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

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

Mr. CHA.RTERIS, in rising to ask the First Lord of
the Treasury whether his attention had been drawn to
the report which had been recently published by a com-
mittee appointed to inquire into the management of the
affairs of the Eastern Counties Railway Company, in so
tar as it affected the general character of the House,
claimed the indulgence of the House while he made a
few observations, as considerable misunderstanding ex-
isted with reference to the object which he had in putting
the question. It had been supposed by many persons,
that the question was directed against some individual
Member of that House, but he begged to say that nothing
was farther from his intention than that.—(Sear, hear.)
As many Members then present had not, perhaps,
directed their attention to the matter to which the ques-
tion referred, he would read an extract from the report
of the committee of shareholders as it appeared in the
Times newspaper. It was to the following effect:—
" In the investigation of the disbursements, under the
head of Parliamentary expenses, there appeared several
items, the character of which your committee could nut
arrive at. The items were—

1846—April 17. Parliamentary expenses (a) .E 500 0 0
April 24. Ditto (a) 3,009 0 0
April 28. Ditto (a) 2003 17 6
Ditto (a) 1,700 0 0
)1
1847—Jane 25. By "Extensions"... (5) 2,000 0 0

9,606 17 6
In reference to the amount of the items marked a,
namely, 7,6061. 17s. 6d., the explanation given to your
committee by Mr. Waddington and Mr. Duncan was,
were disbursed by the company
which did not leave them at liberty to give particulars, as
that
tutehhe sums, as
afso;tastee services rendered, and in a manner
these could not be given without implicating other parties."
There were rumours prevalent that that sum had been
expended for what was called facilitating the passage of
ails through Parliament, in other words, in plain
English, for bribing Members of that House.—(Hear,
hear.) He could not believe that any Member of
that House had been guilty of conduct so disgraceful
and dishonourable; but as those rumours were very
prevalent, it appeared to him that not a moment should
pass by without some notice being taken of them.
They could not allow them to circulate and to poison
the public ear; and he conceived the House was
bound to institute some :inquiry into rumours such
as thPse, which not . only affected the character
of that House, which ought to be above suspicion, but
also the private and individual honour of every Member
belonging to it.—( Loud cheers.) He felt confident that
the Hume on inquiry would find that there was little or
no foundation for these rumours, but if it unfortunately
turned out otherwise, the House would at least have the
satisfaction of detectir g the guilty parties, and holding
them up to the reprobation and contempt of all Hon.
Members.—(Cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed with the Hon. Gen-
tleman that the words to which reference had been
made had a tendency to excite suspicion, and
to affect the character and credit of that
House. He did not himself give the slightest credence
to the rumour to which the Hon. Gentleman had alluded;
but he (Lord John Russell) did agree with him that
it would not be right to let those words, reported as
they were by a public committee, pass by without inquiry.
—(Cheers.) He did not himself think there would be any
advantage in that inquiry being instituted by a member
of the Government, unless it were decidedly the wish of
the Home; but his opinion was, that the Honourable
Gentleman having turned hii attention to the
subject, and the question being one affecting
the character of individual Members of the Reuse,
he (Lord John Russell) thought it would be better that
the inquiry should be in the hands of the Honourable
Gentleman, assisted as the Hon. Gentleman would be
by Members of all parties in the House, than that the
inquiry should be conducted by the Government. He
could leave the advice and assistance of Hon. Members
as to the best mode of facilitating the inqury—an inquiry
which should be pursued until the whole truth was
elicited.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. WADDINGTON said that he was not at all
aware until he saw in the report the remark made
by the committee, that after ho had given evidence in
reference to the sums alluded to, it was stated that ho
could not, answer, lest his reply might implicate indivi•
dual Mein'acrs in that ll(tuse. When he told the 'louse
that he made no nal:lrk in that committed affecting any
Member in that house,he thought the House %oak]
join with him that there was no reason for such
a remark as that being made, inasmuch as he
did not by implication or otherwise allude to any

