The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE 01? COMMONS..--(YEBTERDAY.)
The SPRAICER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Ha.lingden Water Bill and the Southport Water
Bill were severally read a third time and passed. •
Mr. DUFF presented a petition from a place in the
north of Ireland against the Bleaching Works Bill.
The petition, which was read at length by the clerk at
the table, stated that certain petitions that had been
presented to the house in favour of the bill had been ob-
tained by misrepresentation, and prayed for inquiry into
the circumstances.
Sir W. WEBB prasented several petitions from North
Wales in favour of Medical Reform.
Sir F. THESIGER presented a petition from Stara.-
ford against the Oath of Abjuration Bill. - '
Mr. E. LOCKHART presented a petition from Sel-
kirk•against the Oath of Abjuration Bill. • -•
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from the Man.
ch'ester Commercial Association, and also a petition from
165 of the principal firms in Manchester ag4inst the
Bleaching Works Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented two petitions against;
the Maynooth grant. -
ROCHESTER ELECTION. • •

The following members were chosen to 6erve. on the
committee to inquire into the late election for Rochester,
viz., Mr. Floyer, Sir H. F. Davy, Mr. J. Smyth, Mr.
R. Ingham, and Mr. Byng. .
EXPORTATION OF IRON. • 4

Mr. WILSON, in reply to an hon. member,-repeated
tate answer he gave on a former occasion with respect
. • to -the export of machinery and parts of machinery, but
' with respect to the exportation of munitions of War, he
. stated that to-day an order in Council would be:pessed,'
. by which all restrictions upon trade and naiigation
would: be entirely removed. '
OATH OF ABJURATION BILL.- l .
• -Mr. M. GIBSON then rose to-move the second read-
. • ing of a bill to abolish the oath of abjuration and as-
surance; and, in doing so, contended that no -ill could
follow such a measure. The measure-was of piecisely
the same character as that of-Lord Lyndhursts, 'and had
the approbation of that noble lord. The passing of the
measure which hcadvocated. would not in the is-lightest
degree-interfere with the others now on the statute-book,
• but it would be a relief to all classes of her Mijesty's
subjects who objected to take- that oath, 'which
' was a political one, and pissed by• Parliament, to beet a
. political danger. That danger, no longer existed, and,
therefore, he contended that the oath - ought Ito be
. abolished. By a single act of Parliament one bendred-
, and twenty-five useless oaths -had been abalisheel, and
, not the slightest inconvenience had ariserein Consequence
of such a proceedings He had taken theopinion of a gen-
.. tlernin learned in the law—not a Parliamentary lie
with respect tOthe person's who were called uporetio take
the oath of abjuration, and he found that all military
officers, all common soldiers, and sailors were called upoil
. to take this oath. The only :persons who weee required-
not to take the oath were those persons in the Custorhsand
Excise, who were only required betake the oatteeif alle-
giance. All schoolmasters were required- to take ,the.
(lath of abjuration, and if the law was strictly carried
out at the present tirne there 'would not beea single
teacher of the Jewish religion—infect, an immense num-.
bee- of her Majesty's most faithful :and, loyal subjects
would be altorrather 'outlawed. He might be told
they passed the Indemnity Act, and by that act yen
exempted the great ceetivil, but refused the same ex-
emption to a member of, Parliement, , Be bad ' been
looking over Boswell's ft I.;ife of Johnson," •-nnd he'
there found that the profligate persort who frpmed•
the oath of abjuration boasted that, he had :framed
an oath which would clamnone-half of the population
and starve the other._ He maintained that- the oath of
- abjuration was utterly ueeleee, ae it was perfeqtl4 cer-.
tain that none- of the-descendants. of the Prinbe of
Wales' (the Pretender) existed*
.0(3 present•nionlent,'
-and it wiis absurd to continue me the statuteloook
wich an oath, This Pretepder di.ed in 17 .65„ and- toe,
Parliament of that day did. not. continue. aleptring the
Pretendeie felt they took out the word " Pretender,"
and inserted in place: of the- word, "his descendante,"-
s t now that all the descender-At were dead, it was but
proper that the ev-erila," descendants," should.
