The Sun. — London, England, 1858-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON truth, but now the Pope did exercise power in this country, by the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops, and they all knew how acts of imperial policy had been impeded inlreland by the mandates of the Pope being strenuously proclaimed in that country. It was impossi ble for them to say the Pope did not exercise spiritual au thority directly in Ireland. That ho exercised no direct authority by act of Parliament he could understand, but it was difficult, without mental interpretation or mental reservation, to swear he had no indirect authority in that country. To call upon a Roman Catholic to swear that the Pope had no spiritual authority in this country was to call upon him to deny one of the tenets of his church, and it was no answer to be toll that many very good and pious men had from time immemorial sworn to those words, because it was notorious that a few years ago oaths multiplied with so much levity, that persons took them with no more religions feeling than in paying taxen A great change heel, however, taken place in that respect. A great many thought and held it to be a solemn proceeding instead of an idle form, and instead of being laughed at, it was considered a solem nity is which the heart and the conscience of the party did their part. He was inclined to consider the oath as humiliating to Protestants, from its inconsistency to acknowledge facts foreign to our legislative intentions, setting a bad example of lax political morality which in the eyes of religious people they could not pass uncon cerned. The case of the Roman Catholics he thought was still harder, far they had to subscribe an oath which in their byes was untruthful in substance. He should claim to himself the right of raising the question on some future occasion, and should now content himself with entering his protest against the Roman Catholic oath. (Cries of " divide.") Lard PALMERSTON concurred in the opinion ex pressed by his noble friend the member fur London that it was desirable there should only be one oath to be taken by all members of the house - (hear, hear)—if such an oath could be framed sufficient for its purpose. And although he did not agree with his right honour able friend who had just sat down that there was any thing in the Roman Catholic oath that was untruthful— (hear)—or that there was anything in it he could not conscientiously take, although it contained statements disavowing doctrines which he entertained, he agreed with his right hon. friend that it was very desirable some alteration should be made in it. Yet he con curred with his noble friend in thinking they had better dispose of the matter in hand without coup• ling it with another object. They could not disguise from themselves that it was a matter of difficulty to pass a bill for the admission of Jews to Parliament, and he did net think it was the beet way to surmount one difficulty by nenecesearily creating a second difficulty. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that if Or all at tempted two things at once they were likely to fail in both, and that by agreeing to the amendment without improving the condition of the Roman Catholics they were likely to impede the chances of the bill for the ad mission of the .Tewa to Parliament being carried. He recommended the hon, member not to embarrass the present question by going to a division on the amend ment. Mr. WIGRA.M said the motion before the house in volved a mater of great importance. If the bill passed, Protestants would still be required to make abjuration of the Pope having any spiritual power in this country, whilst Rouen Catholics, under Roman Catholic emanci pation, were at liberty to substitute the oath abjuring , toe temporal power of the Pope ; but if they made the proposed alteration the effect would be that Roman Ca tholics could come and take the oath which the clause struck out of the bill, and avoid making the abjuration new required of the Pope's temporal power. The change was an important one, and, if carried, would meet with the disapprobation of the country. Three or four years since, the house was occupied nearly the whole of a ses sion in di cussing the temporal power of the Pope, which they were now about to abandon. BA suggested that the wcrds should be retained with the addition of the words "not lawful' jut isdiction in thiscountry. (Divide.) Mr. STEUART sugeested the words "not rightful" jurisdiction in this country. Mr. FORTESCUE had no wish to endanger the cause of the Jew, but he could not refrain from expres sing his objection to the re-enacting objectionable parts in the old oath which he as a Protez..tant thought should be expunged. (Divide.) Mr. IILSSALL, amidst loud cries of divide, was understood to oppose the bill. Mr. COGAN explained that the noble lord the mem ber for London had mistaken his motion if he thought that the Roman Catholics, having been admitted to that house, they wished to slain the door in the face of the Jew. He had no desire in moving the amendment to oppose the bill as regarded Jews. (Divide.) The house then divided, when the numbers were— Fur the amendment 66 Against it Majority... —279 Mr. STEUART then moved the introduction of the word hath, or ought not to have, "rightfully" any juris diction, (!cc. Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought some difficulty would arise in giving a correct definition of the word. He preferred the words " by law." Mr. GLADSTONE said it was admitted on all hands that it was desirable something should be done in regard to these words, and the question was, which of the words suggested was the best for taking the opinion of the house The noble lord the member for London pre- ferred the word "lawfully," but he (elr. Gladsto❑e) be• litsved the noble lord's construction of the oath with it introduced would not hold. It was a question composed partly of history and partly of the private impressions of individual.. The objtct of the oath, and that with reference to the supremacy, was to exclude Roman Catholics, and it wa, retained at the Revolution to ex• chi le them alone, but there may tie many Roman Catholics in this country who were coa*cientiously of opinion that the Pope neither bath, nor otLfht to have any legal or coercive jurisdiction or power in these realms, as was the case with the Roman Catholics of the Uni'ed States, who, as a body, objected in the strongest manner to any such power being exercised by the Pope—(kear, hear)—and such was the lan guage always held in that house by the late Mr. O'Connell, and if that were the right construction there was nothing to have prevented Mr. O'Connell from taking the oath at the table of the house, if such were his opinion. His (fir. Gladstone's) opinion was that the construction to be put upon the words of the oath was, that the Pope bath not or ought not to have "rightfully, properly, and justly" jurisdiction in this country, and as there appeared tl be a difference of eonstruction of the oath, he wished to bring to the minds of hon. members the great constitutional importance of the matter, which difference was of itself a proof that the construction of the oath required the atten ion of the house—(hear, hear)—and that it should not be 'Eft to A, B, and C to consider for themselvee. There ought to be a legislative construction put upon an oath that purported to aim at a great constitutional objec', and which different gentlemen construed in different mode:for theruselvee. His right hon. friend referred to the positi ,n of the Moravian body in reference to the oath of supremacy. He believed no body enjoyed more universal respect from all classes of Christians titan the Moravians (hear)—but they, having the misfortune to be governed by a foreign jurisdiction, termed the " Consistory," at Hermanstadt, in Germany, a case had recently been sub mitted to the eminent civilian, Dr. Twis-i, and he had given it as his opinion that a Moravian could not properly and correctly take the oath of supremacy, and conse quently he was deprived from taking office under the Crown. Thera were no great difficulties in the case. One hon. member gave one meaning, the "rightfully, and his noble friend another, the " lawfully," consequently it was the duty of the house to bring to the matter some authoritative solution. He hoped that the amendment would be adopted as originally proposed. Mr. ROEBUCK pressed for a legal and authoritative solution of the difficulty. Tue word proposed, " pro perly,', would only complicate the difficuley. As the law stood the Pope had spiritual power in this cauntry, and the real way to deal wi h this bill would be to leave out the words altogether. Roman Catholics were no longer excluded by those words—the exclusion applied to Pro testants. The oath, as it stood, was untrue, and sorely pressed conscience. (Efear.) Men took the oath without attaching the meaning to it which the defenders of it in ten led. But he regarded the words in the oath as a nettle in his path, and he trampled upon it. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Tile word ought not to be "rightfully," but "by law." (Hear, hear.) Sir R. BETHE LL thought that much confusion would be avoided by referring to the original statute, whet e it would be fJund that the words " • p ritual and ecclesias tical" were of one and the same importance. The word " sp . ritual" applied to the authority exercised by courts of ju-tics. The authceity of the Crown was pre-eminent, and the oath abjured all foreign spiritual authority in temporal matters. What a man declared when he took the oath of supremacy Wag, that whatever jurisdiction might be exercised in the land derived its source from the Crown, Thu words " lawfull" 0; " rigbtfuliY" were mere surplusage, as they were already expressed in the oath. (Rear.) Mr. B. HOPE said that the beet argument against the desirability of such an oath as this, was the diver gence of opinion which existed as to its meaning on the pa - t of members who in their profes,ional capacity w, re a silk gown. (El-ar, hear, and a laugh.) It was of the first importance not to introduce a definition which could become the suhject of doubt and contention. He suggested the word "legally " Tne ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND pre ferred the words as they stood in the oath, as affording a protection to men in many circumstances in which they might he oppressed. Mr. L. WIGRA.N.I expresed a similar opinion. The amendment was then withdrawn. Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the omission of the words "directly or indirecly," at page 2, line 10. Mr. WALPOLE assenteti. 114 r. NEWDEGATE then proposed to leave out clause 5. He did not affect to be a better wan or better Chris- tiati than other gentlemen in that loth,e, but he fe.dt a de, p conviction that it was not only impolitic, hut ab,o lot ly wrong to seek to unchribtiahise the Legi-lature as this course would do. En- many years ho had acted in unison with men of learning, Criristian feeling, and be nevolence, who thought that the admission of Jcari to Ptvliatner,t would unaribtiani.e tim lloLse of Cominotir, The contest lay het wten a wealthy Jew, his City C in -Btitueccy, and a party in that house, who stood up for what they called "civil and religious liberty." lie be lieved that Baron Rothschild contemplated as inroad on ;he constitution by seeking admission to the house ; but he looked with confidence to the continued oppotition the people to such an uncbristianising attempt. He had no objection to the Jews assuming Ministerial office, but he should resist their participation in political office. The clause proposed that the Jew should be admitted as a professor of the Jewish religion, and he could see no good to be derived vi la tr d om tsp b e i n n e d a i t n i : the Jew down to his rc .ttbalz(dtttuti weera,fsesvighl.oilbullyd be so proposed me a lt r ig t a o t i f f u i s r io th n e o f purposes ri o! n. But the Jew derived PARLIAMENT. India Loan Bill. ;ock and Sir H. Havelock's A. n tu y Bill nand the Bast IMPERIA.,‘"a „ TousE O F ,T,ORDS.--(YEsTERDA.y.) The LORD CRANCELLO It took his seat on the woolsa c k at half past four o'clock. ROYAL C,''ALMISSION. The royal asient was gi.'en by commission to the havelock. Annuity Bill and tike East India Loan Bill. The Lords Commissioners were :he Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, and the Marquis of S a lisbury. Lord PANMURE gave notice that td-morrow he should more for a return of the expenditure for barrack -Accommodation in the United Kingdom for the last three years. SLAVE TRADE. ..Lord BROUGHAM again called the attention of their lor'fehips to a statement he had made the other evening relative to the emigration of free negroes to the West Coast of Africa. That statement had received confirma tion of the highest authority, and he therefore trusted the Vagrant Act, to which he had alluded, said to have been passed by the ii_ssembly of Jamaica, had not yet received the assent of her Majesty's Government. The Earl of CARNARVON sa.'d the act alluded to .by the noble lord had been received ti jr ;he Home Go -rernment, but had not yet received the a"dent of her :Majesty. It would be contrary to the rules o: Parlia• 1 -4ent to lay on the table a copy of any bill, passeui by a c. -.l9nial legislature, before it received the royal assent ; b ut , _notwithstanding this, if the noble and learned lord pre „ e ,' for its production, there would be no objection to such a mo tion. THE EASTER RECESS. Earl isiVILLE asked the noble earl opposite what course he intended to pursue with respect to the I public businesscfore Easter ? The Earl of Di.. 813 Y said it was to be regretted that so much time was psverally lost at the commencement of the session, yet the Noble earl was as well aware as he was that circualsLances had occurred in tho early part of this year which could not be con trolled. He was not aware of any measures beyond those at present on the table, which would be proceeded with during the pre;elt week. Ile had, there fore, intended to propose the house should adjourn on Friday next for the Easter recess ; bat his noble and learned friend on the woolsack and other learned lords had pointed out that such a course would prevent the hearing of certain appeals on Mondas- and Tuesday next. Under such circumstances he should propose that their lordships should sit on these days, but with the understanding that no business but that of appeals should be proceeded with, the adjournment taking place on Friday next. Their lordships would therefore adjourn over Passion Week and Easter Week, and meet on the following Monday, 12th April. The Consolidated Fund (10,000,0001.) Bill was read a first time. The Consolidated Fund (500,0001.) Bill was read a first time. The Mutiny Bill was read a first time. The Gereral Board of Health Continuance Bill was read a first time. LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL. Lord ST. LEONARDS, in moving the second read log of this bill, entered into an explanation of the nature and objects of the bill, the greater portion of which was wholly inaudible. As to the question of insurance—if the property were not insured, no compensation could be made to the landlord under the present bill ; but if there were any insurance, he proposed to give the land lord the benefit of it—that was a proviso already made in relation to leasehold property by the Metropolis Local Management Bill. With regard to the purchase of leasehold property, the provision of insurance would also operate very beneficially, and give additional value and security to the sales. In allusion to the insecure state of the present law, he observed that he had lived long enough to know better than ever to trust to strangers in such matters. He had applied to the directors of the Law Life Assurance Company, who had expressed their opinion that the bill would not act injuriously to the in terests of insurance offices. If any objection arose, he should have very great pleasure in listening to any noble lord who should suggest any modification. With respect to judgments, he proposed thata release of a portion of an estate should net apply to any portion beyond that especially so released. His lordship next made some remarks explanatory of the alteration be proposed to make in the law affecting nuisances, which were not sufficiently audible to be intelligible to the reporters. He proposed to place the law with respect to the execu tion of deeds on the same footing as the law with respect to the execution of wills. The next question referred to perpetuities, in connection with which he proposed to take away the power of limit to 21 years. His next point was to prevent the necessity of numerous deeds by enabling a man to assign his property to himself with his trustees. The noble lord proceeded to explain the nature of those clauses of the bill which had for their object to provide for the validity of wills. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he wished to say a word as to the course be intended to pursue in refe rence to this bill. Undoubtedly it was one of very con • siderable importance, and the public would'be very much indebted to the noble lord for directing his attention to it. Many of the Rrovisione of the bill were of very great importance, and 'would prove very beneficial, but others were objectionable. After the exposition which the noble lord had given their lordships would agree with him that it would be desirable not to discuss the matter in that house, but that it might be more advantageously and beneficially discussed in committee. He would therefore not oppose the second reading of the bill, but would assist the noble lord in passing it through that stage, hoping that after that it might be referred to a select committee. Lord BROUGHAM was of opinion that that was the right course. There were many parts of the bill which were highly important, but there were others to which some objections might be urged, Lord ST. LEONARDS said he proposed that the bill should stand for committee on Friday next, when he should be prepared to state what course he should adopt. The Earl of DERBY hoped not only with regard to this bill, but to others. of a similar character, they might be referred to select committees. It was impossible sa tisfactorily to discuss bills of a technical character in that house. Thel 7 .iii - Was then read a second time, and stood for committal on Friday. THE MAGISTRACY AT YARMOUTH?* Lord SONDES presented a petition from the Common Council of Great Yarmouth complaining of the grie vances of the magistracy of that borough. Lord CRANWORTH said that the more searching was the inquiry into his conduct the better should he be pleased with it. In the selection of county magistrates, the Lord Chancellor had the advice of the Lord Lieu tenant to guide him, but in borough nominations he was almost without a guide. In all his appointments he kept clear of the parties, and kept the number on each side as even as possible. In the case of Yarmouth he thought it his duty to act on the same principle. Any inquiry would have his hearty concurrence, and if any noble lord made a motion to that effect, he would second it. Lord SONDES expressed his regret that he had re presented the noble lord to have been connected with Yarmouth, which he now found was not the case. The subject then dropped. CHURCH OF ENGLAND SPECIAL SERVICES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. MARINE MUTINY BILL. • - - - --- This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be oommitted. MILITIA ACT CONTINUANCE BILL. This bill wa►a read a second time, and ordered to be committed. COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. • NEGROES FOR MILITARY SERVICE IN INDIA. Lord BROUGHAM wished to inquire whether it was true that British officers were engaged on the coast of Africa raising regiments of blacks for service io India ? If it were true, he could not find words suffi ciently strong to denounce such a step. Oa the subj , ..ct of 4avery our mouths would be closed for ever. Lord HARDINGE was happy to be able to inform his noble friend that there was no foundation whatever for the report. Earl GRANVILLE was understood to express his satisfaction at the announcement of the noble viscount, but at the same time had there been the slightest grounds for the rumour, the matter mos t f u ll y j ust ifi e d i nqu i ry . The Earl of DERBY had never heard of such a re port, and he could not but think that it would have been more oinvenient had his noble and learned friend in quired into the truth of the story before taking public notice of it. Lord BROUGHAM said his noble friend was per fectly right in saying it would have been more con venient if he had given notice of his intention to put a question on the subject befora making such a rumour public. H owever, as th e rumour had only just reached him, and as referred to were to leave England to-morrow mor n i n g, it was evident that if he had postponed his i vestigation he might b e too late. n r, He must, howev er, express his entire satisfacti on at the denial gi ven t o th e statement by the noble vis count. Their lordships then adjourned at five minutes past p seven. .HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(YESTERD A The .... 