The Sun. — London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 12. 1848. LONDON, BR OA IGH ST RATN, and SOUTH CIL O WAY. The half yearly meeting of this company was held yesterday, at one o'clock, at the London Tavern, for the transaction of the ordinary business of the Company ; Mr. Grenfell, M.P., in the chair. The attendance of proprietors was very large ; it was stated that nearly 200 were unable to obtain admission. The advertisement convening the meeting having been read, The SECRETARY (Slr. Buckton) was proceeding to read the report, when loud cries arose from all parts of th room for a larger room ; but The CHAIRMAN stated that the largest room in the house was occupied. A GENTLEMAN said there were more out of the room than in it, and hinted that the meeting would be a packed and a hole and corner one if they were not admitted. The CHAIRMAN repudiated the insinuation with contempt, upon which great uproar ensued. Mr. WILSON (the gentleman alluded to) did not wish to be offensive; he considered that every share holder had a right to be present, and if this could not take place, he should withdraw. The CHAIRMAN said he was entirely in the hands of the meeting. He was most anxious that every pro prietor should be Fresent.—(Loud cries were then raised for an adjournment, which appeared to proceed from the majority of the meeting.) The CHAtRmAN explained that they had sought the large room, but they found it had been engaged on a Friday for the last two years. Several gentlemen here stated that a great number in the room were not shareholders, and that they had got surreptitiously into the meeting. Mr. CASH suggested that they should eithe r adjourn, to meet in the large room, or th e Hall of Commerce, at four o'clock. The CnaiumAN said he had other duties to perform at the time m entioned. lie had to be at the House of Commons to support the Jewish Disabilities Bill— he would allow nothing to interfere with his duty to the Jewish body. Mr. WisnAw proposed that they should adjourn until one to-morrow, which was seconded. Mr. TAYLOR hoped that efficient means would be taken to admit none save the shareholders and the press. Ultimately, after much discussion and delay, a motion was carried that the meeting should be ad journed until eleven on Monday, in the large room. The following is the report prepared for presenta tion to the shareholders, which, from its importance, we give in extenso " In submitting the following report for the half-year ending 31st December, 1847, your directors regret that the traffic of the company has suffered from the pressure of the times and the extraordinary crisis in the commer cial world, which have affected every branch of industry throughout the country. The gross earnings of the half-year are 250,6101., showing an increase of 23,8991. over the corresponding period of last year. The additional mileage on which this excess has been obtained is thirt y -four miles, includ ing the Keymer Branch, opened in October, but not the Newhaven, opened on the Bth of December last. An analysis of the traffic shows the following results:—On tho trunk line between London and Brighton, as com pared with the corresponding half-year of 184il, the re ceipts are less by 19,0271.; and on the Cr )ydon line by 2,0801.; a similar comparison cannot be established pith the new lines, as a large portion of them were not at that period open; but the decrease of revenue on the trunk lines demonstrates clearly the effect of the times, and must lead to the conclusion that the development of the extension lines has been checked and impeded by the same causes. " In reference to the progressive growth of railway traffic, when unimpeded by extraordinary causes such as have marked the year 1847, the following statistics are submitted for consideration. The receipts on the Brighton Trunk Line, prior to the opening of any of the extensions, in the six months ending -1842 were 104,5341., or 1,850/. per mile, 1843 „ 113,3141., or 2,005 per mile, or 8i per cent. increase, 1844 „ 128,525!., or 2,275/. per mile, or 13i „ 1845 „ 143,9641., or 2,548/. per mile, or 12 „ showing an increase in 1845, as compared with 1842, of 38 per cent., or proceeds equal to 2,5481. per mile. In the year just ended the receipts ou the same portion of the line ware only 1,9771. per mile, clearly showing the influence of the times upon the traffic of your rail way. Upon the whole length of the line now open, the proceeds amount to 1,649/. per mile during the last half- year. "Your directors have now to advert to the subject of expenditure. There is a considerable increase under the head of maintenance of way and works, which arises from the increased mileage at the charge of the company since the last report. " The next increase, a very serious one, is in the loco motive department, attributable not merely to the ex tended mileage to be worked, the high price of coke, and the advanced rate of freight ; but also to the fact that one of the manufacturers failed in his contract for the delivery of a large number of engines, intended to meet the exigencies of the autumnal traffic, by which the ex penses of keeping up the working stock in a state of efficiency were seriously augmented. A large supply of engines has, however, since been received, which will ensure a more economical working of the traffic ; and in the important item of coke, also, a considerable saving will be effected, inasmuch as large qaantities have, of necessity, been purchased, in conse quence of the company nut having the means of mak ing sufficient for their own consumption. The coke made by the company is less costly and of far superior quality to that a hich has been purchased ; and, as additional ovens have been built at Kineeton, and others will shortly be erected elsewhere, the company will be enabled to supply themselves with nearly all they require. " It may be desirable to inform the proprietors, that no charge for engines, carriages, or other stock is car ried to capital, except for additions to the number of each class, rendered necessary by the extended mileage of the company. " Under other heads of annual charge, your directors would be misleading the proprietors were they to hold out hopes of any material diminution. They have effected as great reduction; in the expenses incidental to the working of the line as they deem compatible with its efficiency ; an exception, however, must be made in the case of the London-bridge Station, where a con siderable reduction is contemplated, and which is one of the beneficial results likely to arise from the friendly relations new subsisting between the South-Eastern and this company. Your directors also propose the re linquishment of the remuneration hitherto paid to them for the management of that station. " The 04eptint of oapital upon which the dividend [is now payalie greatly exceeds that of the corresponding period of last year, arising not only from the increase of share capital, on which the balance is divisable, but from the interest heretofore deducted upon unproductive capital being now altogether charged to the current revenue, from the dates of the respective openings of the additional lines. " Your directors, under the circumstances above re ferred to, can only announce a dividend equal to 11. per 501. share ; such dividend, if it have not the merit of being large, has at least that of being just ; and they are confident, that if the propritors maturely weigh the present position of the company in all its bearings, they will have well-grounded hopes for the future. " Since the last report the Kepner and Newhaven Branches have been opened. The benefit derivable by the company from these lines will be considerable as soon as the communication with Paris from Dieppe is completed, by the opening of the Dieppe Railway, which is expected to take place in March next. Not withstanding the existing disadvantages, however, this company has carried about five thousand passengers Within the space of three months, during the autumn, in connexion with the boats of the Brighton and Conti nental Steam-packet Company from Shoreham. The Hailaham, Eastbourne, and Deptford Branches have been ' suspend e d f o r the present. The Branch to Hors hans of th 1 s .Ze"ely for opening, and has received the approval e Railway Commissioners. " No definite arrangement has yet been carried out between the Brighton and Portsmouth Companies, but your directors entertain no doubt, from the feeling which exists between therespective boards, that their pro ceedings will tspetiregulated ar by a due regard to the in terests of all s. n addition to the shares in that Were u ndertaking which your formerly cir the property of the Croydon Company, ectors, in the arrangements for theaccordance with f amalgamation with the Ports mouth Company, subscribeedemnrie4t,ooo shares therein, as your trustees, in order to complete the requisite capital; the agreement having precluded the shareholders in the Portsmouth Company from participating in any capital beyond the a mount teen subsc ribe?. ating n ste to announce " Your directors have the satisfacztioa that an arrangement with the South has been entered into, which is founded urnohCnotwhepafonly y deer Junction, (owing basis, viz.:—That the tolls payablep company to the other, for the use of their the one lines between London- bridge and the Croy pally eranties: unction are commuted,— South-Eastern Com to this company the free use of the Bricklayers' Arm' s line and station ; they also assign in perpetuity nearly five acres of land at the Bricklayers' Arms station, as goods depot for this company, and remit the payment by this company of 25,0001., for the third line or rails on the Greenwich viaduct. " Be the substitution of the Bricklayers' Arms Station for goods in lieu of New Cross, this company will effect a saving in cartage and other expenses incidental to the goods traffic; and by the facility afforded, an augmenta tion of this traffic is expected. A collateral advantage, of n o ordinary importance, will also result in the dimi nution of th e outlay which must otherwise have been neurA re red at the L on d on -b r id ge St a ti on . , ` solution will be submitted to the meeting for the conversion into st oc k o f t h e fifteenth shares, amounting to 38,0001., whereon five per cent, preference interest has been abandoned since the last meeting. "It is pr o p ose d to tak e powers to borrow on mortgage 176 , 5 981, under the authority of th e severa l A cts f or making the branch les i passed in th e 9 t h an d 10 t h years of th e reign of her present M a j esty. "Four of the directors, Edward Wigan, Edward , Crowley, Jame s Whi skin , and alit retire, pursuant t o the Act f John Lawrie, r Esquires, e h n e t re , se h i ti v t e s ar e e eeer eli gible for re. election, and offer am dingly." The accounts, which were very e l aborate, expenditure for the half-year to have showed the 6s. 5d., the receipts 251,0761. ss. 2a been 119,8864 balanco for dividend 131,189/. 