Member of the House of Commons. So soon as
the report appeared, the directors took the only course
they could to inform tho public of the real state
of the facts ; and,' with •the permission of the
House, he would read the remarks that the
Eastern Counties Railway Company made in re-
ference to the 7,6001. (The remarks substantially
were that there was a committee sitting in April, 1846,
cg.lled the Size-lane Committee, termed for the purpose
of carrying out a scheme for amalgamating the Eastern
Counties and the London and York, which
had been propounded by Mr. Hudson in 1845,
and that had that committee been successful, a great
amount of the legal expenses would have been saved.)
He could only beg to assure the House, which he did as
a man and as a gentleman appearing before that
assembly, that there was not a Member of that Home,
directly or indirectly, who had had the benefit of
a single shilling in reference to that 7,600/. He
thanked he Honourable Member for giving him an
opportunity for contradicting the rumour ; and if such
a statement hhd been made before the committee, he
would have repelled it with indignation. •
Mr. CHARTERIS said he was in the hands of the
House as to the course he should pursue. With all due
respect to what had fallen from the Hun. Member, which
he in some measure believed, he thought it would be
sa'isfactory if an inquiry took place into the matter—
(Hear, hear)—and, bclirviug the House to he of the
same opinion, he begged to give notice that on Thursday
next he should move for the appointment of a Committee
of Inquiry.
The matter then dropped.
VIE SICILIAN PAPERS.

In reply to Mr. DISRAELI,
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the
papers would be placed immediately in the hands of
Hon. Members.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the second reading
of the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS rote to move that the Bill be read
a second time this day six months. He complained that
the real nature of the Bill could not be satisfactorily
traced from its title. None save those who had had an
opportunity of reading the Bill could tell what was its
object, and indeed he thought it would have been more
consistent in the Noble Lord if he bad favoured
the House with some statement as to the
exact purpose of the Bill—what the object was that it
had been introduced to effect. If, however, they took
the Bill under what he supposed was its true designation,
the " Jews' Bill," they should perhaps gather its mean
ing ; but though they had had opportunities every year
of discussing the object it had in view, for the last 30 years,
yet they had never discussed it under circumstances so
likely to affect its success, and therefore the Christian
character of that House, as during the last two
years. Indeed, he apprehended that no Bill
of this nature would have been brought forward
but fur the recent election in the city of London.
-Though the avowed object of the Bill bad been re-
jected by the House of Lords, it had been re-
introduced into this House under a new name.
Now this Bill was brought forward for the second time,
and it prop sed in a wholesale manner to deprive the
Crown and the country of one of the safeguards of the
constitution. It proposed to remove altogether those
oaths which had hitherto been held essential for the
maintenance of the constitution; but they had not
heard a single argument to show for what good
purpose the alteration could he made. The oath
to be substituted for those already in existence
ought to contain all the provisions of the present oaths.
The oath of allegiance remained unaltered for s:x cen-
turies, till the year 1688, when certain alterations were
made in it to give more latitude to the consciences
of those who took it. At that time the words heirs and
successors were left out, but they were retained in the
oath of abjuration. Surely, then, if they were retained
in one they ought to be retained in the other; bet still
he did not propose that they should be re-inserted. This
was a Protestant country; the people in it were
not ashamed of professing Protestantism; and
so long as the country existed as a Protesant
state there could b© no jest ground or reason
to change the Protestant oaths which a Menv-,er
of either House of Parliament took on entering
his seat.—(Hear, hear.) A very important element
in the discussion was, that in the oath which his
Noble Friend proposed to substitute, there was no re-
ference whatever to the Protestant character of the
Sovereign. It was as a Protestant, and as Protestants
only, that the illustrious family of her Majbsty ascended
the throne.; and. not' only as .Protestants, but as Pro-
testants of the Episcopal Church of England and Ire-
land. In fact, his Noble Friend had hoisted neutral
colours, simply that he might cover enemies' goods.—
(Hear and cheers.) The fact was that the 13:11 was
calculated to take away from the Legislature the essen-
tial portion of its Christian character.—(llear, hear.)
He was aware that the alteration bad been made within
the last twenty years, but as he had stated on a former
occasion, until that alteration was made there was always
some Christian rite. The oath was taken either upon the
gospels, upon the crown, or upon some religious relic.
Such an argument might be by some considered irreve-
lant, but irrevelancy by no means diminished its force.
Ho had the opinions of several eminent men of 1773,
and it might be said the opinions of those who lived
a century ago, but it should be recollected that although
abroad power might be vested only in those who were
seated in positions of authority, in this country it was
distributed throughout the whole of the community, and
was especially assigned to thcso who in that House took
part in the government of the country.—(Cheers.) His
Noble Friend had last year asked, with more of an air
of triumph than the occasion justified, what good the
oath had done/ —(Hear, hear.) Why it had at least
done this good, that it had served as a bulwark in the
attacks on our common Christianity.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. BERESFORD seconded the motion, and said ho
had failed to see any sufficient cause, or any just reason,
fur hazarding such a great experiment as the admission
of Jews into Parliament. He supported the doctrine
that those. in the possession of the administrative
should show at least au acknowledgment of the Christian
faith in their measures. Upon that doctrine they bad
hitherto acted, and under it they had flourished, and he
would not now participate in that which ho considered
morally and religiously wrong. It was strange
that the Government, instead of fostering and shielding
their faith, should be the first to give offence to it. He
had a strong confidence in the religions feeling of the
people of England, who would struggle and prevail in
spite of every obstacle, and he trusted, that with the
blessing of an All-merciful Being, they would continue
still to be, not a professing, but a faithful and Christian
nation.

