The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-28 00:00:00

to admit them would lead to the disparagement of the
Christian religion. Their lordships had defeated by a
large majority an attempt to introduce Jews into Parlia-
ment. Let them leave well alone. It was not desirabie
for them to court a collision with the House of Com-
mons on the subject. If the House of Commons at-
tempted to force their religious feelings they would be
ready to defeat that attempt, and he trusted the people
of England would re=pent their principles ; but if they
sought a conflict with the other house he doubted whe-
ther public opinion would be with them.
Toe Earl of DERBY said his objection to remain pre-
cisely where they were was not an objection that referred
to the admission or non-admission of the Jews. What
he wanted to do was to take out of the oath everything
that was avowedly, and by the consent of all parties in-
defensible. In the event of the House of Commons tak-
ing a course which he might consider unreasonable, It
would be competent to him either to postpone or with-
draw the bill.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought the Par-
liamentary practice was, that when a bill had been once
introduced, it could not be withdrawn without the con-
sent of the house. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the noble lord
admitted that he had introduced the bill in order to get
rid of a clog which he had found inconvenient. (" Hear,
hear," from the Earl of Derby.) Why, then, did he not
pursue the manly course of connecting with the propo-
sal to repeal the oath of abjuration one to exclude the
Jews.

The Bishop of EXETER said in reply to the noble
and learned lord's (Lord Campbell's) remark that, if this
bill passed these would be an oath of abjuration with no
thing to abjure, he would observe that, except in the title,
there was no mention in the bill of an abjuration oath.
Lord LYNDHURST then brought forward certain
amendments. He did not press them to a division, but
stated that he would propose them on the third reading.
The Earl of DERBY said that on the third reading he
should be prepared to divide the house on the amendments.
The bill having passed through committee,
Lord RED ESDALE remarked that the opposition to
this bill was rather unusual. It should be borne in mind
that the object for which it was framed was simply to get
rid of what was objected to by both houses of Parliament,
without requiring either house to go any further.
Toe Etrl of DERBY said he would fix the third read-
ing for Thursday next.
A petition from a parish in Devonshire, complaining
of the non-consecration of a new cemetery, was presented
by the Earl of PORTSMOUTH, and accompanied by a de•
tail of the circumstances by which it was prompted.
The Bishop of EXETER explained the motives for
his conduct in the affair, and some further discussion
having taken place the subject dropped.

ThetSardiocan Loan Bill was read a third time and
_ _ _

Their lorthhipa then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAICER took the chair at the usual hour.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The St. Sepulchre's Manor (Dublin) Bill was read a
third time a!,(1 passed.
The Perth Burgh and Harbour (No. 2) Bill was read
a second time.