The Express. — London, England, 1851-07-22 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 22, 1851. INA the right of renvninct all obstacles in the 'my of e'er. ' , et that title. . . . the eying *at (Herr. hear.) They did le in the ease of me. Pram. (liras, hear.) That gentleman took no oath at all ; he refwed to take any of the three oaths, whereas the our position. First of all, we have an who b' " a former administration who tells us that the swearing upon the Old Testament is ill,g.d. If I understand him right, he tells us he thinks that if the hon. member fur Green bon. member fur 11reenswielt took two of the oath*, and the other was area under comiilvrat on. Yet they seated Mr. Pease by resolution, and afterwards a•ked the House al Lords to agree to • declaratory set, which was done. Why i were they to follow a didlrrut enurse in the case of the hem. member for tireenwich ? (Hear, hear.) Why should they bow in this abject manner before the House of Lords, and ask them as a condition, precedent to a mesa. bee taking his seat in that house, that they should agree in the act. (Hear, hear.) Such a course was a miserable frittering away of the privileges of the House of Commons. (Hear, beer.) Did they suppose that because a wit ness objected to the word, " on the true faith of a Christian, so help me God," the judges of the :and would allow justice to he ointructed by a miserable sophistry of that kind? (Loud cheers.) The judges administered the lath in the form most binding on the conscience of the witness. (Hear.) A believer in Buddha was sworn in the form he believed binding, hr declared, a. in the presence of Buddha, that he was u prej udicall, &e. 'fh is oath was ad min Late red to a Chinese woman by the Howie of Lords (who were against the admission of thedew)—(hear)—in a divorce case:in J u1y,1846. When a I.iliontezan wis sworn in court, he repeated his creed, "There is no (had but God, and Matsomet is his prophet." In a ease in our criminal court, "Regina v. Entrehman and Samut " (Carrington and Marshinan 218), the prosecutor (Asaana) was called, and, on getting into the witness hers, intincilittely knelt down, and a China saucer having been placed in Lis band, he struck it against the brass rail in front of the box and broke it. The crier of the court, who swears the witnesses, then, by direction of the interpreter administered the oath in these words, which were translate d by the interpreter into the Chinese lan "You shall tell the truth and the whole truth • wich did pronounce the words. " On the true faith of a Chrstian,' inasmuch as he would not have been sworn on the holy evangelist., the oath would not be a good one, and he could not sit or vote. Thus we have one eminent law slicer of the government who considers the New Testament • sine qua eon. There is another who tells us that the hon. number is at liberty to swear on the Old Testament, pro vided he will say " on the true faith of a Christian." That is his understanding of the law. He says the oath will have been properly taken by • Jew swearing upon the Old Testa ment, and using the words "on the true faith of • Chris tian." Then we have another hon. and learned g.utleman the Solicitor-General. (Hear, hear.) What does he say? He says that if the hon. member (or Greenwich swears aeon the pjlT o e t stne h n i t i though h h e w e ill7l:ll:l4vethe complied wo w i the true t h the law, and the oath will be a good one. Now, sir, with the greattit respect fur the house, I do say that we ere placed in • position of more th an ordinary difficulty, when we find the two law oaten of the crown differing entirely from one another, and the chief law °Meer of a former government differing from both of them. (" Hear, bear," and cheers.) To suppose that the house must con sider this as a clear and obvious matter would be to enter tain an hypothesis which is entirely out of the ques tion. (Cheers.) With regard to the swearing upon the Old Testament it does appear to me a very rtrAnge thing that if you are convinced in your own mind that the words " on the true faith of • Christian" are of the essence and substance of the oath, you should have acted as you have done. (Hear.) If you knew this beforehand, what sense was there in your allowing the hon. member for Greenwich to be sworn on the Old Testament ? (Near, hear.) •. I as- • with range. on and the saucer is cracked • and, if you do not tell the truth, your soul will b e cracked like the saucer." The prinner was found - • and sentenced. (Hear.) Why, I agree s. . the hon. and learned member fur Abingdon that if it be of the C./Rine of the oath to pronounce the words "on the true frith of a Christian," the house ought not to have —and guilty Was not the Central Criminal Court, which adrniiiisterel this oath, a Christian court ? Were not the Privy Coun cil and the House of Lords, who took a similar course, also Christian courts? lie. for one, was prepared to take his 8. - 4th part of the disgrace and infamy which would fall upon the house in the event of its deciding that the hon. member for Greenwirls was entitled to take his seat, and to exercise the privili gea which appertain el to him as a atemlwr of that house. Upon these grounds he asked the house to admit his hon. friend to the enjoyment of the pri - which his seat entitled him, and to disregard in allowed the oath to be administered tin the Old Testa ment. It is absurd to say that the sign of an oath ought to be one thing and the words in which you pronounce the oath another. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) I say that the words of adjuration and the sign of adjuration must stand upon the saute footing. (Cheers.) If you abandon the sign of adjuration you must allow the words of adjuration to be omitted also. (Hear, hear.) I contend that the ar• gument which was used by the noble lord as to what was done on some former occasion, in the reign of George 1., when it was intended to allow Jews to omit the vilest" to which me sees ....__ . • matter affecting their own Aiken an adverse assump tion of the House of lord*. liear, - hear.) jai Strang,» were then urde to withdraw, but nn diet- Ilioll took place. Atter an absence of two or three minutes, Mr. B. OSBORNE wax found on his legs, attempting /a address the house. The SPEAKER was understood to say that the boa. member had no right to speak. Mr. B. OSBORNE wait!, I believe I moved the substan• tire motion, and by • mistake made by you, sir—(loud tries of " No, no," and " Chair, chair.") The SPEAR Elt said he would tell the house and the hon. member pr cisely how the question stood. The hon. member for Greenwich having taken his seat in the boom without having taken the oaths, the motion anis nada that the hon. member 'ln now withdraw. Of tonne that motion hid precedence of all others, as the question was one of order. To that rn.ition the hon. member (Mr. B. Osborne) gave in an amendment ; and in so giving in his amendment he fur1 . ..R.4 his right to speak. It was not competent to an hon. member to put in an amendment without a speech, and then to claim the right to speak on it afterwards. (Ilene. hear.) Mr. T. 11081101:sE said he was given to understand by the gentlemen around him, that no one made a motion in the war the Speaker f u ppoZa. "I suppose, Mr. Speaker (continued the lion. 'gentleman), you will retract your judgment. and elbow the hon. member for Middlesex to address the house." (Loud cries of " order," and " chair.") The SPEAKER said the hon. member wax mistaken in suppusint that no motion was made. The noble lord the mambo r for the City of London moved that Alderman Salomon* di' now withdraw. The question being put, on amendment was put into his hands by the hon. member for Middlesex, ant.l that hon. member, by putting the amendment into hi. hinds, forfeited his right to speak. words "on the true faith of a Christian," applies in this ease. By the 10th of Geo. 1., I think, it was intended that Jews should be relieved in a particular case from the necessity of using the words, " On the true faith of a Christiau." Well, then, says the noble lord, " I find that when the legislature meant these words to be omitted in the adjuration oath, it distinctly enacted it, and, inas mech as we have no similar enactment for the case before us, we must enforce the words." But just observe what that act said. Bid it refer merel7 to the words, "On the true faith of a Christian ?" No, it went further; it gave permission also fur the Jew to be sworn as in a condor justice on the Old Testament ; otherwi,e he would have had to be sworn on the Evangelists. The act placed the wonls and the sign of adjuration on the same footing ; for while the act gives permission to omit the words, " On the true faith ut's Christian," it goes on to say, " And the taking the said oath by persons professing the Jewish re ligion in like manner as Jews are admitted to be sworn and to give evidence in courts of justice shall be deemed to h, a sufficient taking of the adjuration oath." Well, then, if the act also gave an express permission of the use of the Old Test.uuent only in the particular ease what bevomes of the argument of the noble lord founded ou this act of Geo. 1., now that he has agreed to the use of the Old Testament without a statutory penal.