Mr. PEEL and Mr. TRELAWNY rose together, but

.
The SPEAKER called upon Mr. Peel,and immediately
the utmost silence and attention was manifested by the
House.

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 Rouse; 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 Right 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—(Hear,
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. He wished, by the
permission of the House, to state some of the grounds.
He 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 ofa free state.
Indeed Parliament had recognised the rights of the
Jews by conferring upon them all the offices of the
state—civil, military, and 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
votes 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 as a Mem-
ber of Parliament. It was true a distinction had been
drawn between the holding of the two offices. The Act of
Charles H., 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 Christiar." In the reign
of James the F rat 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 tran-
' iubstantiatien. These oaths did not at all contain the
words "upon the true faith of a Christian," and there-
fore, as far 43 the legislative disabilities of that period
went, the Jew was not disabled from taking his seat in
Parliament.—(Hear, beer.) 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 lawfully suc-
ceeded to the throne, and no one else had any right or
title to it, and then it was that the words " on the
true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the
oath. The design of the oath, however, was not to ex-
c'ude 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-
cluded. But it might be argued upon political
grounds that it wes important that before any
man was admitted to Parliament that his con-
science should be fit • bound before ho enterEd
upon his legislative lunotl;nv. Well, the Jew did
not obi-ct to that, ties d::1 he object to take the
oath,providtA they peril:it t:tql him to take it, .n 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 taith of a Christian' were purely

of a ceremonial character, intended no doabt to give
greater significance and solemnity to the taking of the
oaths, he could see no reason, either in a religious eat
political point of view, why the phraseology should not ha
changed b 0 as to enable the Jew to subscribe to it.
These expressions showed how strongly the country was
divided upon the subject ; but when the terms were
considered attentively, it would appsar that there
was -contained •in them no degree of danger.—
(Hear, hear.) It was by some others supposed that, as it
the olden time, the State was in subservience to Oa
Church, it was not to be denied that there were per
sons who desired that the Chareh should be in subser-
vience to the State. But there were factS which could not
be denied, acid 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
be Members but those who were in communion with the
Church of England.—(Cheers and loud cries of "Hear.")
They had first altered the sacramental test in 1825, ant,
again they had altered the terms of the oath in 1828,
and why should they depart from this rule ce
progress on the present occasion, and depart
from that principle which had always been
the distinguishing mark of the British constitution?
Another argument of religious expediency advanced
against the further progres of this measure was
that the influence which this Bill, if passed
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 was, which dealt with the affairs of the Church.
At the same time it ehoald he borne iu
mind that Parliament dealt only with the temporal
affairs of the Church. A short answer to an objection
of that kind aapeared to him to be that the con-
gruity which already existed was introduce('
when the Members of that House ceased to be
exclusively composed of conformists to the
Church. He should pass on to another argument
He referred to the value which was set on th,
umninal 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 the Constitution; bee
when was it, he would ask, that that had been a
guarantee of the Christianity of the nation? The Hon.
Member concluded by saying ho would give bis 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 Melee and the country were
much indebted to the Government for the calm and die-
pa-sionate manner in which it was brought forward. It
had been, for the most part, considered simply as e
question excludin the Jews. He thought it eas 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 net a mea-
sure, he amtende.l, consistent with the policy of this
country. They excluded the Arian merchant and the
Arian gentleman from Parliament, who were as anxious
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 Wer.hip
or ceremonies. Their marriages had all the social
tights which every other class possessed, and
certainly it was the first time in history that a nation
living ithin 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 he believed to be founded on 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 times 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 ? In
the case of the Roman Catholics they were called upon
to revive a privilege, but in this case they were called
upon to create aright.--(Hear.) He further objected to
the language of the Bill. If you expunged the words
"upon the true faith of a Christian," and left the words
"so help me God," you would put out cf view the God
of the Christians, and an individual might substitute in
his mind any other (laity. That, he thought, would he
prejisoicial in many points of view, add therefore he
could not give his vote in support of this measure.
Mr. J. f. WILLIAMS said that the Jews were not a
proselytizing race, and therefore the danger anticipated
from their occupying 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 his fervent
support to the second reeding of this Bill.
Mr. TRELAWNY said that the Jaws 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 affurding substantial aid to the preservation
of good order ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
Honourable Member who spoke last said truly that the
Jews wa re 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 manner as would
be conducive to the interest of the community, but if
that were the only objection, the words of the affirma-
tion or oath might be altered to guard against that con-
tingency. _ _ .