9 t . PICAICER took the chai r at four o'clo c k " . Us. v ir NEW MEMBERS. took the oaths and big seat for ~,,,nuzzlZiairoer-eller.citiond after his appointment as The rollow iEll lVATi n g . a c r d e se ond time • Maoebeeter. Ei l ottt i ' .44 ' W2 iN re E ad SB 00. 2) ; South E2 l "` way (Bromley to st 7ra Alttiticham Railway ford and Kilkenny Ra rY e ral; " C", Mi d - Kent Rail- And Belfast (['own and 13, 1 -Z, C p l ' h u l"r a l t n r i :L' Water, Ef ARBOU 01• - itZ ii ,"1 - 11 - Cil 4 °) ; Lord HENRY LENNOX i p r ,,,,;,;t: signed by the Provost of Banff and upwards or l' s %t o itri habitants of Banff and nei g hbourin g towns, in fav e nnr i ''i - it harbours of refuge at Banff, in preference to Wick and Peterhead. The petition was ordered to be referred the Select Committee on Harbours of Refuge. ROYAL ASSENT. Sir A. Clifford, Usher of the Black Rod, appeared at the table of the house and summoned the Speaker and Commons to attend the House of Peers and hear the Royal. Commission read, giving the assent of the Crown to the following bills passed this session :—Lady Have- i MARRIAGE TO A. DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. Numerous petitions were presented in favour of legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister, also against it. THE PASSPORT SYSTEM, Mr. M. MILNES moved for a copy of the correspon dence relative to the passport system between her Ma jesty's Government and the Government of France. THE CAGLIARI. Mr. D. GRIFFITHS gave notice that be should, on the 25th March, oak her , iajesty's Government whether, if in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown the cap ture of the Cagliari was illegal ab initio, they would be prepared to demand full and ample compensation for Watt and Parks! (Hear, hear.) THE MILITIA. Mr. MACKIN'NO.N asked the Secretary for War whether any additional regiments of militia were to be embodied. Also, whether those regiments which were not intended to be embodied were to be called out for a month's drill ;I and, if called out, whether it would ba in the spring or autumn ? General PEEL said it was not the intention of the Government to embody any more regiments of militia, nor at present to call out any more for training. THE LICENSING SYSTEM. Mr. NICOLL asked the Secretary fo r th e H ome Department if it was the intention of G overnment to ntroduce during this session a bill to alt er th e ex i st i ng systems for licensing places intended for public enter tainment 'I Mr. WALPOLE said that a great many applications had been made to him on this subject since he had accepted office, and on Friday next he was to receive a large deputation,,who were anxious to state their views on the present system. He, therefore, declined stating the opinion of the Government on the subject till after he had received that deputation. THE ITALIAN CONFERENCE. Mr. BOWYER asked the Secretary for the Home Department whether it was tree that a body of dele gates from all parts of Italy had been lately holding , meetings in London for the formation of an Italian Na tional League, and to bring about great political changes in Italy, and what information her Majesty's Govern meat had on the subject ? Mr. WALPOLE said he was really hardly able to answer the question. (Hear.) Since the notice of the question had been given he had made inquiries, to as certain if there was any trith in the statement implied by the question ; but all he could say was that no such meeting of delegates had taken place. (Hear.) He be lieved Italian refugees met privately in this country, and consulted privately on matters of political interest with out violation of our laws. (Cheers.) With regard to the meeting referred to he believed the hon. and learned gentleman knew more of it than he (Mr. Walpole) did. He, however, believed that the person at the head of this matter was not an Italian, but an Irishman. (Loud laughter.) REGISTER OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, &o. In answer to Mr. WARREN, Mr. WALPOLE said he would to-morrow or licit day bring in a bill on the subject. ENDOWED SCUOOLS(IRELAND.)_ Mr. KIRK asked the Chief Secratary for Ireland when th;R report of the Cimeaissioners of Endowed SA.ools (Ire!wed), which wax presented to the house on the 26th day of February last, and which it was under stood was printbsi at the time, would be distributed to members ? Lord-NAAS said it wag not the practice to distribute these voluminous reports to members There were, however, 250 of them at the office fur the sale of Par liamentary papers, which would be delivered to hun. members on applying for them. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT. Mr. REPTON asked the Vice-President of the Com mittee of Council on Education whether it was the in. tention of Government to proceed with the Public Health Act (1848) Amendment Bill daring the present session of Parliament ! Mr. A.DDERLEY said he should to-morrow move that on Friday the order in reference to the Board of Health bill be discharged. AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND). Sir A. AGNEW asked the President of the Board of Trade whether her Majesty's Government iuteud to make any arrangement for the collection of Agricultural Statistics in Scotland during the present year I Mr. HENLEY said he could give no positive answer to the question. He would, however, give it his best consideration. THE CASE Or WATT AND PARKS, In answer to a question from Mr. IthraL,taa, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he received an intimation two days since that, is conse quence of the representations of Mr. Lyons, the King of Naples had, unconditionally, released Watt, who, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed, was on his way home. (Hear.) Orden had also been given that the trial of Parks should commence immerhately. He had that morning received a despatch from Mr. Lyons, dated NJ arch 16, stating that the trial of Parks had commenced. Mr. Lyons had spoken to Parks in court, and said that the trial was going on with great deco rum, propriety, and impartiality. Parks was now well lodged, clothed, and fed, and be was in good heart and spirits, animated by the feeling that he was not forgotten by his country. (Cheers.) Instructions had been given to Mr. Lyons not to leave Parks. He was sanguilla that the result would be favourable to Parks, a feeling in which oar unfortunate countryman fully shared. The papers relative to the affair were very voluminous, and as soon as they were ready he would lay them on the table of the house. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, AND ADJOURN MENT OF THE HOUSE. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER an nounced that on Friday next he should ask fur leave to introduce a bill for transferring the government of India to the Crown ; and if the debate concluded that evening he should then move the adjournment of the house for the Easter rec - 2.83 till tha 12th of Apra. THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND AND THE ORANGE SOCIETY. • Mr. B. OSBORNE explained a mistake he mule on a former occasion. He stated in a former debate that the present Lord Chancellor fur Ireland drew up the rules of the Orange Society in Ireland, but he had since found that he was in error on that point ; the fact being that the rules were laid before the hon. and learned gen tleman, as a barrister, for hie opinion_ He was sincerely sorry he had fallen into that error. (Hear, hear ) The Consolidated Fund (10,000,0001.) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Consolidated Fund (500,0001.) Bill was read a third time and pil=ed. The Customs Acts repart was brought up and agreed to. The Mutiny Bill was read a third time and passed. The General Board of Health (Skepton, &c.) Bi, was read a third time and passed. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY MATRICULATION AND DEGREES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. OATHS BILL. On the motion that the report be considered, Mr. COCKBURN, in the absence of Mr. Deasy, moved the omission from clause 1 of the fullosving words: " And I do declare that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to h ave , any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, directly or in directly, within this realm. ' He moved the omis sion on the ground that the words were repugnant to Roman Catholic members and unnecessary. Mr. WALPOLE hoped the house would reject the amendment. Lord J. RUSSELL wished to see one oath fur all members in that house, but he saw no possibility of such a change being made at present Mr. COLLINS supported the amendment. Mr. M. GIBSON thought it was best not to ask for too much at a time. He had no doubt if they passed the bill they would ultimately give what all de sired. He thought it was enough for them now to emancipate the Jews, A nd consider the Roman Catholic grievances hereafter. He considered Roman Catholics had the best of swearing in that house—(laughter)—and he should be ready to compromi,e the three oaths he and Protestants were called upon to take for the one taken by Roman Catholic members. Protestants were called on to abjure the descendants of James the First, though it was well known that none existed ; but the Roman Catholics were relieved af that grievanc Mr. PALK. called upon the house not to pass this bill. In the other house noble lords refused the admis- sion of a member on a life peerage as being contrary to their• privileges, and if the louse of Commons had the right of seating Baron Rothschild without altering the forms of the oath, why did they fear to exercise that right. It was a waste of time to go on trying to legislate on this subject, and the best course the house could pursue was to seat Baron Rothschild by resolution, and so preserve the Christianity of the house. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said the question now before the house was relative to the oath taken by Roman Catholics, and he called upon the Government to state their views on the motion before the house. Rather than peril the admission of the Jews, he would call on his friends not to support the amendment, but believing that be should be advancing the cause of the Roman Catholics, and not retarding the cause of the Jaws, be should support the amendment. Mr. HORSMAN said the form of the oath was ob jectionable to Protestants. How could a Protestant swear that the Pope did not exeroise spiritual jurisdiction in Ireland I Why, did not the hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) declare year after year that the power of the Pope in Ireland was most dangerous. (Laughter.) Either it was a reality or a fiction the spi ritual power of the Pope. The hon. member for Nort'i Warwickshire tcok cognisance of that part of the evi dence given before the royal commissioners relative to Maynooth, and believing the spiritual authority of the Pope, he on a former occasion brought forward a motion ip reference to it, and succeeded in gaining the support of a larger section of the house. A dissolution after wards took place, and the hon. member on his re-elec tion presented himself at the table of the house, and in tiecie.ezereoft.e, Roman C ope h atholic members took the oaths, %iv d ay , at , g e that d, .. ~,I m b , ty_zi:sl... wi zthis u o n p t e r 7 In don , u „,,,,,,,, on the ar....xlxament— ( aear) "winreat eZI P l ' a4e 'd on not reeoanhied ad no tt ei utters. ' olit•roas • In this bill the News spiritual power in this realm. he gave notice of motion a tia the feet that the Pope's power y' re a c n o d nrin e g d the Pope's authority was ore Itly " nadbeen introduced, and it was 4 „,„ b4 , 1 3! o! r? Zit ni l ir. Spooner.) that the Pope did not exereat;;4"l6l ) country. The oath wai originZ t Pc!st m tv in47, 3 :4 i t s h ay a, the supremacy of the Crown in -- ' u r i : t* _ o eatal!lit the facts were now ver y different. In Lhasa t i i 4 t lt• but Le morn, because it was consistent with nunmit;.lo.um EVENING, IVIARCH 23, 1858 TUESDA Y his system from the Talmud and from traditions which hal been productive of so much misery to the Jewish na tion. Few people seemed to know what Judaism was, or its fatal effects upon the Jewish people. In the inte rest of the Jew it had been asked whether the mere pro fession of Judaism mentally disqualified Jews from the functions of legislators? Should not some cause be found which disqualified them also from pa r ti c i pa ti ng i n t h e general responsibilities of societies ? St. Paul had long ago answered this question when he said that the Jews would remain judicially blind u n t i l th e f u l ness o f theGeutileshadcomein. Th e t ra di t i ons of the Jews rendered them anti-social, and made them a separate nation. A work had recently appeared f rom th e pen o f Earl Grey—a work which would well repay perusal. In that book the noble earl contented that the representa tions by the noble lord the member fo r th e c i ty o f Lon don had operated prejudicially to his success as a Miois ter, and that the late Sir R. Peel had enjoyed much greater personal freedom as the representative of Tarn worth. The noble lord had been forced into carrying out the views of his constituents on this quession. There was abundant testimony to show that the religion of the Jews acted prejudicially upon thei r men t a l v i gour an d action ; as instead of determining questions of morality in a spirit of independence, they sl av i s hl y f o ll owe d the traditions of their religion. Dr. M`C eu l, i n no sp i r i t o f i hostility to the Jews, but n a fair spirit of criticism, distinctly affirmed that the oral laws cf the Jews had been so much multiplied, that it was quite absurd to suppose that they could be committ e d to memory. That learned person also snowed that these oral laws loosened the moral obligations, taught men how to evade the Divine commands, permitted dispensations, the extermi nation of the " uo learned," and effected other tie:forte nate resu'te, much to be lamented. The elder Disraeli, in his "Genius of Judaism," d we l t eloquently upon the tyranny of the religion taught by the Pharisees ; and yet it was sought to in!r9duce men into the legislature who would act in the spirit of that tyranny. Tne doctrines of the Joe ish religion were immoral, and the practices sanctioned were equally so. The p resent pract i ce of the Jews was affected by theirdectrin ee . He cause to the second point, that the religion of t h e J ews was anti rational. That was admitted by the Jews themselves. The hon. gentleman quoted from a pamphlet called "British Emancipation, by David Anderson," in support of his views. The Jews were tame, not by the accident of their birth, but by the precepts of their religion. Their doctrines constituted them aliens from this country. This was shown in a recently published sermon of the chief rabbi Adler. The Jews were to be found in all sorts of characters. Why, it was even said that the first Jesuits were Jews. There WAS now a similarity of objects be tween the Jews and the Jesuits. Never had the Roman Catholics joined in upholding the Christian character of the legislature. Those who wished to break down the coestitution of the country used this question fi , r their object. They wished to introduce Judaism into the house, and thereby minister to the despotism which existed abroad. He spoke in behalf of the freedom of this coun try. Those who desired to separate the Church from the State wore the most ardent in their support of this mea sure. All the enemies of the Constitution were agreed in support of the measure. The Jew despised tie Christian faith. It had been said that if the Je we were admitted to the Legislature, the affairs of the L gislature would go on just the same. Now, what occurred in Amsterdam ? In 1850 the Jews were admitted to the corporation of that city, and then the prayer with which that asseuAly usually opened its proceedings was abandoned. It might be said that was a trifling instance, but he would show how that vicious system was spreading. The name of Jesus was was exeluded from all the prayers u-ed in the national schools, in order not to offend the Jews. That showed how just were the apprehensions of those in this country, who viewed th e present measure with alarm. In forcing this measure on, the noble lord was running counter to the feelings of his unoffeuding countrymen. Many people supposed that the Jews were relaxing their submission to the rabbis. The proof that that was not so was to be found in th e f act t h at t h e Jews had rejected the test which had been applied to them is Prussie. That was a test renouncing d oc t r i nes w hi c h were subversive of the Christian religion. This measure was a proposal to exalt a religion which denied the divinity of the Divine Author of our religion. He could not think such a measure was consistent with the prayer of that house. He could not hope after the passing of this measure that the country would be prosperous. Those who supported the measure would sin against freedom, whose foundation was Christianity. Mr. GILPIN, in opposing the amendment, main tained that not only the principles of re igioue libsrty bat the dignity of Christianity itself, would be promoted by the removal of Jewish disabilities. Mr. DRUMMOND admitted the political propriety of the measure, whi c h a d m i t t e d J ews t o P ar li ament, but believed th at i t was altogether incompatible with a maintenance of tha union of church and state. BYNG observed that toleration was the life blood of the Christian religion. One relic of intolerance still remained in our code, indirect in its operation, and introduced for the purpose of prohibiting a Jew from entering the legislature. He called on the house to obiterate the last trace of the ancient disabilities. Lord R. CECIL insisted that the functions of par liament were to a great extent connected with tee dis cussion of religious questions. Oa this ground he argued that no one was fit to be a legislator who did not profess the national religion. Mr. HUGHESSEN opposed the amendment. After some explanation from Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, Mr. C. FORTESCUE contended that the clause it was proposed to cancel was the best and most important feature in the bill. Mr. WALPOLE said that the question had been so often before the house, and was of so painful a nature ; it was so wearisome to travel over the same ground again, that he wag somewhat unwilling to occupy the house ; but as the que s tion was again brought before them, he felt bound to state the reasons, though so often repeated, why he adhered to a course founded on his conviction of the eternal compact between God and man. (Hear.) He did not condemn the Jews for their social or moral qualities ; on the contrary, he