The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-11 00:00:00

He had read in "Pickwick ".—(a laugh)—a remark by
Sam Weller that the game of battledore and shuttlecock
was a very amusing and exciting game, but that when it
happened that you were the shuttlecock, and two law-
yers battledores, it became very unpleasant. So with
the Jew Bill between the two noble lorde. He believed
that whatever might be done with the bill now, it would
never pass through the other house, and he protested
against the question being again dragged through the
mire.

Mr. NEWDEGATE was sure that if Baron Roths-
child were to take his seat by resolution, he would
find himself too weak for the statute law of the country,
which would at once unseat and fine him. This introduc-
tion of the Jew was but a step to the total destruction
of the Christian character of the Legislature. The time
for introducing the bill was most ill chosen, and he was
glad of it, as it would awaken the attention of the coun-
try to the iniquity of the measure.
Mr. PEASE held that the forms of Christianity were
distinct from it.l principle. The principle of Christianity
had no occasion to fear the Jew ; it would be to suspect
its power to believe that the new dispensation would be
in danger if it met the old.
Mr. I. BUTT, though he had hitherto opposed the
admission of the Jews into the house, now felt that such
admission would do no damage to the Christianity of that
house. The Christian character of the nation rested on
something better than a phrase in an act of Parliament.
Mr. B. STANHOPE said that this question must be
viewed in connection with our rule of India. If we
admitted the Jew to our Legislature, how could we
govern that country on Christian principles ?
. Mr. D. GRIFFITHS denied that the House of
Commons was a religious assembly. He should support
the motion.
Mr. WALTER compared the dread of the admission
of Jews to the dread of greased eartridees entertained by
the sepoys. The Christianity of the house would no more
be destroyed by the admission of the Jews than that of
the country was by allowing the Jews to remain in it.
Mr. ADAMS protested against attempting to threaten
the house into the admission of the Jews. The period at
which the question was introduced was most inoppor-
tune. He deprecated all conflicts between the house and
the judicial bench, which had always resulted hitherto to
the detriment of the house.

Lord J. RUSSELL denied that he was interfering
with public business. If he had interfered with the
Indemnity Bill or with the committee on commercial
distress and issue he could have understood the
charge, but there was no other business for that night,
and he did not see how he was to blame. (near.) It
must be recollected that the city of London from 1847
to the present time had elected as their member a gen-
tleman of the Jewish persuasion, and that that question
had never been finally decided by the house. He
thought the citizens of London were entitled to have
their bill introduced at the very earliest period, but he
had no intention to press it with undue haste, and he
readily assented to the postponement of the second read-
ing until after the recess. The hon. gentleman had
made a personal observation which was both unnecessary
and uncivil. He stated that he (Lord John Russell)
was acting under the influence of a great capitalist,
evidently pointing at Baron Rothschild. The hon. gen._
tleman not knowing the history of this question had
not observed that long before 1847, whenever the ques-
tion was introduced into that house by Sir Robert
Grant, he (Lord John Russell) always supported the
claim of the Jews, and always gave his vote in their
favour. The bon. gentleman had omitted likewise to
notice that so far from his (Lord J. Russell's) election
bavin been favoured by Baron Rothschild, Baron
Rothschild joined with three other gentlemen at the
last election, and if that coalition had been successful,
he (Lord J. Russell) would have been no longer member
for the City of London. The people, however, stood by
him ; and he was grateful to them. He was under obli-
gations on that occasion neither to Baron Rothschild nor
the princely merchants, but to the people. who stood by
him when he was attacked. The hon. gentleman's his-
tory was also very inaccurate. The honourable gentle-
man the member for North Warwickshire said that he
(Lord J. Russell) intended that Christianity should be
no longer acknowledged in that house as the basis of the
constitution, and that he wished to destroy the Chris-
tianinity of the Legislature. He (Lord J. Russell) cer-
tainly said, with regard to the form of this bill, quoting
the words of Mr. Canning, he was not bound to that secu-
rity ; but, with regard to the general principle, he had
always maintained that our Christianity would not be
destroyed, but that it would give a more strik ng
proof of our Christianity by knocking down these bar-
riers which intercepted the passage of the Jew to that
house, than by maintaining theta as they stood. He had
always put this question, and he could not see hew it
could be answered—do you acknowledge this to be a
Christian nation ! There are 40,000 Jews ii it, and if
those 40,000 Jews prevent this being a Christian nation,
you are not a Christian nation. I ask you, then, if those
40,000 do not unchristianizs the nation, how can one or
two Jews in Parliament make it an unchristian Parlia•
merit I To that argument he had never heard an answer
given, nor did he think an answer could be given. What
be had always said was, that no oath which Lord
Bolingbroke or Mr. Gibbon took at that table could
make them a Christian legislature, but it depended
on the sentiments of the member'. They could not
enforce Christian principles by acts of Parliament.
He had only further to say, that in case there were
no other constitutional mode left. he should think it
right to bring the subject under the consideration of the
house on that question on which the Attorney-General
had formed a decided opinion, as he thought it was a
matter of such grave importance that some decision
should be come to upon it... _

