The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-08 00:00:00

JEWISH DISABILITIES.

On the Learned Judge taking his seat this morning,
a number of barristers, principally members of the
Middle Temple, who had been called to the bar of that
inn on Saturday last, attended to take the usual oaths,
and to subscribe the roll.

Among the members was Mr. Salomons, Alderman of
the city of London.
Upon his name being called, Mr. Salomons demurred
to taking the oath of abjuration, in coasequence of the
concluding words of the oath, " upon the true faith of a
Christian," and wished to sign the roll without taking
that oath. A communication of this objection being
made by the Clerk of the Crown to the Learned Judge
on the bench, a conference with his Lordship ensued,
which was concluded by
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE expressing an opinion that
he was incompetent to alter the usual fora. The
Learned Judge, however, suggested that Mr. Salomons
might take the opinion Of the full Court upon the point.
Mr. Salomons acquiesced, and subsequently appeared
in the Court of Queen's Bench; but an important case
being under hearing, no opportunity was afforded him
of moving the court.

T
1-113 BRITANNIA BRIDGE.—We haar from the
Menai that a few weeks back Mr. Stephenson settled
the plans for crossing and placing the first of the gigan-
tic tubes for the Britannia bridge, and that several tidal
experiments were made in his presence, by Captain
Claxton and Mr. Edward Clarke, since which two of
the wooden pontoons which were at the Conway have
been brought round, and the other four are shortly ex-
pected to be delivered at their destination. In addition
to them, two iron pontoons of increased dimensions have
been built on the spot, and are ready for launching. The
rock under the tube No. 2 (the first which it is intended
to move) has been blasted, and the way made nearly
clear for the pontoons. The mason work of the Bri-
tannia pier is fast progressing, and it is said that the
first tube will be cross► d and placed at the latter end of
the month, or early in June. Visitors by shoals are
daily inspecting the site and the tubes, and it is expected
that every hotel and lodging house within twenty miles
of the bridge will be full to overflowing long before the
day. Houses at Beautnaris are being taken already,
early as it is in the season. Captain Claxton has been
there roam days. Mr. Stephenson is expected in the
course of a week. The tubes appear to b 3 nearly all
finished, and all the mason work, except that of the
Britannia pi• r, is quite done.—Mining Journal.
Colonel Fremont's narrative relative to the late ex-
peditir al across the Rocky Mountains says, "Prone laid
down in the trail•and froze to death. In a sunshine day,
and having with him the means to make a fire, he threw
his blanket down on the trail, laid down upon it, and laid
there till he froze to death ! We were not with him."

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 7.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Mr. PEEL said, he rose on the present occasion
to express his sentiments upon the question
under consideration, and which had already occupied
so much the attention of the House; and he felt at
the outset that he should not duly show his respect
to the House, which had so much considered that
subject, if he did not confidently rely upon the indul-
gence which they were always disposed to extend
to these who had occasion for the first time
to express their sentiments.—(Cheers.) Indeed he
stood much in need of that indulgence, because he
had the misfortune to follow a Bight Hon. Baronet
well known in that House, and whose personal character
entitled him to its respect ; and the more so because
he had arrived at a conclusion directly opposite
to that which he had come to on the facts which pre-
sented themselves for their consideration—(llear,
hear)—he had come to the conclusion to vote for the
second reading of the Bill, under cover of which
it was sought to relieve the Jews from those disabilities
which attached to them as subjects of this realm, and
which, let the House recollect, attached to no other
subject of the realm. Ile wished, by the
permission of the House, to state some of the grounds.
Ho supported the Bill on the broad fundamental principle
of our constitution, that all its privileges ought of right
to belong to every natural born subject of the realm—
they belonged to them, not because they were communi-
cants of a particular sect, but because they fulfilled all the
obligations which devolved upon the citizens of a free state.
Indeed Parliament had recognised the rights of the
Jews by conferring upon them all the offices of the
state—civil, military, end judicial. As a magistrate
he ought to administer the law judicially, and
ministerially as a sheriff. Almost every
office of trust and authority which he
could name were open to the Jew. They had given him
rotes at elections, both parliamentary and municipal, but
nevertheless he was disqualified from sitting in that
House. The constituencies might elect him, and the re-
turning officer must return him as a Member of Parliament,
yet he could not take his seat in that House us a Mem-
ber of Parliament. It was true a distinction had been
drawn between the holding of the two offices. The Act of
Charles 11., on which much stress had been laid, did
not prevent Protestant Dissenters from sitting in that
House; yet these cases appeared in no wise different
from the case of the admission of the Jew. The law
to which he would now call attention affected the Jew
so as to prevent his admission into the House, as he
was called upon to take the oath "on the
true faith of a Christian." In the reign
of James the First an oath was required to be
taken by Members of the House of Commons previous
to entering the House, and no further legislative mea-
sures were made till the reign of Charles 11,, when a
more stringent measure was passed requiring
Members of both Houses of Parliament to
take the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and
supremacy, and to sign a declaration against trap.
substantiation. These oaths did net at all contain the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian," and there-
fore, as far as the legislative disabilities of that period
went, the Jew was not disabled from taking his seat in
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Louis XIV., however,
having recognized the Pretender, an Act was passed
imposing upon the Members of the Legislature an oath,
which declared that King William had lewfully suc-
ceeded to the throne, and eo one else had any tight or
title to it, and then it was that the words "on the
true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the
oeth. The design of the oath, however, was not to ex-
clude the Jew, and it was not the oath which now ex-
cluded him, but the fortuitous circumstances which led
to the introduction of these words. Upon political
grounds, therefore, the Jew ought not to be ex •
eluded. But it might be argued upon political
grounds that it was important that before any
man was admitted to Parliament that his con-
science should be first bound before he entered
upon his legislative functiene. Well, the Jew did
not obj, et to that, nor did he object .
to take the
oath, provided they permitted him to take it a different
shape.—(Hear, hear.) That they could bind the con-
science of a Jew was generally admitted, and as the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian' were purely

