The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-04 00:00:00

SION TO PARLIAMENT.

Mr. T. DITNCOMBE moved—" That whereasthis house
had, upon two previous occasions, resolved, that any per-
son professing the Jewish religion may henceforth, in taking
the oath prescribed in an act to entitle him to sit and
vote in this house, omit the words, and I make this decla-
ration upon the true faith of a Christian' "—that leave
be given to bring in a bill to provide that the fore-
going resolution may be made a standing order. He con-
tended that, as matters at present stood, it was mostunsatis-
factory, as the standing order might be rescinded—not
that he thought such would be likely, if the people
were consulted. When the resolution was placed on the
standing orders, no future Parliament would attempt to
disturb it, and it would remain on their records as a
memento of the religious toleration of the present day, as
well as the intolerance of a former period.

Mr. COX seconded the motion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved as an amendment to Mr. T.
Duncombe's motion—"Thatno resolution, under the provi-
sions of the act 21 and 22 Vic. c. 49, shall be moved in this
house, unless at least one days notice of such resolution
shall have been previously given in the votes. That this
be a standing order of the house." He bowed to the
decision of Parliament with reference to the resolution, but
he felt bound to resist the present motion ; at the same
time, he considered that they proceeded with that motion
with too much haste. He would take the case of
the hon. member for London (Baron Rotbwhild) who, at
the time of his election, held the office of Consul-General
of Austria. They were aware that this house was
very jealous, and carefully guarded against the
admission of an undue number of holders of
office under their own Government and was it wise,
therefore, to sanction the principle of admitting into Parlia-
ment persons who held offices under a foreign Government.
It was true that Baron -Rothschild promptly and
honourably resigned his office when he was admitted
within the walls of the House of Commons; but ought
they to trust to the honour of an individual in a matter of
so much importance as the admission of a representative to
the Legislature ?
Mr. MALINS seconded the amendment, and begged
to point out a difficulty that existed in the course
proposed by the hon. member for Finsbury. Having come
to the conclusion they had done, he thought all further
discussion on the subject to which the motion referred
should cease, as being. fruitless, and calculated to
able position pending such dis-
place members of the Jewish persuasion who were returned,
to Parliament in a disagree
the on. member would not press
h
cessions, and he trusted
his motion.
Mr. BYNG supported
the
Government which course it
Mr. CONINGHAM asked .
motion.
n dealing with the question,
would be necessary to p
if it was proposed to proceedewil.th the motion. He would
vote for the m otion, and he condemned the administration of
all oaths, as being calculated to extend hypocrisy
and
perj u.
TheryCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he was informed it would be necessary proceedinthet
to
matter by legislation, if the house were desirous to
convert the resolution into a standing order. For his own
part he very much regretted that any such_
..propbeosietnioninas.
that of the hon. member for Finsbury had
...
troduced. He remembered what took place last
year he would not • say the compact that had
been entered into—but the representations that had been
made which induced certain members who were opposed to
the resolution not to offer any further resistance to the
passing of the resolution. If they adopted the course
proposed by the ho.a. member for Finsbury, they would
revive the discussions that had taken place on previous
•()ecabions, and lead, perhaps, to some differences with the
„ uPPer House. Ho could not vote for the amendment, on
the same ground as that on which he opposed the motion.
After some further discussion, in which Sir G. GREY and
other hon. members took part,
Mr. WALPOLE suggested that the motion should be
referred to a select committee, which was ultimately agreed
to, and the motion and amendment were withdrawn, and a
motion to that effect agreed to.
THE TIMBER DUTIES.
Mr. MITCHELL moved "that it was the opinion of the
house that the duties on foreign and colonial wood should
be repealed." The hon. gentleman said that in the present
uncertain state of the house he would not propose the re-
peal of the timber duties this year ; he should only call on
them to adopt the terms of his present resolution.. In 1841
the, duty on foreign wood was 558' per load, and that on
colonial 20s. Wood was one of the three great articles a
change in the duties on which was proposed by the noble
lord the member for the City of London in 1841. He need
not say that that proposal was unsuccessful. In 1842 Sir
R. Peel brought in his celebrated budget, in which he pro-
pod $A the dutiaM toreigu WAWr ohoul4 be reduced