be expunged, as by, doing so the house 'would
. only be follo'seinet the strict rule of precedent'. The oath
of allegiance arty su preotacy, he coate.nded, wereperfectly
eufficienefile the purpose frnewliteh.they were taken, and
tier they ware :take_ n it eyeaa etelpe,bly absurd to insist
, open the taking of the oath of abjuration, as
the whole of the provisions of the eatteethat yits.:
tries ht MeceSaaiiby some parties to .retein, was to be
f')und in the oath of-allegiance. He had thus gone
through the oath, with the eicption of the concluding
paragraph, which stated that the oath was to be
taken with -lit reservation on the true faith of a
Christian. If it was the will of the Parliament that such
. Ctill be the declaration, then they must submit
to take the oath, but he did hope that the honourable
' member t fur Stamford; would not say that ,such
was the case until he had taken the opinion of Parlia-
ment that it was intended to impose religious teas: to
exclude some portione of her Mejeety's subjects frbrn
their civil rights. If it was wished to exclude some par-
ticular persons from Parliament, he insisted that' it
ought to be done by statute, and not
rectlye for he insisted that no British eubjct
ought to be deprived of his civil rights,
except by act of Parliament. (Rear, hear.) The efftet
of this oath had been for nine years to keep the city
of Lonion, to a certain extent, unrepresented ; but it
must not be supposed that by mentioning that cir-
cumstance be was there as the advocate of Baron
R ithschild. He was instigated to pursue the present
peurse by his fe liege as an Eaglishman and a member
of the British Parliament—(hear, heart--and he for one
. would not allow the fig end of, this. oath to debar his
"Jewish felloW eubject; from their civil rights. ([dear )
• He trusted he should receive the suppers of some por-
tion of the Co'ieervative party-in-the house, considering
that Lord Der )y and several prelates bad been in favour
of the aelmisi tn of tile; Jew into Parliament. He
claimed the' relief the bill afforded those Christian mem-
bers who felt that it was a desecration to take any oath.
It it wes the opinion of the Crown, and a majority of
both Houses of Parliament, that members of the Jewish
percussion ought to be excluded from this house, ex•
eluded they ought to be; but, until that course was
adopted, he contended that a great injustice was done to
a certain portion of his fellow-subjects, who bre] never
by any act of Parliament been excluded from sitting in
that house. He concluded by moving the second read-
ng of the bill.
Sir F. THESIGER„ having explained the absence of
certain learned members, said it would be quite incon-
sistent if those like himself who were opposed to mo-
tions such as the present did not oppose the second
reading of this bill for the abolition of the oath of abjti-
ration. The bill of the hon. member consisted of an
assertion and an inference. The assertion was that the
de4cersdants of the Pretender were at an end, and there-
fore the oath of abjuration shoubthe abolished. The oath
of abjuration was not merely a renunciation of the
claitne of the deeesndents of the Pretender, but it
asserted that the Sovereign should be a Protestant.
The honourable member, in moving the secon
reading of the bill, said he did not appear there as the
te`voeete of , Baron Rothschild, and that he had had
.
no communication with that geeelereare But he (Sir F:
Thesiges) begged to ask the right hon. gentleman whee
then he had nut been that very day in close conference
with a gentleman of. the Jewish persuasion,- holding
, high power in the, city c,f London. (Rear, hear.) Now,
ho jelled to know what could be the object of that in-
tervieee whether it related to the doecendante of the
Pretender, or to the " fag" end of thcoath, "on the true,
faith sf a Christieni. (I.e,uhter, and hear, hear):
*The hon. gentleman said he did nut propose to do
anything, in an. indirect manner—(uear, hear)—the.
,object of the right hon. gentleman was: perfectly, plain
end pelpeble. (Hearehear.) He did not kuo,w whether
the noble dord the member for the City of Leaden had
dropped ,inis.mantle on the shoulders of the right hon.
enernherefar Manchester, or whether that right hon.
gentleman 44 etolen it while the
,noble lord was asleep ;
.hp :,be elseuglet the mantle leetter became the noble lord,
although he had worn it threadbare, than the right hon.
member for Manchester. „(Hear, hem, and, laughter.)
Tlie noble lord., had acted in.. a .more„direct manner
than , the honourable „gentleman. ~had„ done.