lIOPE said that this Oaths Alteration Bill was
brought in to covet. a very different thing. It was, in
reality, a Jewish Emancipation Bill. He thought that
most objectionable in a Christian country and .Legisla-
Lure. He must, therefore, oppose the second reading of
the Bill.

Mr. ROBARTES raid that this preposition was nc-
thing more than to do an act of social justice to a
class of fellow citizens, and ha did not think that
there was anything in Christianity opposed to that, and
therefore he should give hie support to the Bill.
Mr. NEW DEGATE said that a seat in that Mouse
was given by the public for the public good, and kr 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 Cathol cs to take the cath
which they were now obliged to prescribe. The present
was not a period to remove the safeguard provided for
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 ecelesiaitical as
well as civil head of the country. The necessity
for such a clause was admittf d, and the House of Com-
mons adopted it by a mejority of 77 to 4. He 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 WDEGATE resumed—Considering what was
passing iu 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 art, he contended, in the British
House of Commons.

The Earl of ARUNDEL briefly replied to the re-
marks of the Hon. Member fur 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. SL-00NER 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 Catholic religion the less ob-
jectionsable or th 3 less idolatrous. The representatives
of a Christian nation should be guided by Christian
principles, lipid they ought to maintain that constitu-
tion which they had received from their ancestors.
He 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 TALFOURD 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 only lip opinions, and that the feeling which they
expressed did not enter into the moral nature of the
Hun. Gentlemen.—(Dear.) It was a fact that Parlia-
ment 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, surrounckel as he was from his 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 an imperfect Christian.
We hold the most of our faith in common stith
the Jew—he only not reaching that diviner simplicity
which was the great attribute of tho Christian religion.
—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Warwickshire
(Mr. Newdegate) said that the Jew was an alien in this
country. Was not the Samaritan an alien? And yet
when our Lord wanted to give an example of universal
brotherhood, be elected the corZuct of the Samaritan
as a lessen to the JuwL.h ptiet,ts. He therefore thet4Crt
they should not exclude any man from civil rights to
account ()Lids religion.—(Hear, hear.) Ociths were not
intended as a profession of faith in that HOtt.e. They
were intended to expreas the 411egiance of Honourable