- sion to do so in the case now before the house ? I therefore, sir, view the matter in a different light altoge ther, and it appears to me this very set of George I. that has been quoted against the claim of the hon. member for Greenwich tells rather in his favour, for it shows the legis lature has dealt with those words of the adjuration and the sign of the adjuration at the same time, end saw to have understood that they should be put on the sew footing. Therefore, 1 say, if you have allowed the Old Tedesteat to be used you must permit the words on the Mee Mit eta Christian to be omitted. (Hear, hear.) In as PM fit Mr. Pease, which has been frequently quoted in the comae 'e perfectly ' ---- ,Ir. T. 110B1I0CsE said the judgment of the Asir was indisputable in that house. and he bowed with deferent. he the expression of opinion which had just been given. Bat bit submitted that he was entitled to epeak--and that 12 the ease, he would sulgest to the house that a grave rutty might eel,* if they ordered the hon. member he Greenwich to withdraw Item tae house. (Hear, hear.) On • former occasion, they heard t h e hon. and learned gentle man the Solicitor•Ueneral —(elierrs)--elpress himself with the greatest skill, the greatest judgment, the greatest abi lity, the mutest legal acumen, in favour of their brethren the Hebrews—(laughter) —end he hoped the hon. and karord member would favour the house with his opinion that evening. In his opinion. the hon. member for Greenwich might sit and rate if he chose to risk incur ring the penalties imposed bylaw. (hear, hear.) It wasa notorious fact that many minors had sat in that house. (Ilear, hear.) Ile would advise the Speaker— laughter)—humbly and with great respect, not to render himself liable to auy penalties; he would ad vise him nut to allow this subjeet to be taken before the courts of law, which had so often overruled the proceedings of that house, and which liberated the sheriffs alter they bail been committed. (hear, hew.) He did not know what c nine the hon. member for Greenwich would take, of these diresusions, a course t. analogous to that for which lam co tending was taken, as being the only one which altered a solution to the difficulty that then pre sented itself. It was clear that Mr. Pease was entitled by the statute to aiiirrn instead of taking the oath ; but If it had been contended that though he was entitled to affirm instead of taking the oath, that with regard to the words on the true faith of a Christian in the adjuration oath there was no statute to enable the house to allow their omission ; it would have amounted to this—{hag the member claiming to substitute the affirmation for the oath might affirm, provided he used words at the end it the affirmation which were tantamount to the taking of ea oath. (litar. hear.) And it is precisely the same with the Jew. You allow him to take the oath in the form which is binding on his conscience as a Jew—that is on the Old Tes tament, provided at the end of the oath he use. words signi fying that he is a Christian. (Cheers.) The house in the ease of Mr. Pease took the reasonable anti common sense coarse • it omitted the worth implying an oath at the end of the el;rmatioe. But there was no espreio law to entitle Mr. Pease to the privilege; there was no act of parliament passed for the purpose; and, though the course then taken might have been in accordance with the common law, there was no statute law to say, in so many words, that the words • • should • but no one would be more ready to shake hands with him on his taking his wot in that house. Believing that the toilers of the land would di tide in the hon. member's favour. he should vote tar his taking his scat forthwith. He behest-it the Speaker had nu right whatever to direct the hon. inAnher to w ithileaw, and he warned him that he could not du it. The Speaker might suggest to him to withdraw, and he supposed that that was what he had in tended to do; hut the hon. member had determined to maintain hi. position, and was no doubt prepared to abide by the decision of a court of law. The ATT 0 RN E RRA L said—Tome this goodies appears a very plain and simple one. My hon. and learned friend has suggested that the hon. =mhos , for Greenwich should he allowed to take his seat and to vote is this house, subject only to those penalties which he will blear by so doing, whir., penalties may be enforced else. whore by the ordinary tribunah of the country. (Hear, bear.) In that view, I, for one, do nut concur. (Cheers.) It appears to Inc perfectly clear that the house has here a duty to perform. (Hear, hear.) The act of parliament positively and imperatively prohibits any member who has nut taken certain oath., among• which is the oath of &Na tation, from voting and sitting in this house. (" No.") Some hen. gentleman says .• no ;" I can only say that be cannot have read the statute. Nothing can be plaiaer ter more explicit than the words of the Aet of Parliament. The hon and learned gentleman then readthe act, providing that nu person should sit and vote as a member until he had taken the abjuration oath. Nothiag, I say, can be more precise than the words. Mr. B. OSBORNE: -Read the Bth Oco. 111. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The words there are meetly the same. The act refers back to this, and says the oath is to be taken in the same way ; and this oath is, I assert, still binding upon all persons. Mr. B. OSBORNE—Read. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The hoa. member mast not interrupt me. (Hear, hear.) If I mistake the act of parliament there will be an opportunity of correcting me. (Hear, hear.) I entertain not the shadow of a doubt that the terms of the act of parliament arc binding upon all. Well, then, there arises this goes shall the house allow -- honourable member who And the Speaker havip; directed Mr. Salomon, to with. hen- ' lion, an has not taken the oath to sit here and to vote It is said that certain penalties attach, and that it is suffi cient that they do so. I say we are called upon to take cognisance of a question affecting the rights and privileges of skis house. (Hear.) It is a principle of the common nght the *ay, mai me is ilie am so, As itrestisa .w was wketlier dee bow shonkl same obedience to the Speaker's eider ? Oa Oat 'notion. beivre‘er greet his reluctance, be _ - - law that what e ver relates to 'the of • member to sit in this house is subject to cognisance and Jurisdiction of parliament alone. (Hear, hear.) When the cue arises which ham now act ually arisen, in which an honourable meashoc, Awe laving been duly returned, presents himself at dr bible ma dollies to take the oaths in the tsar premelbod by taw, then it is the duty of the hour not only to sissy but to enforce the law. (Cheers.) I take that Iss be the am duty of this house—a duty her which it put not, der not, shrink. (Hear, hear.) I ion spite awes that costal. hon. members contend that the bun. useable by Green wich h.is taken the oath acurding to law. Now epos that point the house came to a solemn sad deliberate decision last year. In that decision I most cordially cosienr, though with the greatest possible reluctance. I am yyeite our that none of those who desire that the hen. membr kilf Orme with should take his seat in that house regret mars than I do the operation of those acts which prevent Jews tram sitting in parliament. That operation is a seen eatidest of legislation. The law was meant to apply r it does, and the continuance of the words is a disgrace to ear statute book. (Hear, hear.) But, while I am as desirous as any member can be that the law should be altered, I feel that the house, acting in • judicial capacity, is bound to administer the law as it stands—l feel that we have no alternative, and, with the views which I entertain, and still more, having reference to the decision of the house last year, I conceive that we cannot hesitate for • moment as to the course which we ought to pursue. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member (Mr. T. Itobbouse) says that minors have sat is this house. That may be very true, because the matter is one which must be left to be dealt with on petition and tried 'n the ordinary way. (Hear, hear.) But this does not affect the statutory prohibition in the present case. As regards the suggestion that the penalties should be left to be enforced by a court of law, I say the house cannot give up its jurisdiction in matters affecting Its own privileges. Even if the question of penalties were deter mined by a court of law, that would not determine the question whether or not the bon. member has a right to sit in this hone', and could not justify us rahriaking i from the . ' particle felt bound by the previous decision of the house toe...gain the normative. They had a resolution of the house declaring that in the form is which they had been takes by the hon. member, they had not hcim taken in accordance with the statute; and until that resolution was reversed the h0w..., be took it, had no course open to it but to affirm the motion that the hous member be directed to withdraw. Mr. CLAY remarked that the question did not regard the oath itself, but the mode of taking it, and fell, there fore, within the competence of the Commons to settle for themselves. Looking at the admission of the Jews to par liament as a matter only of time, he advised the house to cut short a dangerous controversy, by *alumina the respon sibility of letting them in at once. Mr. VILLIERS doubted whether, considering the com plicity of the law, the public would not attribute an adverse decision, if such should be passed, to a means and paltry prejudice against the Jews. Lord J. RUSSELL said the question before us is, whether or not, the house having passed the resolution of last year, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Salomon) ought now to with draw, and whether the house will confirm its own 11/01/bh• tion. I own I cannot say I think this is a question ups which the house ought to entertain any doubt. It a= to me the house having come to a resolution that the Rothschild could not sit, having sworn to so much of ohs oath of abjuration as he did, were it now to allow another member to come here, and without question to sit and vote on the very grounds on which it was declared that the Baron Rothschild could not sit, would be a monstrous con clusion. (Hear) I can conceive that those who consider our decision of last year was erroneous and contrary to law, might say, at all events, let respect be shown to the recorded resolution of the be - so long as it stands on our ea the tree faith o'l'a Christian be flefillni bat you acted upon the principle of common scam, and Mk*, into consideration the declaration of the law in former timer, and the statutes which had passed since you allowed the words to be omitted. (Hear, hear.) I cannot sow remember the exact words of a lite right hon. member et this house, who was a great authority on such questions. in reference to the case of Mr. Pew ; but the substance et what Mr. Wynn said on that occasion was, " drily and technically we are not bound to grant this privilege* Mr. Pease, but it is not clear that we ought to refuse IS —(hear, hear)—therefore. taking a liberal and a generous view of the law, when we have the power of putting can own construction upon it, and passing our own judgment and decision, I think we ought to give the benefit to Mr. Pease." (Cheers.) So I say in this case, let us take a liberal and generous view of the law, and give the heas4l to the hon. member for Greenwich. (Hear.) Unfurl* uately, I am afraid, there are difficulties that will now arise from our being about (us I am sorry to say I expect) to take an illiberal view of the law. I am afraid that some honourable members preen* are about to allow their own personal feelings against allowing Jews to sit in parliament to influence their judgments in the decision of &judicial question. But that is not the course those who entertain those feelings should adopt. If they are determined that Jews shall not sit in parliament (and this oath gees to no such extent), let them bring in a bill declaring that Jews shall not be eligible to sit in this house. (Hear.) Lord Denman', when Common Serjeant of the City of London, on the question of admitting Jews to corporate olfices, said, in speaking of the oath. "The only object of an oath is to hind the conscience ut hint who takes it, and in any other form it is both nuga tory and blasphemous. If, on the other hand, the mode of swearing is considered as a test for detecting and excluding a particular religious class, it would be inconsistent with the custom first set out which makes all admissible, and in contravention of one of the first principles of English law, would .duet indirectly what cannot be done directly." It appears to me that that opinion conveys, in beautiful and forcible language, the real meaning of the question now before as. I confess I have great difficulty in opposing the motion of the noble lord ; for, in doing so, • his, te' I feel lam not ally opposing my opinion against but may appear to be aawilling to pay due respect to the au thority of the right hon. gentleman in the chair. That, however, is see the sense in which I shall in give my Tote against noble lord's motion ; but merely this sense, that . . . . I de set Oa& the law *defiantly clear upon the point just4i preseinnelnee a deliberate opinion that the hon. =MAIN kit 13reeawish is not entitled to take his seat in this house, aid being called upon to pronounce an opinion one way or the eider, I feel I could not reconcile it to my conscience to thetas treat giving my vote against the noble lord's proposition. (Hear, hear.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL trusted the house would excuse him, if, in a few brief sentences, be explained the grounds of the vote be was about to give, and which be wee anxious to do, not on his own account, but on accouater an observation of the hon. and learned member for Yale** as to want of courage.—[hi. ANSTIT : " Oa the pest d others"]—u to a want of courage which had bees eta& bited on the part of others, then, in the previous ease dthe Baron Rothschild. He was glad the hon. and leaned tleman said " on the p.srt of others," for he (the General) was willing to take upon himself the limb Mil• sponsibility of the Kinn Rothachild's not taking hie seat as the hon. member for Greenwich had done. (Hear, bear.) The reason, he believed, was this it appeared to him to be necessary for the house to come to a conclusion, one yap ge the other, whether or not the oath of abjuration bad hem token as required by the act. (Hear.) He could ant ihhit with the right hon. member for Manchester that it nee per for the house to avoid that question. He did not think they could allow it to remain in uncertainty whether an hon. gentleman continued to sit in that hOllllll MS =saber fur Greenwich or any other place in cont.,.,endian et Mho statute or not. (Hear, hear.) That question mast be de cided, and that was the opinion he entertained in the CON of the Baron Rothschild. Before he was allowed to take his scat be felt that that question must be decided, sad es that occasion he (the Solicitor General) argued u favour a that question as he was best able, not es a partime ter he hoped with any undue degree of political bias, but oa what appeared to him to be the merits of the ease. lie was let from saying the law was clear upon the point. (Clem.) His opinion was unchanged upon the subject, bat tee pedat was a judicial one to be decided judicially by . the bowie, and it was decided by a large majority—a majority of 74 be be lieved, that decision being that the Baron Lionel de Rothe itonse journ.ils—let it not be treated as of no value, but after the member has withdrawn, let us recon sider, and if necessary, reverse that decision. (Hear, hear.) Those who differ from that resolution might reasonably take that course. The right hon. member fur Manchester has not quite correctly vtakvl the resolution the house came to. He says, it was to the effect that no member should sit without taking the oath in the form appointed by law. But that was not exactly it. (Hear, hear.) 