would say that their obedience to the law of this country, their studious care of their own people so remarkable, that there was only one instance in history of a Jew receiving relief from his parish. (Hear.) Their charities w ere no t confined to their own people, but extended to th ose f rom whom they differed with the most liberal hand, were considerations which, if this were a question of dealings and not cf principle, would induce him to support the measure. He should state the sole ground on which he opposed the measure, and if he said anything wrong the noble lord would have an opportunity of answering him, But he wished to exclude not only the consideration of the personal character of the Jews, but also the suggestion of the hon. member for Mildlesex that they were keeping out the Jews by certain accidental words. Ho believed that they were excluded, not by those words, but in con sequence of an inability inherent in themselves of amal gamating with the people and institutions of the coun try, which nobody would even have thought that they ceell get rid of but for this discussion. At the time those words were enacted there were no Jews amongst them, and the case was all the stron ger as th ey were not eattluded by any express enactment, b u t b ecause i t was hat none b u t C hristians would ever o as members of thi s house. One point taken ffer t themselves selve granted s had been much presiel by the hon. member for Sheffield, and seemed to have weight with many members of this house, that there was nothing in this declaration which could make Christians of them—(hear, hear)—and that Bolingbroke and others had taken their seats notwith standing. It was not contended that it would make Christiane, but to get a profession of that faith which Parliament had thought that a man ought to profess before being allowed to take part in the legislation. That declaration was a homage which down to this period they had been bound to pay to Christianity at the table of the house—(hear, hear)—and being paid they had certainly deterred the bad and encouraged the good, and it warned them that that was the only prin ciple on which they were prepared to legislate. (Hear, hear.) He wished one topic had been excluded from the debate relative to Roman Catholics —viz., that because there was large numbers of them in this country emanci pation, as it was called, was conceded, and an inference hal been drawn by the right hon. member who used the hear) ;--but the/ carr i e d no argument, that what was granted t o th e many was ‘Valpole's) m i n d , b ecause(' ho cared —(hear, r w e e f i u ;h e d t t t o o h i t s h e (s, f i ci r w . not whether ma , or many were to be affected by a change ; all he wanted was for it to be proved that the thing was j;Ht— (cheers)—for if a thing wa s no t igrove d r i ght in i according to all pri uc ipt ee , th e f act of numbers element to be l e ft ou t o f ea ' - celatien, boa use by wise legislation re gar d mus t b e h a d to the voice o; the many, and sati-fy th em rat h er t h an the few, though by this measure th e y were attempting to 'le then, h No e Ts not an satesfy the few out cf doors on the ground of expediency, which was a reason that ought to weigh against their ado i sign ra her than fir it. He accepts I the challenge often given by the noble lord the member fur Loudon as to the right of a person belonging to this country to en joy all its privileges, and if he (Mr. Walpole) were to be asked fairly to state the case on butte sides, he should sa y that the promoters and supporters of the bill urged ai a matter of right that every person prima facie was entitled to claim the privilege, if elected, of si ting in Parliament—(laud cheers from the supporter-)—and that no religious feeling ought to exclude him—(renewed cheers) —or, if it Old, it was according to the noble lord's opinion, a species of intollerance and persecution, and to apply the case to Bares, Retlaschild was a positive wrong to the constituency of London in depriving them of their representative, and then they elected him, so de priving him of his seat. (Hear.) If they took the side of the opponents of the bill, they fourol it urged there was no such thing in these matters as positive right. (Cneers from the Opposition.) The right or privilege of legislating was a trust or responsibility imposed on those clothed with it, subject to such qualifications as were previously laid down, as were considered right f.)r the proper disc' urge of that trust. It was so in all coun tries, from inexperience, women, because they attended to their dome-tic duties—(loud laughter)—'hey ex cluded p , rions eiteout a certain fortune because they waisted ineirp ilidsbe a ; they excluded the clergy because they should cenflae themselves to their pa-terel duties ; and they excluded though naturalized, for two 1 reasoes, laid down ia Queen Anne's time—viz., psi tie , because they owed allegiance to another, and partly because their notions of law, liberty, rend religiou were different from our own—(sheers)--it being es,,en tial that as our own laws were based on Christianity, no one sisuuld have a voice in changing those laws who was not itiflectic,d by Christian feelings.(Cheer:.) It cerne tberef re to this, were there or were there not a right in the Jew to be admitted to Parliament—(loud cheers)—and if there to such a right it was evident it wu-t be either in the constituency represented, t,r in the p r.or :epiesenting it, or partly both. The right of con stituencies was to e l ect t h ose w h o were eligible—(hear) —and if London, or any other place elected a person whom the law declared to be ineligible and lust their re- presentation, the fault was with them, and not whi the house, and they had nooTelo complain of but them- selves. (Hear, hear.) And that brought him to the ' conclusion from which he thought the noble lord would not displace him, that no such ac t ua l r i g h t existed in • constituencies, and then arose the question of the right • of the person elected, which he should be told turned on civil and religions liberty. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for London had defined it in his own book to be civil liberty—the liberty of person and pro perty consistent with the laws of the land—and religious liberty, the fullest and freest power of exercising the re ligious opinion in a way most agreeable to their own consciences provided the interference of those rights did not interfere with the consciences of others or endanger the public peace—(hear)—though Lord Lyndhurst had somewhat more extended it to the right of enjoyment and privileges in a country unless there be some perma nent cause to the contrary—(hear)—and the question was whether, seeing that al: tees° ieetitutione were based on Christianity, and they had a Christian Queen that was not a permanent cause against the Jew, and it being, as he had stated, both with regard to civil and re ligious liberty; he thought Boron Rothschild bad no right to be received within the walls of that house. (Cheers) That being so, the only question remaining was the ex pediency of altering the LANs or not. To that it might be urged that it was expedient in order to satisfy and to gratify a most respectable body of men, faithful to the Government and obedient to the laws, against which might be not the alarm and shock it would give to the religious feelings of the great body of the people, and if it was expedient to respect the scruples of the Jew, was it less expedient to respect the religiousscruples of their fellow Christians (Ilear, hear.) Rather than that they should believe that by the Exclusion of words 1104 taken at the table of the house they were making Christianity to retreat before them, to satisfy the objections enter tained by a few who had no faith ia it. Tieat, probably, was the last time he should have the pain of making a speech on the subject from that place—(loud laughter)— but ha could not refrain from imploring the house against the fatal step of admitting Jews to Parliament. If they did not admit the Jaw as now proposed, he hoped they would not have recourse to a conflict in the other house in seating him byresclution, because nothing on earth would allow him to consent to their putting the House of Commons above the House of Lords. He had always bean against the admission of the Jews to Parliament, and he hoped heshould never have to speak again on this painful subject, and in concluding his re marks he thought he could not do better than make an observation which would illustrate his meaning better than any arguments he could use. When first the noble lord brought forward his [notion relative to the Jews, which was shortly after he (Mr Walpole) got into Par• liament, he took part in the discussion, and at the eon elusion of the debate he was induced to see a Jew of great eminence, and of great ability, and for whom he bad the highest respect, and who pointed out for an hour to him (Mr. Walpole) the reasons which he con• sidered ought to influence him in changing his opinion. The reasons were ably urged, but there were two points on which his arguments mainly turned—one was to convince him (Mr. Walpols) that his ancestors were not in the Holy Land when the cruci fixion took place, and the other a greater desire to con viu.pe him that if he were in his (Mr. Walpole's) positior, he would really do towards him (Mr. Walpole) what he was doing towards the Jew. (Cheers.) With reference to his first argument he (Mr. Walpole) said he was ready to believe him the Jews being scattered over the earth when the crucifixion took place ; but with regard to the other, ha asked him a question that pointed out to him (Mr. Walpole) in the plainest, clearest, and most distinct meaner the reason that appeared to his mind why he should not consent to the admission of the Jews into Parliament. He (Mr. Walpole)' asked the Jew to put himself back three thousand years—(load laughter)—and to suppose they were both lining in Palestine at the tine of the appointment of the