the particular notions of individuals, and there would be
an end of the force of law. Baron Rothschild had
objected to certain words in this particular oath, his
reason being that he did not deem them binding on his
conscience; admit his objection, and who could say what
other portion of the oath somebody else might not object
to on the same ground.—Mr. HUME contended that
Baron Rothschild, having taken the oaths in the
required way, was entitled to his seat,—Sir G. GREY
was prepared to vote against the amendment which
declared the seat full, but could not say that Baron
Rothschild had refused to take the oath.—Sir F.
THESIGER considered the omission of the words amounted
to a refusal to take a substantial part of the oath; but
he desired to know what was the Baron's intention.—Mr
P. WOOD, on the part of the Baron, said that he distinctly
refused to use the words in question.—Mr. ROEBUCK
cautioned the House against supposing that the Baron's
refusal went beyond pronouncing the words in question.
He contended that the oath had been properly taken.
On a division, Mr. Page Wood's amendment was
negatived by 221 to 117. A desultory conversation then
took place, and Lord John RUSSELL moved the
adjournment of the debate till 12 o'clock on Thursday;
adding, "the Attorney-General will then propose such
a resolution as he and I shall think most conducive to
the dignity and usages of the house."—Sir F. THESIGER
expressed his willingness to withdraw his motion or to
allow it to be negatived without a division, which was
done, and the house adjourned.

At the evening sitting. Lord John RUSSELL brought
before the house "the Lords' amendments on the
Parliamentary Voters' (Ireland) Bill, and explained his views
respecting them. The Lords had raised the franchise
from £8 to £15, and he should fix it at £12. The £15
rating would place the franchise in the hands of only 8
per cent, of the male population of Ireland, whereas the
£12 rating would confer it on 10 per cent. He adverted
to the Mayo election, just over, at which it appeared
that, after a severe struggle, the whole number of
electors who could be brought to the poll for one of the
most important counties of Ireland was under 250; and
this he adduced as an instance of the reduced state of
the Irish electoral body, and as a proof of the necessity
of such a measure as this. He would assent to the
Lords' omission of clause 2, and would dissent from
their lordships' omission of clauses 18, 19, and 21. He
strongly objected to the Lords' insertion of words
requiring the electors to demand to be placed on the
register; indeed, he considered this a far more important
alteration than that of the amount of rating. After
some observations by Mr. French, Sir W. Somerville,
Mr. Moore, and Colonel Rawdon, Mr. BRIGHT strongly
objected to this concession on the part of government.
Lord John Russell (he said) 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 was satisfied it
was right, instead of recurring to his perpetual but
unavailing attempt to make the two houses work
together—a thing which, under the present constitution,
they neither would nor could.—Lord John RUSSELL
censured Mr. Bright for advancing doctrines tending to
destroy the balanced constitution of the country. He
defended the aristocracy from the charge of being an
exclusive body, and justified his conduct in making a
compromise with the house of Lords by means of a plan
which would add 170,000 to the electoral population.
After a discussion, in which Lord John Russell's
compromise was supported by Mr. M. O'Connell and Sir G.
Grey, and opposed by Mr. Shiel and Mr. Disraeli (who
announced his intention to support the alterations
introduced by the House of Lords) the house divided on
the franchise clause, carrying the £12 rating by 213 to
91. A second division took place on the question of the
restoration of the compulsory registration, when such
registration was carried by 179 to 109. The remaining
amendments were agreed to.

On Wednesday the 31st of July, Mr. Alcock's motion
for going into committee on the Sunday Trading
Prevention Bill was met by an amendment, moved by
Mr. ANSTEY, that the bill should be committed that day
three months.—Sir G.GREY desired that the bill should
be proceeded with, but it was so strongly opposed that
Mr. Alcock proposed to withdraw the bill. This
arrangement was not agreed to, and Mr. Anstey's
amendment was carried without a division; the bill
being thus thrown out.—The adjourned debate on the
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill was resumed, and
enlivened by a few personalities among the Irish
members.—Sir H. W. BARRON accused Mr. Reynolds
of uttering what was false; the SPEAKER intimated
that such language was not in accordance with English
Parliamentary usage; Sir W. H. Barron retracted, and
Mr. Reynolds said that it was not safe to use such
language in that place, as the Speaker was sure to
interfere. The bill was opposed by Mr. R. M. FOX as
worse than that of the government; and by Sir G. GREY
as conferring advantages on tenants without giving
corresponding ones to landlords. The debate was again
adjourned.

The Lords' amendment on the Australian Colonies
Bill were taken into consideration on Thursday, the
1st of August. In the outset Mr. SCOTT inquired
whether the government had received from New South
Wales a memorial in favour of a double chamber which
had appeared in a Colonial newspaper.—Mr. HAWES
answered in the negative.—Lord John RUSSELL
recapitulated the Lords' amendments and asked the house
to agree to them. As to the omission of the confederation
clauses, the defects in them the more easily induced
ministers to abandon them, as at all events they were
not expected to come into operation for some years.
Whether the provision allowing votes to the wealthy
class of squatters would give satisfaction to the colonists,
he certainly was not able to say. The restriction put
on the legislative 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 advising the crown to assent to it.—Mr.
GLADSTONE thought the bill a very unsatisfactory
measure. Its great defect arose from the amendment
of the Lords which deprived the legislative council of
New South Wales of the power to alter its own
constitution, and thereby adjusting the balance of power
between the crown and the colonists. He protested
against a measure which while it professed to give free
institutions maintained the control of the crown over
the legislation of the colonies, and introduced into that
legislation uncertainty and uneasiness.—Mr. ROEBUCK
also protested against the measure, and said his only
hope was, that when the bill arrived in the colony it
would create such discontent, that parliament would be
obliged to reconsider the subject. The amendments
were then agreed to.—Mr. F. O'CONNER asked the
Secretary for the Treasury whether it was true that a
person named Somerville, whom Mr. O'Connor described
as having been dismissed from the army, had received
any remuneration out of the public money for attending
to give evidence in reference to the National Land
Company.—Mr. HAYTER said that Mr. Somerville had
not been dismissed from the army, but was at least as
respectable a person as Mr. O'Connor. He had offered
certain information connected with the inquiry, which
exhibited Mr. O'Connor's character in a light which he
(Mr. Hayter) should not take upon himself to describe;
but Mr. Somerville had not been paid out of the public
money for his loss of time, but out of his (Mr. Hayter's)
own pocket.—Mr. HUME bore testimony to the character
of Mr. Somerville, and the matter dropped. In answer
to a question from Mr. Hume, Lord PALMERSTON
explained the nature of the British Claims on Tuscany
for injuries sustained by British subjects after the revolt
of Leghorn, and the occupation of that city by an
Austrian corps acting as auxiliaries to the Grand Duke.
After all resistance was over, that corps plundered a
number of houses, and among them, houses belonging to
British residents and conspicuously marked as such by
the British Consul. The amount claimed was £1530,
and it was hoped that Tuscany would see the justice of
the demand.

On Friday the 2nd, on the motion for the second
reading of the Crime and Outrage Act Continuance
(Ireland) Bill, Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that as it