The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-02 00:00:00

existed on the part of the public, as shown in the absence
of petitions against the measure, arose from the reliance
which the people out of doors laced on the determina-
tion of their lordships not to pass this bill. Bat during
the last six weeks it had been well understood through-
out the country that theirlordships were disposed to give
way on the subject, but yet no petitions had been pre-
sented against the course proposed. He contended that
when there was a strong feeling existing in the country
on any subject it was always evinced by the number of
petitions presented to that house, and the fact that none
had been presented against this bill proved most dis-
tinctly that the country was not opposed to the proposed
alteration. (Hear.) He hoped and trusted, therefore,
that this very night their lordships would at once and
far ever put an end to a question which bad been so
long in agitation, and which it was hopeless to expect
could be much longer delayed. He therefore moved the
second reading of the bill.
The question having been put by the LORD CHAN-
cmtO3,
Lord CLANCARTY opposed the motion, on the
ground that it would not put an end to the question,
and because it proposed to carry out an object which
was in opposition to the repeated expressions of opinion
on the part of their lordships. If a measure of the sort
were to be passed, he thought it was due to their lord-
A-tips that they should pass the one introduced by the
venerable and gallant lord (Lord Lyndhurst), [rather
than by the noble and gallant lord who had just moved
the second reading of the bill. He would gladly join in
any measure which should tend to the continuance of
harmony between the two houses, and which would
amend the character of the oaths required to be taken,
but be could not support the present bill, which he be-
lieved would have no harmonising effects of the kind.
Before they proceeded further with the tampering of the
oath of Parliament, he entreated the house to pause and
consider well the object of the administration of those
oaths, which was to set forth publicly and solemnly that
the Sovereign of this country ruled by the grace of God.
He had no hesitation in :aging that he should be justi-
fied in bringing in Baron Rothschild, if he could only do
eo without sacrificing principles which he held in the
highest estimation, and which he could not consent
to forego upon any consideration, and he therefore
felt it his duty to move that the bill be read a second
tiuse this day three months. (Cheers.)
Lord BERNERS supported the amendment.
Earl GRANVILLE did not think this the best way
of dealing with the subject, but it was one he could sup-
port. Re would rather, however, their lordships had
first taken into consideration their amendments to the
first bill. They stood in an unsaeisfectory and anomalous
position with reference to this question. They were un-
able to prevent a Jewish representative from sitting on
committees of the other house and taking part in con-
ferences between the two houses. He could do all except
voting in the house, and he (Earl Granville) considered
it was a mere mockery for any one to stand up is that
house and appeal to the highest religious Christian prin-
ciples with a view of exercising this barren restriction.
(Sear.) He would cordially support the second reading
of the bill, and he congratulated the house on the proba-
bility of this measure being passed. (Hear.)
Tae Duke of CLEVELAND said he had ever sup-
ported religious toleration. The time had now arrived
when the question must be settled. It was not to be ex-
pected the House of Commons would longer submit to
the rejection of measures of this kind, and in order to
prevent a collision between the two houses he hoped the
bill would pass. The noble duke, who spoke with his
back towards the gallery, was understood to review at
some length the attempts at legislation for the admission
of Jews to Parliament for upwards of 10 years past, and
said the Jews were so small a race that there would
never (if the measure passed) be more than three Jews
a. else shoe members of the other house. (Laughter.)
Lie Leee,;,. e;st; riisiesr Parliament was
without foundation, for he did Liu, u‘iieve e. y Jow
would be returned to Parliament except for a metropo-
litan borough.
The Doke of RUTLAND was opposed to the bill.
No new facts had been stated, no new principles had
been enunciated, nor had any new arguments been urged
sufficient to induce him to change his opinion. He called
upon their lordships to reject the bill.
Lord REDESDA.LE opposed the bill, and should
support the amendment.
Lord BROUGHAM entered on a defence of the
principle of Lord Lucan's bill, and said that circum-
stances had lately arisen which had given a different
complexion to the question. It had recently come to
the knowledge of both Houses of Parliament that a
member of the Jewish religion might perform nine-tenths
of his duties in Parliament without taking the oaths,
and he saw no reason why he should not be allowed to
perform the remaining tenth. If he (Lord Brougham)
understood the principle of tire bill it meant this, that
if the house should be of opinion generally that a person
of the Jewish religion could net take the oath of abjura-
tion "on the true faith of a Christian," the house might
thereupon make a general resoluedon so as to remove the
objections which would be fatal in the case of a Jew.
(Hear, hear.) There was, however, one material cir-
cumstance which in his opinion should induce their
lordships to alter their course, and which should put an
end to all interference and all doubt. It had now been
ascertained that by the law and constitution of Parlia
ment any person might perform nine parts in ten of the
duties of a member of either House of Parliament with-
out taking any oath, or undergoing any formality what-
ever. He held that there were Christians who sat daily
in Parliament who differed as entirely from what was
the teaching of the Church in all important matters of
religion as the Jews (lid.
The Bishop of OXFORD said he could not alter his
vote. Men who rejected the Saviour must in all things
and thoughts differ from Christians, and should not be
trusted to make laws for them. He had advocated the
admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, but could
not admit the Jews. Lord Brougham's argument went
not merely to let in the Jews without oaths, but all men
without oaths. What had happened to induce so general
a change of views I—nothing. Nor could it be said that
the wish of the people was with this bill. In this in-
stance, the House of Common notoriously did not repre-
sent the people. The people were apathetic on the point.
How could they legislate hereafter for the Church in
Parliament ? The Jew once admitted, what could keep
out the Mahommedan, the Hindoo
Lord DUNGANNON opposed the second reading of
the bill.- The frequent return of Baron Rothschild was
no argument for his admission, seeing that those who
returned him well knew that he could not be admitted.
The Earl of CARDIGAN said that although Le had
been a consistent supporter of the present Government
for upwards of 38 years, he for one could not consent to
stultify every vote in favour of the bill. He admitted
their lordships wire placed in a very awkward and un-
pleasant position, but he could not see any reason why
there should be any change among them with regard to
this subject. He should give a decided vote in favour
of the noble lord's amendment.
Their lordships then divided. The numbers were—
Content—Present
Proxies
—143
Non-contents—Present
Proxies
—97

