The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-29 00:00:00

tr for
id, a
with
right
were
ppre-
-1 was

.on of
I pro-
That
a this
until
ar

reso-
iment
n• the

how
eariog
to be
Ird for
words
sworrl

sc'ence. The-y wo;Litiot iSioing duty to th.- citizens
of L-ondon it they submitted to the decision which the
House came to on this subject. If the quesion were
taken up with spirit next session, it would be carried
through Parliament. I they did not carry through this
great cause they would be doing a great injustice to the
cause of civil and religious liberty. It was harsh to the
City of London and in the borough of Greenvvieli to
allow the question to stand in its present position.
Mr. J. EVANS slid that those persons who had re-
jected the Bill iu another place had merely exercised a
constitutional privilege, and he did nut agree with those
who thought the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment had acted unfairly in this matter. He believed
that they were indebted to the Noble Lord for the man-
ner in which he advocated the principle involved in the
Bill for admitting Jews into Parliament. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman then referred to the origin of the
oath of abjuration, which wee enacted in the 13th year
of William and Mary. In this oath were the words
"on the true faith of a Christian." This oath was car-
ried
out by the 9 and 10 Geo. 1., which made it obliga-
tory on all persons in the country to take it. But then
it was clear, from the nature of the oath, that it was only
to be taken in the sense most binding on the conscience
of the persons taking it, so that a Christian could accept
the words in question. and the Jew could take the oath
in the form most binding on his conscience, as had been
done by the Hon. Member for Greenwich.
The House then divided, when there appeared—,
For the amendment 50
Against it ... •.. ••• 88
Majority ... ••• —3B
MteBETHELL argued that greater injustice could not
be offered than the proceedings of the present Govern-
ment towards Baron Rothschild and Mr. Salomons. He
did not know why they, because of their religious feel-
ings and principles, should be excluded from the partici-
pation of Englishmen; and for that reason he should
object to the original motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted that; there was a general
feeling abroad in favour of the emancipation of the
Jews; but at the same time he wall assured, as was the
whole House, that such a measure could not be carried
into effect without an Act of Parliament. What occur-
red? The Master of the Rolls proposed two resolutions.
One of those very resolutions was now before the House.
After a great deal of discussion, and an amendment by
the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who
he regretted to say was absent through indisposition,
the House decided by by a majority of 166 to 92, in
favour of the resolution which was now before the
House. So that the House was now again called upon to
affirm that which they had already affirmed. It was not
necessary again to argue this resolu lion. Alderman Salo-
mons having taken a course which, though not the same,
was similar to that which Baron Rothschild took, he
asked again to take the same course now as then, and
to act in accordance with that resolution which appeared
upon the journals of that House. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman said, why not take the opinion of a court of
law ? He had no objection to taTaing the opinion of a
court of law, and they were informed to-day, upon the
authority of Alderman Salomons, that he intended to
take the opinion of a court of law upon the penalties
which he may have incurred under the Act of Parliament.
But he could not see how the opinion of a court of law
could in any manner influence them as to the fact as to
whether a Member had or had not taken the oaths re-
quired. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Be-
thell) quoted some cases as if he meant them to form
precedents for the course he now called upon them to
take. He must say he thought the case of Mr. Wilkes
totally inapplicable. The House of Commons in that
case proceeded upon its view of its own powers and pri-
vileges. They choose to say that the author of a libel
ought to be expelled from the House, and that after ex-
Putsion no Member could properly take his seat. They
did not proceed according to the dictation of any court
of law. Ile did not agree with the House of Com-
mons in their view upon that occasion, but certainly that
case formed no sort of precedent for the present one.
In the Municipal Corporation Act the oath "on the
true faith of a Christian" was made necessary before ad-
mission to certain offices. In 1845 Lord Lyndhurst in-
troduced a Bill, in the preamble of which this oath was
alluded to, for it said, " whereas persons of the Jewish
persuasion could not conscientiously make the declara-
tion contained in the Act," &c.; but according to the
opinion now laid down, this proceeding was altogether
unnecessary, for the Jew was not required to use all
the words of the oath. It was useless to argue the
question further. He thought the House of Commons
could not do otherwise than assent to the course he pro-
posed. The question, they were told, was about to be
brought before a court of law. If any new light could
be thrown upon the subject there, he knew no reason
why the House of Commons should not avail itself of it;
but with all the information they now had before them,
he thought they would overstep the law if they allowed
Alderman Salomona to take his seat.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY contended that the speech male by the
Noble Lord the Prime Minister only proved that the
Hon. Member for Greenwich ought to have been heard
at the bar. They had a strong case in favour of the
Hon. Member for London and the Hon. Member for
Greenwich. He was convinced the feeling of the Noble
Lord was in favour of civil and religious liberty.—
(Cheers.) He hoped the resolution would be withdrawn
at present, and introduced next session under the
guidance of a decision of the courts of law.—(Hear.)
Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH rose principally to protest
against the conclusion to which the Noble Lord had
come, that because the House had come to a resolution
last year in the case of Baron Rothschild, that same pre-
cedent should govern every succeeding case. He thought
that resolution was unskilfully drawn. Ho protested
against being called upon to vote in favour of this resolu-
tion, upon the same grounds as he voted in favour of that
Proposed last year in the case of Baron Rothschild. He
considered that the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell) had made
out a decided case for suspending all inter-
ferenceof that House until the question should be
tried by
a court of law, as it certainly would be in the
"urge of the recess, and that being his opinion, he
thought all further procedure in that House in reference
to it should stop for the present. No doubt, should the
Noble Lord press his resolution to a division, he would
obtain a majority in favour of it; but he might rest as-
sured that the question would be brought again and
again before the House; and although he and those who
thought with him might that night be defeated upon it,
they would take the defeat as auguring that the hour of
the triumph of the principle they advocated was not far
distant.--(Cheers.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Lord J. Russell's resolution 123
Against it .., „, ' 68
Majority in favour of the resolution ... —55
The resolution was then agreed to.
CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS
BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. BECKET T DENISON objected to the first
clause, which provided for the carrying of mail bags by
rilway
and the putting them down at the interme-
diate stations at the expense of the railway compa-
nies, the expenses of the same to be determined by arbi-
tration

