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

PETITIONS.

The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented several peti-
tions in favour of the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption
Bill.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented several
petitions with a similar prayer; also a petition from
Brompton in favour of the continuance of the Crystal
Palace. The Noble Marquis declared himself warmly
in favour of the prayer of the petition.
Earl FORTESCUE presented several petitions in fa-
♦our of the preservation of the Crystal Palace.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented upwards of twenty
petitions in favour of the preservation of the Crystal
Palace; among them was one from the inhabitants of
Kensington.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented petitions from
Edinburgh with a similar prayer.
Lord KINNAIRD presented petitions from Dundee
and Arbroath with a similar prayer.
Lord BROUGHTON presented a petition in favour of
the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill.
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.

On the motion for bringing up the report on the Smith-
field Market Removal Bill,
Earl GR NN VILLE then rose to move certain amend-
ments on the report of the Select Committee on this Bill.
His object was to obtain the omission of certain clauses
which had been inserted in the Bill by the Select Com-
mittee, and the insertion of certain clauses which the Com-
mittee had struck out. He did not mean to impugn the
conduct of the Committee, but he must just say one word
on the mode of its constitution. It was a Committee
of five; and one of the five was either a Whig Member
of the House, or a Member of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, and yet there was only a majority of one against
the view taken of the Bill by her Majesty's Ministers.
Tee clauses to which he objected were those which di-
rected compensation to be given to the corporation of the
city of Loudon. He thought that those clauses must
have been introduced inadvertently by the Committee;
and were, as he had already stated, only carried by a
majority of one. The Committee then thought
that there was no reason for retaining the optional
clauses of the Bill introduced by the House of
Commons, inasmuch as the corporation of London
had declared that it had no interest in Smithfield-
market, and had declined the option of managing the
new market, as tendered to them. Now, he thought
that it would be fairer to the corporation that the
compensation clauses should be omitted, and that the op-
tional clauses should be re-inserted. He hoped that no
member of the Committee would feel that he was acting
unfairly by them when he endeavoured to reverse their
decision; for, if their Lordships, on referring a Bill to a
Select Committee, were to be bound not to deviate from
its report, there was no occasion for having further
stages in the Bill. They would, indeed, be stultifying
themselves by such a decision, especially in such cases as
the present, where the report was carried by a narrow
majority of one. The other plea offered against his mo-
tion was, that the corporation had a charter, and that
their Lordships ought not to meddle with the vested
interests which they enjoyed under it. Now the corpo-
ration had stated that they had no interest in Smithfield-
market, and that they had not claimed compensation in
the House of Commons on that account. When he re-
minded their Lordships that the B►ll had been passed by
a large majority in the House of Commons, and that it
was the universal opinion in both Houses that Smithfield-
market, as now conducted, was a public nuisance, he
thought that they ought not to pass the Bill in its pre-
sent state—which would insure its rejection in the House
of Commons during the present session—but:that they
should adopt his amendment, and restore the Bill to
the condition in which it was when it first reached
their Lordships.
The Earl of POWIS observed that these clauses had
been adopted by the Committee after due deliberation.
We considered whether the demand for compensation
was just, and, upon mature consideration, we thought
that the corporation had a claim to it. The judges had
been called in three times upon the point, and in conse-
quence of the opinion which they gave the compensa-
tion clauses were inserted in the Bill. If the reports of
your Committees are to be set aside in this manner, of
what value are they? It would be a mere mockery to
sit in Committee hereafter. With respect to the privi-
leges of the House of Commons, of which these clauses
were said to be an infringement, there was plenty of
time, if the House of Commons would not waive the ob-
jection, to bring in another Bill this session and remove
the nuisance of this market. If you take away
markets in this way, without compensation either to in-
dividuals or corporate bodies interested in them, you
will do much to shake the security of all private pro-
perty.
The Bishop of OSSORY (we were told) also defended
the report of the Select Committee. The market
yielded 5,0001. a year to the corporation. He therefore
could not understand how it could be said that the cor-
poration had no interest in it. He had said in the Com-
mittee that if compensation were not given he should
certainly feel himself bound to vote against the Bill.
The present would be the only instance in which corpo-
ration property was ever taken without compensation.
It had been said that Smithfield-market was a nuisance;
but their Lordships seemed to be unaware how much
had been and could be said in its favour.

