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

MILITARY AUDITOR.

Gen. CODRINGTON asked whether, in the office
lately established—viz., that of " Military Auditor,"
attached to the troops in China, any separate authority
wasgiven independent of, and with financialcontrolover,
the general officer in command of the troops whether the
expenditure required on active service in the field must
not necessarily, as heretofore, be decided on the sole
responsibility of the general officer? whether those per-
sons employed in the office of military auditor with the
troopsin China were amenable to, or independent of, the
provisions of the Mutiny Act
Sir J. RAMSDEN said that the appointment of a
military auditor would not interfere with the authority
of the Commander-in-Chief. He would be subject to
the Mutiny Act.
THE RUSSIAN PORTS IN THE BLACK SEA.
Mr. WISE asked the First Lord of the Treasury,
whether the regulations for admission into the Russian
ports of the Black Sea had been framed in a spirit
favourable to the development of commercial transac
tions ' • and to what ports in the Black Sea English Con-
Evils had been sent by her Majesty's Government ?
Lord PALMERSTON regretted that at present the
Russian regulations had not been so much in accordance
with the spirit of the treaty of Paris as be could have
wished. He believed there were only three ports at
which custom-houses had been established.
THE STADE DUES.

Mr. FENWICK asked the First Lord of the Trea-
sury whether Her Majesty's Government had been in
negotiation with the Government of Hanover, with a
view to the extinction of the Stade Dues ; and if so,
whether any progress had been made in that negotiation ;
and whether any assurance could be now given of an
early and satisfactory settlement of the question ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that these dues partook
much of the character of the Sound dues that bad been
abolished, but in consequence of having to consult so
many Governments in reference to it, he could not hold
out a speedy abolition of the dues.
FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND).
Lord F. CONINGHAff asked whether it was the
intention of Government to introduce a measure for the
regulation of the fairs and markets in Ireland ?
Stir. H. HERBERT said it was the intention of tLe
Government to introduce such a measure.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the house re•
solved itself into a committee of the whole house—" To
consider the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abju-
ration ; and alio to consider the disabilities affecting her
Majesty's Jewish subjects." In committee :

Lord J. RUSSELL—I am glad to say that it will not
be necessary I should long detain the committee, as this
subject has so frequently been under discussion, and as
the House of Commons, having heard the very able
statement of my noble friend at the head of the Govern-
ment, when he last year introduced a measure with a
view to the admission of the Jews into Parliament, is I
already fully aware that the general principle of our
legislation is not to disqualify for legislative functions
or public office any class of her Majesty's subjects on
account of their religious opinions—•a principle which of
late years has been established in the case of the Romeo
Catholics and dissenters, although in those instances
political reasons had in former times operated in favour
of exclusion. The house is also well aware that there is
no positive disability affecting our Jewish fellow-subjects,
and that their exclusion from this house is owing to the
construction put on the oath of abjuration, and that that
oath was not originally intended for such a purpose.
(Hear.) So little is that the case that the persons re-
fusing the oath of abjuration, namely, 40,000 of our
Jewish fellow-subjects, are in the eye of the law 40,000
popish recusants —an instance of the absurdity of con-
sidering them to have been originally contemplated in
the framing of the oath. I shall not now enter into the
theological question, and neither do I think it necessary
to go into the reasons that exist for altering the present
oath, which on the face of it is so exceedingly absurd as
to oblige members of this house to swear that they will
not support the claims to the crown of these realms of
a person or persons who really have no existence. I
shall merely state the nature of the bill I propose to in-
troduce. The bill of last year contained a simple form
of oath not similar to that which I intro-
duced in 1848, and which might be taken Ly
all members of the house, but one which could
not be taken by members of the Roman Catholic persua-
sion. The oath which I propose to introduce on the
present occasion will contain the words "on the true
faith of a Christian." I introduce them because they
have a prescriptive value in the eyes of many persons,
and likewise because one of the most eminent supporters
of the Jewish claims—l mean the right hon. member for
Bucks—has expressed his opinion that they should be
retained ; but I propose that in administering the oath
to Jews these words ehould be omitted. (Hear, hear.)
It follows of course, and iii a more logical way than in
the bill introduced by my ntble friend last year, that
the Jews will be disabled from certain offices which at
present cannot be held by Roman Catholics, as I do not
propose to put them in a position superior to that of
the Roman Catholics, but to admit them to precisely the
same privileges. I may say further, that although I
do not propose by this bill to alter the oath for Roman
Catholics, because I consider that a separate question,
yet I do not think that if this bill pass there will be any
objection made to an alteration of the oath of 1829, so
as that it may be taken by Roman Catholics without
those feelings of repugnance which some of them now
entertain. But there ie another question upon which I
cannot refrain from detaining the committee a few mo-
ments, because I am sure it is a question which will
naturally arise. It so happens that in the short session
of 1847 which took place on the suspension of the Bank
Charter Act, on the 14th or 15th December I introduced
this very bill, or rather a precisely similar one, fir the
admission of the Jews into Parliament. That bill, and
.411 similar JAI-, have been rejected in the other House
of Parliament ; and it may be asked what proerct is
there now that the present hill will in another place
have a fate different from that of its predecessors I
(Opposition cheers) To that question I should answer
that I have framed the bill in the most conciliatory form
possible; that this house has at all times, with one ex-
ception, affirmed the principle of religious liberty in
favour of the Jews; and that last year the majority was far
greater thanit had ever been ; and in the whole course of
legislation I have found that repeated decisions of the
Rouse of Commons,ratified by increa3ing reaj ir:ties,have
alwayshad in the end the greatest weight with the other
House of Parliament. But yet I do not wish to conceal
from the house my
tltiteate intentions on this subject.
I etiihmteiettatebtatieotr
1 In the course of last aarl was informed by my hon. and
1 friendlvveairinlieadml
fis7isenyl;olGuesneetroal framethat thea actde c
15a
raant
ido
n 6
Ito ba taken by
think fit, and on hearing eeLacie
an ornament to his professionP of the oath, should they
question
oa thetni
of rno m
examined
Attorney-Generalsodis in gbyu
ti sah
taehedie.
eouthsee. The house agreed
I ithoughteet Committeei rightt