Mr. CONINGHANI said he represented a large con-
stituency, and their opinions were most decidedly with
the noble I)rd. He begged leave to tell the Government
that their conduct in this question woull be narrowly
watched by the public., especially when it was remeni•
bered that last session the question, not being a Cabinet
one, an influence member of the Cabinet was allowed to
walk out without voting. He hoped that there would
be no repetition of that. There could, he maintaine I,
be no greater compliment to the reformations carried
some centuries ago tha❑ the fullest toleration.
Mr. NEWDEGATE explained that he had never dis-
puted that the majority in that house would be Chris
tian, but he did not maintain that the introducAon of
Baron Rothschild or any other Jew would violate the
Christian character of the house.

Mr. BENTINCK explained. The noble lord had
sail that he (Mr. Bentinck) hail accused him of acting
case,from aasphreeshsaudrebrforoumghwt without, which
measure forward on a which could not be the
former occasion. What he had said was, that the mea-
sure was brought forward at a time and under circum-
stances which made it irregular, and therefore it looked
as though it was in consequence of a pressure from with-
out.

Mr. STEWART said the argument about the Jews
having been the depositories of the sacred wilting might
with equal force be applied to the monks, in favour of
admitting the bishops of Rome into that house. Giving
a Jew political rights did not make him an Englishman.
Ila had a distinctive character, and, as had been said
eleewbere, ho looked to the future as a consolation for
the present—to a greater ex)dus than that out of Egypt.
The hon. member for Brighton had said that the Go.
verntnent would be narrowly watched upon this subject.
Now no question at the last election excited so little
attention as this.

The motion was then agreed to, the house resumed,
the Chairman reported the resolution, and the bill was
ordered to be brought in.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.
Mr. COWPER then moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the Public Health Act. It was the same bill
as last session. He trusted it would not meet with the
same fate, and that was why he bad taken the earliest
opportunity of introducing it. The bill would enable all
towns, great and small, to acquire, at no considerable
cost or difficulty representative government in this mat-
ter. The suburbs of London had enormously increased,
without any regularity with regard to buildii3g, and
with provisions with regard to underground drainage.
The consequence was, that there were ditches in all
directions, which were made the receptacles of the
refase and filth of the houses, thereby creating n, xious
vapours to the great injury of the health of the
neighbourhood. The bill would meet those evils
which produced typhus fever, erysipelas, and scrofu-
lous diseases, including consumption and
cholera. Cholera, especially was to be guarded against
by sanitary regulations, and no stronger instance could
be cited than that of Newcastle and Tynemouth. In the
latter town precautions had been adopted, while in the
former they had not been, and the consequence was that
in 1853 the deaths were 2,000 in Newca-itle against four
in Tynemeutb. Another important subject with regard
to health was the supply of water. The beneficial effects
of a pure supply of water had been exhibited, in the
southern localities of London, where the public health
had wonderfully improved since the improved supply of
water had been given. He trusted that the bill which
he aas about to introduce would receive the considera-
tion and sanction of the house, for great as were the
eubjects that were coaling on for consideration, n,,ne
could ba more important than that of the public health.
He therefore begged leave to move for leave to intro-
duce the bill.

Mr. AYRTON said no opposition would be offered to
any measure of a sanitary character that was constitu-
tienal in its provision. No opposition list E eision
to such measure was given on the ground of its.oh.jecte,
but on account of the interference with the free action of
the peopl-.
He hoped the resent bill would be free
from objections of this kind, and that no machinery of
the Privy Caunoil would be introduced. In that case
the bill wouli easily pass.
p
Sir A. ELTON hoped that some power would be
established to rouse the torpor of the local authorities.
Leave was then Riven to bring in the bill.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCK.
On the motion for the second reading of Sir H. Have-
lock's Annuity Bill,
Mr. WILLIAMS said be had great pleasure in giving
his sanction to this bill. He 'Ras sure the house would
share with him that Pleasure.
Mr. BOWYER said Sir H. Havelock had saved an
empire, and what were they going to dot Why, to give
lure a thousand a year for life. Why, he was being ,hot
at linty cr fifty times a day ; what, then, was the vague
of such a pi naion f There was a rumour that Sir Homy
Havelock bad been killed.- He trusted that rumour was
net true. It was usual in such cases to confer a pension
ti be continued to the successor. As to the baronetcy,
it must be borne in mind that a similar honour was fre-
quently conferred upon gentlemen fielding a high muni-
cipal office, and in one case it was conferred on 3 gentle-
man who geve a dinner to the Emp
If no one else did it, he (Mr. Bowyer)eror of the French
would move in
committee that the pension be continued to Sir Henry
Havelock's son.
S.r C. NAPIER went further than the hon. gentle-
man. He thought the pension was too small. No more
brilliant services had ever been performed than those of
Generals Havelock and Wilson. He thought that the