'Ube house, having had the Baron Rothschild before it, and having seen the form ho went through, and the manner is which he took the oath, resolved that he was nut entitled to sit in the house until he bad taken the oath in the form appointed by law. What can be more clear than the fact that he has not yet taken the oath in that form ? What else could it mean ? fhe house knew what the Baron Rothschild had dune, and they said he cannot sit until he takes the oath in the form appointed by law. The present case stands on pre cisely the same grounds; and I think the house has no other course open to it than to decide that the hon. member for Greenwich must withdraw. (Hear, hear.) What we shall proceed to do after that de cision is another question. The hon. member (Mr. &de mons) has no doubt placed himself in a different position from that in which the Baron Rothschild stands. (Cheers.) He has already sat and voted in this house—(loud cheers) —and I think it is a grace question for the house to con sider what difference that should make, if any, in our proceedings in the present as compared with those which were taken in the Rothschild ewe. I think the present state of the law is moot unsatisfactory. (Hear, hear.) When it is a question with respect to the Quakers, the acts of parliament and the journals of this house show that the words, en the true faith of • Christian," are form, that the form should be changed, and that the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," should be omitted. In all the acts sad proceedings of this house with relation to Quakers, the words, "on the true faith of a ChriNtian," are esteemed as form. But, in the case of the Jews, these words are considered not as form, but as substance. (Hear, hear.) You will find that to be the case in the acts sail proceedings relating to the Jews. (Hear, hear.) There is `.cat difference between the acts relating to the Quaker and the Jews. The act relating to the Quakers says that pee -1 suns requiring the oath to be taken may require it to be taken its such and such a form, and that those who take it in such form shah be liable to a charge of perjury, hash" made their afarraation. But with respect to the Jews, It does Out say that they may take at in such and such • form, but it says that they shall be liable to a charge of perjury if they take it in such and such a form. he oath would subject .ct the Jews to the penalties of perjury, and there are se woias in it which revire those who administer it to do se in the manner in which they administer it to the Quakers. dHear, hear. )) Hut there is another most remarkable ifference. There are laws with regard to the Jews in two instances—two special instances—in which the legislature has said that the words "un the true faith of a Christian " shall be omitted, and that the oath shall be administered on the Old Testament. The inference from this is, that, as parliament made these special exceptions, they thereby meant that these exceptions were to govern such cases only, and that general rases were outside suck CUPS. Therefore, no person has a right here to administer the oath in such and such a form, except it be according to the particular statutes to whith I have alluded. (Hear.) These points make a great difference—a difference which it is necessary , for us to observe. 1 think it is an unjust distinc tion. (Hear.) I think it an unsatisfactory state of the law, that, with regard to the Quakers you should declare a part of the oath to be matter of form and not the substance of the oath, and that you can dispense with it—that there should be members of this house who leave out the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and end with the words antecedent to these, and that, when you come to the Jew you should any, " This is not form, it a the essence and member fur Oremwieh. The appeared to Iti, to be eon- tumaceons—a disobedience of theiirders of the boon, soda contempt of its authority, so much so that he (Sir P. The siger) s4uuld be - • yrepored to concur in a vote, which quite p, he thought it would be the proper one to adopt, namely, that the hun. and learned member for Greenwich be committed to the Serjeant-rt-Arms for the disobedience of the orders of the house, and for contempt. (.. Hear, herr." and cheers.) The noble lora ut the head of the government had proceeded in this matter too mildly, but nobody could doubt that the noble lord was ptvfectly justified in the course which he had pursued is this instance. The resolution passed by the house after debate last session still remained undisturbed, and yet in the free of it the hon. gentleman has come down so as by his presence tonight to brave the decision which the house bad arrived at last year, and of which ho was fully aware. (Herr, hear.) The decision of this house on a former occasion was act at nought by the hon. and learned member, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) could not doubt what the feelings of the majority of the house would be on the question now before it. Ile was not pre ! pared for the course which Mr. Alderman Salomon's had thought fit to adopt, and when he (Sir F. Thcidger) ease down to the house that evening he had expected that the noble lord at the head of the government would have moved • resolution similar to that which he had proposed sad which had been adopted by the house la the ease of Baron Rothschild last session. (Hear, hear.) On Friday last he (Sir F. Thesiger) had intimated his in tention to move • resolution that the seat for Greenwich was void, and to move • new writ, but after some conside ration, and after discussing the subject with some friends who were competent to give an opinion, he was inclined, although he still entertained the opinion that the house made a most serious mistake in reference to the case of Baron Rothschild, still in deference to the opinion expressed in the house, and seeing farther the difficulty which would arise from • departure from the former • he should —.er decision, give his cordial support to the proposition of the noble lord at the head of the government. (Hear, hear.) After a few w,•rds front Mr. BETHELL, in substance of oath, and you must take it. - (Hear., After what I have said, the house will perceive that it is with reluctance—with pain to myself—that I assent to that interpretation of the oath which excludes Jewish mem. hers • but I do not agree with the hon. member for \Vol verhlnipton (Mr. Villiers), when he says that because we arc careful and scrupulous in looking at the words of the act of parliament we shall be looked upon with scorn and contempt by the people. Mr. VILLIERS.—I did not say that. Lord J. RUSSELL.-1 certainly understood my hon. friend to say so. But, however, I believe that the people of this country—a people obedient to the law above all other people on the face of the globe, scrupulous not to exceed the limits of the law, aad ever ready to exact their rights when they believe those rights in fringed, but reuderiug to others all that the law requires—l believe that they expect and will be glad to see that the House of Commons, whatever may be their views of expediency or justice, are reedy to set the first example of full and exact obedience of the law, and that if they feel sure that the law prescribes a certain course of conduct no such considerations as those which have been mentioned will induce them to overstep it. (Cheers.) Mr. BETHELL said that, iu his opinion (as a lawyer), by the common statute law, as well as by the solutions of the house, the oath of abjuration had been well and legally taken by Mr. Salmons, and that the house had no autho rity to require him to withdraw. A member war entitled to require the oath to be administered to him, and the house was bound to administer the oath, according to law, whisk prescribed that it should be administered in • manatee binding upon the member's conscience. This latter prin ciple applied to any particular set of words contained in the oath ; and Mr. Bethell, in an elaborate argument, ender. voured to show that, whether the words in question were. se he thought, only the sanction of the oath, or • part of the oath, the manner in which Mr. Be. lemons had taken the oath, having been perutithell to take it upon the Old Testament, satisfied the law. He submitted that if theyregarded the principles of comma and statute law, and of their own report, they were bound to administer the oath, and that the Jew had a right to take •t,in a mann..