of a ceremonial character, intended no doubt to give
greater significance and solemnity to the taking of the
oethe, he could sea no le ason, eh her in a religious or
political point of vier', why the phreseology should net he
ellen-zed CO as to enable the Jew to subeeribe to it.
These expressions showed how strongly the country was
divided ueon the subject ; but, when the terms were
considered ae.entiyely, it would appear that there
was contained in them no d -cow of daeger.—
(Llear, hear.) It was by some others supposed that, at in
the olden time, the State was in subservience to the
Church, it was not to be denied that there were per.
sons who desired that the Charch should be in subser-
vience to the State. But there were facts which could not
be denied, and among them was this, that they had
deliberately, and after a sufficient view of the circum-
stances of the case, already in two instances altered the
oaths taken by Members of Parliament, and departed
from the old rule which had prescribed that none should
he Members but those who were in communion with the
Church of England.—(Cheers and loud cries of " Hear.")
l'hey had first altered the sicramental test in 1825, and
again they had altered the terms of the oath in 1828;
and why should they depart from this rule of
progress on the present occasion, and depart
from that principle which had always been
the distinguishing mark of the Briiish constitution?
Another argument of religious expediency advanced
against the further progres of this measure was
chat the influence which this Bill, if pissed
into law, might introduce into the composition
of Parliament would unfit it for the discharge
of that branch of its functions which concerned the
interests of the Church. He thought it would be admitted
that there was a community in Parliament, constituted
as it now war, which dealt with the affairs of the Church.
At the same time it should be borne in
mind that Parliament dealt only with the temporal
affairs of the Church. A short answer to an objection
of that kind appeared to him to be that the con-
gruity which already existed was introduced
when the Members of that House ceased to he
exclusively composed of conformists to the
Church. He should pass on to another argument.
Ha referred to the value which was set on the
nominal profession of Christianity on the part
of the Members of the Legislature. That outward
union was represented as part of the law and
practice of Parliament and tho Constitution; but
when was it, he would ask, that that had been a
guarantee of the Christianity of the nation? The Hon.
Member concluded by saying he would give his cordial
support to the second reading of the Bill.—(Loud and
prolonged cheering.)
Mr. TURNER, opposed the measure, and could not
help observing that the House and the country were
much indebted to the Government for the calm and dis-
passionate manner in which it was brought forward. It
had been, for the most part, considered simply as a
question excluding the Jews. He thought it was a
question of preference, rather than one of exclusion, or,
in other words, that it was to be an admission of Jews
to the exclusion of Christianity. That was not a mea-
sure, he contended, consistent with the policy of this
country. They excluded the Arian merchant and the
Arian gentleman from Parliament, who were as auxious
to uphold the principles of the British constitution and
the honour of England as any other class of her Ma-
jesty's subjects ; and on what ground, having excluded
the Arian, would they admit the Jew? Beside, the Jews
had, and he trusted would long continue to have, re-
ligious freedom in the fullest sense of the word, and
that no law whatever interfered with their worship
or ceremonies. Their marriages had all the social
rights which every other class possessed, and
certainly it was the first time in history that a nation
living within a nation was permitted to enjoy its own
laws and privileges. The business of that House was to
promote Christianity among the people, and could they
expect that if a Jew became a member of that House,
he would promote by every means in his power, or vote
for any measure which would have the effect of extend-
ing that which ho believed to be founded ou imposture
and fraud? And then see what the position of a Jew
would be, if that Bill passed, on the hustings at an
election. He believed that such scenes would have the
effect of rendering persons of that persuasion a bye• word
in this country, by the common people of England. A
Jew had never yet taken his seat in that House, and not-
withstanding what had been said by the Honourable
Member who last so ably addressed the House, he (Mr.
Turner) contended that Christianity was at all tirues a
qualification for a seat in that House. The day might
come when it would suit the pleasure or the duty of a
Jew to revile Christianity, and how, consistently with
the freedom of debate, could that be prevented ? Iu
the case of the Roman Catholics they were called upon
to revive u privilege, but in this case they were called
upon to create aright.-- (Hear.) Ile further objected to
the language of the Bill. If ou expunged the words
"upon the true faith of a Christian," and left the words
" so help me God," you would put out of view the God
of the Christians, and an individual might substitute in
his mind any other deity. That, he thought, would be
prejtieicial in many points of view, and therefore he
could not give his vote in support of this measure.
Mr. J. P. WILLIAMS said that the Jews were not a
proselytizing race, and therefore the danger anticipated
from their eccupying seats in that House could not pos-
sibly follow. Seeing, therefore, no good reason why
they should be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by the
rest of their fellow-citizens, he should give hie fervent
suppott to the second reeding of this all.
Mr. TRELAWNY said that the Jews discharged all
the duties which other classes in this country were called
upon to perform, and they should enjoy equal rights.
Upon the 10th of April, last year, were the Jews back-
ward in affording substantial aid to the preservation
of good order ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
Honourable Member who spoke last said truly that the
Jews were not a proselytizing sect. It was the last thing
the Jews sought or desired. It seemed to him pure
bigotry to oppose this Bill. It Was said that you could
not, induce the Jews to vote in such a mariner as would
be conducive to the interest of the community, but it
that were the only objection, the words of the sauna-
Lion or oath might be altered to guard against that con-
tingency.
Mr. HOPE said that this Oaths Alteration Bill was
brought in to cover a very diffe rent thing. It was, in
reality, a Jewish Emancipation Bill., He thought that
most objectionable in a Christian country and Legisla-
ture.
He must, therefore, opt.ose the second reading of
the Bill.
Mr. ROBARTES said that this preposition was no-
thing more than to do an act of social justice to a
class of fellow citizens, and he did not think that
there
therefor waes anything in Christianity opposed to that, and
he should give his support to the Bill.
Mr. NEW DEGATE said that a seat in that House
was given by the public for the public good, and for the
public good it should be continued. The words "on the
true faith of a Christian" were introduced originally in
times of danger as the test of the sincerity of each man's
actions, and were these words expunged he thought they
would have no claim to be considered as a Christian na-
tion. The removal of the present oath he regarded as a
temptation to the Roman Cathohcs to take the oath
which they were now obliged to prescribe. The present
was not a period to remove the safeguard provided fir
the maintenance of the Church as by law established.
Evidently it was a denial of justice if they admitted
the Jews to Parliament, and refused admission to
the infidel. They should bear in mind, too, that at
the end of the last session of Parliament the Duke of
Wellington had proposed the insertion of a clause in the
Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill declaratory of
the rights of her Majesty as the ecclesiastical as
vied as civil head of the country. The necessity
for such a clause was admitted, and the House of Com-
mons adopted it by a majority of 77 to 4. Ile knew not
what were the circumstances which had since occurred
to induce the Noble Lord at the head of the Government,
who voted for the clause, to sanction the removal of the
oath maintaining the supremacy of her Majesty.
An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted,
bat forty Members having been found present,
Mr. NE WPEGATE resumed—Coeshiering what was
passing in another place, where the fate of the Ministry
hung in the balance, he was not in the slightest sur-
prised at the comparatively small number of the Mem-
bers present. If they admitted the claim of the infidel
to sit in that House, they should determine that the
House of Commons was no longer a Christian assembly.
The Jews were aliens by birth, blood, and religion, and
as such, not entitled to sit, he contended, in the British
House of Commons.