Members to the Queen; and "on the faith of a Chris..
ian " expressed that feeling.""The Jew might express
his allegiance in any form that was equally binding on
him.—(Hear, hear.) If they were indeed to go back
to the times of Richard the First, when 1,000 Jews
were sacrificed in cold blood ; if they could restore
he time when the Jews were consigned to the fury
of the people, or when they were kept for the especial
torture of kings, they might endeavour to keep from
them their civil rights. But these things had passed, and
this country had not been less Christian. Jews were
allowed to hold office in this country, and yet the land
was not carsed.—(hear, hear.):They htd been admitted
into the corporation, and he was not aware that the cor-
porations had become less Christian tha❑ heretofore. To
be a Christian was, in his opinion, to do what they were
About to do with respect to this Bill. To act otherwise
would be to violate the principles of Christianity. In"
:toad of denouncing the Jews, they ought to do as the
Author of our holy religion did—forgive them. To do
this would be to show that they regarded Christianity
not as a part and parcel of the law of England, but as
in attribute of our holy religion, am} as an example
worthy of imitation.—(Hear.)
Lord MALIGN said that this question had a wider
range than that give❑ to it by the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Arundel. The effect of passing this Bill would
prove a heavy blow and great discouragement to the
missionary labours of the army of martyrs who were
endeavouring to propagate the Gospel, when they
learned that the profession of Christianity was thought
>o light of that Jews were admitted into Parliament.
It was urged that the discharge of duties entitled a ci-
tizen to all the privileges of the constitution, provided
he fulfilled his duty to the State; but to this there were
several exceptions? A clergyman was not eligible to sit
in the House of Commons; a bankrupt, who might not
have failed in his duties to the State, could not sit in
Parliament. The resistance to this Bill, Sounded on a
eeverence to their own religion, ought not to be regarded
=favourably; and of this he was convinced, that those
ho would vote against the Bill would not be influenced
by religious rancour.
The Marquis of GRANBY said this Bill was a means
to an end, and that end was the introduction of Jews to
Parliament. Ile opposed that measure on, religious
;rounds, for he could not think that Jews were fit to
legislate for Christians. In opposing this 13,11 he dis-
c!aimed any desire to persecute the Jews or to detract
(rem their respectability as individuals. They had al-
ready admitted them to all offices, military and civil, and
allowed them the right of worshipping in their vitae
gogues according to their own fashion, and therefore
they would not be charged with being influenced by a
persecuting spirit towards the Jews. It was urged in
savour of the Bill that the Jews were few in number,
out it was not whether they were numerous or few that
.he measure should be judged, but upon the principle that
their admission would be a violation of the principles of
the constitution. If they admitted the Jews to Par-
liament they could not limit the injury they could do
by the fewnsss of their number. While they acted with
all charity towards the Jews, they should take care not
to bleak d.)wn those barriers which were the defeece of
their religion, and the means of its diffusion through-
out the world, and in which he hoped the Jews would be
included.

Mr. FAGAN said, as a Roman Catholic, he should
support the second reading of the Bill, upon the prin-
ciple of d9ing to others as he would be done by.
Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to the second reading or
the Bill, but be did not do so from any hostile or perse-
cuting sprit to the Jews. Ile looked back to their past
history with a respect amounting to veneration. But
when Members of that House were cslled on to intre-
loce into a Christian :assembly those who denied their
Lord and Saviour, he must be permitted to decline being
a particip :dor in such an act. He thought, therefore,
that the Hon. Member for Reading was wrong when Le
asserted that the Jews wore not at variarce with the
Christians, and believing the measure was ono of great
impolicy, and uncalled for, he should oppose its secina
reading. _ _

Mr. -SIONCKTON MILNES would earnestly recora.
mend to the Ilon. Member for Kent, who had last
~pol.ssn, that although persons might individually motto
the admission of Jews into that House, yet they had no
right to assume that others should have a similar wish
to promote their return. Bat the question, after all.
was—whether one of the highest and most influential
individusls in the country, and elected by one of the
most distinguished constituencies in the empire, shall be
prevented by, after all, a question of mere form, from
taking his seat in that House. And ho was surprised
that, in the deliberations of the t .vt ning, a more frequent
allusion had not "been made to that fact, so important
in the consideration of the question under discussion,
They had heard that evening a history of the mode in
which the oath which excluded Baron Rothschild was
introduced into that House, perhaps in a manner superior
to what had been heretofore done; but the question was,
after all, whether a section of the great British empires
asel only a section, should be exc uded from the benefits
of the British constitution. He thought they should
agree with him that, timid all the disorders and distur°
bances which had taken pace in other parts of the
world, it was not safe to keep any man from such a par:
ticipation. Let them pass that Bill, and no portiou of
the inhabitants of that empire, or of the subjects of their
Most Gracious Sovereign, would have any cause. to
complain of exclusion from such a participation. Where
ever the Jewish nation, or any portion of that nation or
people, had established themselves, they had invariably,
:sod without any exception whatever, identified them-
selves with the interests of that nation, and in no one
instacce had opposition come from them, but from those
who governed. It' any Hon. Member would take the
trouble of reading the emigration and colonization of
that wonderful nation they would find that to be strictly
tree. Ile should give the measure every support in his
pow,' F.

