The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-04 00:00:00

The supporters of Mr. Bright continue to be re-
markably active, and, so far as outward appear-
ances go, the late member for Manchester is the
popular candidate: A meeting of his friends was
held at the Hen and Chickens Hotel this morning,
ard independent of the public assemblage of elec
tors appointed for the Town•hal fp-morrow even-
ing, a committee was nominated with a view to
secure his return. It would appear that a con e
spondence took place between Mr. Bright and cer-
tain "friends" in Birmingham previous to— the
death of Mr. Muntz, and that he is willing to sit
for Birmingham should the constituency please to
lent him. In the meantime the Conservatives
are understool not to be asleep. A considerable
section of the electors are opposed to a non-resi•
dent candidate, while- others are antagonistic to
the claims of Mr. Bright on account of his pecu-
liar peace and temperance sentments. Advantage
will in all probabiliT be taken y.f these discordant
opinions, and the issue; should an opposition arise,
will manly depend upon the character and local
influence of the gentleman wha may be selected as.
Mr. Bright's opponent At present as :h an op-
ponent Ins not appeared, but an id, a prevails
that, besides Mr. Whateley, Q.C., wl.o has already
been named, it is not unlikely that Mr. Ratcliffe,
the present mayor, may 'offer himself. He is what
is termed a Liberal Conserva ive, a great patron of
the charities of the town, highly popular among
all classes; and, would, it is thought, prove a formi
dable opponent to any stranger, however deservedly
wall qualified, who might
.prasont himself for ele-
•ion. As a NV, sleyan Method skit is also considerea
that he would conciliate a large portion of the Dis-
senting interest, while he might rely upon the sup-
port generally of
_members of the establishment.
Another rumour is that Sir Robert Peel-, a neigh-
bour, is not reluctant to enter the field, and thus
make way for his ',rather Frederick for the borough
of Tamworth. Th-se are the on dits of the day,
but until after to-morrow evening's meeting
no-
thing can be spoken of with certainly.
Since writing the ab we we learn that Sir Stam-
ford Northcote, late, M.P.. for the nyighbouring
borough of Dudley is likely to be propo&.'d by the
Liberal Conservative section of the constituency.

GREAT YARMOUTH.
MONDAY EVENING.

The representation of this borough is 'likely to
be hotly contested. Sr Edmund Lscon has is-ued
an address in the Coniervativa interest, and it is
expected that anot).,..er gentleman of the sanie
politics will stand with him. Sir James Hogg has
retired. Two Liberal candidates, Mr. Adolphus
William Young and Mr. John Mellor, Q.C., of t
midland circuit, have issued a joint address, and
appeared before the electors this even;ng.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS RILL.