183.9d. and the available Lord Portman had an interview with Sir George Grey yesterday, a►t the Home-office. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 11. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack shortly before Five o'clock. Lord PORTM.AN presented a petition fr,,ni some place in Somersetshire, praying for an enactment to prevent denunciations from the altar in Ireland. The Earl of ELLENBOROLTGH presented a petition from some place in Devonshire against Jewish emancipation. The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from the magistrates of Ayr with a similar prayer. Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from Stafford, praying that Odd Fellows' societies might be placed - on the same footing as other benefit societies. GA ME-L AW S. The NOBLE LORD then presented a petition from a meeting of tenant farmers held in Edinburgh, praying for an alteration in the game-laws. He thought that some alteration ought to take place. He thought that hares ought not to be considered as game. They were most destructive, and every farmer ought to have the liberty of destroying them on his own estate. The greater number of convictions for poaching were for snaring hares. Hares should be placed upon the same footing as rabbits. He also thought that some important modifications ought to take place in the duty payable for a license to shoot, and that a person ought to be enabled to shoot on his own ground on paying a much less amount of duty than at present. So long as the qualification for shooting eonsisted in ,the pos session of 100 acres of land, there was no great objection to calling upon him to pay 41. for his license, but when they did away with the qua lification they s h ou ld have lowered the duty on the license. He thought that every man should have the power of killing game upon the land he occupied, and that the license should be either done away with al together, or the duty should be so reduced as to place the obtaining of a license within the power of any man who occupied land. The Marquis of SALISBURY though that since the alteration in the law was made authorising the sale of game, the game was as much private pro perty as the trees on the farm; and tenants, when they made their bargains with their landlords, were fully aware that Fame was to be preserved, and made their agreements accordingly. Lord ASHBURTON thought that it would be almost a perfect remedy for the evils complained of as regarded the present game-laws, if the Legislature were to pass a measure disgaming hares, and placing them in the same category as rabbits. Lord PORTMAN thought it desirable that this dis cussion should have taken place before the budget was brought forward, in order that the finance Minister might consider the propriety of lowering the duties on game certificates. He knew that the present high rate of duty prevented many farmers from taking out game certificates. JE WIS EI EMANCIPATION. The Earl of HARROWP. Y presented several peti tions against Jewish emancipation. HEALTH OF TOWNS. The NOBLE EARL also presented a petition from Stafford in favour of the Health of Towns Bill. ORDNANCE SURVEY. The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition from some place in Scotland, complaining of the small progress made in the Ordnance Survey in Scotland. The Duke of MONTROSE trusted that the Go vernment would adopt measures to remedy the evil complained of. If the survey progressed at its present rate it would take 35 years to complete it in Scotland. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the conduct of the Ordnance officials engaged in the survey. The NOBLE MARQUIS then laid upon the table copies of certain communications which had taken place with the Austrian Government. RAILWAY COMPANIES' AUDIT BILL. Lord MONTEAGLE moved the second reading of the Railway Companies' Audit Bill, and in doing SO he wished at the outset to guard himself against the imputation that this measure was proposed in any spirit of hostility to railways. Some persons con tended that the Legislature should not interfere with railways, but he contended that railway companies should be watched with great jealousy by the Legis lature. It was said that railways were private pro perty, and the Legislature had no right to interfere with them. Why, these companies owed their exist ence to an interference with the rights of private property—the right of private property in land— authorised by the Legislature for the public good ; and therefore the Legislature had the fullest right to watch and regulate the movements of railway directors. It was necessary the Legislature should exercise this right for the protection of shareholders. Since 1826, a sum of upwards of 324,000,000/. had been placed at the disposal of railway directors and proprietors, and this fact alone was sufficient to authorise the in terference of the Legislature to see how it was applied The sum placed at the disposal of railway companies during the years 1845 and 1846, was more than double the amount of that required for the army, the navy, and the whole administration of the United Kingdom. They had, besides, had power given them to enter the money market and to raise upwards of one hundred millions on losn. Parliament ought to take care this power should rest upon a just foundation, and that persons lending should know exactly the security upon which they lent their money. This borrowing, power rested upon foundations totally different to any other borrowing power in the kingdom. They had an inducement to borrow at a high rate of interest, which no other body possessed, in order to complete their works, and the exercise of this power had contributed greatly to produce the late derangement of the money market. The Bank of England had recently held a large amount of these securities, and had been unable consequently to make advances upon the security of the floating debt of the country. Was this security what it pre tended to be ? That was a matter for grave consider ation. He had shown that Parliament possessed a right and authority to interfere with these rail ways if it should be expedient for the pub lic good to do so ; but that question was not raised by his Bill, which merely gave to share holders the power of insisting upon a strict audit of the accounts of the directors. At present the au ditors were so intimately connected with the directors, that the audit was, in fact, a mere matter of form, the real auditors being the directors themselves. Now he wanted to give the shareholders the power of establishing a real and efficient audit of the accounts, perfectly independent of the board of directors. He did not propose to give the new auditor power of disallowing items, but to give him the power of un limited access to all the accounts, and the power of reporting thereon to the shareholders his opinion. In many cases a dividend might be made out of calls, so that a dividend of five per cent. might be declared when really the profits only authorised the declaration of a dividend of two and a half per cent., and thus only a mystification of accounts, an illusory security, might be created, upon which illusory security money would be raised. and that which was in fact a debt due by the com pany, might be represented as the property of the company. Now, if there were an independent systew of audit established, this state of things could not exist, and the necessity for the establishment of some independent audit was becoming every day more and more manifest. He hoped that in all future Railroad Bills, before the second reading of such Bills was con sented to their Lordships would insist upon a com plete audit of the accounts being laid be ore the Com mittee. He did not propose that the person so appointed should have any power of imposing any penalty or punishment; all he asked was that he should have good access to all documents, and full power of making the investigation, that he might state his opinion frankly, transmit it to the Railway Department, that it might be a public document open to reference by that and the other House of Parliament. Railway companies had two separate modes of obtaining money to make a dividend; one, out of actual profits, the other, out of their capital. This occurred