The Earl of ARUNDEL briefly replied to the re-
marks of the lion. Member for Northampton, and con-
tended that where men of different religious persuasions
had been already admitted to the Legislature, he could
not understand why those who professed the Jewish
persuasion should be excluded.
Mr.. SPOONER felt constrained to give the Bill
every opposition. The Catholics, it was true, had been
admitted to seats in the Legislature, but he did not on
that account consider the Cath,lic religion the leas ob-
jectionable or the less idolatrous. The representatives
of a Christian nation should be guided by Christian
principles, as.d they ought to maintain that constitu•
lion which they had received from their ancestors.
lie objected to the alteration made in the oath, by
which they got rid of the purely Protestant form of the
oath, and which was essential to the existence of the
Protestant constitution of this country. It was a great
national sin to encourage idolatry, and to discourage
Christianity, which would be the practical effect of this
Bill.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOIJRD said the state of the
House (there was but a thin attendance) induced him,
even against his intention, of addressing a few words to
it on the question before it. Seeing that only fifteen or
sixteen of those Hon. Gentlemen were present who re-
presented that, if this Bill passed, this country would be
unchristianised, he was led to think that these opinions
were onlxlip opinions, and that the feeling which they
expresretidid not enter into the moral nature of the
Hon. Gentlemen.—(Hear.) It was a fact that Patha-
n:sent existed for ages without any oath being adminis-
tered to its Members, and that oaths could only be
traced back to the period of the Reformation. Why,
then, all this desire to make an oath operate to the pre-
judice of the Jew? Instead of exciting hostility to-
wards the Jew, we ought rather to sympathise with
him, for, surround d as he was from bis cradle to the
grave by forms of religion, it was impossible for him
to escape from that religion in which he was born.
The Jew, was in truth, only au imperfect Christian.
We hold the most of our faith in common with
the Jew—he only not reaching that diviner simplicity which was the great attribute of the Christians religion.
—(H-ar, hear.) The lion. Member for Warwickshire
(Mr. Newdegate) said that the Jew wa, an alien in this
country. Was not the Samaritan an alien? And yet
when our Lord waived to give an example of universal
brotherhood, he selected the conduct of the Samaritan
as a lesson to the Jewish priests. therefore thought
they should not exclude any man from civil rights on
account o' his religion.—(Hear, hear.) Oaths were net
intended as a profession of faith in that House. They
were intended to express the allegiance of Honourable

