursuing a totally different course, and instead of cling- ing pertinaciously, from motives of pride or vanity, to my own measures, submitting them to alterations, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better and endeavouring to attain practical benefit by means of compromise." "The honourable Member has alluded to the terms in which on a former occasion I spoke of the manner in which he and other Members had ad- dressed the House relative to the working of part of our institutions. It seems I allowed a phrase to escape me with reference to the narrowminded


The motion forgoing into Committee on the Sunday Trading Prevention Bill was strenuously opposed by several Members. Mr. Arisrer de- nounced the bill as an undigested measure ; a measure promoted by the rival traders of the industrious Jews who keep their own Sabbath and do not keep Sunday. He moved that the bill be committed that day three months. Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE attacked the hypocritical cant of Exeter Hall, and of those who lift up their eyes to heaven, and advocat& the cause of the people at one time but at an- other time betray their clients without hesitation. Mr. BARING WALL pleaded to the House in behalf of Lord Seymour, a Sunday trader in ginger-beer and biscuits at the stalls in Hyde Park and Kensington ;view which those honourable Members took of the subject Speaking gene- rally, I do not concur in the view which they take of the aristocracy of this country. The honourable Member on that occasion, as he has done on many

others, represented the aristocracy of England as a class forming a sort of great council, like that of Venice, entirely separated from the great body of the people,—as if its ranks were not continually recruitec1 from the mass of the people. I cannot admit that, and I said it was a nairowminded view of the subject." Mr. Banurr said, the remark alluded to did not apply to that subject at all, but to some observation which he made on Mr. Hume's motion about the redistribution of the franchise with the view of showing that the repre- sentation of Manchester was balanced in that House by smaller boroughs.

Lord Joni; RUSSELL—" My recollection differs from that of the honourable Member ; and I think on the occasion in question I pointed out, that mem-

bers of families which a hundred years ago were amongst the humblest and

poorest of the subjects of the Crown in this country, had,by dint of talent— by dint of learning, whether in the profession of the Law or the Church—by

their services in the Navy or Army, or by other distinguished merits—won. their way to the highest honours of the Peerage, and formed as proud a por- tion of the aristocracy as any of the Peers. If I mistook the honourable Member, I regret it ; but I still think that his remarks always have a tenden- cy to represent the aristocracy as something distinct and separate from the bulk of the people. I not only hold that this supposed distinction is un- founded in fact—not only that it is contrary to all we know of the history of past ages, and of what we see day by day, as will appear from an examination of any list of the Peers of England—but I also contend that a belief in its ex- istence would have a mischievous effect, and, instead of strengthening that. union of classes in this country which induces the aristocracy to believe that their fate and welfare is bound up with the welfare of the people, and the

people to look upon the aristocracy as the defenders of their rights and privileges, would lead to a war of classes and ranks that would cause the sub- version of the constitution and of the existing state of society. The aristo- cracy of the country, instead of being desirous to separate themselves from the people, feel that their strength and permanent existence-depend on con- tinually receiving fresh accessions from those who by the highest qualities of the mind are able to place themselves on an equality with them." Mr. DISRAELI corrected unintentional misrepresentations of the Minis- tar.

It is implied that the Lords have rejected an eight-pound and substituted a fifteen-pound qualification. But the noble Lord who introduced the bill to

the Lords himself stabbed the' eight-pound qualification in the back, and virtually inserted the twelve-pound qualification : then, between a twelve- und and a fifteen-pound choice, the Lords decided for the latter. For self; he did not so much care about the exact amount of the suffrage,. as he objected that the subject should be made the capital of party trading, never to be taken up by Government except in moments of political distress or disaster.

Mr. REYNOLDS confessed his inability to understand how the President of the Council had declared in another place that an eight-pound qualifi- cation was too low. But for that declaration, the fifteen-pound qualifi- cation would never have been insisted on by the Lords.

The motion by Lord John Russell to substitute twelve pounds, instead of fifteen pounds inserted by the Lords, as the amount of qualification, . was carried by 213 to 91—majority 122. The motion to disagree with the amendment which makes the registry a list only of those who have specifically claimed to be put on it, was carried by 179 to 109—majority 70.


In Committee of Supply, the vote of 731,206/. for half-pay and retire- merit to officers of the Navy and Royal Marines met with criticism from

practical Members on each side of the House. The Select Committee had stated that there are a hundred and fifty Admirals, and recommended that they should be reduced to a hundred, by promotion of only one as often as three vacancies occur. Mr. HUME therefore moved the reduction. of the vote by 3,000/. Mr. COBDEN observed, that the shipwrights are - dismissed without hesitation, yet the Admiralty refuses to carry out the recommendation to abstain from promotion. Sir JAMES Gasman claimed. the responsibility of the recommendation of the Committee.

He admitted that, as far as pecuniary considerations go this particular reduction may not be important ; but if reduction of establishments is to be made, it must begin at some point : he conceived it should begin at the highest rank, if it could be shown that the highest rank is redundant., and extravagant in expense. At no time in the last war were more than thirty- two Admirals employed; in this time of peace only twelve are employed :

yet the Admirals list is a hundred and fifty. Economy must commence IR both services, and it should not begin in the lower ranks of either profession : we

have carried out the principle recommended in the cases of Captains and Commanders, and it ought not to stop at Admirals. In the Army large re- ductions have been made, but in the Navy the cost has increased. Sir James understood that the Admirals list is so little satisfactory that the command in the Eastern and China Seas was offered to three or four Admirals in succes- sion; and that it was at last accepted by an officer upwards of seventy, under inducements of a very objectionable nature as to the appointment of rela- tions to posts under him.