when a line was only partly completed, or when being complete from terminus to terminus, it got a Bill to extend itself by branches. The whole position of a company might bo altered by increasing its capital and issuing new shares, and those who lent it money bad a security very different from the real one; this was made possible by a mystification of the accounts, and the mixing up two sources of property which ought always to be kept separate. Suppose the capital of a railroad was 100,0001., and it paid a divi dendto ( that of 5 p er cen t., or 5,0001.; supposing its profits fell off, so that it could only give 3,0001. as a dividend, yet t with power to call its capital to its aid, or of transferring main capital some of the expenses of the railroad, gehrea_ter dividend of 5,0004 could still be sustained. w " h n o adttnyisctoenresid these consideredthe funds were enormous exposed temp to, the temptation those House would see that som e remedy o ught to b e pro v id e d. Upon these grounds he rested the measure he had brought before t ouse. He knew it might be ob jected that it did not gc' far enough, and if he followed his own view, he should had thought it better t o try t e h it more stringent ; but he power, Bill in its present shape, reserving to himself the r i l e n r ecFssary, of bringing the suLject again under the co nsideration atioa of Parliament. The Bill would give to a certain number of shareholders (he had nut fixed the precise number) vexa tiously prying into the concerns of the fl c l ' e wer, not of company, but of protecting the minorit y . It had been suggested that when a Bill for any ra ilroa d , or amalgamatiogigagill or branch Bill , c ame before their L ordships, th e y should require that before the second readin g of the Bill there should be an audit of the accounts by an independent auditor. He was very far from say i ng i t m i g ht n ot be necessary to resort to that course ; but such a measure , however good in itself, would not meet the object of his Bill, because many of the railroad companies which might be proper ob jects of his Bill might not come before their Lordships at all. 'With respect to the provisions of the Bill (which bad very few clauses), he proposed that a ba lance-sheet of th e com p an y s h ou ld b e submitted to the railway commissioners, who would be empowered to up point au audit or, to report upon it, the report to be in duplicate, one part to be presented to the Railway Com missioners. As to the expense of the audit, he thought the party who call, d for the audit should pay the expense of it, if, in the judgment of the Railway Commissioners, the call should appear to have been unnecessary. The effect of this nicaiure, and of the separation of the capital from the revenue accounts would be to prevent the misapplication of the capital, and to secure the public spinst being deceived by a fallacious appear ance of continued prosperity. The Noble Lord con cluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time, observing that he should postpone the Committee until it should suit the convenience of all parties. The Earl of GRANVILLE said, a measure was wanted that should prevent the large privileges given to railway comp an i es f rom b e i ng a b use d, an d money being expended in a manner in which it ought not to be. Be did not think the Bill went so far as that, but as far as it did go, it was beneficial and should have his support. Shareholders had a just claim to know how their property was disposed of, and, although the Legislature had made provision for that object, there was an impression in the public mind that the inten tions of the Legislature had not been fulfilled. The auditors of railway companies were chosen from persons most active in the management of the concern, and the public impression was that there was something not quite sound in railway accounts. Lord KINNAIBD did not oppose the Bill, but he did not approve of unnecessary interference with rail way interests, It was true that great powers were given to railway companies, and it was very desirable that they should be placed upon a better system ; but constant attempts to interfere with the management of these great interests was a serious evil. The Bill, te thought, would be to a certain extent ineffective ; for it would take such a time before any' person could go through the accounts (which must be examined most minutely), that some months at least must elapse before a report could be made. Lord ASHBURTON agreed with the Noble Lord who had just spoken, that any vexatious interference with these great interests, in respect to their profits, would be the grossest injustice; but he did not consider that to be the aim and intention of the Bill, which merely obliged railway companies to do that which every public body was ready to do and in the habit of doing. This audit would not give the power of reveal ing any honest secret connected with the interests of a company; but if a company was going on a false prin ciple of profit, paying a dividend of 10 per cent. when the real profit was only 6 per cent., that was a fact very proper to be disclosed. The persons most inte rested in the audit were the shareholders themselves, who comprehended widows, and orphans, and others, whose whole property was invested in these great un dertakings, and who ought to have an opportunity of knowing what was the real state of the company, and that they were not risking their money in a concern which rested upon an unsound foundation. He con fessed he should himself prefer a regular periodical audit of railway accounts; tor, looking at the compli cation of these accounts, capital being blended with the revenue derived from traffic, it was a difficult thing for shareholders to unravel and understand them. After a few words from Earl FITZ WILLIAM, who approved of the Bill, Lord NIONTEAGLE briefly replied iu explanation of some of the details, and The Bill was read a second time. Their Lordships then adjourned to Monday. DOUSE OF COMMOIVS, Feb. 11. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. GLASGOW WATERWORKS. Mr. MACGREGOR presented a petition from the Lord Provost and town council of Glasgow against the Glasgow Waterworks Bill. ELECTION COUMITTEES. Mr. FOX MAULE brought up the second re port of the General Committee , of Elections, report ing that they had selected the following Members for the Committee to try the merits of the return for West Gloucestershire :—Mr.Grainger (Chairman), Sir John Walsh, Mr. Aglionby, Major Cumming Bruce, Mr. R. J. Thcrnely ; and for the Committee on the Great Marlow election petition, Sir J. Peking ton (Chairman), the Hon. E. Mostyn, Sir J. Duck worth, Sir R. Price, and the Hon. H. Fitzroy. Bruce, one of the nominated members, was not in the House, Mr. FOX MACTLE said it now became his pain ful duty, in consequence of the Hon. Mem ber not being in his place one hour after the House had met, to move, under the 67th section of the Act of Parliament, that he be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at• Arms. In making the motion, he must take the opportunity of drawing the attention of Hon. Members to the rules which prevailed in the nomination of those Committees. It appeared to him that such cases as the one he was now dealing with arose from the circumstance of Hon. Members not being sufficiently attentive in consulting the panels upon which their names were placed ; and he would most earnestly recommend Honourable Members, not so much with the view of saving themselves trouble, as for the purpose of saving trouble and ex pense to the parties concerned, that they should consult the panels in which their names were placed every day during the time the panel was under con sideration. 'With these observations it was his Painful duty to move the resolution which he had just read. Sir R. 11. INGLIS suggested that in future the notices issued by the General Committee of Elec tions should be delivered to Honourable Members bona fide through the hands of an officer of the House. Mr. FOX MAULE directed the attention of the Hon. Baronet to the third section of the Act of Parliament, wherein it is stated that the clerk of the General Committee of Elections should give notice in writing to each Member who should be chosen to serve on Election Committees. Sir It. H. INGLIS said his suggestion was quite consistent with the Act, which evidently required that the notices should be personally delivered by an officer of the House. Lord HARRY VANE did not see the necessity of a personal service, but in his opinion four or five days' notice ought to be given to Honourable Mem- bers before they were called upon to serve on these Committees. Mr. AGLIONBY agreed with the suggestion of the Noble Lord. The summons which he received to serve on this Committee did not mach him till late last night. He did not attribute this to the neglect of the officer whose duty it was to deliver it, because it r; as left at his house so early as four o'clock yes terday afternoon, but at that hour he had left home to attend the House, and, no doubt like many other Members, he did not return till late at night.—(Hear.) Sir W. HE ATHCOTE said the General Com mittee of Selection were bound, under the Act of Parliament, to give the notices on the day of selection, and they had no authority to interfere with the rules laid down by the Act. It was the province of the House, and not of the Committee, to make the alterations suggested by llonourable Members. He trusted therefore that his Right Hon. Friend and the other members of the Committee would be exonerated from an y blame.