Mr. BANKES observed that by far the bast speech
made in favour of the measure was that spoken by
the Honourable Member for Leominster (Mr. Peel),
characterised as it was by the diffidence which belonged
to talent, and the modesty of one speaking for the first
time in that House. In reply to what that Honourable
Member asserted, that Jews were riot excluded front
Parliament until modern days, he (Mr. &mites) bad
only to sly that inasmuch as they were not ever al'
lowed to possess- a freehold property, it would have
been wore than useless to have introduced a measure to,
prevent them, seeing they had not a qualification, and
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 Catholics,
eith all their hostility to the Established Church. lie
thought that the present form was a check to honourable
Roman Catholics, As for persons not honourable, n°
oath would bind them. The state and condition of this
House was not now what it was before Roman Catholics
were admitted to that House. If he were asked, had he
observed any mischief follow from their admission to that
ilewe, he would answer yes, he had.—(Hear.) This
Bill was more mischievous than the measure of last year'
A seat in the House was no privilege, it was a duty
imposed upon them by their constituents. The elec.
tots had a right to choose them, vvhether they- would
serve or not. This esti a Christian Perlis'
ment, and one of its duties was to regulate
the Christian Chu. ch, and it was not proper 'that
a Jew, whatever might be his qualifications of active
charity, should bo called upon to discharge these duties
towards an Establishment whieh,ito say the least of it, he
re gardcd as an error. In regard to such solemn duties,
was it right to call on one who believed our fath to be
a falsehood to join in legislation? ' He thought it wag
not, and, therefore, should vote against the measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the House now called
for a division—(llear, hear)—he was anxious to sire
acme answer to the objections urged against this Ines:
sure. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down bad
fallen into the error of affirming that the oath had not
bten imposed with the express intention of excluding
the Jews from that House. Such exclusion was totally
opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and it was de-
sirable to remedy that injustice. Ile dal not see shut
this Bill took away any security for tl a Protests nt stic;•
cession of the Crowe, as the Lion. Member for Oxford
seemed to think. The Act of Parliament on that subject
being perfectly good in itself, required no further force
to sustain it. Some Hon. Members had thought that
Christianity would bo endangered. Only imagine three or
ft ur Jews in that House. What would be their power to
overthrow Christianity?•—(Hes,r, hear.) Again, it eras
. aid that they would use reviling language to Christie-
' ity, but happily that House was not a theologies' as'
embly, and vas it too great a stre•ch of charity to sup-
rose that they would nut?—(Hear, hear.) He wished
that there should be no exclusion on account of religion
—(Hear, hear)—and that there should be no punishment
or penalty on account of religious opinions.—(Cheers.)
They had been accustomed to hear in those debates that
this House was Christian, and that it was proposed to
unchristianiso it; but that bad been admirable
meted by the fact, that the changes in our mumciPai
corporations, and other civil offices, had not had that
effect. lie did not believe that the character of that
House would be altered by the admission of three or
four Jews.—(Hear.) If, while there were 40,000. Jeers
in the country, it was still entitled to be called Chris'
tian, 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 princi-
ples of charity, which ho believed to be truly Christian,
would admit the Jews; and considtritg that they were
faithful adherents to the constitution nnder which we
live, and that they were loyal and peaceable stibjects,
ready to defend the Sovereign of these realms, and
faithful to the British constitution, he hoped that they'
would admit them to all the advantages of that coasts'
tution.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that so long as the HonSe,
was called upon daily to deal with matters deeply and
even vitally bearing upon the Christian faith, he could
not help pointing out the inconsistency of entrusting
those important duties to persons incompetent fronj
their religious feelings to the efficient discharge of those
duties.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the observations of the Righ
Honourable Gentleman who bad just addressed the
House would, he presumed, be a lesson to the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, for they had learned
from him that if the Bill brought under the considera-
tion of the Legislature proposed to admit persons of oil
religious denominations to seats in the Legislature, tiler°
vull be no objection to the measure. The aegurnenn
used, however, by the Right Honourable Gentleman di'
not militate against the Bill, and he could show that all
Honourable Gentleman, when introducing a Bill of Ibisnature, wai often obliged to be inconsistent with hinn!li•
Take the Bill as it stood, and he was prepared to mall"
tain thr.t it went the ki.gth of admitting all men to scats
in the Senate, without regard to their religious belief.
(Hear, hear.) The fifth clause of the Bill was general
in its -construction; it permitted every person to Mat:
uffl. nation prosuiLed. The words of
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 the.
_
Bill prescribed? In thefirst_ instance, to enforce the