The Earl of LONSDALE observed, that over since
he had been in Parliament he had entertained but one
impression as to the nuisance of Smithfield-market. He
thought that the corporation of London ought to suffer
the penalty which it deserved for not having claimed
compensation, if it had any claim to it, iu the House of
Commons. This market had been voted a nuisance by
both Houses of Parliament, and, instead of giving the
corporation any compensation for its removal, he would
rather fine them 5.000/. a month until they should re-
move it.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH observed that when
he first came into their Lordships' House he had taken
the part of the corporation of London on this matter.
He recollected well that as he was leaving the House on
that occasion the late Earl of Liverpool stopped him and
said, " Let me, as an old Member, give you, who aro a
ythoiunnggto doneo, a little piece of advice. Never have any-
with the corporation of the city of London.
Its members are the greatest jobbers I have ever known
in the whole course of my political life."—(Cheers and
laughter.) The recollection of that anecdote would pre-
vent him from voting on either one side or the other on
this occasion.
Viscount SIDNEY stated that, as a member of the
Committee, he had been of opinion that no case for com-
pensation bad been made out by the corporation. He
should therefore give his vote in favour of the amend-
ment of the Noble Earl opposite (Granville).
The Marquis of SALISBURY considered that Par-
liament could not fairly or safely abrogate the charter
under which the city of London had for so many centu-
ries enjoyed the advantages resulting from this market,
without giving adequate compensation.
The Earl of IIAktROWBY supported the recommen-
dation of the Committee.
Lord BEAUMONT said, that when the Committee
declared the preamble of the Bill to be proved, the
charter was ipso facto abrogated. As to compensation,
the erased clauses of the Commons provided the amplest
compensation that the city could lay fair claim to. Do
not let it be forgotten that the charter was granted for
the public good, and not fur the private benefit of the
corporation purse.
Lord COLCHESTER considered that it would be a
dangerous precedent in a constitutional point of view to
withhold adequate compensation from any individuel or
corporation deprived by an Act of Parliament of char-
tered rights.
Lord REDESDALE supported the compensation pro-
posed by the Lords' Committee.
Lord CRAM WORTII said, that in point of fact and
of law, the corporation of London was entitled to no
compensation at all. It so happened that the charter, as
it was called, under which the corporation claimed, was
in reality an Act of Parliament of the reign of Edward
111. Had it been merely a Royal charter the corpora-
tion chartered would have been long since liable to have
its charter abrogated upon scire facia*, as having alto-
gether failed to carry out the purposes for which that
charter was granted, and for having converted that
which was designed for a public good into a public nui-
sance. All that the corporation could ask of Parliament
was to be equitably placed in the same position that it
was in before the passing of the Act, and this was am-
ply provided for by the clauses introduced by the Com-
mons, and now proposed to be restored.
Alter a few words from Lord BATIIURST, which
were not heard in the gallery,
Earl GRANVILLE replied, and their Lordships then
divided, when there appeared--
For the motion of Lord Granville ... 59
Against it 15
Majority —44
Sections 37, 38, and 39, were ordered to be restored
and stand part of the Bill.
The report was then received.
THE LAND-TAX.
The Marquis of SALISBURY moved for copies of
any correspondence between the Commissioners of
Land-tax and the Boards of Revenue on the subject of
the land-tax froze the year 1845 to the present time.
Agreed to.
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Earl GRANVILLE moved that this Bill be read a
second time.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said, that when he

addres on et oti a foctee,
occasion he was induced to hope the Government would
reconsider the measure. He believed that, in conse-
quence of those observations, an alteration had been
made in one of the clauses to which he had more parti-
cularly called their attention; but the Government could
hardly be aware of the extent to which the revenue
would be affected by the inconsiderate manner in which
that clause had been framed. It would involve a loss for
the first three years of 120,0001. Then by the Bill
future pensions were to bo granted on an average of the
last five yeare, to be determined by the Board of Trade.
In his opinion it would be better, in framing Acts of
Parliament, to ascertain distinctly what were a man's
rights, and not to leave them, except in cases of extreme
necessity, to any board or any man at hi 3 discretion to
determine what they should be. No Bill touching on
financial matters should be permitted to pais the House
of Commons without the atricteit inquiry as to its finan-
cial operation.
Earl GRANVILLE believed it to be utterly imprac-
ticable to have introduced a Bill, previous to the difficul-
ties of working it being ascertained, which would not
have required renewed legislation. It was true that
Mr. Finlaison had shown it would have been cheaper to
have continued the present system than to wind it up,
but that continuance was impossible, because it implied
not only an advance from the Treasury, but increased
contributions by the seamen themselves, and that in-
crease they rejected. The object of the Government,
when they found that the old system must be wound up,
was that the seamen should be put as much as pos-
sible in the same situation as they would have been in
had they continued under the old system, either as re-
ceivers of pensions or contributors, or rather in a better
situation.