He did not propose to break • down— the
eenstitutional barriers which had been erected

,
to protecttle-- Protesiantism of the 'successicim.., Some
might be of opinien that there was no danger ou that
point, but he thought ho should ..be.- able to show the
house that any-fears on that point Were not:altogether
so unlikely, as fPtne alight think.;, .4, latimb.cr of Papal
'bulls hail lately beedpublished, wile
lett•.r from Pope 1 tthe 13-
gst which there was
let, ter., ' ' • aeri l3'l to the Eretenderin
.1.70,.whie-i. hp_addreesed to his dearly bo!ovetiplaano•
‘Ki..,og .ot, Areal: Britain,. stating. that Le hal,made an ap-
piiittneirt to anicish. See.- Since then no less than. 66
bulls had been-published, in which all ,the rights of,the
hotPeof Hanover , to the Crown of- Englun
d was
denied. (Hear, hear,), Ile would ask the house if it
e
was prepared te-msert to the principles of a Lill
which was intended entirely to abolis.h,r t,i, oath which
iirOvided.for the Protestant succeeßion of; thje courary;
which he did not think so entirely chimerical. : In the
reign of William and Diary the Jews had been .ox,Awjed
from Parliatner.t by. a direct- act, became, thqy 5,„,
lienP, and no alien.had,a .r.ig,l)t to a seat in. Parliament.
It zoultrnot,.lll.-erefOr c,' Ea said that the -d,ewa.had balm
ndirectly •exclud'ed, "for lietitgought that the cirenmetanee
he h d o,lentioned
.proved entirely, the contrary. He
thie, tt; tl4?.t'tlii4 laocisiia'as,,:tbe .great,. guardian. ,o,
A
ielfg... 4.1 .'„:,,„%ii ,
..,flii ', prayee.„ '..t;bat" :waS , ,weekly.
PAesol',Nlt-• 4--t.4P4', $ ),u,atry„- Q4ll ~W a i b?seioated
hat.- '`l9.lta ?Iti„JAiticlu NIL reNion,,*,.4. piety ,migl,4
6:;) as ti,P11.03114,,, 04.090) 4,1* operations." Now, it
tht,l'hOitse bad nothing at all to do with reJigiim,eithat
prayer ought altofietber.fo be. withdraw.u.l Wear, hear.)
tro 134;-ged,ific h0i1.,4e",t0 -Consitler f4r oxle..moment• what
would be theil,:poiitioki if they rernov.!.d,thiii oith,, what,.
a vlatip:ri it' ‘-'o4la- -e'fforcl,
,t, Ire T-10...nitto: ,dit.tip!ica,, %Fir
w'cim d"laY,.." Irg told y6l.lthere
,Iyilsiklo, trathliins Aies
do:Aihie at 15i-lotesllAtism) And 11,6 e% ,10 1tii"°4f,..,90;1:•
„q, .-
}l?iiiTail4lße4-414titt jr
e e ec( ot the htil:'if passed':
..won ( la t'o-u-ri ro 4s nntlae the. constitution; 444 Ito
un-Chriatianise the Leaki)aturil,l49 b?oggAttP•nl2,7e,thet
the bill be read a ~econcf.iirriitAbtft'AV6l4 m"thg''"
TI2O:'LQ3•O APYildit.TE said the oath of abjuration
was not framed for the purpose of excludin;:a,certain
class of persons from Pirtiamtnif ; but it was framed for
a purely political .purpose..-- Until
sto-clay he had never
heard that the sncce3sion.C.ryg4 Ci4wn W:P4.9 ip,-44t.gqx•
Until to-day he had rest.e4.lAldeetiY sair§fiet PA9, the
fate"be tiff) Peeteridet 'and 140, gg4l7- da9. s.i,lip.VoLwa,
they had been t9.14,_ that,7l,3, '2. (411..ktiggtrcep
.pul.s
might turn 11P .09t1 Qi,Y, , add' it was • feared that
he weliki ebeetr with' a good deal., pi:, support.(l.4ll3gb cer.) They had, also been' told that, 'ro ttstattt-
ism was in danger; dew hethougbt that. Piu•te.sfantissa:
was: never 80 Ware or fins AS it was at t 44 prOielit time,,
because it was founded La Pte oNaiTia4 3' 4 tt t.
.9 l:99Pe• '
. - . . r -, • , - , •
:-, .

t. 1 se. k

o!

P

_ - - J; -17,-q, t . 0,1 CO, o,i. „ gc„.L -At

;W 1 ith respect to_ wbat the,_ kon...seek learned..member
'had just said abqut tea, ft./map Catholice beings fernished
e -with an aigunaent as to the asserted negative character
of the Protestants, he conidered it was onb of thoee
statements that was quite' beside the questimie. It was
' not the intention of the oath of abjuration to ,exclude
a .person of the.J.ewish peregasion from ParliaMent, and
' if it was intended to !seclude men holding Viet faith front
taking-part in their proceediegs, he contended it ought
to be done by express act of Parliament, and tot to be'
effected by the fag end of an oath of abjuration. He
should support the second reading-. of the- bill -on :the
,grounds urged by the right hon, gentleman the member
for Manchester..