Members to the Queen, and " on the faith of a Chris;
Lien " expressed that feeling. ','The Jew might exPre!s
bin allegiance in any form that was equally binding u
iiire.—(ilear, hear.) If they were indeed to go l'ar'k
':
to the times of Richard the First, when 1,000 Jeri.;
were sacrificed in cold blood ; if they could re"'
the tittle when the Jews were consigned to the fairy
of the people, or when they were kept for especial
torture of kings, they might endeavour to keep WI
them their civil rights. But these things had passed, 10n..
this country had not been less Christian. Jews we 's
allowed to hold office in this country, and yet the lira
was not cursed.—(Hear, hears)OThey had been admitted
.
into the corporation, and he was not aware that the c(ifs
porations bad become less Christian than heretofore.
_ue
be a Christian was, in his opinion, to do what they We!
about to do with respect to this Bill. To act otherte
J.tr.
would be to violate the principles of Christianity. ".
etearl of denouncing the Jews, they ought to do as tidl.
Author of our holy religion did—forgive them. T°.
this would be to show that they regarded Christianity
not as a part and parcel of the law of England, but as
an attribute of our holy religion, and as an exarq
worthy of imitation.—(Hear.)
Lord MAIION said that this question had a wider
range than that given to it by the Noble Lord the Meg'
ber for Arundel. The effect of passing this Bill would
l
prove a heavy blow and great discouragement to the
missionary labours of the army of martyrs who were
endeavouring to propagate the Gospel, when tee,
learned that the profession of Christianity was thought
so light of that Jews were admitted into Parliament:
It was urged that the discharge of duties entitled a cl,
tiz ea to all the privileges of the constitution, provislei;
fulfilled his duty to the State; but to this there vier
several exceptions? A clergyman was not eligible to sit
in the House of Commons; a bankrupt, who might%
have failed in his duties to the State, could not sit I
Parliament. The resistance to this Bill, founded on ad
reverence to their own religion, ought not to be regard
unfavourably and of this he was convinced, that those
ho would against the Bill would not be influence"
by religious rancour.
The Marquis of GRANBY said this Bill was a means
to to an end, and that end was the introduction of Jews '
Parliament. lie opposed that measure on religiti,
grounds, for he could not think that Jews were fit es,
legislate for Christians. In opposing this Bill be dls,
claimed any desire to persecute the Jews or to detract
their respectability as individuals. They had ad
ready admitted them to all offices, military and civil, a°
allowed them the right of worshipping in their sYI36,
gogues according to their own fashion, and therefore
they would not be charged with being influenced by
persecuting spirit towards the Jews. It was urged is
favour of the Bill that the Jews were few in number,
but it was not whether they were numerous er few that
the measure should be judged, but upon the principle thi's
Of
their admission would be a violation of the principles 0
the constitution. It' they admitted the Jews to Pi"r.
'Militia they could not limit the injury they could .
by the fewn, se of their number. While they acted with
all charity towards the Jew; they should take care moti
to break down those barriers which were the defence°.
their religion, and the means of its diffusion through'
out the world, end in which he hoped the Jews Mould U.
included.
°°ld
Mr. FAGAN said, as a Roman Catholic, he sh
support the second reading of the Bill, upon the Prim'
ciple of doing to others as he would be done by. of
Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to the second reading
the Bill, but he did not do so from any hostile Or perpe;
cluing spirit to the Jews. He looked back to their past
history with a respect amounting to veneration. But
when Members of that House were called on to Wit.
duce into a Christian ;assembly those who denied the,'
Lord and Saviour, he must be permitted to decline bald
a participitor in such an act. He thought, theref°l.4;
Wet the Hon. Member for Reading was wrong when °e
asserted that the Jews were not at variance with th I
Christians, and believing the measure was one of grelia
impolicy, and uncalled for, he should oppose its seconie
lauding.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES would earnestly recotivs
mood to the Eon. Member for Kent, who had l'l,
Tok, to that although persons might ineividually oprs.
the admission of Jews into that House, yet they had 111,
right to assume that others should have a similar Ili
to promote their return. Bet the question, after soi
was—whether one of the highest and most influent'''
individuals in the country, and elected by one of theb.
most distinguished constituencies in the empire, shall 0
prevented by, alter all, a qu stion of mere form, i'll?„e
tekh g his seat in that House. And he was surpriss
that, in the deliberations of th:.t .v, ping, a mere fr, Veil;
allusion had not been made to that tact, so important
in the consideration of the question under discussoo
They had heard that evening a history of the mode 1,
which the oath which excluded Baron Rothschild 11:lit
introduced into that House, perhaps in a manner super'l
to what bad been heretofore done; but the question **1""„.
after all, whether a section of the great British ensPior;
and telly a section, should be excaded from the henna
of the British constitution. He thought they sh°°,.
agree with him that, amid all the disorders and distil',
bences which had taken pace in other parts of the
world, it was not safe to keep any man from such a 1°,5
ticipetion. Let them pass that Bill, and no portion if w
the inhabitants of that empire, or of the subjects of theft
Most Gracious Sovereign, would have any cause I.
complain of exclusion from such a participation. Whe f
ever the Jewish nation; or any portion of that nation °r
people, ople, had established themselves, they had invariably;
and without any exception whatever, identified 00°3;
selves with the interests of that nation, and in no 0°
instance had opposition come from them, but from these
who governed. If any Hen. Member woull take the
trouble of reading the emigration and colonization °f
that wend 'dui nation they would find that to be strict',
tree. Ile should give the measure every support in 111
pow: r.
Mr. I3ANKES observed that by far the best spee°h!
made in fat oar of the measure was that spoken ~.
the Honourable Member for Leominster (Mr. Pee
characterised as it was by the diffidence which belong'.
to talent, and the moeesty of one speaking for the fires
,
time in that House. In reply to what that Honouree,,
Member asserted, that Jews were not excluded frfd
Parliament until modern days, he (Mr. &mites)
only to sly that inasmuch as they were not ever
lowed to possess a freehold property, it would have
o
been wore than useless to have introduced a measure Su,
prevent them, seeing they had not a qualification, 911:1
could not therefore sit. Unless this Bill was consider'
ably altered in Committee, the effect would be that it
would admit not only Jews, but also Roman Catbolifil
with all their hostility to the Established Church. Po,
thought that the present form was a check to bonourau'o"
Roman Catholics, As for persons not honourable, 1:
oath would bind them. The state and condition of iu"
House was riot now what it was before Roman Catholics
,
were admitted to that House. If he were asked, bad be
observed any mischief follow from their admission to tht
House, he would answer yes, he had.—(Hear.)
Bill was more mischievous than the measure of last i,e7
A seat in the House was no privilege, it was a °,llO
imposed upon them by their constituents. The el";
tots had a right to choose them, whether they won
serve or not. This was a Christian Parli,ts;
ment, and one of its duties was to regtil!'s
the Christian Chu ch, and it was not proper t°g/E,
a Jew, whatever might be his qualifications of seal
charity, should be called upon to discharge these dude,
;
towards an Establishment which,lto say the least of it, b._
re-guided as an error. In regard to such solemn deft
was it right to call on one who believed our fath.to
a falsehood to join in legislation? He thought it villa
not, and, therefore, should vote against the measure. A
Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the House now called
for a division—(Hear, hear)—he was anxious to giv."
some answer to the objections urged against this notti
stile. The Hon. Genttemen who had just sat down 10
fallen into the error of affirming that the oath had n°;
bt en imposed with the express intention of excluding
the Jews from that House. Such exclusion was gotta
opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and it wail
sireble to remedy that injustice. He did not see; 1*
this Bill took away any security for the Protestant
cession of the Crown, as the Hon. Member for Oxford
seemed to think. The Act of Parham, nt on that subject
being perfectly good in itself, required no further fore;
‘s
to sustain it. Some Hon. Members had thought
that
Christianity would be endangered. Only imaginethree -
f ur Jews in that House. What would be their power t°
overthrow Christianity?.--(Hear, hear.) Again, it Wig
:aid that they would use reviling language to Christi*'
city, but happily that House was not a theological as'
ieuably, and was it too great a stretch of charity to OP'
pose that they would not?—(llear, hear.) He wild"—
that there should be no exclusion on account of religion
—(H ar, hear)—and that there should be no punishneeot
or penalty on account of religious opinions.—(Cheersq
They had been accustomed to hear in those debates thu",
this House was Christian, and that it was proposed S°
uncheistianiso it; but that had been admirably an
mere d by the fact, that the changes in our municiP
corporations, and other civil offices, had not had tbs
effect. He did rot believe that the character of that
House would be altered by the admission of three
four Jews.—(Hear.) If, while there were 40,000 Jet
in the country, it was stilt entitled to be called Chris'
tiara, so, when there were three or four Jews in that
House, it would still be entitled to be called Christian.
(Hear.) He hoped that this House, disregarding the
arguments against the Bill and acting upon the princr
plea of charity, which he believed to be truly Christian'
would admit the Jews; and considering that they wets
faithful adherents to the constitution nnder which We
lise, and that they were loyal and peaceable subjectl
ready to defend the Sovereign of these realms, an
faithful to the British constitution, be hoped that the/
would admit them to all the advantages of that consiv
tution.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that so long as the llonl
he cotd
was called upon daily to deal with matters deeply
old
not vitally bearing upon the Christian faith,
not lulp pointing o
out the inconsisten of entrusting
those important duties to persons incompetent from
their religious feelings to the efficient dischare of th°ll6
duties.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the observations of the Bigb
Honourable Gentleman who had 'list addressed t"-
I-louie would, he presumed, be a lessojn to the Noble Lord
at the hind of the Government, for they had learned
from him that if the Bill brought under
the considera.
Lion of the Legislature proposed to admit persons of a"
religious &nominations to seats in the Legislature, there
will be no objection to the measure. The arguments
used, however, by the Right Honourable Gentleman did
not militate against the Bill, and he could show that a°
Honourable Gentleman, when introducing a Bill of th_ts
nature, wai often obliged to be inconsistent with himself
Take the Bill as it stood, and be was prepared to main-
tain drat it went the 12r,gth of admitting all men to seats
10 the Senate, without regard to their religious beliof.l
(Hear, hear.) The fifth clause of the Bill was general
in its ecustruction; it permitted every person to mate
the affirmation prescribed. The words of the
clause were general, and therefore of necessity
admitted ever) body. What was it the Legislature
de,ired to do when it administered the oath which
Bill prescribed ?Ia the first instance,, to enforce the

