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

b cone. They would not be doing their duty to the citizens
Ttof London if they submitted to the decision which the
Souse came to on this subject. If the quesion were
"th'en up with spirit next session, it would be carried
through Parliament. IF they did nut carry through this
great cause they would be doing a great injustice to the
exude of civil and religious liberty. It was harsh to the
city of London and to the borough of Greenwich to
allow the question to stand in its present position.
Mr. J. EVANS said that those persons who bad ie-
Jeeted the Bill in another place had merely exercised a
eoestitutional privileee. am:: he did not agree with those
*ha thought the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment had acted unfairly in this mutter. He believed
that they wore indebted to the Noble Lord for the man-
-8 ill
which he advocated the principle involved in the
I _llia for admitting Jews into Parliament. The Hon. and
retried Geutleman then referred to the orie,in of the
oath of abjuration, which was enacted in the 13th year
riTilliam and Mary. In this oath were the words
on the true faith of a Christian." This oath was car-
ried
t out by the 9 and 10 Geo. 1., which made it oblige-
Zt°rY on all persons in the country to take it. But then
IMS clear, from the nature of the oath, that it was only
to be taken in the cense most binding on the conscience
t-: the persons taking it, so that a Christian could accept
;_-"° words in question. and the Jew could take the oath
_,"4 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
kr.,BETHELL argued that greater injustice could not
be offered than the proceedings of the present Govern-
r,aeut towards Baron Rothschild and Mr. Salomons. He
2u_id not know why they, because of their religious feel-
-901 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 was assured, as was the
"hole 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.
,
une 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
la regretted to say was absent through indisposition,
lthe House decided by by a majority of 166 to 92, in
fayour of the resolution which was now before the
kiouse. So that the House was now again called upon to
aitrm that which they had already affirmed. It was not
accessary again to argue this resolution. Alderman Salo-
ons having taken a course which, though not the same,
Ices similar to that which Baron Rothschild took, he
atkedagain to take the same course now as then, and
to actin accordance with that resolution which appeared
ttPoa the journals of that House. The Hon. and Learned
tilentleman said, why not take the opinion of a court of
"v? He had no objection to taking the opinion of a
(I°art of law, and they were informed to-day, upon the
authority of Alderman Salomons, that he intended to
Zlta the opinion of a court of law upon the penalties
ttaloll he may have incurred under the Act of Parliament.
he could not see how the opinion of a court of law
vowel in any manner influence them as to the fact as to
Whether a Member had or had not taken the oaths re-
paired, The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Be-
han) quoted some cases as if he meant them to form
t„iecadents for the ecurse he now called upon them to
totally
Ile must say he thought the case of Mr. Wilkes
:tally inapplicable. The House of Commons in that
vitllle proceeded upon its view of its own powers and pri-
o:Fsea. They choose to say that the author of a libel
h„gu2t to be expelled from the House, and that after ex-
;ton no Member could properly take his seat. They
of hot proceed according to the dictation of any court
law• He did not agree with the House of Corn-
tor,ula in their view upon that occasion, but certainly that
'easel4formed no sort of precedent for the present one.
tue Municipal Corporation Act the oath "on the
Ell!le faith of a Christian" was made necessary before ad-
tr„,lB,2Blon to certain offices. In 1845 Lord Lyndhurst in-
drtleed a Bill, in the preamble of which this oath was
peuded to, for it said, "whereas persons of the Jewish
tiortlacion could
_not conscientiously make the declare-
04...contained in the Act," &c.; but according to the
declare-
°P
now laid down, this proceeding was altogether
eecessary, for the Jew was not required to use all
r,„°_ words of the oath. It was useless to argue the
question further. He thought the House of Commons
of, not do otherwise than assent to the course he pro-
Oct. The question, they were told, was about to be
breetight before a court of law. If any new light could
thrown upon the subject there, he knew no reason
6°Y the House of Commons should not avail itself of it;
I,:t with all the information they now had before them,
Alt,liought they would overstep the law if they allowed
er aan Salomons to take his seat.—(Hear, hear.)
Noble
ANSTEY contended that the speech made by the
If°hle Lord the Prime Minister only proved that the
on. Member for Greenwich ought to have been heard
)4 the bar. They had a strong case in favour of the
ira. Member for London and the Hon. Member for
V'eenwich. He was convinced the feeling of the Noble
o7tl was in favour of civil and religious liberty.—
lbeers.) He hoped the resolution would be withdrawn
~, present, and introduced next session under the
°Wane° of a decision of the courts of law.—(Hear.)