- - '•- to his conscience. He , explanation, Mr. AULIONBY said that the arguments which had been adranced by the hon. and learned member for Ayles bury were unanswered and unanswerable. (Hear.) Re luctantly he felt compelled to vote for the present motion, though he could not but rejoice that Mr. Alderman Salo mons had had the courage to assume that seat in the house to which a liberal constituency had returned hint. Sir It. 11. INGLIS raid he rose not for the purpose of supporting the decision of the Speaker last year, but the decision of the House of Commons itself. Last year they had voted that the oath must be taken Baron Rothschild, it, in a manner according contended for nothing at variance with their own resolution of last session, fur that resolution was embodied in language which left the legal question undecided. In that resolution there was nothing binding on them, but there was much that called on them to a sensible line .n by and on that the Nat was unoccupied. The simple question was this—would the house stultify itself by rescinding the resolution which, after solemn debate, had been adopted last year. Mr. BRIGHT remarked that the terms of the amend ment amount to a substantive reversal of the vote of last session. If this alternative were adopted, therefore, the arguments concerning inconsistency fell to the ground. Referring to precedents, the hon. member went back to an earlier instance, that of the admission of Mr. Pease, when the Commons had not the example of providing upon their own authority a new form of oath to admit the member of a particular sect. The precedent then set, ho contended, should rule in the present case. Mr. NEWDEGATE declared that the proceedings of Mr D. Salomous were most audacious. Mr. EVANS maintained that the oath of abjuration was complete before adding the first and former words. Mr. Salomons having, therefore, effectually taken the oath, could claim the right to take his seat in the house. Colonel THOMPSON supported the amendment. Mr. CROWDER, examined the terms of the oath, and compared them with those of other legal formula, arguing that the omitted clause was essential, and the vote of last session binding. Mr. MU NI Z, finding so much difference among the lawyers, intended to follow tlie dictates of plain scum:, and vote in favour of the amendment. After a few words from Mr. Wawn, Me. J. A. SMITH stated, on behalf of Mr. Salomons, that, having voted in one division, he did not intend to vote in that about to be taken, as it involved a question personal to himself. Alderman Salomons then rose, and having bowed to tho Speaker, withdrew from the house amid loud laughter, mingled with cries of '• Adieu," pronounced " A Jew." The house then divided: For Mr. B. Osborne's amendment Against On the gallery being re-opened, several hon. memben were found essaying to obtain the attention of the house, which at the moment appeared to be in a state of great confusion, which was immensely aggravated by Alderman Salomon, again walking up the Hour, and taking his seat by the Master of the Rolls, the position occupied by the hon. gentleman throughout the previous part of the even ing. There were loud and uproarious calls of " Order " and " Withdraw " front the opposition benches, which were met by counter cries of " Hear, hear," from the ministerial side of the house. At length, order being partially re stored, at the call of the Speaker, Mr. ASSTEY then proceeded to address the house. He was happy to see his hon. friend the member for Greenwich bad again returned to his seat. (Oh, oh.) lie thought hie hon. friend was wrong in yielding to such CI.CCIISIVC deli cacy as withdrawing before the last question was put. C' Oh, oh," and much laughter.) lie thought it was the duty of his hon. friend to suppress all feelings of that kind in consideration of the question he was there to defend. (Renewed laughter.) Upon this question much depended, for it it should be decided by the house that they had the power to compel his hon. friend to withdraw be low the bar, they would neat decide that they had the .• • • oar, power to declare his seat vacant, and lo issue a new writ. Ile trusted, however, that his hon. friend would consider his constituents more than himself on the present occasion, and that he would stop in his place and vote, and leave the consequences to those who might by their intolerance, or worse, contribute to swell the majority against him. (Hear, hear.) The original question before the house—and which they were now called upon to decide —was that the hon. member for Greenwich be ordered to withdraw. Was it the intention of the supporters of that proposition that the hon. gentleman should withdraw from the house altogether, or simply from the seat which he then occupied? ("Rear, hear," and ironi cal laughter from the opposition benches.) If he (Mr. Anstey) were to judge by the frenzied delight manifested by hou. members opposite, at the result of the last division, he could not help thinking what their delight would be at seeing hi, hon. friend committed for contu macy. (Ironical cheers and laughter from the opposition.) If the hon. member for Greenwich should be compelled to withdraw, he (Mr. Anstey) should move that he be heard in person or by counsel against that decision. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen had therefore to consider just now what part of the house they would order the hon. member for Greenwich to withdraw to. (Laughter.) Ile did not think the question had been sufficiently considered—C. oh, oh"), and therefore he would move that the debate be now ad. journed. (Oh, oh.) Mr. BRIGHT seconded the motion. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the hon. and learned gen tleman had given no reason whatever for the adjournment of the debate. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the real question which was before them—whether the hon. gentleman should withdraw—he thought that the house ought to come to a decision. (Hear, hear.) It wan I his intention in the early part of the evening to have made a motion similar to that which he made last year in theatre of Baron Rothschild, but he did not wishthe house should come to an immediate decision upon it, but that hen. gentlemen should have time till to morrow to consider what course it would he best for them to adopt. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the withdrawal of the hon. gentle man, in cue the house decided he should do so, there was but one precedent which he could find on the subject, and that was not in favour of the course suggested by the hon. member for Youghal. That was the camel Sir W. Wyndham who, having used some words that were found fault with by the house, was ordered by the Speaker to withdraw. He refused to do so, and a motion was then made that he ursue eiesednet ; w the poi nt that the s• — il - *sea to be sworn was to be sworn on the Old Testament, they were under the oation to follow that out in a con sistent manner. He cuded by expressing his belief that Mr. Alderman Sidemen' was as much a member of that Mime as any other member who sat within its walls. (Cheers.) Sir F. THESIGER took an entirely opposite view of the law, though be agreed with the hon. member that the house bad brought itself into a difficulty by allowing the oath to be taken on the Old Testament. The house came to • different conclusion; and though ho bowed to that deci sion, he could not acquiesce in it. Parties were re quired to take the oath of abjuration within a limitted tune under the 9th Geo. 1., and the 10th Geo. 1. was introduced for the purpose of enlarging the time; and the provision with regard to the Jews was, like the act, of a temporary character, and expired with the occasion. Without some such provision the legislature knew that It would be impossible for the Jew to take the oath. There is another act of parliament which enforced these views, and which most certainly had been overlooked. He meant the statute 13 Geo. 11. , which provided that , any person obje cting to the words " on the true Ma of • Christian, " such words should be omitted teas the oath. (Hear, hear.) The house had therefore a legislative determination that this was substaatially OS essential to the oath. By that decision of the house it ap- peared to him that the matter was clear; but if that point was denied, he begged to ask where woulp the opponents of the principle stop ? Mr. Alderman Salomon* objected to the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." But might it not be asked what other part of the oath he objects to, in order to satisfy his conscience? Where was the contest to end ? He was sure that his hon. and learned frienu the member for Aylesbury had not prepared himself sufficiently for this great contest, or he would have demolished the argument which had been raised in favour of Mr. Alderman Salomon taking his seat as member for the borough of Greenwich. The question now before the house was merely whether Mr. Alderman Salomon' should be requested to withdraw. He (Sir