'l.

13'

.
I

SICILY.

obligation by the sanction of • reli,:-.1; aed, -secondly,
to exclude certain persons nho declined acceding to this
m
terms of the oath or affiratioe. Was it to 'he said
that any human being, by ref ask,. tJ raili when
about performing a duty, was to be iFvested f thc
gation under which he undertook to perform that seleniii
duty ? Would anybody say that an oath was not as
binding and as strong in the case of a Jew a; anybody
else ? The Jew said he believed in an oath, and pio
fessed his readiness to give to his obligation the sanction
of religion. They eat, drank, and dealt psi h the Jew,
and he wanted to know why it was that they had not the
Jew among them?—(H-Ar, hear.) In all probability
they would find the Honourable Member for Ox-
ford to-morrow citing the authority of the Jew
as a lawgiver on the marriage questi..n. He should
like to know how that inconsistency could be got
rid of. He asked the common sense of the House and
of the country—he was fond of appealing to the com-
mon sense of both—what there was in the man, or
in the men, who believed in.the Decalogue, to prevent
him or thim from becoming. a Member of the British
lesgielature ? Jews were not aliens. There were many
Englishmen professing the religion of the Je v. They
were in that character honest men. Tiny professed
that morality which Englishmen approved of and
learned, and he could not uulerstand on what prin-
ciple or what reason it was contended they should not
Le admitted to Parliament. He denied that the enact-
ment of the up asure would in the slightest degree un-
hriatianise ,he House of Commons, and believing that
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government hed fol.
1. w,d a wise course in bringing ferward the Bill, he
should give it his hearty and cordial support.
After a few words in ex2lanation from Mr. GOUL-
BURN the House divided, when there appear& d

For the second reading - 278
Against it
Majority . -93
The Bill was then read a second awe, and ordefed to
be e.)mcnittee. .

Mr. GOITLBURN inquired what course it was in-
tended adopting tomorrow with regard to the public
busiutss ? Would the adjourned debate on the mar-
riage question, or notices of motion, have the prece-
dence ?
Mr. S. WORTLEY hoped that Honourable Gentle-
men having notic-s of motion would allow the adjourned
debate to take precedence. He appealed particularly to
the 11 or. Members for Newcastle and Longford.