Mr. NAPIER objected'to thesecond readiTg of the
bill, because it made open questions2of2 sacred and con-
stitutional matters. He certainly 'would not' go the
length, of the leatned Lord ' Advocate I in the
.extension •of civil -and- religious liberty, -but would
stop short at the limit of Christianity.. The noble lord'
(.J. Russell), when he brought forward the measure, did,
'so in a far More straightforward-manner 'than the right
'hob. gentleman had done. By the bill of the noble lord.
admission to the Legislature' was strictly Confined to the
Jews; but the bill ofthe right hon. member for Manches-
ter wouldopen, the door for admission intatheLegialature
of all persons not Christians. He thought the person,
who denied the truths of the Christian doctrines ought
not to be admitted • into Parliament 'any more than a
republican who denied the existence of an earthly cove
reign. The latter would most certainl.sebe,decided to
be .not qualified,- and:he certainly,thoogheetehat the for-
mer was not in .a better position. Thee constitution
Of this country was allied to Christianity, end there-
fore the entrance of any persons who were not Christians
into the house-was a direct violation Of the Christianity
of thecountry.
Lord J.. RUSSELL said there -were two points upon.
which the house seemed -pretty well. agreed, namely,
that it was no longer,necessary to abjure allegiance to the
saccessors of James 111., and that part of it witletreepect
to the Protestant succession, they all - seemed to agree
that. -this part might be retained. He did not quarrel
with the oath of, allegiance, and • doubted not :that,
every one admitted to that house would maintain the
Protestant succession to the throne. The point in dispute
was qUite beside the question of Protestant alarm. The
hon. and learned gentleman appeared to consider that,
hereafter, if persons of the Jewish persuasion were ed-
- mit'ed to a seat in Parliament, the hon. and learned
gentleman said he, would stand on the ground of Chris-
tip.nity ; but.thera,,were . others who stood, on narrour
grounds to oxcjude from office those who differed from
them in religious opinions. It was informer times, be-
-fore the repeal 'of the Test and Corporation Act, held that
, a, man:who did not-profess-the principles' of thes Este-
,. Church was not fit' to hold any office, or to enter
' the House of Commons -as a member nf. Parliament.
116 maintained that there was more hostility on the
-part of the Protestant dissenters towards the Establish- '
anent than there was on the part of the Jew/J. ; 'he-
' Jews did not seek to make,proselytes, but were attached
to their own faith. If theyeamitted Jews.. into Parlia-
ment, it was said, the effect, would be to -no-Chris-
tianise the House of Coannons, What would ,they say.
of the City of London which he lnid the honour to
represent. They had at the' present time a gentle
men of the Jewish persuasion as th'eir Chief Magistrate,:
but by so having him in that office bad the city-of,L in-
don parted,,with its. Ceristianity,, an t. werA- they only to,
resume that.Christiarlity on the next 9t.h. of. November.
(Laughter). It they thought ee maintain the elearaeter
-4 that house by oaths, he would-refer them to thettine
'of the Commohwea4th, wlien every man was called upon '
to declare his form of belief .in-. the-Scriptures. If 91:0!
was the desire of thehoesesnow, why was no a -hill in-
troduced 'for that purpose ? (I,{ew hear ), Having •
gone over some of . the ,objections to, the bel), Um
-noble- lord' said the -oath of abjuration of--
.the descendants-Of James 111. to the thronelOf this king-
-doinoeas no longer.neesssary,eas those descendants no-
longer,e7cisted ; and concluded by, urging., the- house to
agree to tbebill,„and thu.s.proimote,the onward .progress
4 - civil and religions liberty.- . • .
. : .. .. . . , .