judges, the Jew a descendant of Abraham, and he (Nlr. Wal pole) a heathen ; and he asked him if he would have had him as a judge ; to which, like an honest Jew, he answered " No"—(loud cheers from the opponents of the bill). Such, then, were his reasons for opposing the ad• mission of Jews to Parliament ; and he thought it would be difficult for them to displace him from the po sition he had assumed, especially when he was standing up for what existed from time immemorial in this country, and which the monarchs on our Throne were bound to maintain at the time of the coronation, anti which the judges of our land bad laid down as part and parcel of our laws, and on which Lord Hardwicke had said depended the constitution and gsvernment of our country. Teat house and Parliament had recognised that principle, and however much he might personally respect the integrity of the Jew —esteem his moral qualities—his patience, endurance, and his ex tensive charity, and he was asked to change the whole policy and principles of our institutions net. had but one answer, and that was the same as the Jews who told him he would adhere to his nationality, and he (Mr. Walpole) would have the house and the coun try adhere to theirs, and he did so advisedly in the words of the oath, on "the true faith of a Chri-tiara. (Hear, hear.) . Mr. MAdUIRE said that the Roman Catholics had always shown the greatest sympathy for the Jews. They would rather have had one measure brought in for the Jew, but as the noble lord had introduced a bill affect ing the oaths applicable to all, and had the Roman Catholics allowed the oath required of them to have passed without comment, they would be told hereafter of their silence, and it would have been urged against them that they acquiesced in it. He c untended that the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary had laid down an untenable proposition in regard to the right of the citizens of London to return Baron 11. )thschild, see ing that the returning officer could not have refused to return the same as he could an alien, a clergyman, a bankrupt, and so on. The position of the Jew was cer tainly very different to what it was some years since. They could not now take from him his money, his teeth, put him in prison, and infliot , tripes ou him, but they deprived him of the privilege of Bitting in that assembly. An appeal had been made to Christianity, but he con sidered their conduct in reference to the Jew was any thing but in accordance with the precepts of that holy religion, which the honourable member , for North War wickshire imagined was only to be found on his side of the house. The Roman Ca•hol.es had always sup ported the noble lord on this question, and would do so now. Mr. ROEBUCK congratulated the house on the dis tinction that had been drawn by the Home Secretary and the honourable member for North Warwickshire, rela tive to the estimation in which they held the Jews of this coantry. He characterised the oaths as n.eless to test a man's rEligi,m, and instanced the cases of Gibbon and B,llingbroke, who took the oaths con taining the words "on the true faith of a Christian," which, he said, went to show that the oath, whilst it did not exclude men of no religion, did conscientious men and men of religion, and urged it was no test as to the Christian character of the assembly. The real opposition to the bill was based .on the word right, and he quite agreed with the right hon. gentleman the Home Secre tary that the Jews hat no other rights than those con ferred on them by law ; but yet men who were good fathers and cit;zens were excluded from that house be ulnae they did not behave as the right hon. gentleman believed. (Hear.) Mr. WALPOL . E—As the country bePeves. Mr. ROEBUCK —As the country believed ; but the Quaker, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian believed as the country believed ail more than the Jew , yet they admitted all the others but excluded the Jew, and he defied the house to say there was universal belief ih this country on this subject. The Jew believed a great deal of what they believed, and they believed a great deal of what the Jew believed, and most of their moral precepts were based on the book which the Jew believed in. This was a question of expediency and not religion, as had been said by the hon. member for East Surrey, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was prepared to maintain that by admit- tine Jews to Parliament they would not endanger the legislation of the country. It was idle to talk of the Chri stianity of that house, and he defied them to prove that because a man took the oath prescribed by law at that table, he was a Christian. He urged that so long as the Jew fulfilled all the duties of a good citizen he was entitled to its privileges : and said that if he were a Jew they should not exclu le him. He would take the oath repeating the words "on the true faith of a Christian," adding, "this has no erect on me, but as the law requires it, I comply to it, and make the decla ration. (Cheers, and bear, hear.) If the Jew would say boldly, "I am a Jew, but I will take the oath," what ought that man to be ashamed of? The shame should be on the house which rej cted him. If that had been done 10 or 12 years ago, when he recom. mended it, th -7 would Lave heard no more of this matter. Year after year the tide of ro!igiottit toli..rati4n had been rolling on, and he had never seen it turned back. He hoped he never should. Very soon he hoped we should be what we ought to be, a really tolerant people. Sir R. BETEIELL said he had never heard a speech to which he had listened with greater pleasure than that of th e Home Secretary. Ills wor.ls were bona verba, and heralded the approach of that which they all wished to see, viz., toe close of this lengthened controversy. (Hear.) He hailed the speech with gratitude, and he was perfectly sure that thosi around him would not falsity its excellent eff,ct. (C:leers.) The right hon. gent,ernan stated that he had given the entire argument against the Jaw as pervaded upon the nature of the oath, and he admitted that the Jew was never within the intention of the legislatios to observe the oath, and therefore the Jew was deprived of his birthright by a fraudulent interpretation of the law. (Hear.) Nothing could show greater moral impiety than thus to pervert the law to a purpose for which it was never intended. He had the authority of the judges for saying that the oath was never meant to aiiply to the Jew, and that therefore he ought never to have been brought under i provisions. The right hon. gentleman had urged that the oath was necessary in order to bring men in accord• ance with the institutions of the country ; but what in stitutions welt) there, except Parliament, to which the Jews were not eligible I Civil and religion: liberty he was entitled t,, and the only thing he was t xeladed from was political liberty. He (Sir R. Batheli) differed from the hon. member for Shrffield that men had no right to politics' libt-rly, for it was only the fag end of this miserable oath that_ deprived him of But the right hon. goat'ernan (gr. Walpole) committed a.iother very serious 'error in his arguiuents. He (Sir B. Eethell) alluitted that any disqualifications might be imposed which legislation required, but •he contended that all ghoul,. be treated alike, and the disqualitioltions should he imposed upon general principles. (Hear.) To the Jews this was a fraudulent application of the portion of the statute. A Jew was capable of being eledted, but he could not take his seat. That was surely an 4coliaiy from which the legislature was called upon to emancipate itself. If this bill should again be rejected else - where he (Sir R. Bothell) pledged himself to move a resolution similar to that pr.: posed by the right hoe. gentleman the member fir Droitwicla (Sir J. Pakiogton) in committee last August, that, iu the opinion of the .committelt, the words of sections 8, 5, and 6 William IV., c. 6, should be included. The House of cernmous would thereby be empowered to make the substitution of a declaration instead of an oath. (Hear.) If this great public obj-mt could not be accomplished by any other means he would give the house before this session terminated an opportunity of adopting the lan guage then so well used by the now First Liird of the Admiralty. Mr. WIGRAM thought that the use which had been made of the resolution did not accurately express that which the right hon. gentleman meant.. There was ano ther question agitated in the committee, which wee, whether it was o impetent to the house to omit tee words "on the true faith of a Christian ;" and the other question never came under consideration. It was perfectly true that those words were introduced without any intention to exclude the Jews, for there were no Jews then in the country ; but since that time they had been reintroduced into various acts, and theref :re they were made to have a direct application to the Jews. The question was, with what view were the words inserted in the act of George 111 ? Undoubted!) , they were intro duced into the act of George 111. with a full knowledge that they would tend to the exclu-ion of the Jews, whose claim had at that time been before the Legislature. Nothing could be more fallacious than to urge that Jews were excluded by a fraudulent perversion of the statute, for every time the words on the true faith of a Chris tian" were inserted since their original introduction they were made to have special reference to the Jews. Lord J. RUSSELL said that in asking the house to give him its attention for a short time, he was very happy to say that there were some parts of the argument to which it would be unnecessary for him to advert. That portion of the argument to which the right hon. gen tleman (Mr. Walpole) bad referred to the origin of the oath had been frequently discussed, and though he held the opinion which had been so elaborately expressed by Bi.ron Alderson in his able judgment, he should not think it necessary