—(Hear, hear.) Dr. BOWRING said there was no complaint of the conduct of the Committee, but he thought the hardship was considerable. Mr. THORNELY said that in the votes of the House there was fourteen days' notice given of the day on which the Committee was appointed, and the panel from which the Committee would be taken. He thought, therefore, Honourable Members could not blame the House. Mr. FORBES was sure that the Hon. Member had no intention wilfully to absent himself; he trusted, therefore, that the House would allow him to move that the debate on the subject should be adjourned till Monday. The SPEAKER doubted whether he could put the motion, because the Act was imperative in its provisions, that when a Member who had been ap pointed on an Election Committee did not appear within an hour from the sitting of the House, he should be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms. Mr. F. MAULE believed the Act was imperative, and that the house had no discretion ; he should, therefore, move that the Sergeant-at-Arms be ordered to take the Hon. Member into custody. Mr. HORSMAN suggested the withdrawal of the motion, upon the understanding that all fees should be paid, and the subject considered on Monday. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the adoption of such a course would be incon • sistent with the the dignity of the House and a waste of their time, as the Act was imperative.—(Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN—Then does the Right Hon. Gentleman mean that the Hon. and Gallant Member should be in custody to-morrow and Sunday ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER — Certainly. It was his duty to attend the house having been appointed on the Committee.—(Hear.) The SPEAKER having put the question, that the Sergeant-at-Arms be ordered to take the Hon. and Gallant Member into custody, strangers were ordered to withdraw. In a few minutes the gallery was opened, when we found that the motion had been agreed to without a division. THE GREAT MARLOW ELECTION COM MITTEE. The Members of this Committee were then called to the table, and Sir Robert Price being absent, Mr. F. MAULE said Sir Robert Price, the Member for Hereford, not having attended in his place within one hour after the sitting of the Hou , e, to be sworn as one of the members of the said Committee, he felt it his duty to move that he be taken into custody by the Sergeant at-Arms. _ _ Mr. V. SMITH said, when an Hon. Member moved that the debate on the last motion be adjourned, the Speaker told him that he could not do so. If the Act was imperative with respect to the committal of a Member who did not appear, he could not see the necessity of making a motion on the subject, and was surprised that one was about to take place. As the same thing might occur again, he begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman to explain the law, and whether the motion must be agreed to as as a matter of course, or whether it was open to discussion ? The SPEAKER read the 66th clause, which stated that if a Member, summoned on an Election Com mittee, did not appear when called upon that he should be ordered to be taken into custody. By the old Act a motion was made that the Members so absenting themseelves be taken into custody ; and though it was not imperative under the new regula tion, he had thought it well to adhere to the ancient mode. It might be open to discussion whither a Member could be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms by the Speaker alone. Mr. HORSMAN said, in the event of the arrest of a Member being agreed to, the Sergeant•at- Arms or his officer was compelled to follow him even into Scotland or Ireland, and he was liable to pay all the expenses.—(Hear, hear.) A Member might be absent from accident; and, therefore, he thought the House should take care that Members had full notice. The putting of the motion showed that it might come to a division, and, of course, if this came on a discussion might take place, and any one might move an amendment; and the Member himself, or his friends, might be enabled to state some mitigating circumstances to entitle the absent Member to the consideration of the House. He believed that the notices were only served last night, and it was just possible that they did not reach the residences of the Members until after they m'ght have gone off to dinner, or left town by the mail. He invariably looked at the votes every morning to see if he had been appointed a Member of any Committee; no notice, howver, ap peared in the votes until Members were actually ap pointed; their nomination did not appear, and con sequently a Member might easily be inadvertently absent. Mr. ILUME said that no doubt, with respect to the practice of the House, the Speaker was quite correct. He thought, however, that by the terms of the Act it was imperative upon the Speaker to cause the lion. Member to be taken into custody without any mo tion whatever.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it mo s t important that every Hon. Member should attend and perform the duties required of him, and if he were not present when required it was the duty of the House to order that he should be taken into custody. Sir G. GREY said, that no doubt it was quite lawful to order the party to be taken into custody immediately. Mr. MUNTZ was of opinion that the present Honourable Member ought not to be alio wed to escape. There was great danger in not keeping strictly to the Act of Parliament. If the first Member had been allowed to escape, the second would have escaped. All the Hon. Members had the same notice, and it was their business to attend in their places. The business of the House ought not to be allowed to stand still in consequence of the non attendance of any of the Members.—(Hear, hear.) The motion was then agreed to without adivision., Admiralty had taken into consideration the several memorials of the commanders and lieutenants with regard to a retired list, and of the masters with re spect to the preient anomalous rank which they hold in the service. Mr. WARD said that it was not the intention of the Crown to make any provision in the .•stimates for the purpose referred to by the Gallant Member. With respect to the second part of the question, he would state that the Board of Admiralty had had the memorials in question under their consideration, and had come to the conclusion that they could not ac - cede to the suggestions of the memorialists. commandment altogether, and had split the last, making the ninth into two. The historian ,fated that it Dred, having overcome the Danes, and being acquainted with their usual perfidy, obliged them to swear upon holy relics to keep the treaty which he had made with them, not that he had expected them to keep their oath, but that if they broke it their impiety would draw down upon them the wmgf.anee of heaven. This was the first period in our history in which an attempt was made to coerce conscience, and what was the consequence? Like Samson bound with green wither, the Danes burst their bonds asunder, and never left the country till they had established themselves in it. The next period to which the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Ox ford had adverted was that of Praise-God-Barebonee. He thought it would be found that this also was an unfortunate selection. The Parliament which took its name from that individual did not begin with prayer, but we were told that some fifty brethren having assem•• bled, the Parliament took as the subject of their delibe rations the abolition of clerical functions, as a savouring of Popery—the abolition of tithes, as a relic of Judaism —of learning and the universities, as heathenish and unnecessary—and the adoption of the Mosaic code of laws instead of our own. The Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, the Member for Midhurst, had brought under the notice of the House the various writs which had been issued for summoning the Parliament, and having fol lowed the lion. and Learned Gentleman through Prynne and Glanville, he was ready to admit that the writs were substantially such as had been quoted. The change in the form took place in the time of the Protectorate. He would now proceed to the period of the Revolution ; but he must observe, by way of parenthesis, that from the time of the Conquest till the banishment of the Jews they were admitted to offices, and acted as jurors, after after having Iseen sworn up on the Pentateuch. He knew that in the time of Lord Coke this was denied, but after the Revolution it was laid down by Lord Chief Justice Willes, that under the common law of the land a Jew using the words " So help me, God," might take any promissory or assertory oath. The Hon. and Learned Meml)er for Midhurst made a quotation from the rolls of Henry VI. to show what was required from a king at that time ; but he thought it remarkable that the House was not told what was the oath then required from Members of Parliament. It had been stated that the first time the words, " on the true faith of a Chris tian," were introduced was in the 3d of James I. Such was the fact, and these words continued down to the period of the Revolution, when the oath was abrogated by the Ist of William and Mary, and the abjuration oath introduced without the words " on the true faith of a Christian" being included. Nor were these words again introduced till 1703, in the 13th of William and Mary, when the King of France caused the Pre tender to be crowned King of England. Now, since the Revolution every act that has passed bearing on religious disqualifications has tended to the re laxation of those laws. There was first the