involved pains and penalties, it ought to have
originated in the Commons, and not in the Lords.—The
SPEAKER pronounced the objection well founded;
the bill was accordingly laid aside, and Lord John
RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in a new one, stating
that he would be quite satisfied if the house would
consent to its re-enactment from the 31st of December
next to the end of the next session of parliament,
instead of four years, as originally proposed.—Mr.
CRAWFORD moved an amendment in opposition to the
re-introduction of the bill. After some observations
from Mr. Reynolds and others, the debate was
adjourned.—In answer to an inquiry, Sir G. GREY
informed the house that the Report of the Committee
on Smithfield Market had been sent to the Corporation
of London, who had, in reply, refused to adopt its
recommendations, as being against the rights and
privileges of the Corporation.—The house then went into
Committee of Supply. On the vote of £1650 for the
repairs of Holyrood Palace, to which Mr. Hume
objected. Lord J. RUSSELL explained that Her Majesty
expressed a wish to occupy the sleeping apartments on
her visit to Edinburgh, and the vote was then agreed to.
—On the vote of £8900 for experiments and alterations
in the new House of Commons, the CHANCELLOR OF
THE EXCHEQUER, in answer to Sir D. Norreys, said
it was not intended to pull down the old House of
Commons.—Mr. HUME stigmatised the whole affair
as a disgrace to the parties concerned in the erection
of the new Houses of Parliament, and more especially
the architect; and Mr. STAFFORD complained of the
difficulty of ascertaining who was to blame, and on
whom the responsibility rested. The new house was a
disgraceful failure.—The CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER observed, that the money now required would
be sufficient to make the house suitable. After some
further discussion the vote was agreed to.—Considerable
time was devoted to discussion of the vote of £30,000
proposed by the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER as
a "charitable donation" to the depositors of the Cuffe
Street Savings' Bank, Dublin, rendered necessary
through the "gross neglect, if not worse," of the
trustees of that bank, and the lax supervision of government.
—Sir James GRAHAM opposed any vote of public
money as a charity, and in the absence of all information
urged its postponement till next session.—He was
defeated by 118 to 39, and the vote was agreed to.

At the morning sitting on Monday the 5th, the
AtTTORNEY-GENERAL moved the resolutions which he
had prepared in the Case of Baron Rothschild. They
were, first, that Baron Rothschild is not entitled to sit
and vote in that house until he shall take the oath of
abjuration in the form appointed by law; and secondly,
that the house will next session take into consideration
the form of that oath, with a view to relieve Her
Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion. The
Attorney-General said that having considered the
subject more carefully than he had done when he formerly
spoke, he had come to the conclusion that Baron
Rothschild's seat was not vacant in consequence of his
refusing to take the oath; it would be void if he should
presume to vote, but not till then. The consequence
was, that by an idle form of oath abjuring allegiance to
a family now extinct, Baron Rothschild's constituents
were deprived of the benefit of his services in parliament.
It was incumbent on the house to pledge themselves
at the earliest opportunity next session to pass a bill for
altering a law so monstrous and absurd. The course
he proposed was beneficial to Baron Rothschild himself;
for, if he were admitted by the authority of that house
alone, it would create difficulties in the other house,
and he believed that no lawyer earning £500 a-year
would advise Baron Rothschild that he could take
his seat without incurring the serious penalties
imposed by the act of the 1st of George I. He
concluded by expressing his high sense of the propriety,
firmness, and moderation manifested by Baron
Rothschild in every stage of the difiicult and unprecedented
matter.—Mr. HUME said he had no doubt as to Baron
Rothschild's legal right to take his seat; but, if there
were doubts, the house ought not to pre-judge the
question, as the Attorney-General's resolution did, by
declaring that the Baron was not entitled to sit and vote.
He accordingly moved, as an amendment, "that the
clerk having, as directed by the house, administered the
oaths to Baron de Rothschild upon the Old Testament,
being the form he declared most binding upon his
conscience, and the Baron having so sworn to the oath of
abjuration, with the omission of the words 'upon the
true faith of a Christian,' and doubts having arisen as
to the legal effect of his so taking the oath, it is
expedient next session that a law should be introduced to
declare the law, and that the house will then take into
consideration the subject of the oaths with reference to
the changes since their enactment."—Mr. ANSTEY
supported this amendment.—Mr. DISRAELI said, that as the
question had hitherto been of a strictly legal character,
he had hitherto refrained from joining in the debate;
but the resolutions of that day departed from that
limited character. He contended that the government
was to blame for the present position of the house; the
bill which had been brought into the house having been
delayed and abandoned, instead of being sent up to the
House of Lords after Baron Rothschild's re-election. As
to the resolutions now before the house, deeming the
first of them not extremely constitutional, and the
second not extremely politic, he should vote for neither.
He should leave the law as he found it, and if a change
was necessary let it be made in a constitutional manner.
The removal of the remaining disabilities of the Jews
had received his unvarying support, and he hoped that
full justice would speedily be done to the descendants
of a race acknowledged to be sacred, and who professed
a religion acknowledged to be divine. After some
further debate in which the speakers were Sir R. Inglis,
Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Wood, the Solicitor-General, Mr.
Bright, and Mr. Goulburn, the house divided; when
Mr. Hume's amendment was negatived by 163 to 101;
the first resolution of the Attorney-General was carried
by 166 to 192, and the second by 142 to 106.

At the evening sitting, in committee on the Stamp
Duties Bill, the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
stated some changes proposed by him in consequence of
finding the increase of the revenue greater than he had
expected. He proposed to reduce the duty on conveyances
altogether to one-half per cent, instead of one per
cent., and to postpone the commencement of the act till
October. The loss on the revenue by the whole
remissions woUld be about £500,000 a-year. The bill was
reported: and the Customs Bill and the Marlborough
House Bill were afterwards severally reported.—On the
third reading of the Duke of Cambridge's, &c., Annuity
Bill, Mr. HUME moved that the Duke's annuity should
be £8000 instead of £12,000, wliich was negatived by 111
to 52.—Mr. BRIGHT then moved that the annuity
should be reduced in proportion to any accession of
income which the Duke might receive from public
sources.—Lord John RUSSELL objected, on the ground
that it was most inexpedient to say that, whatever
services, military or otherwise, the Duke might render,
he should receive no additional income—in other words,
that he should not render any such services to the
country. The amendment was rejected by 108 to 39,
and the bill passed.

The house having gone into committee on the Customs
Bill, Sir James GRAHAM objected to a clause whereby
it was proposed to give the Board of Customs unlimited
powers of making rules and regulations in lieu of the
limited powers now entrusted to it by statutes. After a
discussion, the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
allowed the clause to be struck out of the bill, on the
understanding that it should be reconsidered in the
Report.

The adjourned debate on the Crime and Outrage Act
(Ireland) Continuance Bill was resumed on Tuesday
the 6th. The measure was opposed by Mr. Moore,
Mr. Scully, Mr. M'Cullagh, Mr. R. M. Fox, Mr. P.
Scrope, and Mr. Hume. Col. Rawdon, Major Blackall,
Sir Denham Norreys, and Col. Chatterton, were
inclined to the bill, in the confidence that Lord Clarendon
would execute it discreetly. The motion for leave to
bring in the bill was carried by 84 to 24; and it was
brought in and read a first time.—On the order for
going into committee on the Landlord and Tenant
( Ireland No. 2) Bill, Mr. BRIGHT intimated his intention
to oppose it in every stage, and moved to defer the