The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-01 00:00:00

DRAINAGE OF TOWNS.

Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from that dis-
trict of St. Giles's known by the name of the Rookery,
in favour of the Drainage of Towns Bill.—•(Hear.) The
petitioners stated that in the district there were upwards
of 1,000 inhabitants, and there were 35 lodging houses,
in each of which upwards of 40 persons slept every
night,---( Hear, hear.) In that populous district there
was no drainage and no sewers.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. SLA NEY wished to ask his noble friend the
Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was not pos-
sible for the local authorities to do their duty by
providing for the cleansing and draining of the district
in question.—(Loud cries of Order, order.)
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL thought that
Hon. Members ought to reserve that question fo the
usual time for asking questions.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. SL AN EY said that question related to the sub-

ject of the petition, and was proceeding to repeat it,
when he was interrupted by loud cries of " Order, or-
der," to which at length he gave way.
Mr. EASTHOPE presented a petition complaining
of the manner of appointing chaplains in workhouses as
unjust towards assenters.
Colonel SALWEY presented a petition from the
clergy and inhabitants of Egham against any further
grant to the College of Maynooth ; and a petition from
the same place in favour of Church Extension. He did
not concur in the prayer of either.
Air. HERRIES presented a petition from the Great
Western Railway Company against the Railway .Bill.
Dr. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from the
Presidents and students of Stepney College praying
for the abolition of Church-rates; and a petition from
St. Leonard's Shoreditch, in favour of the County
Courts' Bill.
M. HUME presented a petition from Newcastle-
upon-Tyne praying for the liberation of Henry Hether-
ington, as they considered that his imprisonment was an
interference with the liberty of the subject and with the
liberty of the press, and complaining that there
was such uncertainty as to what constituted
blasphemy that th v considered it impossible 901
Jury could take upo themselves to decide the questietn.
Also another petition to the same effect from the Soeitel ye
of Free Inquirers a, Paddington, and also praying
House to introduce a law defining what • blasphemy
was. Also a petition from certain individuals residing
I
at Bethnal-green, praying for Extension of Stuffra. ge,
Vote by Ballot, and a division of the counrynto
Electoral Districts ; also a petition from a gentleman
named Bannister, who bad held the office of Attorney-
General in New South Wales, praying for the introduc-
tion of some measures regulating appeals from the
Colonies to the Queen in Council ; also, on behalf of
his Honourable Friend the Member for Greenock,
a petition from the Medical Practitioners of
Greenock, in favour of Medical Reform ;
ecpresenta
r sel severity
imodety
upon
p o onf
also from the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock,
taxing railways as
the poorer classes.
Mr. RICH presented a petition from Nottingham,
cnoremspsilnagin
praying that Chemists and Druggists may be examined
as to their competency.
winigth ofp theuli
On the motion of Sir E. NATCHBULL the
Parish Constables Bill was read a sece,nd time.

EVEN ii•N ,-

Colonel RAWDON gave notice that in
on the Drainage Biil he would move certain amendments.
On the motion of Mr. EMERSON TENNENT,
the Committee o; the Copyright Designs Bill was post-
poned till the 12th of May.
THE NEW TARIFF.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was his intention. to
introduce certain modifications in the new schedule of
duties which lie would bring forward in the Ctistoms'
resolutions on Monday next. When he had originally
proposed these resolutions he stated that he was not
only ready but that it would be his duty, if anything
arose in the course of his conferences with the
various branches of trade which might be affected,
to make certrain modifications in these duties before
they were finally discussed and decided upon in the
House. The modifications he now proposed would be,
that instead of a differential duty of 10 per cent. ad
valorem upon all foreign goods imported into the co-
lonies, he proposed a duty of 7 per cent. ad valorem.
With regard to shingles, instead of a duty of Ss. 6d.
per thousand, he proposed a duty of 2s. Bd. per thousand
and instead of a duty of 10s. 6d. the thousand feet upon
p!tch pine and other timber, he proposed a duty of 7s.
He should take care that these modifications should be
printed in an amended schedule, and circulated among
the Members of the House as soon as possible, in
order that they might have them in a proper form, be:
fore he moved the resolutions in the House.