relief given to the Quakers; then the Act relieving the Unitarians, passed in 1813; the next was the repeal of the Test arid Corporation Acts in 1828, and following that was the Catholic Emancipation Bill in 1829. It has been said that on the present occasion Baron Rothschild might have presented himself at the table, and offered to take the oaths in a way acknowledged to be binding by the Jewish persuasion; but if that gentleman had offered himself at their table to take such an oath, the House would have found itself placed in a very difficult posi tion. They must either have admitted him on a forced construction of the law, or rejected him and sent him back to his constituents, when a conflict might have fol lowed of which none of them could have seen the result. —(hear.) That g entleman, however, had not taken any course which might have placed the House in a position so awkward, but had relieved it from the difficulty by waiting for the requisite alteration of the law. He thought there could be no doubt as to what the sense of the coun try was on this question. The fact of the city of Lon don having returned Baron Rothschild was practical proof as to what were the opinions held by the citizens of the first commercial city in the world on the subject. The fact, also, of a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion having been three times elected as an alderman in the city of London, and that two had been elected sheriffs, left no room for doubt on the question. The second reading of the Bill had been postponed till now in order that the country might have time to express itself on the subject; and the result had shown that the public at large were in favour of the measure—otherwise, why was their table not covered with petitions against it as in the case of the Maynooth grant?—(Hear, hear.) lie !eft strongly on this subject. It had been his fortune to move for the admission to the corporation of London of the first Jew who had been admitted a citizen; he had had the satisfaction of working with them from that time; and he trusted the House would not deny that people the act of justice which the present Bill awarded them.—(Loud cheers.) When he recollected the many advances which had been made towards the establishment of religious freedom, and considered the great changes which had taken place from the time when men were liable to persecution for hold ing opinions which all were now at perfect liberty to ex press, he felt confident that that House would not restrain the further progress of that freedom by throw ing out the Bill,—(flear.) He had the greatest respect for the Church of England, and had ever admired her • liberal spirit towards those differing from her in opinion. Though a Dissenter himself, he would rather live under the Church of England as a dominant body—if there was to be dominancy at all—than under his own or any other sect.—(Cheers from the Opposition side of the House.) That was a feeling which he believed was very predominant throughout that assembly, and he might say it was that feeling that preserved the equilibrium of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) He might add that there were 110 warmer friends of things as they are than the Jewish people.—(hear.) The Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) had spoken of the Bill as a measure to admit persons who must be guilty of "awful mockery" and "gross blasphemy," and who called our Saviour a " eru , cified impostor." Now, if the aldermen, bankers, mer chants, and householders of London had really attempted to inflict that disgrace on this House, then on their heads ought to fall a great censure. But it was because the Jews were not in the habit of calling our Saviour a crucified impostor, and were not likely to be guilty of blasphemy, that they had returned Baron Rothschild as their representative, conceiving him to have many qualifications which fitted him for that office. They had elected Baron Rothschild because they considered him peculiarly qualified to represent the interest and feel : ings of a mercantile body.—(Hear.) A Committee had recently been appointed to make inquiry into the causes of the monetary crisis. Did any one doubt that if Baron Rothschild had been in the House he would not have been of that Committee?—(Hear, hear.) 'The city of London was at present deprived of a portion of its repre sentative power; but when they returned Baron Roths• child they had a right to expect that he would be ad mitted. The election of Mr. O'Connell for Clare was followed by the Catholic Emancipation Act, and Mr. O'Connell and other Catholics were admitted to Parlia ment; Mr. Pease, when elected, was also permitted to take his seat. When Mr. Salomons was elected Sheriff of London and Middlesex he objected to take the abjura tion oath, and a Bill was brought in and carried which enabled that gentleman to hold that office. The Hon. Member for the University of Oxford was too shrewd not to see, under the general terms of the title, that the Bill was a Bill to admit Mr. Salomons. But this House relieved Mr. Salomons from the condi tion precedent to his entering on the duties of his office. Mr. Salomons was admitted, and that was the first lesson to the citizens of Lon don. Mr. Salomons was afterwards appointed an alder man, but, having to be admitted within eight days, he had to be passed over as there was not time to carry a measure; but a Bill was introduced in the other House by the Lord Chancellor to remove the obstacle. That was lesson second. They proceeded to a third election, that of Mr. Rothschild. The lion. Member was here interrupted by The SPEAKER, who called upon the Sergeant to in quire whether Sir R. Price was in custody? The SERGEANT intimated that he was not. The SPEAKER then inquired whether Mr. Cumming Bruce was in custody? The SERGEANT replied in the negative. The SPEAKER then announced, that the two Com mittees on which these Members were to be sworn, viz., the Great Marlow and the West Gloucestershire Elec tion Committees, were adjourned till Monday. *Mr. PEARSON then proceeded. The writings of the Rev. Mr. Sitneon contained a remarkable statement with regard to the position of the Jews in Holland. Mr. Simeon, in the course of a tour there, had met Dr. Ca padoche, who observed that the Jews were admitted in Holland to all offices and honours, and that therefore Mr. Simeon's aid was not required, the Rev. Gentleman's visit being made with a view to the conversion of the Jews. But Mr. Simeon, on the contrary, thought that the very reason why he should begin his labours there ; first, because the prejudices of the Jews would be less; and, secondly, because he might hold forth Holland as a pattern for other countries. The fable in which alisop related the contest between the wind and the sun as to which of them should mrke the traveller part with his cloak, afforded an apposite illustration of the means most likely to induce men to throw off their prejudices; or, in language which the Jews would prefer in this ease, their adherence to the faith of their forefathers. The story of the passenger and his cloak was told in the old nursery rhyme— " The wind quite a hurricane blew, But could not provoke Him to part with his cloak, Which around him the closer he drew." " The mild melting ray," however, of " the sun at noon-day " made him feel his cloak oppressive, and ":inclined him to throw it aside."" Moral."—(Laughter.) " 'Tis thus that we find The great mass of mankind By mildness are easily won. Persecution compare To the boisterous air, Religion's the light of the sun." Lord DRUJILANRIG observed that the time had been when the name of Christ was tho sole guide and the sole test which was acknowledged, but now it was urged that as a body this House should no longer to lerate that name.—(" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") They who had shrunk from such a national repudiation were appealed to. Their acquiescence was desired in the name of political justice. When they, in respond ing, referred to the declaration, " on the true faith of a Christian," they were met by the remark that because such unfortunate men as Bolingbroke and Gibbon had sat in that House, what they claimed as a condition of admission had become virtually extinct. But was there no distinction between suffering from an abuse be cause it belonged to human nature, and making provision for an abuse because it existed? The press had spoken on this subject as if Christianization was nothing but civilization ; and the Morning Chronicle had indulged in sneers at what it called the "evangelical indignation" of the country. Then the example of France was referred to—the example of a country cele. brated for its atheism. What was it that first iuduood the electors of London to return Mr. Rothschild ? Their numbers amounted to 6,000 or 7,000. One's admiration, however, of their conduct must be mixed with surprise and curiosity. It was a question which suggested itself for consideration how they had done so much and yet so little—how, with this spirit iu favour of the Jews, they had contented themselves with electing one Jew only and not four. There was great moderation in that. With a splendid contempt of appearances they chose only the richest Jew. It had been stated by the Hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond) in the course of the debate on the currency, that in this country they were unfortunately actuated by a love of money which was highly discreditable; and he (Lord Drumlanrig) was not surprised to find in this election a living proof of the !lon. Gentleman's statement. If any such thing was suspected, it