The Bill was then read a second time.
The Civil Bills (Ireland) Bill and the Charitable In-
stitutions Notices Bill went through Committee.
The Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland) Act Amend-
ment Bill and the Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland)
Bill were read a second time, the latter Bill with a view
of being amended.
On the motion of the Earl of ROSSE, certain returns
relating to arterial drainage under the Board of Works
in Ireland were ordered.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 28.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that, taking into account
the number of amendments proposed, and the impossi-
bility of their being considered this session he had arrived
at the conclusion, that it was incumbent upon him to
withdraw the Bill.

Mr. VESEY expressed his regret that the Right
Honourable Gentleman had come to the determination of
abandoning a Bill of such vast importance.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE urged the necessity of the Govern-
ment introducing a Bill on the same subject next
session.

After some further discussion leave was given to with-
draw the Bill.

The House then adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resum®d at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Mr. HENLEY presented a petition from Oxfordshire
in favour of the retention of the Crystal Palace.
SimiTar petitions were presented by Mr. Heywood and
other Hon. Members.

Mr. COWAN presented a petition from the Caledo-
nian Railway Company against the Conveyance of Mails
by Railway Bill.

A PARK AT FINSBURY.

Mr. WAKLEY asked the Chief Commissioner of
Woods whether measures were in progress, with a view
to comply with the wishes expressed in humorous me-
morials from inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury and
city of London, fur the formation of a park at the north-
east part of the metropolis?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he still hoped that they
would be able to carry out the measures which had al-
ready been taken to create a park in Finsbury.
In answer to a question from Colonel LINDSAY,
Lord SEYMOUR, said he had no objection to lay on
the table of the House the report of the architect on
the sewers lately constructed in Westminster.
Mr. V. SMITH gave notice that he should, early
next session, move for a Committee of the whole House
to take jute consideration the best method of repealing
all the oaths taken by Members, with the exception of
the oath of allegiance.—(Hear, hear.)
In answer to a question from Mr. C. ANSTEY,

Mr. J. PARKER said tho Admiralty were not in pos-
session of any information to confirm the report con-
tained in the newspapers relative to Sir J. Franklin.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS.

The SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had
received the following letter from Mr. Alderman
Salomons:—

" Great Cumberland-place, Friday, July 25.
" Sir, I am advised it is my duty respectfully to inform
you and the House that two actions at law under the statute
have been commenced against me for penalties alleged to be
incurred by me for having exercised, on Monday last, my
right of sitting and voting in the House of Commons, as
Member for Greenwich, and that, at the trial of those actions,
any resolution or proceeding which the House may adopt can
be given in evidence in that action. With the greatest re-
spect, I have the honour to be, Sir,
" Your most obedient servant,
" DAVID SALOSIONS.
" The Right Hon. the Speaker." _ _