to go into that part of the question. He was likewise relieved from taking any notice of the speech of the bon. member fur Warwickshire, of those painful accusations in which he had indulged in refer ence to the moral character of the Jews, because they had been scattered to the winds by the right hon. gen tleman the member for the University of Cambridge, who had most fairly spoken with regard to the Jews, who bad gensrously acknowledged the fairness of their characters, of the high station many of them held, and which made it desirable that those amongst them who were elected should be admitted to seats in that house. The right hon. gentleman had argued throughout in the fairest possible manner, and there w e r e many par t s o f his argument i n which he fully and entirely agreed with him. The right hon. gentleman had stated that the City of London had no right to elect as its representative one who was disqualified by law, and that no person so die coalified had a right- to his seat while the law which dis qualified him was In existence. He (Lord J. Russell) qu i p admitted that Baron Rothschild, unless the law permitted him, had no right to come there and claim his seat ; but he thought the City of Lond in had a perfect right to elect him. The electors had a perfect right to say that unless it was shown to them that there were fair reasons for the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament the Legislature ought to admit the person whom they elected, and in whom they had confidence, that the doors of the House of Commons ought to be tbrowis open to that man. (Hear, bear.) The right hon. gentleman said that in certain cases this Legis lature made rules for the non-admission of certain p -rsoris within its walls. That was perfectly true, but he (Lord J. Russell) contended that those should be equal, reason able rules, framed upon settled principles, and ; therefore, he thought it was the right of a British subject, unless it could be shown that there was a positive and absolute right to exclude him, to admit him to th e p r i v il eges to which he h a d b een elected. (Hear, hear.) Novi, the right hon. gentleman had said that certain persons were excluded —persons under 21 years of age, for instance, and women. He must say that there should be a certain age fixed, under which persons should not be admitted to seats in Parliament. For example, a boy of 10 or 11 years of age could hardly be qualified to sit there, and therefore there must be some limit with regard to age. As to the exclusion of women, be would not say whether there might not be some other reasons for their exclu sion than those the right hon. gentleman had mentioned. (Laughter.) It was a principle which they might admit on general grounds, that only men should be entitled to seats in that helm. But when the right hon. gentleman said it was another ground of admission, that persons should have a certain amount of property, he must say he doubted whether the want of property was a suffi cient ground of exclusion. (Cheers.) But that was not th question they bee to discuss that night. A boy of 10 or 14 years of age might look forward to the time when he might have a seat in Parliament, but, when a com paratively poor man said he could bear the expense of a seae in Parliament, it might, with some reason be said, that if he could bear the expense he ought to sit. But the right hon. gentleman proceeded to say, that the ex clusion of Jews was a right exclusion, and that it ought to be maintained. That was evidently a beneficial ex clusion. A Jew had as much property as his Christian neighbour—he carried on business as a respectable man, he paid all taxes imposed upon a Christian, and he bad a right to say—why, if I differ only in religion, am Ito be excluded ! To that proposition the right hon. gentleman had given a most unsatisfactory answer, or he said that nothing provided fur it but this, that all our laws were based on Christianity. (Hear ) When they had questions with regard to other subjects in that house, as he had observed sometimes before, he did not find that this common Christianity, of which so much was said, was such a bond of union as it was when it was applied to the Jews. The bon. member for Stam ford had spoken of the many shades of Christianity from the High Church principles of the Catholics down to nearly the Deism, where all hail a common basis, but he remembered the time when people said in phrases just as good, that our laws were founded upon Protestantism, and Lord Eldon, amongst others, used to argue that question most ingeniously. He used to say that until the Revolution, we had dissensions and perpetual dis turbances ; but that after the Revolution of 1688, when the laws were founded upon Protestantism, everything was quietness and peat-, and that they cou ld not a d mit Roman Catholics into Parliament without endangering the principles of the Constitution. That was an excel lent argument at that time, but it was founded upon this principle—l am right, but you are wrong, therefore Jews must be excluded. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Afterwards it was said to the Catholics, you are wrong, but you are strong, therefore you must be admitted. To the Jew they are said, you are wrong, but you are like wise weak, therefore you must be excluded. (Hear, hear.) That was the rule upon which the present ex clusion was still kept up. It had been said in another place that there were only 40,000 Jews in England,and that therefore they might safely be excluded from the walls of Parliament. The serve feeling of intolerance which once excluded the Catholic still excluded the Jew, and he contended tbat that was entirely a wrong as a basis of public police, and the sooner we get rid of it the better it would be for the welfare and prosperity of the country. (Cheers.) He thought that in discussing this question men were apt to confound things of a dif ferent nature, namely, artiotee of faith and questions of religious principle. -With regard to articles of faith, they could not found a community upon Christianity generally; they must found a community upon the Roman Catho lic religion or the Established Church of this country, or the principles of Congregationalism, or these of the Baptists, or some definite principles of religious feith and agreement. That was the only basis upon which it could be accomplished. But when they came to political aseern blies, they did not want agreement upon particular ques tion,, and that was not to be obtained from any basis of religious truth, it was not be got at by oaths, but by the general feeling of the community. He had heard Gibbon aril Bolingbroke spoken of as taking religious tests, but the Je ws bad not that basis of religion upon which mem bers of Parliament were now admitted. And yet the principles upon which we acted .were taken to a great extent from those books which the Jews had handed down to us, and in which they placed implicit faith. If they were people who held that heft and murder were justified, that they were right in bearing false witness against their neighbours, the hon. member for Warwick shire might say they were unfit to sit in that house, and twat they ought to oe excluded ; but if they possessed tho e religious: principles and that foundation which he had described, he contended that the Leg.slature was tong in excluding them, for they were as well fitted as others to legislVe ; and he thought there was infinitely less chance on their part of raising those religious discus sions than there was on the part of the Christian sec's who had representatives in that house. An hon. gentle man had said the other night that the house was per fectly decided on the subject of church rates, the grant to Maynooth, church establishments, and secular ques tions, but these were macters which would arise not be tween Clwestians and Jews, but between one sect of Christians and others, and be believed that they would not find that Jews would be inclined to interfere in their ecclesiastical establishments. Toe Jew was not by nature or religion inclined to proselytism, but he was, on the contrary, a faithful and quiet subject of the country in which he lived. In Jamaica there was a council into which Jews were admitted, and tkat council determined what money should be devet3d to ecelea,iastical and religi ous subjects. The .Jews voted as well as others for allow ancos to tue E‘tabl.sned Church and the various roll- gioua sects. (Hear, hear.) There was one expression in the speech of the right hon. gentleman, which, like the late Attorney-General, he heard with great deli-h•. He was glad to hear the right hon. gentleman ray that he hoped this was the ;ast time he should. have to speak on that question. He sincerely trusted it might be the last time. (Cheers.) He bad seen of late years that there had been that symptom which he well remembered on the Catholic question—a favourable symptom that the contest was approaching to its termination, fer.raen came down one after another, a n d acknowledled their conversion to the principles of freedom. (Hear, hear.) He remembered that on the last debate on this question. the right hon. baronet, now the First Lord of the Ad miralty, came down to the house, and in a most able speech declared himself to be in favolr of the admission of the Jews to Parliament. He feared the present Ca binet was n'ot so unanimous as the last upon this sub ject, but still he thought that there were only three members of the Cabinet who had seats in that house who were opposed to the admission of the Jews, and that he thought was a prognostic that this question was approaching a favourable termination. He be haved the right hen. gentleman was entirely wrong in supposing that the people of this country were opposed to it. He,le-lieved the general feeling of the country was that the time had come when the Jews ought to be admitted into the house, and even if it were not so, the house would be se , Aing a good example in removing the restrictions which wrre at present