F. Thesiger) confessed - -4 of the be ordered to withdraw, for which there were, ayes, 206. n0e5,,127. Thereupon Sir Wm. Wyndham withdrew, thus paying a proper respect to the resolution of the house. (Hear, hear.) At that time he was an undoubted member of the house; he had spoken on the question; he de clined to withdraw on the order of the Speaker but, when sisp”rted by • resolution of the house, his imasely withdrew. (Hear, hear.) If, on the present occasion the hon. member did not pay the same respect to the order of the house, other measures must be taken—(cheers from the opposition)—but he should hope that when the authority of the Speaker was confirmed by the resolution of the home, there would be no hesitation on the part of the hon. gentleman in obeying the order of the house. (Hear, hear.) Sir B. HALL believed that prolonged discussion would throw no more light en the subject. After a few words from Mr. WAWN, Mr. HOBBOUSE advised Mr. Salmons to claim his right to speak, as he had already exercised the rights of sitting and voting! Mr. SALOMONS then rose, and was received with • few faint cries of "oh," and "withdraw," from the opposi tion benches; alter which he was allowed to address the house without any interuption, which he did in a firm tone, as follows:—" Sir, I should not have presumed to address you or this house in the peculiar position in which I am placed, were it not that I have been so pointedly ap pealed to by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. (Hear, hear.) I trust the house will make some allowance for that position, and the responsibility that I feel in the unusual course which it may be thought I have adopted. (lieu, hear.) But I beg to assure you, sir, mad taw beer, that it has been far from my intention to biddy is sop thing contumacious or presuming towards either. (Neer, bear.) But, having been returned to this house by a large constituency, and believing that I labour undue no disability whatever, and that I am in a position to fulfil all the requirements of the law, I thought I would not be doing justice to my own position as an Englishman and a gentleman did I not adopt the course which I thought right and proper maintaining my right to appear on this floor meaning " ._.___ duty whici - n . ow de•olves upon es. ' with every _ ..., c teen em to seat until he &WA Uwe dot il. vomit the sable lord it the head , govern- without thereby ____ _, anj anaveiect to you, sir. it'd — tut ilefeeTitis therefore, to take an opposite corome, it moms to mei that I takes the enelt of abjuration lathe hone appeheleill law. most he* hisparml ovary mild form of proceeding. (Hear.) (Cheers.) I thought I was bound to take this course in should not be discharging my duty If I did not at once When that dmision was mane el the Hem liethselHe bed The law would remember what had occurred on Fri- defence of my ownrighta and privileges, and those of the boldly declare may conviction that as the hon. member has dolma that 111211 1 demlowe had lbw eI•M W rise to the day hot- It comet hew hem forgotten that with the entire constituency that sent me here. (Hear, hear.) In say not taken the oaths in the manner prescribed . by law, there "big °.f_____,_th° ` um ' , 11.1 ..,_ tb Z w .„ 11 . 51 aa1l mew . sir rePen esheeffenee of the Dam, after the hon. and learned mem- ing this, sir, I shall state to you that whatever is but one course left fur us to pursue, which is to order him any nu , _room.' / w hic h point woad be loft open. bee (for each ha pmemeg be must call him) for Green- the decision of this house may be, I shall wil to withdraw. (Hear.) The de-on, the eliberate judgment of the house, was on with had refwed le to words "on the true faith of ji n gly abide by it, provided that just sufficient Mr. M. GIBSON said—Sir, I concur very much in one retard ; and though he for one did not acquiesce in that a Christian," he was dlrseled to withdraw entirely from force be used to show that I am seeing under coercion. part of the speech of the hen. and learned gentleman, judgment, yet, it being &judicial decision, he apprehended the house. This um not semplied with ; and perhaps it (H e ar, h ear .) Having expressed these sentiments, I will namely, that in which he said the house has • jurisdiction that the Speaker had no course open to him in the present would be in the lesembrume of the house that he (Sir F. not intrude on the time of the house further than to say of its own, and must decide whether the hon. member is oue, where the same forms had been gone through wlkich in Thesiger) again drew attendee to the Wearisome*, and that I trust and hope that in the present doubtful state of entitled to a seat here or not. But, inasmuch as the deci- the previous cue the house had declared to be not oansistent again the Speaker celled spa the lea. member for Green- the law—doubtful, u shown by tits different opinions of sic& to which this house mast COM. ought to be founded on with the law, but to see that the law ma declared by the re- wuh to withdraw. Now, he QM Z. hedger) confessed, the most eminent lawyers in this house—no final order or its understanding of the law , as • member of this house, I solution of the house was enforced. (Hear, beer) If that with this course of pronoun —Am th e perfect sanction resolution will be adopter' without affording me an oppor fe, I entitled to say what I believe ou. ht to be the under- decision were correct it was clear . no person had a right to which the house had gives te W suggestion on Friday ; tnnity of addressing the h ouse , an d stating before the house standing of the law. (Hear , hear .) It is not so very sit in that house without conferrnuig to what they had de- M evening last, he was surprised et the appearance w ithin 1 and the country what I believe to be my rights and privi easy a goodies m =lib , be supposed. Just Observe what is elated to be the intention of the statute. (Hest, h eat .) th e w ay an d precincts of the hew of the hon. and learned leges, what I believe to be the right, of my constituents, and what I believe to be the duty of this house. (Hear.) I hope this house will not refuse that which I believe no court in this counts.: ever rcrwes—that ft will not refire to he ir me before it comes to a final decision. (The hon. gentleman sat down amidst loud cheering.) Mr. BRIGHT supported the motion for the adjournment, wishing to allow the house more time• for cool reflection, OLIN) TM— NATAL ARCRITECrunr, OWNS. LIPW BUOYS. IT t MATTRFLMiIiII. he. 370 . SWIM MING I I ~ ripply evert rarletf of the mod approve I hooyant meal • one. or the PRI.AICKVATI'iN and Salt: 1* V of he PEKSON to tho W.t rF.tt. Their latent IW lent met Watcatnitit Trunk *garnets In Clam ro. at h.a. hi . .etten italic.' for slily.' paper.. Mica a end rel rale irtuainiatod or ..n. *loch, .1.1. e It ;woo, et the con'enteligt a Id once. Mai variation of climate. dully. or insect, Is an effectual Life Hwy in owe of eiser ten7. Po:earner laiUl ore arid pruoerty. hey hone attention to the [encored Itloa•ahie dattraratu, CuAlongt, kc. Otterrhe avail:tido to the engine ettreniltp, and taro.. other her and flats. E and Ito. hare made en It Improvements to the Water Led, which they supply at a go ally reduced pr.re. awl let 04 tlt hire, Aar l'a.htorts, tr. lieueral W.tiernritof Warenoute. 116. Fen. choral street, opponte Hark laaw. Sir DE L. EyANs utruro soni;:;4;i;el.o—ih;;Z.