Sir B. lIALL rose to move that the electors of the
borough of Greenwich should be heard at the bar of the
House in support of the right of Alderman Salomons to
take his seat as a Member for that borough. This was a
simple resolution, based on strict justice, and founded
on equity, and he hoped the House would not deprive the
electors of what they considered their just rights and pri-
vileges without allowing them to be heard at the bar. In
1832 the House determined the great importance of the
borough by placing it among those in Schedule A which
returned two Members of Parliament, and ever
since then the borough bad exercised that right.
One remarkable feature connected with the borough was
that, though there had been several contested elections,
there was hardly a single instance in which a gentleman
not holding liberal opinions had been elected
for it. The Hon. Baronet then detailed the cir-
cumstances under which Alderman Salomons had
been returned at the last election, and the
subsequent events in reference to his taking the oaths
in the House, all of which have been repeatedly brought
before the public. Alluding to the differences between
the legal authorities he thought the resolution of last
year was most ill-advisedly passed, and he hoped the
Noble Lord would not put another such resolution upon
the paper, because the time would come when they
would be forced to rescind it.—(Hear, hear.) The
House had a precedent for rescinding the re-
solution of last year in the case of Mr.
Wilkes. Hon. Members were no doubt familiar with
the circumstances of that case. Mr. Wilkes was elected
for Middlesex, but as he had published a libel upon the
King, and an immoral essay upon woman, he was expelled
the House. At the next election, however,
Mr. Wilkes was again returned, but upon petition
his opponent was seated, and the❑ followed a contest
between the House and the constituency of Middlesex,
which strongly resembled the contest that was now
going on in reference to Greenwich. The result
of that contest was that the House was com-
pelled eventually to rescind its resolution, and
allow Mr. Wilkes once more to take his seat. Now the
petitioners, whose case ho was now advocating, urged
upon the House the fact that the Member was under no
legal disability whatever which could prevent his
sitting in the House. The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government was very fond of precedents
before adopting any particular course in reference to
eases of this nature. Well, then, he should have them.
There were the two cases in the city where Alderman
Salomons was twice elected to an aldermanic gown,
but the Court of Aldermen refused to let him
take his seat; and, in the first instance, Alderman
Humphery, and in the second Alderman Moon were
seated instead of him. The Court of Alderman, how-
ever, afterwards rescinded their resolution against Jews,
and allowed Alderman Salomons at a subsequent elec-
tion to take his seat. Now, why could not the Noble
Lord follow the example of that now reformed corpora-
tion? He saw no reason against it, but many reasons in its
favour, and in order, as a preliminary step towards giving
the Noble Lord an opportunity of retracing his steps, he
would move that the electors of Greenwich be heard by
counsel at the bar i❑ support of the claim of their Mem-
ber to be allowed to take his seat.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think that
any further light could be shed on tho subject by taking
the course suggested by the lion. Member, and ho
thought it would be a waste of time it they went fur-
ther. The cases which had been quoted by the Hon.
Member were not analogous; and the Hon. Member bad
studiously refrained from giving the House any tangible
reason for hearing counsel.
Mr. ANSTEY was astonished at the course taken by
the Attorney- General. If the petitioners had attempted
to afford additional information they would instantly
have been charged with a breach of privilege for al-
luding to proceedings in a former debate of that House.
In his opinion, one well-considered speech of a learned
counsel would afford greater information to the House
on the subject than twenty speeches of Hon. Members.
Upon the occasion when the House decided against two
freeholders, and obliged them to give up their !settlings
to two Members of that House, even then the House
heard the freeholders at the bar, and offered to hear them
by counsel, but now they would violate both the form
and the substance by refusing to hear the petitioners at
the bar ofjustice. By-said-bye they would have a ge-
neral election, and then an appeal would then be made
not only to the constituencies of Greenwich and London,
but to every large constituency in the country, and
they might depend upon it, it would not be the two seats
of Greenwich and London they would have to consider,
but the case would be made one in which every consti-
tuency would fcol itself affected.—(Hear.) The result
would be that the House would find itself in that posi-
tion in which it would be brought into collision with
the people of England and the courts of justice, and
they would then be obliged to do that which they had
always done iu all such cases—namely, recede from
their position and give way to the power of the law.
It was to save them from this humiliation that the ad-
vocates of the petitioners supported the motion before
the House.

Sir F. THESIGER, said the real question before the
House had bee❑ departed from by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who last addressed it. That Hon. and
Learned Gentleman did not apply himself to the argu-
ment of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, who
urged that the whole question had been fully canvassed
last year, and decided upon by the House. What wa3
the use of heAring counsel at tho bar? The whole ques-
tion could and had been fully argued in the House, but
the only thing that could arise by bearing counsel at the
bar would be to hear the case argued on one side. This
was ono reason against hearing the petitioners at the
bar, but there was another. The petitioners asked to be
heard at the bar in defence of their right to elect them

own r:pivsoutatives. No Wit ohjecii,d to their doing so.
The electors might elect whom they pleased. They
might elect a minor or a clergyman, if they liked, but
that did not entitle a minor or a clergyman to take his
seat in that House, the law being against their doing so.
—(Eles,r.) He should therefore oppose the motion before
the House.