Nobody who reads the Act of Parliament brought
before the notice of the Commons last night can
deny that Lord John Russell's question as to its
bearing on the Jews is at least a very reasonable
one. It may indeed be a matter of surprise that
its possible application to the Jews was not
noticed at the time, or that the House of Com-
mons from that day to this has not observed the
application, even when carefully collecting and
scrutinizing all the Acts that might apply to the
Jews ; but this surprise will only be felt by the
unsophisticated portion of the public, who imagine
Parliament a perfectly reasonable, methodical, con-
sistent, awl businesslike body. The contrary is
the fact. Parliament is always blundering,—some-
times blundering into error, sometimes into truth ;
sometimes in small things, sometimes in gr.at. By
way of a small blunder—great enough, however,
to require a special Act of Parliament to correct it
—it appears that the tnemure cited on this occa-
sion, substituting an afarmaton for an oath, was
first passed to come into force on the Ist of June,
and in that shape figures in the Statute-book as the
Act sth of Wiltiam IV., cap. 8. As, however, the
Act did not receive the Royal assent till June 12,
it became necessary to pass another Act, professedly
amending it, but really the same act, arid entitled,
" 5 William IV., cap. 62," which is the act now
under consideration. This, it may be said, is a
small blunder, and does not lead us to expect such
a serious error as unwittingly and reluct intly ad-
mistine an obnoxious and 4h4pected class into
Parliament ; still less does it justify the attempt
to act on that error, and take advantage of the
Parliamentary ladies. Lawyers, however, and
everybody who have frequeutty hid recourse
to that professon, t3ll an ither story. There is
hardly a Bi 1 of any impeit•ince or wi h any num-
b.r of provisions, upon a subject already compli-
cated, which does not call for the vigilance or
subtlety of lawyers to ascertain its meaning
and application from the very day on which it
receives the Royal assent. From the day it leaves
the floor of Parliament it is thrown on the floors
of the Courts, and if it underwent some struggles
in its construction, it undergo s still more in
is interpretation. Nor does a week pass with-
out some act of Parliament several years, or
many years old, receiving some new meaiiing and
force, simply on a scrutiny of its text, without
much respect for the possible intention of the ma-
jority that passed it or of its particular prom tern.
The Act is treated as written law, •as a document
binding upon those concerned, without any refer-
ence to the probable intete ions of th a framers,. un-
less indeed, the wards be really ambiguous, when,
it being necess try to put same mea,ingon them,
we admit, the evident intention of the Legislature
as a clue to that meaning. But, over and over
again, even with a very fair presumption as to the
design of the Leg sleture, the Courts have declared
up
an Act to be noasense, and the efore, so far, of
no value.
But, it may be said, people are not
yet prepared
to find a great constitutional question settled ny a
sort of mischance. They do not expect the Jews
to be admitted by mere leakage and oversight.
We are not yet so bound by the letter as to s-11
what we may please to think a part of our souls by
a slip of the pen or a momentary forget.
In this
instance, however, this argument cuts both wayse
The Jews being accidentally excluded by one Act,
may they not be accidentaly admitted by another ?
It is only quibble versus quibble, and the real quib-
blers are those who argue for their exclusion from
the terms of an Act which certainly was intended
to exclude a very different class of persons. But
the truth is, Lord John Russell's
question is no
quibble, and if tl.•_e Committee of lawyers proposed
to consider the meaning of this Act should report
on the admissibility of the Jews under its provi-
sions, that will only be one of the most ordinary
occurrences of legislation, and one which we believe
to be necessary to its fair and equable development.
Parliament may, now and then, disgrace itself by
some gross unfairness or persecution ; but it also, in
its calmer and more reasonable moods, does its best
tobegenerous, candid, and just. For the discrepancy
certan to mark the results of its legislation, there
must be some remedy, and that is for the Courts
to provide. The appeal is from Philip drunk to
Philip sober ; from doubtful, unaccountable, and
fortuitous expressions to those that are comprehen-
sive, deliberate, and clear. Not to anticipate the
reportthe
wofotrds the
"proonpotsheed committee,true faith subordination a
Christian" to
of
the enactment dispensing with all oaths whatever,
and allowing an affirmation instead, would be au
appeal just of this character. .
What if it should appear that, while relieving all
classes in turn, and dispensing with oaths that were
disagreeable for one reason or another—perhaps
even a little carried away in its zeal for the eman-
cipation of messengers, tidewaiters, beadles, and
even h wkers, very often of the religion now in
question,—Perliament should have gone rather
further than it intended ? If so, certainly it would
be a most ungraceful act to insist on the letter of
the bond against t'.3 Jew, and tear the bond to
shredswin his favour.
It
often
been
was foundeoobser lY
witty
tregret, that the
only instance in which Shakspeare has used his
transcendent powers of impersonation against a
whole class is in the episode of Sherlock, and stories
have been repeatedly written with the avowed pur-
pose of undoing the mischief of that not.very pro-
bable scene. The House of Commons, in our opi-
nion, could not possibly do worse than by itself
committing in an aggravated form the malignity
thus charged on the Jew. Here it is rig irously
exacting its pound of flesh under one law .—what
if it should tuin a deaf ear to the more merciful and
liberal enactment now cited to qualify the letter of
that bond ? The Parliamentary Sherlock will be
found the more grinding, quibbling; pettifogging,
and malignant of the two. That, we are convinced,
is the impression which will be produced by an ob-
stinate enforcement of the terms of a particular oath
in the face of a general enactment dispensing with
oaths altogether. The public will ask Parliament
to be consistent, and that on the side of its own
continual. professions of liberality and justice.—
Times.