-Teifect. Lord J. RUSSELL said that after the temperate speech made by the hon. member fur Greenwich on this emotion he regretted that he could not comply with the proposition that had been made fur the adjournment of the debate. But with regard to the main question he had already said he would postpone the consideration of it till to-morrow. If the house came to a resolution in favour of the lion. mem ber, he would then be fully entitled to come into the house amid to take his seat, but he owned he did nut think it possible in any C 1. ., atter the Speaker had ordered the hon. gentleman to withdraw, and when that order had been supported and confirmed by the resolution of the house, that they could consent to an ad ' jourumeut of the debate. (Hear, hear.) Mr. OSBORNE said he did not wish for a moment to controvert the respect due to the Speaker as a gentleman, or as the officer of the house, but he thought there were rights superior even to that consideration. (ilcar, hear, and " oh.") Ile would advise the hon. member for Greenwich to retain his scat till he was removed by the Serjeatit-at-Arms, and then nut many months would pain ere the house would be compelled to grant full liberty to their Jewish fellow subjects. (Cries of " Divide, divide.") the house then divided. rpregg. TO CORRESPONDENTS. heeded Edified et The Expert,. thettaimuhr be erne e••nir`'s Gurtte," V WM:tatted every Taredey and Friday meat, to thee far peat meet tterawats tatemded for "T►e Express," Louden Y.e•aiae paper, lama be at the uttice, W, Buueerte•etreet, by Tee u mate um the day et pabikaues. For,the motion that Mr. Alderman Salomons do withdraw Against it Majority 162 On our return to the gallery, The SPEAKER (addressing the Sergeant -at-Arms) said, Mr. Sergeant, you will please to remove Mr. Alderman Salomons below the bar. The Sergeant-at-Arms then advanced from his chair to the spot where the hon. member for Greenwich was sitting, and gently laid his hand on the hon. member's right shoulder, a motion which elicited a shout of laughter. The hon. member rose, and was proceeding to address the Speaker, when he was met with loud cries of " Order." When these had partially subsided, the hon. member said, " I yield to your decision, Sir." He thea walked with the Sergeant -at-Arms to the outside of the bar. Mr. ANSTEY immediately rose and said—l wish to ask, Sir, whether your attention has been drawn to the language of the act of parliament, which directs that until the oath has been taken no hon. member is at liberty to take his seat in this house—l wish to know whether the hon. member is not at liberty to stand at the bar? The SPEAKER—The hon. member for Greenwich is at liberty to sit in that part of the house which is occupied by members who have not taken the oaths. (Cheers.) Mr. Hama said, as there appeared to be some mis apprehension on that side of the house with regard to the motion which the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) meant to propose on the following day, he wished to know whether it was merely a similar motion to that which he proposed last year with respect to the hon. member for the City of London ? Lord J. RUSSELL said the resolution which he intended to propose on the following day, was precisely similar to that which the house passed last year iu the case of Baron Rothschild. If the hon. member applied to be heard, he should propose his being heard, as Mr. O'Connell was, at the bar of the house. In reply to Lord D. STU A ILT, Lord J. RUSSELL trill he should introduoe the motion at 5 o'clock. Mr. BRIGHT wished to ask the noble lord whether he intended to leave the question in its present state, merely moving the resolution of which he had given notice? If that were all the noble lord proposed to do, they were just where they were this time last year. (Hear, hear.) If the noble lord intended to facilitate the settlement of the question, it would be well for his to take the matter into consideration before the house met again. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. THESIGER said he should not bring forward his motion for the issuing of a new writ, but content himself with supporting the motion of the noble lord. Mr. B. OSliOltNE—Wiil the noble lord (Lord J. Rus sell) now inform the house whether, after the worthy alder man has taken his scat, has spoken, and has voted three times, he will prosecute him ? Lord J. RUSSELL—As I stated, in effect, before, if the hon. member for Greenwich wishes to be prosecuted, he may find somebody else to do it. (Great laughter.) Mr. ANSTEY would be glad to know what course the noble lord would take if the hon. member for Greenwich, on the following day, should prefer an appeal to the bar of a court of justice. ("Oh, oh.") Mr. WAWN hero rose to speak, but, on being informed by the Speaker that there was no question before the house, he resumed his seat. On the order of the day for going into committee of ways and means, Mr. ANSTEY moved the adjournment of the house, declaring that he should object to the despatch of any pub lic business until the great question of privilege had been disposed of. The hon. member did nut, however, persevere _with his motion. Mr. DISRAELI appealed to the noble lord at the head of the government not to delay the general business of the house by proposing his resolution, especially as it did not appear satisfactory to any hon. members on the ministerial side of the house. Lord J. RUSSELL thought that as he had stated, when the house was full, that he intended to bring forward the question on the following (this) day, and as many bon. gentlemen iniyht have waived their own designs in conse quence, he was bound nut to depart from the course he had announced. The house then went into a committee of ways and means, and agreed to some appropriation votes. MEIteIIANT SEA ME N'S FUND BILL. On the order of the day fur the third reading of this bill, Mr. MOFFAT moved the insertion of a clause, the object of which was to confine the benefit of the fund raised in each seaport to the town in which it was subscribed. Mr. LABOUCIIERE opposed the clause, on the ground that many seamen, after subscribing to the fund in one town afterwards settled in another. Sir G. PECHELL supported the clause. After a few words from Mr. DeNemt, the clause was withdrawn. Mr. LABOUCIIERE moved a clause to exonerate trustees in caste where small sums were in dispute. It was, he said, a carefully considered clause, and the result of an understanding between the trustees and the Board of Trade. The clause was agreed to, and the bill read a third time and passed. GRAND JURY CESS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill, an amended, was considered and agreed to. GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (No. 2) BILL. On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the purpose of going into committee on this bill, Sir J. WALMSLEY moved as an amendment that the aker do not leave the chair. He stated that at Great Speaker do not leave the chair. Ho stated that at Great Yarmouth 1,500 out of 2,500 ratepayerswcre objecting to the interference of the Board of Heath in provincial affairs. He deprecated these continual interferences. He believed it was the intention of the Municipal Act to enable the various boroughs in the kingdom to manage their own affairs, and thus to raise themselves and the condition of the inhabitants. His object in submitting the motion was to compel the Board of Health to lay their provisional order on the table of the house. _ After a few words from Mr. RVIIHOLD, Lord SEYMOUR defended the general provisions of the bill, upon the ground that as the drainage of the provincial towns was excessively bad some such measure as the present was necessary, with a view to the preservation of the lives of the inhabitants. The house divided— For the amendment l2 Against it The house accordingly went into committee, and the ya igous clauses being agreed to, the house resumed. PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Upon the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. M'CruLtott and Mr. Seclax expressed a hope that at that late hour (a quarter after one o'clock) the bill would not be proceeded with. Sir W. SOMERVILLE mid that this was not an opposed bill, and reminded the hon. and learned gentleman that he had been himself a party to the measure. Mr. McCULLAGH said he had not been a party to the bill as it now stood. ....... After a few words from Col. DUNNE, The house went into committee; but Mr. McCum.aost palmed that the chairman report progres., and ask leave to sit again ; and the motion not being opposed, the house resumed. The house then went into committee on the Conveyance of Mails by Beltways Bill, pro forma, and the further con sideration was appointed for Wednesday. The Inverness Bridge (Advances) Bill paned through committee. VETERINARY SURGEONS EXEMPTION BILL. The house having resolved itself into committee on the above bill, Mr. BOUVERIE moved that the chairman do leave the chair. Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the bill, as did also Mr. Bass, who opposed the motion. The committee divided, and the numbers were— Ayes 24 Noes l3-11 The house resumed, and having disposed of the remain ing business, adjourned at a quarter to 2 o'clock. BRITISH AND FOREIGN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. —Last evering the annual meeting of the friends and pro moters of this society took place at Exeter Hall. Mr. Samuel Gurney took the chair, and observed, in opening the proceedings, that there never was a period in which there was greater necessity for the exertions of this society than at the present moment. He expressed his belief that the British colonies were beginning to restorer themselves under the free-trade system, and would soon be able to con ' tend advantageously with those countries in which slavery continued to be encouraged. He was much gratified by the speech made by Lord Palmerston a few nights ago on the subject of the slave trade; but he warned those who were interested in this cause that, notwithstanding the prospect held out by his lordship of a speedy termination to the pre sent system of slavery, the committee of the society must persevere in the work they had begun.