The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-27 00:00:00

For it is a matter entitled to our remembrance thai

in the commencement of the reign of GEORGE I. a
Bill was passed suspending the laws formerly
enforced against the Jews, and that the
benignant provisions of that Bill continued in
operatio❑ for three years afterwards. Shall a Parlia-
ment of GEORGE I. display more tolerance than a

Parliament of VICTORIA I.? Shall the example
which was afforded in the instance of Mr. PEASE go
for nothing, and the still more brilliant course pur-

,ued towkrds THE LIBERATOR and his co-religionists

be in this instance null and fruitless ? What PEASE
was to the Quakers, and O'CONNELL to the Catho-
lics—shall not ROTHSCHILD be to the Jews ? Can
we remain impassive when we are conjured by an
earnest clergyman of the Church of England • to
allow Israelites to participate in the fabrication
as well as in the enforcement of the laws—to add
their intelligence to the national councils, as well as
their obedience to the aggregate loyalty of the
people ? The question is a short one, but it is
one pregnant with most eloquent meaning—Are we,
in truth, advocates of tolerance in things ethical and
political : is our motto of " Civil and Religious
Liberty" a truth or a humbug?

We cannot object to the nature of the measures
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced
last night with respect to Railways, although we by
no means concur in the arguments adduced by the
Right Honourable Baronet in support of his views.
These measures relate to companies which have al-
ready received the legislative sanction to their pro-
sects, and to those whose schemes are still before
Parliament, either standing over from last year or
now about to be brought forward for the first time.
There is to be no compulsory interference with the
companies that have already obtained their Acts.
Such a course would involve a breach of faith
towards those who had invested their capital in these
undertakings without the slightest reason to suppose
that the representatives of the people could ever be
induced to violate the contract into which they, on
the part of the nation, had entered with the several
companies. Such an imputation should not be en-
countered if the benefits to be attained by the total
cessation of the works were less problematical than
we believe them to be. These companies are divided
into two classes—viz., those which have already com-
menced their operations, whose roads are actually in
course of construction ; and those which had not
commenced their works up to the day of the intro•
'luction of the Bill. There is no power or authority
)f which they are at present possessed taken away
from the former class, they may still proceed as
rapidly as they may think proper ; but if they should
be desirous of suspending or retarding their opera-
tions, they are to be authorised to do so for a limited
time, without forfeiting any right or privilege.
whatsoever. For this purpose they are to be al-
lowed an extension of time for the completion of
their works, and for concluding the purchase of the
lands they are empowered to take under the pro-
visions of their several Acts. The exact period of
this extension is not yet settled—the Right Hon.
Baronet leaving it to be decided in Committee
whether it should be for two or three years beyond
the times limited in their respective Acts. This pro-
position is fair and equitable, and no person can
object with reason thereto. It would, perhaps, be
better if the time were extended even beyond the
maximum of three years, suggested by Sir CHARLES
WOOD. It is manifest that no general rule can be
applicable to every case; each must be judged ac-
cording to its own peculiar circumstances, and we
cannot see any objection to permit the share-
holders to decide on the period of extension, the
approbation of the Railway Board being essen-

nada% a"1 Aof JCelwerigsr Dains'a'sbilAi tpi eosi,o as betuarrinfgav
Prospects, and Policy of the Church of England." In
Ptohseitilione.
this clear and plain, spoken pamphlet, the author has (to
oonurtihneg
,'se the words of Victor Hugo) taken the difficulty of the
question between his two hands and examined it face to
I..ace.na the sho The logic of the pamphleteer may be estimated
trortest possible quotation. Here is one:—
" The argument against admitting .lews to Parlia-
liament, on the ground that the State •
will thus recognise
religious error, is untenable by the Churchman, because
lie must think that the State recognises plenty of error
already in the Itomanists and the Protestant Dissenters.
But the most amiable and respectable objection which
is raised against this particular measure is, that the
by allowing a Jew to sit in Parliament, will make
tSliteatHe'ouse of Commons cease to be a Christian assembly,
and will deprive itself
.otf thens cshiatrtte;:rfl. a Christian
State. But do not,
can they, in astrict m
Christians by tjh
anniedan7paroper sense, blearacoennsti?dearnedd
Arnold, and other great
ge,l do not wish to say any_
but
harsh;
that Unitarians can correctly ho
thing
deny
philosophers,
~
Christians."
Churchmen
called Coleridge,