Mr. HEADLAM observed that his notice of motion
for leave to introduce a Bill rendering lawful the forma-
tion of joint-stock banks, based upon the principle of a
limited liability of shareholders, stood first on the list.
Jf he were allowed to bring in the Bill without oppesi-
lion, he was quite willing that the debate should be taken
on the second reading.
Major BLACKALL said if it were the wish of the
Howe, he should not interpose his motion, prov.ded that
other Hon. Members having notices on the paper would
also give way, to &low the adjourned debate on the
marriage question to be resumed.
Mr. MACGREGOR couldnot consent to postpone his
motion respecting the incorporation of Kensington,
Chelsea, Fulham, and Hammeromith, into a Parini-
ttealary borough.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,-he.
intended opposing the introduction of the Hon. Member
for Newcastle's Bill, and unless there was a decided ex-
pression of opinion by the House aiverse to that course,
he should persevere in his intention.
Mr. S. WORTLEY thought the opposition to the Bill
might be reserved till the second reading, in order to
allow the debate on the Marriage Bill to be proceeded
with.

Mr. G. THOMPSON, in reply to Sir R. Peel, said he
had already expressed his intention not to stand in the
way of the adjourned donate on the Marriage Bill.
LAND IMPROVEMENT AND DRAINAGE (IRE.
LAND) BILL.
The report upon this Bill was brought up and re-
ceived, as also was the report of the Committee of
Supply.
The Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill, and the
Estates basing (Ireland) Bill were read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.
GOULBURN wished that the Hon. Member for
Glasgow would say positively whether be could or
would not give way to-morrow.
Mr. MACGREGOR said he should positively not give
way.—(Great laughter.)
ACCOUNTS OF TURNPIKE TRUSTS (SCOT-
LAND) BILL.

Mr. C. LEWIS moved the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE declared his intention
of dividing the House against it.
The galleries were cleared for a division, but none
toke place, and the Bill was read a second time.
LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved the second reading
of this Bill.

Mr. F. MACKENZIE moved, as an amendment, that
the House should adjourn.
A division took place, when the numbers were—
For the adjournment ... 24

For the second reading ... ...
Majority .. ... . • -43

PUBLIC- HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. C. BRUCE opposing the second reading of this
Bill. He wishtd it to be postponed to a more fitting
opportunity.
The LORD ADVOCATE did not think that a Bill
precisely on the plan of the law of England would have
been opposed at all. He did not object to a postpone-
ment, it such were dc•sirable, but he should leave it to the
House to d( tide whether any reason had been shown for
postponement.
After a short conversation,

Sir GEORGE GREY said, that if any Honourable
Member otjected to the principle of the Bill, ample time
would be given before the Bill was pressed on through
the House.
Mr. OSWALD wished that time should be given for
the public opinion of Scotland to be known.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the second reading. Ob-
jections to the 11111 might be taken in Committee.
Mr. CHAR LERIS hoped that if the second reading
was taken now, the Committee would not be hurried for-
ward. There were nine Scotch Bills on the table, and
the people of Scotland were quite alarmed at the legis-
lative fecundity of the Lord Advocate.—(A laugh.)
The LORD ADVOCATE reminded the House that
he was under a pledge from last session to force on tho
Bill tut fast as possible. It contained no new principle
whatever, and 'he hoped the House would consent to pass
the measure through its present, stage.
After a few words from Colonel bIIBTHORP,
Mr. A. HASTIE supported' the motion, approving as
he' did the of the provisions of•the Bill.
Mr. DUNCAN expressed himself favourable to the
Bill. . .

Mr. F. MACKENZIE moved the adjournment of the
debate.
The House diiided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment ... 19
- • Against it ... ... 63
Majority against the adjournment —44
The second reading of the Bill, after a short conver-
sation, was postponed to this day.
The other 'orders were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at One o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 7.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack at Five o'clock.
NAVIGATION -LAWS. _ _

Petitions aganit the repeal of the navigation-laws
were presented by the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis
of Londonderry, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Wharn-
eliffe, and Lord Stanley, from certain banker, shipowners,
and artizans of London, signed by 31,771 persons, and
from various other places.
Petitions in favour of the repeal of the navigation-
laws were presented by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE
from Manchester and Dundee.

EXCHEQUER-BILLS BILL.
Oa the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, this Bill was
read a second time.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table
certain papers relating to Sicily.
NAVIGA'I lON-LAWS.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE' then moved the
second reading of the Bill fur the repeal of the naviga-
tion-laws. He felt himselfrelieved from the necessity of de-
taining their Lordships at any great length, trom a know-
ledge that their Lordships were already familiar with
almost all the facts and arguments of the case. He, how-
ever, must detail some of the reasons which induced him
to make his motion, because he knew that in many cases
the opposition to this Bill was founded upon a belief, he
believed an erroneous, but he was sure a sincere, belief,
that this measure would affect the naval supremacy of
this country. It would be his business to endeavour to
disabuse the minds of Noble Los da of that belief. II
admitted that it was necessary to sacrifice some
portion of our liberty to preserve the rest,
so was it ni cessary to sacrifice some portion
of the wealth and resources of the country tor the
purposes of defence. But he trusted he should
show their Lordships that such sacrifices as were desired
by the continuance of the navigation laws were not re-
quired. He c uld not go step by step into the history of
those laws. The first attempt at a navigation law was
in the time of Richard 11., but the year after
its enactment it was found to be so destructive to
commerce that the very Parliament which passed it
Was compelled to repeal it. These laws were founded in
the natural feeling of grasping at every thing
in Com-
merce, which invariably brought with it its own punish-
ment. ' The prosperity of every country must be invari-
ably founded upon the prosperity of other commercial
couniriea—(Cheers)—and, consequently, all those at-
tempts had tailed. Another attempt had been made to
enact
a"vigation-law by Henry VIII., and having
protected the shipowner, h
against thel e protected the peop'e
to enter the
ecrtain number shipowner,of by
ports ocling
as might have been supposed, that only a
twheeretime e, Cromwell that thebe permitted
This scheme,
enacted. present,ilecl. Inta:vigtias
not The object
was to punish thecoi3
purely of a tniuout. until
s
of the nEvigatiun-law was
umercial nature, his object
they had given to Charlft:h for the support which
situation of this country ILmight perhaps have be, n
fair grounds for trying
a stimulus Considering the then
therethe
might be given to
present sacrifice of wealth experiment how
far by a
Holland were at
the development of our marine
circumstances, with regard tuuostrength. Our
that time the very reverse of what they now. But
though he admitted that
might have been at the time exPerinleHt
fairly
he by no means achnittei that that experiment had been
successful. Fifteen years after those lawiibad been
enacted he found it recorded in thtpt)msy, thsteamturng book,
the ~Diary of Mr. Secretary eet
toy for this
pos'ible to see any but women navigating boats,
was im.
remedy
as the
men had all been pressed, and that as a
em
state of things, it had been found necessarye
recom-
mend the immediate suspension of the navigation-laws.