—Mr. E. Candler, Mr. E. Thomas of Bristol, Mr. G. W. Alexander, and several other speakers, ineludinc foreign and coloured gen tlemen, subsequently addressed the meeting, and the pro ceedings terminated. WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE. Tom Une—blornme. ;b. 4: of Afternoon. Bb. To-nobsow—bloraing, SC 4bn. Afternoon, 11. lirs. LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 22. A STRONG minority in the Lords is in favour of ad mitting the Jews to sit in parliament. A majority in the Commons is in favour of admitting the Jews to sit in parliament. Majorities of the electors in two of our largest and wealthiest constituencies have sent Jews to take their scats in parliament if they can, in defiance of technical objections. It is clear that the majority of the nation wills, not indeed that this, or father, or any Jew shall be returned to par liament, but that it shall be free to any constituency, that is so minded, to be represented by a Jew in parliament. This determination on the part of the public to have our Jewish fellow citizens made eligible to par liamentary honours, is no whim or fancy of the hour. It is a state of mind that has been brought about by hard-headed reasoning, and has been of slow growth. They who advocate the admission of the Jews to parliament will not rest from their labours until they have carried their point. If the majority iu the Lords persists in its opposition, it may count upon having Jewish emancipation bills sent up to it year after year by constantly increasing majorities of the House of Commons, and to witness such tur bulent scenes as that which was witnessed last night in the lower house, until it gives way to some ear nest and angry expression of the national will. There is but one way in which the dilfinviice be tween the houses on this point can be put an end to, and that is by the Lords yielding. Until the difference is put an end to, it will waste much of the time of both houses, and give rise to many irritating altercations every year. The Lords in five times re jecting the bills relating to this suli,ect, have done quite enough to tell us (what we know well enough without being told) that they yield with reluctance on this point. Yield they must in the long run, and the sooner the better for all parties. When two parties possessed of equal authority take different views of a practical question one of them must give way. The House of Lords and the House of Commons possess equal authority to throw out any bill; when one of them is resolute to re,ect a bill, and the other to affirm it, the controversy can only be terminated by one of them yielding to the wish of the other. In a case like the present, which ought to yield? The House of Commons represents the whole nation—the peers included. We speak nut of the unavowed but by no means secret influence exer cised by peers in returning members to parliament. IVe speak of the privilege of voting at elections, and of being returned to parliament, possessed by the suns and brothers of peers. The titled tionilies of thu land arc represented in the House of Com mons at least to an equal extent with the untitled. The House of Commons represents the whole people. The House of Lords, on the contrary, represents only a section of the people, and a sec tion which with every advance made by the nation in numbers, in wealth, and in intelligence, has be come a less and less powerful and important minority. The House of Lords, in whose delibera tions peers alone have a decisive voice, might to give way (whenever the one body or the other must) to the blouse of Commons, in which the peers have (indirivtly) a voice the same as other citizens. We recognise the right of the Peers to a suspensive veto upon any measure of legislation affirmed by the Commons. M'e admit the advantage of having a legislative body possessing the power to interview delay, and leave time fur deliberate investigation into measures which have received the sanction of the more popular branch of the legislature. But since the people of this country learned that they have rights, and learned to Levert them, noire than a suspensive veto has never been conceded to the House of Lords. Nor is it in the nature of things that more can be conceded. Powerful and honoured so long as they continue a part of the body politic, imbued with the same sentiments and opinions, the Lords would be nothing, have been nothing whenever they attempted to separate tie:m -ei:lves from the rest of the community and array themselves in opposition to it. To this our whole history from the time of the Long Parliament to the passing of the Reform Bill bears witness. But hew arc the Lords to be induced to yield in the matter of the Jews by legal and constitutional means? Their lordships (with no disrespect we speak it) possess their full share of the national obsti nacy. They will go on rejecting measures for the relief of the Jews as long as they believe they can do so without incurring any earnest and inconvenient pressure from without. They say to themselves, "The Jews are few in number, con , fined to a few localities, it is impossible to awaken a national feeling in their cause." The repetition of attempts on the part of individual Jews to slip into parliament by a side wind rather encourages them in their opposition than otherwise, for they see that, even with a liberal ministry in office, such attempts create disunion between the official and the non official liberals. There is no chance of beating down the opposition of the Lords until they are brought to see and feel that the Jew question has become in right down earnest a national question. And this can only be done by making the removal of the technical disqualifications of the Jews part of some comprehensive and popular measure of parlia mentary reform. The question has been practically raised as to whether any property qualification shall be exacted from members of the House of Commons. The question whether any creed qualification shall be exacted from them belongs to the same category. The abolition of all restrictions on the choice of re presentatives arising out of considerations of pro perty or religious opinion, would form a proper in gredient in the measure of parliamentary . reform which the PREMIERIMS pledged himself to bring for ward next session. If Lord JOHN Resseia. prepares a new Reform Bill that can command the hearty support of the people, and engrafts upon that measure such a modification of the oaths exacted from mem bers ofliament as will admit the Jews, the cause of the Jew par s will be carried by an irresistible cry of " the bill, the whole bill, nothing but the bill." Baron RoTnsCIIILD has invited his friends and supporters in the city of London to meet him this week to deliberate on their future movements. Let them pass resolutions that the eligibility of the Jews to sit in parliament ought to be provided for in Lord inpo Jo tiin t: at ate l d t hp s e s u e tart Li i . io ' on s lut f r o o r n t w h s co atoit mi wu n impo g nreufhoistrmtheLobfirrdslile, friends pd and supporters of Alderman SALOMONS, in Greenwich, do the same. And then let the example of these two constituencies be followed by the reforming liberals throughout the empire. After such an expression of the popular will Lord Jolts could not (we believe, he would have no wish to) refuse to make such a proviso part and parcel of his promised measure. This will ensure the removal of the Jewish dis abilities, provided Lord JOHN'S Reform Bill prove acceptable to the people. But how to ensure that his Reform Bill shall be aeceptablo to the people? In the same way. When the reformers throughout the kingdom are speaking one good word for the Jews let them pat in two for themselves. Lord JOHN will be greatly assisted is his self-imposed task by _„...,-;-;-,„, being frankly and respectfully told from all quarter% "S . ; -.- .7 1.. , .t . 31 c . what people complain of in the present clecjoral 4 ;, 4 , 4 : '....-,,,: ' system, and how they would have it amended. FrooL, ' . . ''.. .:„;,,i this moment till the commencement of next :s - , 1: '. •:".', 0 '' ri A • o._.t. • 'al 4 -V il l:: tn....r. I of