Majority
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday next.
_ MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE BILL.

On the motion of Lord ASINGFER, this bill, with
amendments, was read a third time and passed.

OATHS BILL.

__—
On the order that the report of reasons to be offered to
the Commons for the Lords insisting on their amend-
ments be taken into consideration,
• Lord CAMPBELL suggested that the report should
be taken into consideration that day six months, with
the view of a bill being introduced next session for the
. modification of the oaths at present iu form
The Earl of DERBY could not assent to the proposal
of the noble and learned lord. In point of fact, both
houses of Parliament were agreed, their only difference
being with regard to the introduction of Jews into Par-
liament—a difficulty which was now in a fair course of
removal by the measure that bad been carried that night.
He thought both bills should be sent down to the other
house together, and with that view he would !propose
the consideration of the report being postponed until
Tue, day next.
After a short conversation, in which Earls Granville
and Stanhope and Lord Redesdaie took part, this course
was ultimately agreed to.

The Public Grounds and Playgrounds, the County
Courts Dietiict, the Durham County Palatine Jurinctic-
tion, and the Stanhope and Waleingham Rectories Bills
were read a second time.

Toe County illanngemcnt Bill passed through coin-

Their lordbLips adjourned at a quarter past 9 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.

The New General Post-office (Edinburgh) Bill was
read a third time and passed.
UNIVERSITY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.

V On clause 13 being moved, which proposed to deprive
the town councils of their rights of patronage, and in
which clause an amendment had been suggested when the
house was, on a former occasion, in committee on the
bill,

Mr. E. ELLICE thought the arguments failed with
respect to Edinburgh. He suggested an amendment
leaving them the patronage, but controlling the exercise
of it for the protection of the public.
Mr. BLACK and Col. SYKES opposed the amendment.
141 r. DUNLOP said the amendment would have a
larger scope than VMS intended, and he therefore must
oppose it.
The LORD ADVOCATE took a similar view. He
thought it would affect the rights of private foundation
where the light of nomination had been vested in town
councils.

After some further discussion, the amendment was
Withdrawn.
Sir W. DUNBAR moved a proviso, to the effect that
the patronage hitherto exercised by the town council of
Edinburgh should be transferred to seven curators, four
to be "'rued by the town council and three by the
University Court ; the term of office to be four years.
Mr. COWAN opposed the amendment ; but if it was
proposed as a compromise he should not stand in the
ay.
',rue clause was then agreed to, with Sir W. Dunbar's
addition, which was as follows :—" And the right of
nomination or presentation to all professorships in the
University of Edinburgh, in times past and presently
exercised by the Town Council of Edinburgh, or by one
or more of the members thereof, shall be tramsferred to,
tad in all time coming be exercised by, seven curators
to be nominated as follows : within two montl is from and
after the date at which this Act shall !otne into opera.