Mr. VILLIERS said the Hon. Gentlemen, who had a
motio❑ on the paper for a new writ for Greenish; said
he had no desire to deprive the electors of that borough
of their rights, But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
might carry his motion, and if so, the choice of the
electors would be set aside. He was anxious to hear
the :case of the petition at the bar, because the 1,,gal
gentlemen might give them information on the question
under consideration. The majority in that House had
decided against the right of the people of Greenwich,
and they now came to the bar to ask that the whole
question would be fairly heard. Could anything
be fairer ? The question was not fully and
fairly discussed last year, for the House were
told that a Bill was about to be brought in
to admit the Jews into Parliament. That Bill had been
introduced, and Mr. Alderman Salomons hail shown
great respect for the House, by not coming down to it
until the question had been settled. —(Hear, hear.)
The House of Lords had rejected the Bill, on the
ground that they would not admit Jews into Parlia-
ment. There was, then, no likelihood of their altering
their decision.

Sir IL H. INGLIS rose to order, and observed that the
Hon. Gentleman had referred to the House of Lords,
which wn a violation of order.

Mr. VILLIERS said he would keep in order by con-
fining his allusions to " another place."--(A laugh.) He
had only to add that the arguments used in another
Place were such as left little hope of their ever consent-
ing to admit Jews into Parliament.—(lleac, hear.) So
it was desirable that they should consider whether they
could not admit Jews into that House, they doing all
that the law called upon them to do.—(Hear, hear.)
That was what they were called upon by the petitioners
to do. He would support the prayer of the petition.
Mr. NE WD EGATE denied that the electors of Green-
wich were so deeply anxious on this subject as Hon.
Members had suggested, because from 1,500 to 2,000
electors of Greenwich refused to vote, for they had no
confidence in the contest, owing to the previous relations
which existed between Mr. Alderman Wire and the
Jewish body. It was well understood that, at the elec-
tion for Greenwich, treating was notorious, and even
Alderman Salomons acted in a most extraordinary man-
ner by drinking beer from a pot when addressing the
electors from the hustings.—(A laugh.) He saw no
reason that the electors of Greenwich should be placed
in a better position than the electors of London. He
should, therefore, vote against the motion.
Sir J. HANDIER said that when Mr. Salomons was
elected alderman, be could not take the necessary oaths.
To meet the difficulty Lord Lyndhurst brought a Bill
into Parliament, and this passed. The consequence was
that Alderman Salomons took the necessary oaths. The
same course was now proposed by the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, and that was the course he
should support.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said it was the law, and not
the House of Commons, that interfered to prevent the
Gentleman returned for Greenwich from taking his seat
in that House. He contended that on ineligibility hung
the whole question, and as Alderman Salomons could
not comply with the conditions of the law, he could
not sit.

Mr. AGLIONBY did not consider that the Hon.
Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)
should raise the objections that he did against the right
of Mr. Salomons with respect to his seat in that House;
and he should say, in addition to that, that the opposi-
tion offered ,was most unfair and unjust.—(Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL contended that the locus
standi tozally depended on the principle of taking the
oath, and he was astonished that any Member who
knew the usage of the House should offer any objection.
Alderman SIDNEY was fully assured that the Hon.
Member for Greenwich had a right to exercise his pri-
vilege as a Member, to take his seat and vote, and he
would go further and say, the Baron Rothschild.
The House then divided, when there appcared—
For the motion ... ... 75
Against it ... ... 135
Majority... ..
ADMISSION OF BARON ROTHSCHILD.