Mr. C. LEWIS said the measure had been produced
for the very purpose of obviating the evil the Hon. Mem-
ber complained of.

Mr. CO `VAN said he had been asked to oppose this
Measure on the part of the railway companies, not from
any wish they had to impede the transmission of the
mails, but because they considered that the present mea-
sure exacted from them the maximum of service at the
Minimum rate of remuneration. He was of opinion that
such a measure should not be hurried through the
Rouse at the close of a session, and that the whole mat-
ter should be referred to a Select Committee.
Mr. HAMILTON agreed that it was exceedingly
Wrong to attempt to pass such a Bill at the close of the
session.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
they would be enabled, by the means proposed, to give
increased accommodation to the public in the convey-
ance of mails to small towns, and instead of such a
measure being injurious to railways, he believed it would
be otherwise.
After a few words from Mr. BECKETT DENISON and
and Mr. MANGLES,
re was an attempt,
Mr. LOCKE said the present measure
on the part of Government, to get rid of the Bill of :44,
which awarded compensation to the railways for services
rendered to the Post-office. He should, therefore, sup-
port the amendment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the question was, whether
the right was so secured to the servants of the Post'
°Mee, that that they should be enabled to perform . their
duties to the public on the railways. The courts oflaw
it Scotland had expressed it to be their opinion that
the servants of the Post-office had a right to travel on
railways, while the Irish courts had come to a different
conclusion, at the same time that they expressed a wish
that the question should be brought under the revision
of a court of appeal, or that an Act should be passed to
settle,,, the law on the subject. In point of fact, in the
11111 before the Committee they were asked nothing but
What the courts of law in Scotland had declared thefoat-
°ffice to be entitled to.
Colonel THOMPSON hoped that the House would
not abandon the principle of reasonable interference,
With a view to the preservation of the rights of the
colt raunity.
Mr. GL ADSTONE did not think the Bill could be
sustained simply as a declaratory Act.
....After a few words from Mr. Sanders, Mr. Forster, and
Air. Duncan,
Lord PALMERSTON reminded the House that rail-
ways were established for public utility, and it was only
light that they should be called upon to perform those
duties which the Legislature had it in contemplation
they should perform when they granted them the Acts
on which their very existence was founded. The Bill
did not expose the railway companies to any additional
eC:13"83 but simply provided that they should performA
mun
rtain duty for what he considered a fair amount of re-
eration.
Mr, Gni-,
--‘,Oll thought the present attempt of the Go-
vernment
of to have the maximum of service at the mini-
mum The cost was most unfair to railway companies.
took CHANCELLORexceptions of the EXCHEQUER briefly
to some of Mr. Gladstone's statements.
Mkr.M O'CONNELL hoped the Irish law courts had
tot been consulted on the law.
vkernyo:
Mr. LOCKE Said, if the clause were adopted, it would
have
a no
ienrious effect on railway property. There
was
where Post-office exactions would stop.
Whit was for the service asked of them, but they required to be paid
.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause .., 53
Agaitii,t it ... 5G
Majority against Government . —3
The clause was consequently struck out.
The House resumed.
The Metropolitan Interment Bill was read, a se3ol d
; to be committed this day (Tuesday).