was not one Member only who had been led to conclude that such was the case. Mr. W. COWPER said that the Noble Lord had not stated one single argument against the Bill, which met the question on its merits. If the Bill were an isolated measure he would admit it was startling. But it was only the natural consequences of the various steps taken of late years towards removing civil disabilities, founded on religious differences. The Jews were freemen and citizens of the State, and being subject to no disabilities as such, they were entitled to all the privileges as free men. But it was argued that there was so strong a spirit of nationality amongst them, as to call for their exclusion from the office of legislators. But, in answer to this, it might be said, if it was true, as he believed it to be, that the Jews were to remain a scattered race to the end of the world, then they would be subjected to a great injustice in being refused the privilege demanded tor theta because they never would be enabled to ac quire any footing as a nation in their ancient land. A Jew retained his nationality notwithstanding he became a Christian, and there were, he believed, six gentlemen at present Members of the !louses who bad the honour of deriving their lineage from Abraham. If any great good could be shown to result to morality or religion from the exclusion of the Jews, he might have been induced to alter his opinion on the subject, but no such advantages had been urged as a reason for rejecting the present Bill, and he must therefore adhere to his original intention respecting it. Christianity was not a mere cloak which a man took up whilst the oath was being administered to him. It was a living prin ciple quite independent of any oath, and therefore it would remain unaltered if the present Dill pugged. It had been argued that the business of Parliament was to regulate the principles of speculative and religious truth. He did not think the House had any such character. They were there as the representatives of the people, not on the representatives of truth. Ex perience and reason showed that any endeavour to cor rect religious error by legislation was always inimical to truth.—(liear.) The homage paid to Christianity by persons professing but not practising its precepts, was no advantage to that divine institution, and more danger was to be apprehended from them than frog avowed atheists and infidels. According to his view of the sub ject, the best way was to leave the question of moral qualification of Members to the electors, and to throw upon them the responsibility of having made the choice of a Jew, of a Christian, or of any other religious sec tarian. It would be far wiser to throw open the door of the House to all classes of persons, rather than for them to assume the task of inquiring into and reproving the creeds of those sent there. Mr. K. SEYMER did not concur in the principles which had been laid down by the Noble Lord the Mem ber for London in opening this question. He did not think that with the settlement of this question the edi fice of toleration would be considered by its advocates to be complete. But in the concessions which had been quoted as precedents, more especially those to the Roman Catholics, distinctions bad been preserved. They had had been told that the Legislature did not consider that a person of their persuasion should ever fill the throve of these realms. There was a distinction on re. ligioeis grounds which no one would attempt to abolish. For his part ho held firmly to the Established Church, and would stand by every defence which had been set up for its preservation, nut because he liked them for themselves, not because he wished to see any man per secuted for his religious opinions, but because he thought them absolutely necessary.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had said that they could hardly maintain a great principle by fair words at the fag-end of an oath. Granted. They could not make all men Christians by imposing a declaration ; but neither could they snake all men moral by a code, and still they were constantly legislating for moral objects.— (Hear, hear.) He did not see any analogy between the cases of the Roman Catholics and Dissenters and that of the Jews. The numerical increase of both sects pre eluded the possibility of considering the country as ex clusively Protestant; but the number of Jews living amongst us was not so great as to take from the title of a Christian country, or to disentitle us to a Christian legislation.—(Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said about the city of London election, but he confessed he did not attach much importance to that event. He be lieved that the citizens of London, who are fond of spe culation, had elected Baron Rotchschild on speculation. They had drawn a bill on the Lords and Commons. taking their chance of its being accepted.—(A laugh.) Their Noble Member had argued for the connexion of religion with politics, but his constituents seemed to have taken an entirely different view of the question. And the Noble Lord the secretary for Foreign Affairs had argued, that as we had urged upon the Grand Seigneur the policy of emancipating his Greek subjects, we should set an example of liberality by emancipating the Jews. But there were reasons of State policy for our advice to Turkey. The Emperor of Russia was constantly exercising his influence over the Greek sub jeets of the Forte, and it was not consistent with our views that he should do so. Besides, the treatment of the Greeks in Turkey was very different from that which we gave to our Jewish fellow-subjects. He (Mr. K. Seymer) remembered that when travelling in Asia Minor he had the greatest difficulty in restraining his Turkish courier from horse-whipping the Archbishop of Phila delphia, because that prelate would not turn out in the middle of the night to give him his bed.—(Laughter.) Too much fencing in might be bad for the Established Church, but that was no reason why they should raze its defences altogether. lie feared that if the privileges of the Church were taken away she would le on cease to be an Established Church, and that being his opinion he must oppose the present Bill. Mr. HORSMAN said ho should support the Bill, bat not on the grounds that it involved merely a political question. He denied that politics and religion could properly be separated. It appeared incomprehensible to him how any man could disclaim religion in public matters without also repudiating its influence in the affairs of private life.—(Cheers.) The question was, in fact, partly a political and partly a religious one. It was political and constitutional as touching the rights of it portion of our fellow-.ubjecte, and it must be decided on the maxims of justice and sound policy. It appeared to him that with respect to it the House was called upon to assume the judicial character. The questiou was none of their seeking, it had been forced upon them by the citizens of London.—(Hear, hear.) They had elected a man as their representative, and he now waited at the door of the House for admission. Constitutionally he was their representative, but a legal objection had been raised to his admission into Parliament. He (Mr. Hors. man) would decide the question upon high grounds. A great fallacy had run through all the arguments which had been urged against it, more especially that of the Hon. Member fur Midhurat. It was asserted that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of England. and that in the present Bill it was thought to annul that law. The plain English of such an assertion was, that for the purpose of better securing Christianity we had passed a statute expressly excluding the Jews front Parliament. Why, there was no law of the kind in the statste-book, and therefore there was none to be annulled.—(Hear, hear.) Formerly there had been such laws, but those having been repealed there was little reason iu seeking to exclude the Jews by laws enacted for the exclusion of an entirely different set of men.— (Hear, hear.) The question was, whether Parliament. having repealed every direct statute against the Jews, a member of that body was to be deprived of his seat in that House under a statute having no reference whatever to him or his religion.—(Hear, hear.) The Jews were made to bear their part of the national burdens ; we compelled them to carry arms. or to give us money when we wanted it ; in fact, int. posed upon them all the responsibilities of subjects ; but when they asked for the privileges of-citizens, we denied them, with the answer that they were only Jews. —(Cheers.) As the law stood at present they might be magistrates, sheriffs, or aldermen, but the moment it waa sought to admit them into Parliament a cry was raised that Christianity was at an end. It had also been said that persons who were uninfluenced by feelings of Chris. tianity should not have any share in legislating for the Established Church. But they did interfere at present. They voted at vestries, at the election of vicars, and in the distribution of parochial funds. A Jew proprietor of advowsons might nominate the rector of a parish. and Hon. Gentlemen opposite might possibly have re ceived the sacraments of the Church from the hands of a clergyman who was the nominee of a Jew.—(llear.) Again, a Jew sheriff might ex officio be present at some of our religious ceremonies. He believed that a sheriff of that persuasion had been present at the recent edify ing pr, ceeedings in Bow Church, when protesters were invited only to be stifled, and objectors called to be summarily knocked down.