obligation by the sanction of religion; and, secondly, 1
M exclude certain persons who declined acceding to the
terms of the oath or affirination. Was it to be avid
that any human being, by refusing to take an oath when
about performing a duty, was to be divested of the obli-
gation under which he undertook to perform that solemn
duty ? Would anybody say that an (-nth was not as
binding and as strong in the case of a Jew as anybody
else ? The Jew said he believed in an oath, and pro-
fessed his readiness to give to his obligation the sanction
of religion. They eat drank, and dealt with the Jew,
and he wanted to know why it was that they had not the
Jew
,L among them?—(Hear, hear.) In all probability-
-:.'°37 would find the HonouraWe Member for Ox-
Lord to-morrow ei!ing the authority of the Jew
tus a lawgiver on the marriage questien. lie should
like to know how that inconsistency could be got
141 ce- He asked the common sense of the House and
of the country—be was fond of appealing to the com-
mon sense of both—what there was in the man, of
in the men, who believed in the Decalogue, to prevent
him or them from becoming a Membe,. of the British
Legislature ? Jews were not aliens. There were many
I:4)glielazan Frofeesing the religion of the Je v. They
were in that character honest men. They professed
that morality which Englishmen approved of and
learned, and he could not understand on what prin-
ciple or what reason it was contended they should not
Le admitted to Parliament. He denied that the enact-
Meat of the na(aeure would in the slightest degree un-
hristianise the House of Commons, and believing that
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government bed fol•
lowed a wise course in bringing forward the Bill, be
should give it his hearty and cordial support.
After a few words in cx2lanation from Mr. GOUT-
BURN the House disided, when there appeared—

For the second reading -
278
Against it ...
Majority.. -93
The Bill was then read a .seconcl time, and ordered to
be committed.
Mr. GOULBUIDI inquired what course it was in-
tended adopting tomorrow with regard to the public
business ? Would the adjourned debate on the mAr-
tia.e question, or notices of motion, hive the prece-
dence ? . . . .

Mr. S. WORTLEY hoped that Honourable Gentle-
men having notices of motion would allow the adjourned
debate to take precedence. He appealed particularly to
the lion. 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.
If he were allowed to bring in the Bill without opposi-
tion, he was quite willing that the debate should be taken
on the second reading.
Major BLACKALL said if it were the wish of the
Bou-e, he should not interpose his motion, provided that
other Hon. Members having notices on the paper would
also give way, to allow the adjourned debate on the
merriage question to be resumed.
Mr. MACGREGOR couldnot consent to postpone his
motion respecting the incorporation of Kensington,
Chelsea, Fulham, and Hammersmith,into a Perlis-
xceatary borough.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
iateuded 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
ith.

Mr. G. TITOMPSON, in reply to Sir R. Peel, said he
had already expressed his intention not to stand in the
Way of the adjourned debate on the Marriage Bill.
LAND INIPROVEMENT AND DRAINAGE (IRE•

LAND) BILL.
Ths 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 Leasing (Ireland) Bill were read a second time,
and ordered to be committed.

Mr. GOULBURN wished that the Hon. Member for
Glasgow would say positively whether ho would or
-would not give way tomorrow.
Mr. MACGREGOR said he should positively not give
way.—(Grant laughter.)
ACCOUNTS OF TURNPIKE TRUSTS (SCOT-

LAND) BILL.

Mr. e. 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. NIACKENZIE moved, as an amendment, that
the House stould adjourn.
A division took place, when the numbers were—
For the adjou►nment 24
For the second reading ... ... 69
Majority ... . . ------45
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.

On our return to the gallery we found
BRUCE opposing the second reading of this
Bill. He wished it to be postponed to a more fitting
opportunity.
The LORD ADVOCATE did not think that a Bill
precisely on the plan cf the law of England would have
been opposed at all. He did not object to a postpone-
ment, if such were desirable, but he should leave it to the
House to decide whether any reason had been shown for
postponement.
After a short conversation,

Sir GEORGE GREY said, that if any Honourable
Member objected to the principle of the Bill, ample time
would be given before the Bill was pressed on through
the House.
Mr. OSWALD wished that tune should be given for
the public opinion of Scotland to be known.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the second reading. Ob-
jections to the Bill might be taken in Committee.
Mr. CHARIERIS hoped that if the second reading
was taken now, the Committee would not be hurried for-
ward. The're 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 the
Bill as 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 SIBTHORP,
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 divided, 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
Rollie 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 against the rcpe,al of the navigation-laws
were presented by the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis
of Londonderry, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Wham-
cliffe, and Lord Stanley, from certain bankers, shipowners,
and artizmis 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.
On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, this Bill was
read a second time. •