Mr. GOULBURN said it was important that not
only the Members of the House, but persons engaged
in trade, should be apprised of these resolutions before
they were brought ferward.
Mr. EIVA.R.T regretted that sugar and coffee had
not been included, and gave notice of his intention to.
renew his motion for a reduction of the dety on sugar
and coffee immediately after the recess.
Mr. SLANEY said a petition had been laid on the
table of the House relative to the destitute condition of
persons in a populoas district of the metropolis. He
had that morning visited that district and it was lament..
able to see the wretched and filthy state in which' the
majority of its inhabitants were. He wished to ask the
Hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for the Home
Department, whether or not the Home-office was:
possessed of any power to enforce the discharge of their
duty by the local authorities, with respect to
cleansing the district to which he alluded.
In consequence of the proposed improvement to take
place in that quarter nothing had been done by the
parochial authorities with respect to cleansing it.
He &Judea to the district of St. Giles.
Mr. FOX MAULE was not aware that the Home-
office was compelled to attend to the cleansing of such
plices as his Hon. Friend alluded to. He (Mr. Fox
Maule) apprehended that it was a matter for
the parochial authorities, and for them alone to attend
to. He presumed that the Bill which his Noble
Friend introduced in the other House, would give faci-
lity for making improvements in that quarter of the city.
On the motion of Mr. F. MAULE, the Report on
' the Population Bill was brought up.
After a few words from Sir E. KNATCHBULL,
the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
Mr. BAINES postponed the second reading of the
Enrolment of Burgesses' Bill to the sth of May.
The Cspyhold and Customary Tenure Bill was com-
mit ted pro forma.
JEWS DECLARATION DrILL.
Mr. DIVETT moved the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. r, W. GLADSTONE rose to 'oppose the
third reading. If it were possible to draw a broad line
of principle between a Bill tkr admit Jews to corporate
offices, arid ore to permit them to enjoy seats in that
House, and every other office, the subject would be dif-
ferent. But he felt convinced that such a broad line of
principle could not be drawn, and that allowing a Bill
like the present to pass that House they must expect
that one would follow to extend to the Jews
seats in Parliament, and the holding of every other
office to which Christians were now entitled.
On that point, he took it, there was no difference of
opinion betsven them, and it would, therefore, be a loss
of time to argue the question. With regard to his
reasons for objecting to the present Bill, he should en-
deavour, without bewildering the House with a multi-
plicity of considerations, without leading their
minds to any of those theological topics which
were introduced on a former occasion, to state that
reason which most inaperativrly weighed with himself,
and which seemed most likely to be made intelligible
to the House. His reason for rejecting the present
Bill was this : It appeared to him that the profession
of the Jewish religion was in the nature of a disqualifi-
cation for legislative office in this country, where the
Christian religion was interwoven with the institu-
tions of the country. First of all he placed that on
general grounds. It had been said on high authority
that " Christianity was part and parcel of the law of Eng-
land." He knew not bow far in rigorous truth such
a dictum was tenable. It was not necessary for him to
undertake to defend it ; but this he said, it
was assumed in all our practice, our laws