— (Bear, hear.) It had been laid down as a principle, and admitted upon all sides, that no man was to be punished for his reli gious opinions. Was that principle to be rescinded? No; we were too true to our principle to retract, but too false to advance; and if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were to be attended to, would stop half way, preserving a gross anomaly in legislation. If men were fit to administer the law, it was a strong presumption that they were competent to make laws, and those who denied the corn. potency were bound to prove their assertion. If danger was asserted, danger should be shown, and no danger had been specifically pointed out by Gentlemen on the other side. The old cry of" the Church in danger" had been given up, and a new cry of " Christianity in danger" had been substituted. What was the danger? There was a vaeue, mysterious, unmentionable alarm. but nothing tangible or real in the shape of danger had been pointed out. Would the Bill, if it passed, make one Churchman less or one Jew more?—(Llear, bear.) He really felt that such fears on the part of Christians were more degrading to Christianity than would be the incur. sion of a whole tribe of Jews.—(livar, hear.) Such wts nut the weak faith of the devoted men who had braved the dungeon and the rack in support of that belief which they knew would one day overspread the world. Was the Church, which in the time of her adversity, had been a fearless martyr, to become in the day of her ex altation: and pride a trembling tyrant?—(llear, hear.) Could not Christians in the present day enter into the contest without anticipating defeat?—(Elear, hear.) He asked that question of lion. Gentleman opposite, of the Hon. Baronet below him (Sir R. Inglis), than w h o m no man had a higher place in the estimation of th e H ous e or the country.—(Rear.) That Hon. Btrouet would for- SECOND READINGS. The following Bills were read a second time, and ordered to be committed : Bristol and Clifton Gas Light Amendment. Clifton Bridge (Extension of Time for Completion of Works). Dover Landing Pier. Edinburgh Municipality Extension, and Trans ference of Police and Paving. Glasgow Waterworks Acts Amendment. Manchester Corporation Waterworks Acts Amend ment. Rutherglen and Strathbungo Turnpike Road. Worcester Turnpike Trust. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Mr. E. DENISON presented a petition from Bolton in favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill. Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented petitions again& the Bill. The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY pre sented petitions in favour of the Bill. Mr. LOCKIIART presented petitions against the Jewish Disabilities Bill. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Higham Ferrara against the 13111. Petitions were also presented against the Bill by Mr. Hodson, from Carlisle; by Major Beresford, from Saffron Walden ; by Mr. Plumptre ; by Mr. Buck, from Ottery St. Mary and Ottery St. Peter, in Devon• shire; by Mr. Miles, from Frome.—Petitions were presented in favour of the Bill by Mr. C. Lushing ton, from Westminster ; by Mr. Cobden, by Mr. S. Crawford, by Mr. Osborne, by Mr. C. Pearson, by Mr. Hindley, by Lord Duncan, by Mr. G. Thompson, by Mr. Shafto Adair, and by Mr. Gibson Craig. ARMY AND NAVY. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Torquay, praying that both the naval and military establi,hments of the country might be abolished. RAJA OF SATTARA. Petitions were presented by several Members pray. ing for an inquiry into the case of the late Raja o Sattara. POOR REMOVAL BILL. Mr. BAINES brought in the Poor Removal Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the Ist of March. ADMISSION OF THE JEWS. Mr. Stafford presented a petition from a place in Northamptonshire against the admission of the Jews ; as also did Mr. Hudson, from York, Mr. Alderman Thompson and lion. Members from Leicester, Sussex, Presbytery of Dundalk, and the Marquis of Granby; and in favour by Mr. Ellice,from Coventry and \Voles ton, in Warwick. ROMAN CATHOLICS. Captain PEC HELL presented a petition in favour of the removal of the Catholic disabilities. THE CURRENCY. Mr. HUME presented a petition signed by the Chairman on behalf of a society calling themselves "Cogitators"—(Laughter)—who held their meetings at 79, Great Portland-street, Marylebone, approving of the resolution of the House to inquire into the currency, and praying them to send for Robert Owen, whose 80 years' experience would enable the Committee to obtain a great deal of useful informa tion on the subject. THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. HUME hoped the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) who had given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House, on the reading of the order of the day, to returns which had been pre• rented with respect to the new Houses of Par liament, would postpone doing so until a future day. He was perfectly alive to the importance of the subject, but nothing would be lost by postponing it until Monday.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. OSBORNE said, though be considered the matter more important than the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, he was most unwilling to oppose the wibh of the House, and should therefore postpone his motion and endeavour to bring it on next Monday. REMOVING TENANTS (IRELAND.) Mr. SCROPE said he wished to correct a statement which he had made on the strength of a pamphlet written by a Mr. Tuite, a member of the Society of Friends. On the faith of Mr. Tuite, he stated that Mr. Walsh, a landlord in Tipperary, had turned 140 of his tenantry out of their cottages on to the common road without food or shelter. It appeared that this was incorrect, inasmuch as it appeared that posses sion was taken by Mr Walsh of 140 of the houses of his tenantry, but that he had not turned them out ; therefore, they did not suffer the miseries which Mr. Tuite had described. He be lieved the pamphlet had since been withdrawn, which led to the inference that the writer considered that the statements he had made were incorrect. He (Mr. Scrope) believed it to be his duty to take the earliest opportunity of correcting the error into which he had fallen. WEST INDIES. Mr. HUME gave notice that, unless the Hon. Member for West Gloucestershire should upon an early day bring forward his motion on the subject of the West Indies, he should himself propose a series of re solutions on the subject of giving to the proprietors of estates in their colonies a full and fair trial with respect to the effects of the employment of any kind of labour which they might require. ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES. Mr. WARD presented a petition from a number of solicitors, practising in Sheffield, praying for the abolition of the duty on certificates required to be taken by attorneys when admitted to practice. JEWISH . DISABILITIES. Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition from per sons residing at Whitehaven, praying that the Bill for removing the Jewish disabilities might speedily pass into law. WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION. Upon the Members nominated by the General Committee of Elections to inquire into the truth of the allegations contained in the %Vest Gloucestershire petition being summoned to the bar to be sworn, it was discovered that Mr. Charles Lennox Cumming ADJOURNMENT' OF THE HOUSE. It was ordered that the Hcuse, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday. VAGRANT POOR. Mr. MILES wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in any measure for the purpose of putting an end to the evils attend ing the large increase which had taken place in the numbers of the vagrant and tramping poor of this country. Mr. C. BULLER said that his attention had been directed to the subject, and if it should be ne cessary to require the intervention of the House in the matter, the Government would certainly not delay introducing a measure calculated to rnt.et the case. PAYMASTERS AND PURSERS. Captain PECIIELL wished to know from the Secretary of the Admiralty whethor it was intended to make provision in the Estimates for completing the retired list of paymasters and pursers to the numbers recommended in the report of the Committee of .Flag Officers in 1842 ; (4nd also, whether thq Ziorc e l of VACAisI'T SEE OF CANTERBURY. Mr. HORSMAN stated that he would on Mon day next put a question to the Noble Lord at the head of the Government with a view of ascertaining whether it was his intention to introduce any mea sure similar to that which had been introduced upon the appointment of the present Bishop of Durham, the object of which would be to make the income of the Archbishop subject to any changes or modifications which might be made by Parliament, for the purpose of bringing the amount within the statutable limits prescribed by the Act for equalizing the incomes of the various sees. THE EXPLOSION OF THE CRICKET. Mr. MUNTZ wished to ask the Right lion. Baro net the Secretary for the Home Department, whether, in consequence of the explosion of the Cricket, it was the intention of Government to take any steps in Jespect of the valves of steamers plying on the River Thames. Mr. LABOUCHERE said, perhaps the Hon. Member was not aware that Government already had control over these boats. All vessels that carried passengers were required to undergo an examination by an officer appointed for that purpose by the Board of Trade. COURT OF CHANCERY. Mr. AGLIONBY moved for a return of the total number of attendable warrants granted by each of the taxing masters of the high Court of Chancery in England, on each day in Hilary Term, 1848, and the most remote day or period at which any such warrant, granted on each and every of such days, or was made returnable.