Mr. RAIKES CURRIE said, on Friday night he
presented a petition, agreed to at a large meeting of the
electors of the city of London, held on Friday last, of
which he was chairman, praying that the oath of abjura-
tion might be swept from the statute-book, and that they
might be permitted to be heard by their counsel at the
bar of that House, in support of Baron Rothschild's
claim to take his seat as their representative. After,
however, the decision the House had just come to in the
case of the petition of the electors of Greenwich, and as
be must confess that he did not agree with the prayer
of the petition, that the oath of abjuration should be
swept from the statute-book, he did not think it re-
quisite to persevere in asking the House to come to a
decision upon it, and he would therefore with-
draw his motion, that the House should take the
petition into its consideration. At the same time he
would press upon the Government the necessity of
doing something in the matter. The Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, at the close of last session,
got the House to pass a declaratory resolution on this
subject, accompanied with a recommendation that
the subject should be considered early in this session.
That was an intimation that the Noble Lord was pre-
pared to legislate on thp subject, and stake the existence
of his Government upon it. He would, therefore, press
on the Noble Lord the necessity of bringing forward that
question now, or, at all events, in the very commence-
ment of next session of Parliament.—(Hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY rose to discharge a duty, which he
considered the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
had neglected, and to move that the petition be taken
into consideration of the House, in terms of the notice
oa the paper, and that the House hear counsel at the bar,
in terms of the prayer of it. The petition was different
from that of the electors of Greenwich, as it prayed that
the House should hear counsel at the bar, provided they
refused to rescind a resolution passed by the House last
year, preventing Baron Rothschild from taking his seat.
Mr. Alderman Salomons was differently placed, he had
already taken his seat in that House, and he could not
now be heard, except by himself, in his proper place;
but Baron Rothschild appeared in a different form, and
those who returned him urged the case on different
grounds. He had not yet taken his seat.—(Hear.) He
was waiting for the decision of that House upon his case,
and he craved, and he (Mr. Anstey) could state, was now
desirous, that he should be heard at the Bar by
his counsel. It was his (Mr. Anstey's) intention to
press this motion to a division. He had pledged himself
to the electors of the city of London that he would leave
nothing untried whieh could by any means forward their
case, and he would not, therefore, be prevented by the
solicitations of less timid friends of the cause, from fol-
lowing out that course. The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, in his speech on the previous motion,
said that this was similar to a person who refused to
take the oath of allegiance, but here such was not the
case, for they had decided last year that the seat for the
city of London was full, and that they could not issue a
new writ. Baron Rothschild did not refuse to take the
oath of allegiance. He took that oath, and he took the
oath of abjuration in the form binding on his conscience,
and ho would, therefore, move that the House bear
counsel in behalf of the electors of the city of London
in support of the petition presented to this House on
Friday last.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he was present at the meeting
at which this petition was agreed to, and a more or-
derly and unanimous meeting he never saw. He thought
the electors of the city of London had a right to be
heard, and although he did not agree with the state-
ment of the petition, that the oath of abjuration ought
to be swept from the statute book, ho trusted thet the
House would not think it disrespectful to it, for the elec-
tors of the city of London to ask it to rescind its
decision of last year, and bear counsel in favour of
the petition.
Mr. RAIKES CURRIE agreed that the meeting al-
luded to was most numerously and respecably attended.
The business was carried on in the most regular manner,
although he admitted, that after two resolutions haul
unanimously,expressing thatthe feelings of the
mbeeeentinpgrseadn,d fullyagr
eed
when
a petition was about to be proposed upon them,
his Honourable Friend the Member for Youghall
Anstey) made his appearance with a counter
petition, which no doubt would have given rise
to great discussion. Just, however, at that juncture,
Minerva came to their aid, in the shape of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Cockerinouth (Mr. Aglionby),
who knowing that the Hon. Member for Youghall car-
ried a gun ot no inconsiderable range, and of no incon-
siderable bore—(Laughter)—instead of showing fight,
the two made up the matter, and • a compromise took
place, the result of which was, that the petition was al-
tered from the terms of the resolution which preceded it
to the form in which it had been submitted to the House.
—(Hear.) He must say that he did not think the peti-
tion a proper and fair echo of the resolutionseand that it
would be useless, after the fate of the petition of the
Greenwich electors, to ask the House to divide upon it.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said from what he had heard,
it appeared to him that the one-halt of the meeting of
the electors of the city of London held upon the subject
did not know what the other was about.—(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) But even though they did, the citizens
of London were but a small body of the constituency,
and should the question come before the country at a
general election, they would see a far different expres-
sion of feeling upon it.
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE said while the Honourable
Member for Northampton (Mr. R. Currie) might make
a very good chairmen of a meeting, he did not think ho
had on this occasion done his duty as a representative
of the people.—(Cheers.) hid it not been for his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Member for Youghal, he took
at present occupied, and he tendered his
lsave to say that this question would not have stood in
that Honourable and Learned Gentleman for
tt
hh ea
uposition i t
the bold, manly,
way and spirited stand he had taken. He
mr. Osborne)l
present at the City meeting, and
o
he told the House that the opinion of the city ot Lon-
don was invariably carried out by the country. He
did not imagine the question of conceding to the
Jews that to which they were entitled would be
carried during the present session; but this he would
say that unless the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government took up the matter in sincerity, a re-
form of the House of Lords would be called fur. It was
not his (Mr. Osborne's) wish that that question should
be agiteted, bet if it were, they would raise a devil that
might not be so easily laid. He hoped the Noble Lord
would take that circumstance into consideration, and
bring for ward a measure early next session, for the abo-
lition of all tests and Parliamentary qualification. The
question should not be delayed session after se3cion, and
the farce gone through session after session of bringing
for ward resolutions of promises to pay which were never
performed.—(Hear.)