Sir JAMES Gasnam—At all events, the post was refused by three or four, and accepted by one more than seventy years old. If this happens in time of peace - what will it be in time of war ? Mr. HENLEY cordially supported the amendment ; considering that the non-effective service should be kept within more reasonable bounds.

Sir FRANCIS Reantia defended adherence to the present system, by re- ference to the great ameliorations already effected ; and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER deprecated the interference of the House in all ques- tions of how economy is to be effected. Sir Isuzs GRAHAM rejoined, that if they could neither reduce the ex- pense of the Admirals list nor give it new vigour by a better system of promotion, the case of the Admirals is one of despair. •

The amendment was negatived, by 128 to 72; and the original vote. passed.

Gardena, though a rigid Sunday-keeper in respect of his boats on the Serpentine, which he carefully Ricks up. Mr. Ttundoror designated the bill as a homage to awful humbug. Lord, AnuNner and Sua.uzy upheld_ the Sabbath; but as a. church ordinance, [pro salute. animm.] Colonel THOWSON corrected, an idea amongi.his friends, that he supports-. the bill as -tending to produce, a-reaction:: on the contrary, he supports it air a proper compromise, and because it is. permissive imits.enadments. The opposition to the bill being obviously very strong, Mr. ALCOOK desired. to withdraw it; but 'that COMSO-WW3.opposed.; /excl.-Mr. Angora-amend- ment was carried without a division. So the bill was cast 011V OBSCURE STATE. W. LANDLORD AND TENANT Low: Lord MONTEAGLE invited-the-Peers to agree to an address for a Royal Commission " to inquire and to-report on the state of the law of landlord: and tenant in. Great Britain and Ireland ; showing the differences which exist in the laws as affecting the two parts of the United Kingdom." He desired no evidence, only the report of a few able men on the actual , state of the law, as the-foundation of legislation in next session. The Lord CITANCELLOR admitted, that nothing could be•more desirable than' such a report, but it would be impossible to obtain it.. "No one could. find the meaning-of the law- simply by reading it" You might state the ' law under particular heads, but a report on the law generally would be impracticable. The Marquis of LawsnowNE.objected to encouraging the opinion that a review of the whole law on the subject is contemplated next session. Some amelioration, however, may take place— based upon the principle of property itself." Motion withdrawn.


Before the reading of the order of the day for considering. the Lords' amendments to the Australian Colonies Bill, Mr. SCOTT inquired whether the Government had received from New South Wales a memorial express- ing a decided opinion in favour of a double Chamber. Such a memorial appeared lathe Sydney Herald of the 21st February, and was intended to reach this country before the passing of the Australian Colonies Bill. Of course, Mr. HAWES was able to say that "no such memorial has been re- ceived."

The order of the day having been read, Lord JOHN RUSSELL recapi- tulated the amendments,. and asked the House to agree to them.

As to the omission of the Confederation clauses, the defects in them the more easily induce Ministers to abandon them, as at all events, they were net expected to come into operation for some years. Whether the provision allowing votes to the wealthy class of squatters will give satisfaction to the colonists, he certainly was not able to say. The restriction put on the Legis- lative Councils, from constituting. a single Chamber consisting of wholly elective members, he the more readily agreed to, as if such alteration had been attempted by the Legislative Councils he should have hesitated in ad- vising the Crown to assent to it. Mr. GmanseoNE made a counter-comment, of greater clearness, showing more perfect mastery of the subject.

He marked Lord John Russell's striking admission, that, at least with re- ference to-the squatters, Parliament has legislated without adequate informa- tion. The restriction upon the Legislative Council in respect of their power to constitute a wholly elective legislative body, at all events completely cuts away all that was so much insisted on as to the especial desires and expresse4 sense of the colony itself upon the form of government most-suitable for it. MI wished, like Ministers, to see wild democracy checked ; not, however, like them, by interference from home, but by stable institutions springing out of their own soil. Downing Street compulsion will in the long run hut make the colonists more wildly democratic.

Mr. Romiumc charged the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a great want of discretion with respect to the management of this bill. It had been said they were now acting upon imperfect information. Cer- tainly, if perfect information had been required, it could easily have been obtained ; but the truth was, that the noble Lord was determmed to have his own plan and nobody else's, and would never listen to any suggestion, either from the Colonies or from that House. The-people of California-had lately framed a constitution for themselves, which, compared, with the miser- able specimen of British legislative wisdom which the House was now con- sidering, ought to make them all ashamed of themselves. His-only hope was, that when the bill arrived in the colony, it would create: such a degree of discontent that Parliament would be obliged to reconsider the subject. ("Hear, hear-!") • The amendments were agreed to.


In answer to a, question by Mr. HUN; on Thursday; the disputed claims made by our Government against the Government of Tuscany, for injuries sustained by British subjects after the revolt of Leghorn, were explained by Lord anatansroar. The town was taken by storm, by Austrian troops acting as auxiliaries to the Grand Duke. After the town was taken, and when resistance was over, several houses, very conspicuously marked by the British Consul as belong- ing to British subjects, and under the protection of the Consulate, were en.- tered by the Austrians, ransacked for several days, and wholly despoiled of their contents ; which were taken, load after load., to the gate and sold by the soldiery. For this spoliation, under legal advice, compensation was de- manded; at first more, now, however, the leas amount of1,5301. Commu- nications are on foot, and " is hoped" Tuscany will see the justice of the claim.

Too Making Ana/.

In Committee of Supply, the CHANCELLOR of the Exenocitroo has inti- mated a wavering of purpose as to the celebrated "marble arch" at Buck- ..ipgluun Palace. The purpose to throw it across the Mall, neat to Stafford House, ssems abandoned. "It was not easy," said Sir Charles Wood, "just at that moment to say where the arch should be moved to." A grant of 11,0001. was taken, for the purpose of removing the arch, and erecting an iron railing in. front of the Palace.