were modelled on the principles with which
Christianity supplied us, and they had a fur-
ther and most solemn recognition of those prin-
ciples in a practice to which he could not but
allude on this occasion ; he meant the practice,
which he trusted would be never discontinued, of com-
mencing the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament
with the solemn worship of Almighty God.--( Hear.)
He did not wish to travel into a region seldom en-
tered in that House with advantsge ; but the practice
of this worship implied what he had stated—namely,
that they were to set before them, as the ob-
ject of all their measures, in the words of the Ser-
vice, " the promotion of true religion, and the glory
of God." if such was the case, he said that in
thus seeking to promote true religion they were
not at liberty, according to the sense of the
Constitution, to include every religion. On this
occasion the question before the House was
whether they would destroy the distinctive Chris-
tiacity of the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He had
heard much sneering on a former occasion at en
expression that had been used by his Hon. Friend the
Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis),
that " they were about to unchristianiae England
by tbis Bill." He (Mr. Gladstone) thought it was
not difficult to conceive what the meaning
of that expression was.—(Hear, hear.) His
Hoc. Friend eoubtless used it, as was his. habit,
without being very anxious to weigh whether
the phrase employed was open to the mis-
construction of an adversary ; but be (Mr. G.)
must say, he could not conceive a proposition
more approximate to the nature of a
truism with regard to this subject, because at present
the Constitution imposed upon all who held legislative
office the test of declaring that the person about to
enter upon it professed "on the faith of a Chris-
thin," and by removing that test from the present
Bill, and from any future Bill, it was doubt-
less intended to remove that profession of Chris-
tianity as the condition of filling the civil office.
Now, he did not know whether he rendered himself
liable to those severe censures which had been delivered
on a former occasion by the Noble Lord oppo-
site and by others, who did not scruple to
to impute to sheer intoleration all opposition to the ad-
mission of the Jews to civil and legislative of-
fices. But the ground which he occupied was the
same upon which he should stand if he were
arguing against the claims of any other class. He did
not intend to speak with disrespect of the Jews as a
class, or of any individual Jew.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He did not say that they were act honest. and
conscientious, but unfortunately that increased his
objection, for the more conscientious a Jew
was, the less qualified was he to apply his mind
to the promotion of Christian objects.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not say that there were not individual Jews
who might discharge the duties of the legislative
office better than some Christians; but his ob-
jection was that the class was disqualified.
Now if it were proposed in that Home to substitute a
5/. or an 8/. franchise for the existing franchise
of 10/. it would be competent for any person in
opposition to that proposition, to say that he thought
Parliament, bat
were competent to
trnhaekelol.ohiooiucesehoolfdersmaems
lower, you would
that if you went any
was • not competent,
reach a class which
be individual 81.
although there might
competent than house-
holders who were more
th
It was_ the distinc-
tion
10!. householders.
that he saidwith
that if. Chris-
analogous to
of ,
baersclasosi
the law of this coun
tianity was part and parcel
impossible that the Jews, as a class,
cry, it was
t to discharge the
should be conspeten duty of legislators
Butif he descended fromthe general principle to parti-
s be scout(' ask the House to consider
cuter questhow the whole course of their history—even of their
recent history—proved that it is on questions connected
with Christianity that our national fortunes chiefly
turned. Within the liast ten years there had been a
sufficient number of questions before them, most
intimately and essentially connected with the his-
torical considerations of Christianity.—(Hear, bear.)
What were the questions which had most interested
the feelings of the
people of this country during the
period which had ' d since the Reform Bill ?
elapse
What were the questions which had exercised
the most determined influence on the state of parties
in this country, and in their place in the estimation of
the people, since the passing of the Reform Bill ? What
were the most difficult and perplexing questions relating
to every one of the three kingdoms now before Parliament?
Were they not questions relating to the:Christian reli-
gion l and unhappily, if there were many questions,
offering unusual difficulty, on which peculiar animosities
prevailed, and on which, whatever might be their desire,
they found it impossible to agree were they not ques-
tions which, though not of a directly religious nature
in themselves, were yet mixed up and blended
with religious associations ? If he looked to
England, had they not had the question of
Churcb•rat?.s, and had they not that question still?
Had they not had the question of national education,
and bad they not that question still? Had they not the
question of Church extension, and was it not unsettled
even now ? If he looked to Scotland, what did he
find was the greatest difficulty at this moment con-