.
his Weuld pass over. thelisiOry Of those laws deter„ the
reiene of tee Stuarts, merelyeetetit g that their effect,
at,er a f.-ev years trial, being feueet most disadvartra-
iN., cot4ider thie medificatioes were made, and on the
eecessiori of Williatn 111. tim trade and ceir merce of the
country we re in a very flouriAieg ceiriciNon. Ile would
next go onto the period when at theeed of the American
war Mr. Pitt tern; into effice—a name to w hieh he
Lever ulluded but with the greatest respect, and for
which many in that House professed an almost super-
.stitieus reverence. Mi. Pitt immedien ly on coming
into effico persuaded of the importance in the then state
of things.of introducing some relaxation of the eavies-
-tion-laws, introduced a measure for that purpose. That
was at a moment when beyond ray other in the history
•of England, the importance of the navy to the security
of the country hid been proved, and at the close of a
war in which the tarnished laurels in the -unfortunate
war which had taken place, by land, in America, had
been in a great degree redeemed by the glory of those
seceesscs a h:ch from the victory of Roiltiey, in the Vi'est
Indies, to the relict of Gibraltar. by Howe, in the Mediter
ranean, hed ustabli&ed the naval supremacy of this
country. and rescued her honour, enabling her to obtain
a satisfactory peace. Was that a moment when any
wise and prudent Minister would think of laying his
hands on a scred ark, as some considered the naviga
tion-lewa, in which the security of the navy, and con-
sequently of the country, consisted ? Nevertheless,
Pitt at once saw the net essity of opening the cclOrrial
trade, and introduced a me aiure for that purpose, but
ehich his retirement from office prevented him from
carrying, although this principle had from time to time
been acted on by acts of authority on the part of suoces.
sive.Ministries.--e(Hear, hear) He next came to a time
within his own recollection. In 1807 he brought into
the other House a measure for est.thlishing free inter-
course between the West Indian and American colonies
and the mother country. That measure was oppos, dby
Sir W. Grant, on the ground that it would affect the
navy and mercantile marine & this country. Hee !urther
staved, that such would be the inatne men t affordel to
American vessels for geing to the West Indian islands,
and engaging in the trade of them, that it was doult-
tul whether any sugar would be imported to this
country. Now, remembering those allegations, and the
powerful eloquence with which they were enforced, he
had the curiosity to ascertain what the effect of that
measure had been which was denounced as having so
destructive a tendency. He had taken the year in which
the measure passed down to the conclusion of the war,
and he found, that while in the year 1807, the year in
which that Bill was passed, the general tonnage of Bri-
tish ships was two millions and ninety-six thousand tons,
at the conclusion of the war that tonnage had increased
to 2,247,000 tons. •

Tho Duke of RICHMOND—That included ships of
war as well as merchant ships.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN-E—He would then turn
to the system with which they had now to deal, and look
at the altered shape which the navigation-hews have
taken, if shape it could be called, which shape, had none
distinguishable. And on that part of the subject he had
to state, that instead of the commerce of this country
being girt about, as some would insinuate, with a coat
.of impenetrable armour, it was clothed with a gar-
ment of shreds and patches, a system the most com-
plicated that ever was put 3a the statute book in the
shape of an enactment.—(Hear, hear.) Under
what protection was it, he would ask, that they now
existed ? The fact was few were aware, and it would
perhaps not a little surprise their Lordships when he
told them that several most respectable witnesses engaged
in shippi, g and commerce, called before a Committee of
their Lordships' House to give evidence in favour of the
navigation-laws, avowed that. until they were called
upon to consider the subject, they had no idea that there
was so little protection as there was.—(Hear, hear.)
But when the subject was looked into, the absence of all
that protection soon became apparent. They had, for
instance, various treaties concluded, such as the United
States, Mexico, Buenos Ayres, Vent rude, Rus-ia,
Austria, the Netherlands, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden,
Holland, Portugal, Naples, Turkey, Oldenburg!),
Greece, and every one of these had been entered