imposed Avon them. (Hear, hear.) If they looked back to former times, they would find that there had beeo persecutions of the most violent charact , r, gist pfrson s were put mo death on account of their relOous opinions, but that wa, now discountenanced by persons of all religious detomi nations. At a later period diffraeaters were prohibited from preaching. Later than that Roman Catholics were prohibited from being members of Parliament, and from enj3ying offices to which they were fairly entitled. That persecution had taken a milder form. He trusted we were now approaching a time when persecution on ac. count of religion would be put an end to altogether, when persons of all sects would be admitted to all offices, to all political and secular duties, and his opinion was that so far from being contrary to Christianity, it would bring us nearer to the development of the great objects of the Christian dispensation, which was intended to be a law of kindnese, and to provide, not that men should be hostile to each other, but that union should be secured by a bond f love and charity. (Loud cheers.) Mr. WALP€JLE explained that what he meant to convey, when he said that this might be the last time he should speak on this subject, was that his convictions remained unchanged, and that as he bad no new argil , meats to offer, he hoped he might not again be calls upon to address the house. Lord J. RUSSELL hoped if they were to have any more discussions, he should always have as able and as candid an opponent The SPEAKER then put the question that the clause should stand part of the bill. The house divided, and the numbers were— For the clause Against it Majority --153 TLe clause was then agreed to amidst loud cheers. The third reading of the bill was then fixed by Lord J. RUSSELL for Monday, April 12. CONSULAR SERVICE, &a. Mr. S. FITZGERALD moved for a select committee to inquire into the consularservice and consular appoint ments. He believed that it had been the intention of the late Government to appoint this committee, and the present Administration were simply following in their steps. The wish 4 the Government was that a mass of information in the hands of the Government should be sifted by a committee, in order that legislation at an early period might be initiated. The subject was one of considerable imp stance, and there were many circum stances connected with the consular service which re quired examination. That system differed in many par ticulars from those in force in other countries. Accord ing to the nature of our intercourse with other nations, the nature of the functions performed differed ; in some cases the duties being simply diplomatic, and in others of a commercial character. The question of promotion from subordinate to superior stations was one which must come under investigation, and the mode in which these offices were paid revired consileration. It might be matter for consideration whether an uniform system of payment should be adopted, and it was a moot point also whether consular agents should be permitted to en gage in trade. (Hear, hsar.) Lord PALMERSTON said that the late Government had been.prepared to appoint such a committee, and a great nambtr of returns connected with the subject had bets m •ved for. The consular system was one of great importance, and as doubts seemed to exist in the public mind as to its working, he gave his cordiat assent to the motion. Mr. WISE congratulated the Government on their early attention to the Elbject, and hoped that the inves tigation would be a searching one. (Rear, hear.) Mr. ESMONDE, amidst cries of order, complained that no Irish nasrob -r was named on the committee. Mr. J. E WART felt assured that the committee would be fairly cou•tituted, and that their labours would he well bestow Pd. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WHITE said that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer bad some years ago urged the necessity for inquiry, and bad thrown considerable light on the sub ject. There was an opinion amongst the ladies of the Levant that as soon as a man became a consul, he went mad, and his own experience as a traveller told him that there was something in the argulnent. (Hear.) The right hoe. gentleman had most praileworthily redeemed the pledge of which be gave earr.est in his speech on the consular system in 1443. (He.ar, hear.) The motion was then agrev..d to. EAST INDIA. COLONISATION. Mr. WM. EWART proposed the nomination of the SNI-ot committee on cr,lonisation and settlement in In iia. Mr. ESMONDE resumed his complaint that Irish members were excluded from comthWees affecting the int.reste of the empire at large. (Hear, hear.) Mr. EWART srAid that his only objeet was to , select thoroughly working men for the investigation, but he should be quite willing to add the name of an Irish repre sentative. The committee was then appointed. BILLETING OF TROOPS. On the motion of General PEEL, a select committee was appointed to inquire into the present system of bil leting Ir)ops in this country, and report what changes might be effeetPd therein. Mr. COWAN thanked the Government for their soli citude on the subject, and the Minister for the attention witi which he bad recently received a Scotch deputation on the subj et. Mr. ESiVIONDE, amidst some laughter, here revived his complaint as to the absence of Irish members on commita The motion was then agreed to. The house then adjourned at ten minutes tol o'clock. Country Markets. COLCHESTER- MARCH 19. A fair supply of wheat, with a slow sale, at is per qr. reduction. Malting barleys not so much in demand, and last week's rates barely maintvined. Beans and peas as before. Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat, white, 48s to 525; red, 42s to 435; barley, 36s to 43s ; oats, 24s to 28s ; bean?, Mazagan, 31s to 363 ; middle and small, 36s to 40s; pear, white, 40s to 42s ; grey, 40s to 425. Official Statement of the Quantities of Corn, &c., recaivei in the port of London, from the following ports, from March 15 to March 20, both inclusive. v ; A • a g 5 g ig A 0 I=lPl g Colchoster Harwich 44 111 2 1 2 5 11 12 18 Ng Leigh Maldon 1987 306, 773 429, 60 11911 CHELMSFORD—Man.:JR 19. The wheat trade to-day was in a rather dull state, and rather below the rates of last week. Spring corn dull, and all else little changed in value. Wheat, white, old, per s. s. S. 11. qr. 44 50 I Oats, per qr. . 24 '29 new.... 44 50 'Peas, Partridge 40 43 red, old 41 45 White 38 42 new.... 39 45 Boiling 39 44 Barley 34 .40 Dun 38 40 • Chevalier 38 44 Beans, Tiek 36 38 Grinding .......... 28 I 32 Harrow ticks 36. 40 Malt 7o 731 Mazagan 32 35 Chevalier 72 73 1 Ditto, new... 32 34 KIRKCALDY—MARou 13. We had poor supplies of grain to-day of all kinds. Sales quick, and prices of wheat, barley, and oats is per quarter higher than the rates of last week. Wheat. Barley. I Oats. I Beans. First sos Od 1 36s Oct 2Bs Od l Os Oki Second Third.... 36s OctOd 1 23s Oct j s2O Od I Os Od COAL htARKEI Prices of Coals per ton al .-11EAR011 22. t the close of: the market Walleend, s. d. Tanfield Moor l3 0 l'aufield Moor Butes 13 01 Bebside's Hartley 14 6i Bates's West Hartley ~,12 0' Davison's West Hartley 14 6 Hastings Hartley l4 3 Howard!s West Hartley Netherton 14 6 Longridges Ws t Hartley 14 6 North Percy Hartley _l2 0 Frarton 1 1Po well's Duffryn Steam Cassop ; Hough Hall ••••• Hebburn Hetton Bradclyll . Russell's Hetton ' Northumberland Kelloe Eden ..................... Riddell Haswell Eden Slain Keiper Grainge ...... South Hetton. Wallsen - d, Sco. Framwollgate l4 6 1 Acorn Close l4 9 Stcw.irt's .... .. .. l5 9 woodlouse Close ...... _l2 6 Tees l7 0 Hartlepool lletton . 15 9 Ships at market, 132 ; sold 87. TELE SISTER OF HIES HEMANS.—The obituary of this week Gays the Athenceum) includes the name of Mrs., Owen, whose claim on a parting word lies on her being t'le sister of Mrs. Hcrnans, the accomplished woman and amateur melodist, who bet and published many of *he lyrios by the poetess, and who, some twenty years ado, compiled the life which prefaces the complete d iition of the "Poems of Mrs. Hemans," published after her decease. BIRTHS. BUTLER —On the 21st inst., at 1, Lowndes-square, thi wife of Paul Butler, Esq., of a son. DIMIRLY —On the 19th inst., at Leamington, the wife of Li e ut.-C o l one l D ib b er ly, o f a son. ROTH—On the 20th inst., the wife of Dr. Roth, of 21, Glocester-place, Brighton, and Old Cavendish-street, London, of a son. STOKES—On the 20th inst., at Park-house, Stonrbridge, the wife of Mr. J. Stokes, of a daughter. ItIAGES. AGE KING— -ATTRIDE —On the 18th inst., at St. Mary Magda lene's, Peckham, Captain William Bing, to Emma Rosy, third daughter of Henry Attride, Esq., of the Stock Exchange. TOLLER PnYon—On the 20th inst., at Weston, Herta, Cnar:os Toiler, Esq., of Sydenhana, Sent, to Ellen, the daughter of the late Thomas M. Pryor, Esq., of 11 " 31). stead-heath. DEATH S. BAKER— On the 21st in s t., a t Sh er b urn e Castle, Dorado shire. William Wingfidd Baker, Esq., of Orsett Hall, Essex, aged 87. BIRD -On the 19th inst., suddenly, John Bird, Esq., of 3 , Montpelier-square, Brompton, aged 70. FAREBROTHER—On the 22d inst., at his res idence, 16, Stockwell-comm o n, Ch ar l es F a;e brother, Esq., Alder- man of Lime-street Ward, aged 7G. EfANSON—On the 18th inst., at 8, Holland-place, North Brixton, J o h n M. H anson , Esq., aged 92. PALMER —On the 19th inst., at Norfolk-place, Shackle- well, Charles Palmer, Esq., aged 72. TROTTER—On the 17th inst., at 1, Park-road, Haveritock hill, Thomas D. M. Trotter, Esq. WOOLRIDGE—On. the 21st inst., at 4, Norfolk-terrace , Brighton, James Woolridge, Esq., of the Stook E_' change, aged 59. _ _ LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, cf No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Moe. NO 112, Strand,_ in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the count? of Middlesex, Tuesday, March 23, 1868• con too Stre Ito, whi AL effe oral fort. Uri: Cop rah Price opini tions ladir Brea( bene: nPerr Tense in ttn Andf