Mr. WALPOLE, objected. to the bill. - When the
hon. member for -Manchester' said - the' City of Louder.'
had been for nine years deprived-of one of ,ite'represen;
leet.i v es. -by the ref u 411; of -- that 'house, -to ad AU-Baron'
Rothsohild, -he would .only say that, if the City of Loh-
fi on chOse to elect a•, person -who - was ,consititutionally
cjistinalifisd, it was the -. City of Lon fon, . and
not that hoarse, which- Vas to !Adult-. By the
0 institution, of the country there never was a time when
-a Jew- was entitled to a -seat in. that house,.and, :there-
• fez.Pes there-wane ticoargiament- -in saying- that -the house
was defeating any constitutional principle. The prin-
ciples of religious liberty entitled every one to the fullest
liberty, but,that did hot apply to this case, as it might
be the means of admitting persons .to office which might
--he altogether incongruous with the admission of the in-
dividual... (Hear, hear.) It was not a question of
persecution and intolerance, but it was one calcu-
lated to alter the Christian character of that
house. If this bill was to get. rid of obsolete forms' ho
should have given it his supp irt, but believing it to have
a precisely opposite tendency he should give it his most
determined opposition. , • . .
Lord PALMERSTON said he should give his hearty
concurrence to the second reading of the bill, as the
time had come when the taking of such au oath should
he dispensed with, and that it ought to be removed from
the statute-hook.
Mr. DISRAELI—I wish briefly to state my reasons
for the course I -.shall take on- this occasion. -Not-with-
standing-the observations of the nob'e lord the- member,
for the city of London, I must say that I think the clues;
tion which-is really at issue has not been broughtobefore
the house in a form the most desoetble for its proper
solution.' Tne house perhaps is aware that I have upon
the subject of t to restrictions on the. Jewish portion of
her Maj atty.'s subjects a strong Le big of -a peculiar
nature. I regret that the question ha-s not heen pre-
sented to the c nsideration of the hotise in a manner
that would have raised a sithple issue, and-which would
have-asked for the opinion of the house upon the single
question whether legieletive power should ibe.' entrusted
to British Jews. I deeply lament that that question
should have become involved with one which at all
touches the Protestai t sentiments and Protestant preju-
dices of the people of England. When the noble lord,
two years ago, introduced a measure, which was then
unfortunate, I felt it my duty to vote for tt.e fist time
against the measure, although I had before supported
measures of an analogous kind ; and I did so because I
felt that the noble lord had fatally shifted his 'ground,
and- that he would thereby raise up a host of prejudices
against him, in addition to those against which he mast
from time to time have to contend. With regard to the
particular proposition before u', it is divested, no doubt,
if many of the objections wh cb could be fairly urged
against the pr ,posal of the noble ford in 1854. The oath
ot abjuration in its pre,ent form a'as clearly in- efensi
ble No one on either side of the question has for a mo-
ment praterldid that the oath, a- it is now framed, is nor
"pen to very serious objections. Whetin r if. 13a, arise,:
from inadvertency by the Legislature, or from the g -eat
changes that have taken place in men's minds, or iron
the political circumstances we have had to encounter, 1
know not ; but it cannot be demo i that the terms of the
(-Evil are most anomalous. In dealing witl,l t his.qutet
Con I, for one, should deeply regret, that in voting for
the motion of the right. hon. gentleman the member for
ela,ncbester it should be supposed-that I would vote for
a motion by which it-was. attempted in an indirect Mae
ner to:get rideef those obstacles which are at present in
the way of British.jewe enteringeintosParliane nt, -by
simply removing from the oath the words, •‘ on the true
Loth of a Chris can. ' We ought to frame an oath which
should be taken by members of Parliament on taking
t letr seats is this house. Whether, -if 'we Were calfed