into independent -of the navigation-laws. They
were rot all framed on the same principles ;
on the contrary, they exhibited the greatest va-
riety of opinions and ideas. Some of them were
terminable, others interminable. They contained diffe•
rent catalogues of charges, and different conditions
as to the engagement of vessels for foreign voyages,
and taken as a whole, comprised a mass of contusion,
d fficulty, and inconvenience, which made it not at all
surprising that those having the deepest interest in
them, found it impossible to discover under what law
or what protection they were acting. That, therefore,
had had the effect of suspending, in many instances, the
operation of the navigation laws, and the general result
of that had been, that year by year the amount and
value of British shipping and trade had been progres-
sively increasing.—(clear, hear, from the Opposition.)
He found that, while in 1816 the tonnage of British
shipping was 2,783,000 tons, in 1848 it had risen to up-
wards of five millions of tons. No doubt it would be
said that during that time the commercial prosperity
and power of other nations had also increased, and that
he viewed as ono of the best aspects of the times, for
it showed how one nation benefited by coming in
contact with others, and how the whole flourished
by a system of commercial enterpfze. But it was
also slid that the British shipowner and merchant
was not in a condition to compete with foreign coun•
tries without a large amount of protection being afforded
him. Now, in answer to that, he would call the atten-
tion of their Lordships to the manner in which the Bri-
tish shipowner and merchant prospered in the very
voyages and countries in which they were must exposed
to that competition. lie had before him the proportion
of English and American tonnage, and, as it was said
that one effect of the present measure would be to enable
the United States to beat the shipping of this country
out of the marker, he would state that proportion to the
House. For a great many years past, in the direct
voyage, between this country and the United States, the
English shipowner had gone totally unprotected. Now,
whit was the issue of the contest net Veen him and the
American in that respect? In 1836 the tonnage of
English ships engaged in direct trade with America, and
in competition with American ships, was 544.000 tone,
and the American tonnage was 1,255,000, while in 1848
the English tonnage had risen to 1,177,000 tons, and the
Amercen to 2,393,000 tons, thereby showing not only
that the English shipping had maintainel itself, but that
it had increased in a greater proportion during the time
stated then had the American tonnage. And to show the
proportion of British and foreign tonnage employed in
the trade with the United States, he had to state that
while the British tonnage in that trade was 1,177,000
tons, that of all other nations only amounted to 228.000
tons, so that the British tonnage was six or seven times
the amount of that of all other nations so employed.
Within the last few days he had rec-ived a letter from a
very extensive shipowner on the subject, who stated, as
the result of his experience, that his ships never got so
good freights, and were never so successful, as when
they sailed between two foreign ports.--(Hear, hear.)
And that being what the present measure was intended
to render more common and extensive, no one could say
that its pasting would deteriorate the interest of the
shipowner. He would now turn to the Baltic; but would
first allude to the trade carried on by the British ship-
ping with Hamburgh. The trade carried on by British
shipping there exceeded the amount of the trade of
Hainhurgh itself, and had exceeded that carried on by
shipping of all other nations. The tonnage of British
shipping which sail from that port was 291,000, while
the tonnage of all other nations was only 265,000 tons.
Then if they went to Russia and the Baltic, where it was
said competition would be more severe than anywhere
else, as ships could be built there so cheap that the
Esglish shipowner bad nu chance with such competitors;
there timber was cheap, and the greatest facility
afforded ler ship-building; but, notwithstanding that he
found that while there had sailed from the port of St.
Petersburgh 228,000 tons of British chipping, the ton-
nage, of Prussian and other foreign vessels trading there
only amount d to 221,000 tons, so that in the very heart
of that country, where timber was cheap and where cora-
petition the most materially ba feared, the British mer-
chant had maintained so decided an advantage and supe-
riority as might make him careless about future
competition. But it might be said, if the present system
works thus well, why introduce a change at the present
time ? It must, however, be borne in mind, that although
this country might be at present master of shipbuilding,
it might not alwa)s remain so, and that there were be-
sides many other considerations to be taken into account,
bkhich made it evident that unless a change wt's
made in time, the duties now to be altered would have
to be so when it would, perhaps, be more difficult and
dangerous to do it. There were besides from 220,000 to
230,000 ions of English shipping engaged in indirect
trade with countries, the treaties between which and this
country were about to expire, and which, were they not
secured, all that amount of shipping would be thrown out
of employment.—(llear.) On the other hand, they
would find that great disadvantages were occurring iu
regard to this country, in its trade with countries who
had no such prohibitory duties as this country had. For
instance, most of the British vessels trading to French
ports had to leave those ports II ballast, and consequently
incurred great lois to the owners. The colonies also
called on them t, pass such a measure as the present. The
West Indian colonies were subjected to great difficulty
in consequence of the navigation-laws, and Canada told
them that the entire trade of the St.Lawrenich Lawrence depended
opening
upon their abrogation. In consequence of
of canals and other means of transit, the trade of
Canada had been diverted through the United States,
which had endeavoured to draw its trade away from it,
and the only ri medy for that would be the opeuirg of
the St. Lawrence—and it that was not done, could they
imagine that the people of Canada would remain quiet?
soposfradteivoev)v4mCeanntatdos,atihi eiyierwerree.
It they
bound to
He believed that monopoly
they
rharadt the way
sources.
IgPicveete;ul the
eecano
to insure prosperity.
•The experiencehtor
of the )e' orld afforded
history
• had seen endea-
voured lesson. They
them a great and serious .
Europe the greatest mono-
voured to be established in
had in that respect in the is
• ()lonics, and
was- to obtain s3ips, c
avowing his object
might establish such a mo-
nopoly They had
he
fail in all those projects.
Ships lie could not get, co
they, but they had seen un
not acquire,
colonies he could
us would swallow up British commerce altoge-
British commerce
were such, that when once it
enterprise of
iced a footing it pro-
gresseda basis
which was not easily to
and commerce he t ould not ucceltrate; and that was be-
cause the character and
disturbed or an
advire their
therefore,
on to the establishment of of trade on
nihilated. H© would,
do so the positi
me
on
he was c,.nfident that if they did not
beco
Lordships to pass the second reading of the Bill, and
their trade and commerce would occupy the
c aisiderably worse than at pres. nt. In moving e
cond reading of the Bill, then, and understanding that the
Noble Lord opposite bed resolved to run the risk of re-
jecting it, he would say, for himself and his colleagues,
risk
that they were equally prepared to run thethe
of its
being adopted and passed.—(Cheers.)