411.. .JOHN ABEL SMITH rose principally to protest
4ainst the conclusion to which the Noble Lord had
iitt°,e, that because the House had come to a resolution
0Z Year in the case of Baron Rothschild, that same pre-
ti;'_'!at should govern every succeeding case. Ho thought
afrin resolution was unskilfully drawn. He protested
traast being called upon to vote in favour of this resolu-
-14011113011 the same grounds as he voted in favour of that
o,Posed last year in the case of Baron Rothschild. He
14sitlered that the Honourable and Learned Merci-
an for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell) had made
fore a decided case for suspending all inter-
ttiere of that House until the question should be
sour by a court of law, as it certainly would be in the
tho'l° of the recess, and that being hiseopitkien„he
to tight all further procedure in that Housiki rete-retioe,
°
tt should stop for the present. No doubt; should the'
le obta.Lord press his resolution to a division, he would
bur to a majority in favour of it; but he might rest as-
u,n, that the question would be brought again and
It Z3°.°3. before the House; and although he and those who
thetight with him might that night be defeated upon it,
theltvoilld take the defeat as auguring that the hour of
titatarlareph of the principle they advocated was not far
. ouse then divided, when there appeared—
tor Lord J. Russell's resolution ... 123
4gainst it ... 68
ee. Majority in favour of the resolution —55
resolution was then agreed to.
'"NVEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS

The BILL.
lleuse then went into Committee on this Bill.
sta't BECKETT DENISON objected to the first
tEtPe, which provided for the carrying of mail bags by
oi"ways, and the putting them down at the interme-
klkte stations at the expense of the railway con 11)-
0 tl, the expenses of the same to be determined by arta-
to,
folllt- C. LEWIS said the measure had been produced
}lt the very purpose of obviating the evil the Hon. Mem-
isr complained of.
kikr, COWAN said be had been asked to oppose this
it:asure on the part of the railway companies, not from
t4l Wish they had to impede the transmission of the
5415, but because they considered that the present mea-
-17144'4. exacted from them the maximum of service at the
54,hiratlern rate of remuneration. He was of opinion that
4": a measure should not be hurried through the
fel?"ste at the close of a eession, and that the whole mat-
-e..4could be referred to a Select Committee.
mor+ate
HAMILTON agreed that it was exceedingly
tel:lg to attempt to pass such a Bill at the close of the
41,.
%he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said
14cY Would be enabled, by the means proposed, to give
kiteteased accommodation to the public c
souncv;i3yt:
tee„e of mails to small towns, and instead of
Lare being injurious to railways, he believed it would
-e otherwise.
khetifiLer a few words from Mr. BECKETT DENISON and
aar. MANGLES,
ttla3ir. LOCKE said the present measure
~!.ne part of Government, to ger, rid was an attempt,
;latch awarded compensation to the railwaysof
the
Port
to the Post-office. Bfoi.rllsaortvsiu'474.3,
rt the amendment. •
He should, therefore,
th.kr. LABOUCHERE said the question was, whether
_,)‘.
ef, tight was so secured to the servants of the r
071,c.e> that that they should be enabled to perform th.fieiwr
th 'lv% to the public on the railways. The courts of 1
the cotland had expressed it to be their opinion that
2‘l3lBervants of the Post-office had a right to travel on
tet,WiaYs, while the Irish courts had come to a different
theetTi.Bion, at the same time that they expressed a wish
of eee
„ question should be brought under the revision
tetectirt of appeal, or that an Act should be passed to
1141151,01 e law on the subject. In point of fact, in the
uefore the Committee they were asked nothing but
t o
the courts of law in Scotland had declared thePost-
to be entitled to.
40t c2,?nel THOMPSON hoped that the House would
With"andon the principle of reasonable interference,
co a view to the preservation of the rights of the
%%unit Y*
teat GLADSTONE did not think the Bill could be
e?...lced simply as a declaratory Act.
ekiter a few words from Mr. Sandars, Mr. Forster, and
bancan,
Ive Ord PALMERSTON reminded the House that rail-
tight were established for public utility, and it was only
etZ,.t that they should be called upon to perform those
the 'lcs which the
Whi Legislature had it in contemplation
on ahould perform when they granted them the Acts
doch their very existence was founded. The Bill
not expose the railway companies to any additional
certain duty
but simply provided that they should perform a ain duty for what he considered a fair amount of re-
'generation.
GOOCH thought the present attempt of the Go-
nment to have the maximum of service at the mini-
'gam of cost was most unfair to railway companies.
;the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER briefly
took exceptions to some of me. Gladstone's statements.
M. O'CONNELL hoped the Irish law courts had
sot been consulted on the la.
6?,1r. LOCKE said, if the clause were adopted, it w,ould
a very serious effect on railway property. There
'B's no knowing where Post office exactions would stop.
eskr. DENISON said, railways did not object to do
'plat was asked of them, but they required to be paid
or the service.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 53
Against it ~. ▪ „,
56
The
Majority against Gove▪
rnment . —3
-4:4.!rte clause was consequently struck out.
,!le Basso resumed.
ti„t_ti.e Metropolitan Interment Bill was read a seeoed
`146, to be committed this day (Tuesday).