upon to frame -an oath a& ino:tlo,.. it could with - propriety
be ,frame I accere leg to: its.present; form, ;so-far as the
retaining of those words -is - concerned, ,I , will
not stop to diec6se ;That_ is of secondary import-
ance. But these worels at present exist, and, if We am
repudiate and reject them from the oath, it appears to
one that we .should heetaking a course which, 1, inking
only to the policy of our conduct, Nod not regarding
other considerations, would in. my mind, be greatly-2.de-
triunental, and be fraught with consequences which all of
us might deplore. (Cheers.) I have another reason, I
confess, for-calling upon .the houee not to renounce that
form of oath. -I have never advocated the-cause• of the
Jews in this.house upon the principle of relgiousliberty,
wh,ei: the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) moist sincerely
end consistently advocaeee, and. which he has at all times
male the basis of the policy which he has recommended
to us. I have always felt that when you cathe to prac-
tice, and were determined to act upen that principle,
you. would find it a.yery difficult-one to carry you through
your cau-e. Unquestionehly,with reference to other cams,
there are smile bread instances. to which that principle
Will apply, but I very much doubt that if the claim of the
Jews for the removal of these restrictions is merely found-
ed .upon,. the -abstract. principle of religious : liberty,
erfeunds.of ,opposiiion may arise which heve, rot yet been
introduced into the controversy, apd which it may be Ne. ry
if ; t t-cille to meet and defeat. I have al nays felt tht, ILO
&aid 'Of the jeWe to an, entrance into Parliament, and
to tie full erj Iment of ell the rights -which this :tate
can confer .upon ells subjects ,of her Majesty, muscly
and,, in my opinion, justly. rts's . upon the principle
that this as, a Christian s•aie, and that weoire a Chris-
tian community. glean) I have more than once ex-
pressed the reasons which I, have always cherished for
eutertaiuing thia-opinion. It• appears to me that
t.'ve.elaire of. the. Jew to. the. respeot of the- Chrieteao
ealii).9t he, fer„a, moment contested..; .(Cbeero) el-fethe
ilie,olti4lV.bc.t4.lll4thii;e ountey.were ant Cbriit..o,nr if ibis were
sible-riaitine.-cietninunity, there inigb.t be,usany plan
• urgede ga-inst the adinissiOll.of Jews ay
meashe.ii .of this house. But, with .alle becoming re
tpc.C. ,I, may he:allow e.i to say: that :this would mot-broa
Ci.VIEMAne_ ,itatio.ll ta: Chtietion....,oommuottee hail -ttd)ol't,
i?0,t1:4 ilk.u.4.ler Pi-049. inMAPele and -Mspirebtioenefer Am
' efebeeallils r‘eCiollOtresf A 401 v. (tir,r4 . I - 'll gunk - I aiti
if: it .ftwt Ft.l}''tittit.eo aegielen2to the ee:.p;,l taT 1 ci r
i aft ill f Igith? na,t by ,pf tLi ke, tl'„..4e,i,;(c 1301: 1;
,Zrileg;1111:0.,
Imicentnstaoceo, tlecoeseteree I-eh tat vele-mice .e,:, teee,,rogi hi;
!t).O -TA XV yopi),, fo; 03e, st4c-.141, reatihig of etii .
iati, fltili3 Ke.?.49,9pPiat when tkkoill,iii ilitt. bill,,
it
• stl' 'a tkl *hi!' oppertußity; (i.t. propeeipi on .le'' L-
' -Ie / . ,o', .1. ; , ..) ie. -. o• Co- eheeeeeers
o'it eise.e eleisrit'lii"-1-w4i0h411.!'44!e-00!It4i/e?t tieelttaini,
Weli:iAleel: Abil,.leetain.,,gr w:niqaml‘4l)„,the ;tone feitheee
n qii5.4511 ti, !Pad. lel ;eh 1114 ukseeiltit4S eisti On slelegrtee
of eeopown; nwent-4,w4Acik,will ,mei,A,,the,,st .9-0,„pl 4.ily j
.re ‘34.rpay VC e.lectecl. a„pieipjoe„4ttp.l.,lipilse,,,aikd,
%:l3iCli,will,JTsvput,,ehe pecepeity Allis, pArig,o394#e werds.„
•A'
4 e 5 4- f,.P4Aln.q: c9-4.,"119ti9;i0t-V,Tdee s UP4r,.) ell lice:.
the. !juu-q lii.Yete;l4!°/:lll94grAie: t,IPICq 0141/4044,i,
un,Vit.-;: fciiieqß.l 1,q9e.(1.,P9t4049 Oesieblu kviAh,
°Y,kTIW!ag*VP ..i3II fifEdfri*A9P,x, *fteF' Af",i1,43: v(!4cLI
3, ;21.in,911.%)??9,t-la I".f4e, 59.R14).901.,‘ , Lie krettat9e3dPeef
eeell etoo }seals pro isgeite' meow us la 4 e .forses i e leese 4u4.
offer the,,p4.cAtAp.xilifeillion4 can gip), rhe.Aubjet,,
-I tk.i.il,l 414-9...c.v.re,5' if ich"l: lave. meotilimed keit 4 (lie
most I,4'ers; to concilife all parties. (Cheers, arntiorple
ofe E
14/.44? ")' Pfa is„ssss : , , : ~.:. ~. : ~ . ~.Lt 1.,
i..) 4J- .4 Void the nieefolro, n 0
e 110 ~...,