—Agreed to. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. On the question for reading the order of the daj• for the adjourned debate on the .Jewish Disabilities Bill being put, a number of petitions were presented for and against the measure. On the question being put, Mr. C. PEARSON rose and addressed the House. He could not pretend, he observed, to be altogether unini tiated in the mysteries of a deliberative assembly, but so many years had elapsed since he had taken part in public discussions, and, moreover, as he was at the pre sent moment labouring under the fashionable complaint of a severe cold, he hoped he should receive that indul gence which the courtesy of the House invariably awarded to new speakers. He regretted exceedingly, in common with other speakers, that this subject should require the introduction of religious topics, which were but little suited to the atmosphere of a political assem bly. He hud hoped that, from the mild and moderate manner in which the Noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government had brought forward the ques tion, it would have been discussed solely upon the broad principle of civil liberty. But many of those who had addressed the House had, from conscientious motives, given the discussion Si religious direction. Those, there fore, who represented large constituencies might them themselves bound to take that ♦iew also of the subject in order to prevent their conduct from being misunderstood by those to whom they had to give an account. But if this subject were to be discussed a 3 a religious subject, it be hoved them to be exceedingly careful that, while they used great frankness and candour, us well as great courtesy, they should especially strive to avoid encroach ing upon the feelings of those whose sentiments upon the subject were opposed to their own. He, for one, felt bound to state that he did not participate in the senti ments expressed by the Honourable Member for Buck inghamshire (Nlr. Disraeli), who, although he intended on this occasion to vote on the same side of the question as he (Mr. C. Pearson) did, had arrived at the seine conclusion with himself, not only by a different, but by a directly opposite route. That Honourable Gentleman had expressed himself in favour of a religious conformity, taking the shape of religious truth. He (Mr. C. Pear son) could support the Bill upon no such grounds. It appeared to him that if the House adopted that view of the case; they must be prepared to return to the Test Acts, the Corporation Acts, the Act of Confor mity, and the Act of Uniformity. The State had no right to coerce the consciences of men and cast them in the mould of conformity as a condition for their obtaining public employment. He should support the Bill upon the principle of religions liberty. He was aware it had been said, and he adhered to the proposition even to its fullest extent, that the ultimate result of this measure would be the admission of Mahometens into the House of Commons. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that if the sou of Ramohun Roy, iuheriting his father's virtues, and imitating his conduct, should receive the confidence -v, and be returned to that House, —lid be prepared to recognise ..ncl religious liberty, and Tt had been said by the Hut. cation, an, ; ►rivation was not perse• Jai office was not to be con• sidered that u r .cu of disparagement of which the Jews had any right to complain, so long as we did not spit upon their gabardines and call thew Jews. Now, of all the treatment to which the Jews, in the long history of the persecution which had been directed against them, had been subjected, there was no disparagement that more severely wounded their feelings than that of being called Jews and the spitting upon their gabardines. But if to spit upon their gab ardines and to call them Jews was considered persecution, what were they to say of the impu tations, and those of the severest character, which, within the walls of the House of Commons, had recently been cast upon that body ? The speech to which he inure immediately referred, and upon which he should make a few remarks, had since assumed a place among the literature of the country. lie regretted deeply that the lion. Member, he meant the Hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), should have permitted him self to have given it, this prominent position, containing, as it did, expression s in regard to the Jews, that con veyed imputations which he had no right to cast upon them. It had been :said that the exclusion of the Jews was conformable to , other exclusions sanctioned by the law of the laud; awd the Honourable Member for Mid burst instanced the- cases of age, sex, and property as being tests applied to all persons, whether Jews or Christians. But ohe only reply he (Mr. C. Pearson) thought it necesste to make to such an argument was, that it was not proposed to admit either Jewish minors, Jewish women, or Jewish paupers into Parliament. All that the Jews claimed, or rather all that was claimed for them, was the right of eligibility; a right to be elected in common with my ery other individual in the country. He stood there as an elector of the city of London, which had returned this gentleman (Mr. Rothschild)—one of between 6,000 and 7,000 persons who composed the ancient livery corapanies of the city of London, consist ing of the merchants, bankers, traders, and inhabitant householders of the first commercial city in the first commercial country in the world, and who in the exer cise of their rights and the discharge of their duties had thought fit to elect as their representative one of the most eminent of their commercial men, whose name was known in every port of the world where the peaceful flag of commerce floated. Why should this gentleman not to be returned to that House? The first reason assigned was his inability to join in the prayers with which the proceedings of the Howe were opened. It had been stated that he could not join in prayer with other Members of the House without awful blasphemy towards God and hypocrisy towards his fel low-men. He had known many Jewish gentlemen during the course of the last 35 years, and he solemnly declared that he had,never heard from the lips of any one of them any such expression as that our Saviour was a " crucified impostor," or any other expression which could hurt the feelings of the most delicate and fastidious Christian. On a late occasion, a Jewish alderman of the city of London attended at Bow Church, having, as was always expected from an alderman of London, the .Riot Act in his pocket; but although there was a great tumult, and the words "mockery, mockery" echoed from pew to pew, those sounds did not proceed from the Jew, but from the Christian portion of the assembly. lie recol lected when, in 1831, the Protestants of Rio Janeiro were unable to obtain a piece of ground on which to erect a place of worship that Mr. D. Samuel, a Jew, obtained from the Emperor an edict sanctioning the grant of a piece of ground for that purpose, and laid himself the founda tion-stone of the new building; and he had in his pocket new the copy of a vote of thanks addressed to that gen tleman for his liberality. That gentleman was now in England, and if this Bill passed he might probably be come a candidate for a seat in that House, where he (Mr. Pearson) had no doubt he would comport himself during prayers as he had uniformly done on other occa sions. He understood, however, that the attendance of Members during the time of prayers was entirely volun tary, and that the only object of attendance was to se cure seats; for he believed that, excepting during the honeymoon of a new Parliament, not more than twenty Members of the House were usually in attendance at prayers, and therefore a Jewish gentleman might perform all the duties of a Member of Par liament without any blasphemy, and without any in terference with the feelings of others. 't he Honour able Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), who had spoken so well and so long on this subject, had d ivided the history of our country into three periods, and had challenged the future historian to point out any period, from the time of Edward the Elder and Alfred to that of Praise-God- Barebones, from the time of Praise-God-Barebones to the Revolution, and from the Revolution to the present time, in which the taking of some Christian form of oath was not a condition precedent to holding office. He had taken the trouble to turn over history in refe rence to these particular periods, because, as they had been selected by a gentleman of such good taste and sound judgment, he thought that he could not do better, as a young Member of the House, than walk in that course. He would refer then first to the time of Ed ward the Elder and Alf re d. It was a very remarkable circumstance that the precise period which had been thus designated for the attention of the House was the first period in our history which he could find in which there had been any attempt to coerce conscience, and force an oath upon individuals in consistent with the faith they held. The Parliament or Council of Alfred had just then struck out of the Decalogue the second commandment , a nd h ad mutilated and restored it in a diminished for m, which authorised the worship of relics and images. At the same time, in the 44)133i5h Church they had struck out the second I