The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-18 00:00:00

TRE, SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MO3NING„ItTLY is 1845.

make the declaration previously to taking office. Mr. Salo-
mon's did perform the office of sheriff of Middlsex, and in so
cr,ditable a manner, that he had earned the 'respect and esteem
of his fellow citizens. He was subsequently elected to the
office of alderman, at the choice of the citizens of London.
Then this impediment of taking the declaration out of the
statute took effect. and refusing to take the declaration, Mr.
Salomons coald not act in the office of alderman. That
fact, alone, was almost sufficient to justify the Bill before the
House. He would refer to the history of that declaration. In
the year 1828, the Noble Lord brought in a Bill for the repeal
of the Test and Corporation Act. He had failed in carrying
that measure, and he (Sir Robert Peel) lent his co-
operation towards carrying the Bill. He suggested
that the form of declaration should be altered.
The form introduced by the Noble Lord was different from the
one he had proposed, and required that every person elected to
any office in a municipal corporation was required to make the
declaration within a calendar month next before his admission
to the office. The form was as follows:—" I, A B, do
solemnly declare I will never exercise any power which I may
have by virtue of the office I hold, to alter or weaken the
Protestant Catholic religion within this realm, or to endanger
it in any way." The Noble Lord saw no difficulty whatever in
the way of religious grounds, and consented to the introduction
of this declaration. That declaration contained nothing which
could throw the slightest difficulty in the way of the Jew filling
a corporate effice, but the House of Lords inserted words into
the declaration, which constituted an impediment. In lieu of
the simple declaration, the House of Lords altered it to the fol-
lowing words :—" I, A B, do solemnly, sincerely, in the pre-
sence of God, protest, testi"y and declare, upon the true faith
of a Christian," &c., and it was these words which constituted
the impediment to the Jew accepting a corporate office.
But the House of Lords, by the present Bill, had
voluntarily removed that impediment, and he therefore
thought, under the circumstances, that House could not well
refuse to pass the measure. The Moravians, Separatists, and
Quakers had declined to take offices of honour and emolument
from conscientious objections to take the prescribed oaths.
He proposed to give to the Jews the same immunities, and to
admit them to the benefits of the Municipal Bill. He
hoped he had said enough to convince the House of the justice
and expediency of the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Court of
Queen's Bench had decided that it was not necessary to take
the declaration first, and in Birmingham, Stockport, and Ports-
mouth that decision was acted upon, and Jews were admitted
to municipal offices.—( Hear, hear.) They were at present
entitled to act as county magistrates, and as sheriffs of counties
and cities, and he believed that if a Jew were to refuse to act
as sheriff he would be subject to a heavy penalty.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought the House would not object to grant this
privilege to so great and respectable a body of their fellow-
subjects.—( Hear, hear. )—He would refer to the names
of Goldsmid, Salomons, and Alontefiore.—( Hear, hear.)
He had been assured by the most eminent gentlemen in the
body, that they were satisfied with the Bill, although they did
not think it debarred them from prosecuting their claims to
other privileges. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by
urging the House to pass the Bill.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said the speech which the Right Hon.
Baronet had delivered was not more inconclusive than the gene-
rality of the speeches delivered by him. He was anxious to
pay a just tribute of respect to the Noble Lord the Member for
the city of London, and his Right Hon. Friend the Member
for the city of Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) for the part they
had taken on the subject. They worthily ranked with him
(Sir R. Peel) in any competition of talent in that House.
The measure was first introduced by his late lamented friend,
Sir Robert Grant—( Hear, hear)—but was subsequently
taken in hand by the Government. The Right Hon. Baronet
had made a great historical and legal error with re-
spect to the disabilities under which he said the Jews
laboured. An Act for their relief was passed in
1828. Until that Act was passed, no one professing the
Jewish religion was admitted to any municipal office whatever,
in any city or borough of England, because no one of that
faith could be admitted to any public office, unless he took the
oath, which was only administered in extreme eases, but which
obliged him to recognise some Christian symbol. He, there-
fore, held that the disabilities under which it was said they
laboured were not created by that Act. The law with respect
to Jews was not in an uncertain state, as the Right Hon.
Ba-
roust had said, as it had been clearly decided by the Court of
Queen's Bench, which must be received as the law, until the
judgment was reversed by the House of Lords. He called upon
the Attorney-General to explain to the House in what way the
law was uncertain. Sir R. Grant's Bill was for the purpose of
relieving British-born subjects professing the Jewish religion,
whilst the Bill before the House was not limited to Sir Moses
Montefiore or Mr. Salomons' but to every one of that faith.
The Bill, as it now stood, was for the naturalisation of a whole
nation, for it contained nothing which would prevent a German
Jew from entering the city of London, and holding any muni-
cipal office which he might be appointed to. Believing, then,
as he did, that, by the common law, to say nothing of the
statute law, no Jcw could take a municipal office in this city,
because he could not subscribe the oaths required of him, and
believing that the declaration of the House of Lords, to which
he had already referred, was wise and requisite, he did not
see anything in the present condition of the Jews which re-
quired this special exception in their favour. The Jews did
not describe themselves as a sect or a creed, but as a nation ;
and as a nation they were to be selected for these exemptions.
which were denied to every other nation. The petitions
which had been presented in favour of the Bill were signed by
few, and the House must remember that in the early part of
the session petitions were signed by a much larger number,
distinctly stating that the Jews would not be satified with the
present measure. A question of " right," however, whether
signed by many or few he would not resist. It was because
this was a measure of " favour" and not of right that he op-
posed it. A celebrated writer, Dr. Arnold, had stated that
the Jews were voluntary strangers in this country, and had no
more right to interfere in the management of, or to seek citi-
zenship in it, than a lodger had to interfere in the management
of his landlord's house. This was a Christian country,
and he for one would not consent, for this handful
of men, that he should admit that Christianity did not form an
essential and integral part of the administration and government
of the nation. It was no reason that some of them had hitherto
been allowed to violate the law with impunity, that they
should be hereafter exempted from it. In France, Jews were
admissible, but never admitted—though al Jew might be a
sheriff, a deputy, or a judge, there was no instance of one ever
holding one of those offices. But the precedents or practices
of other countries ought not to be precedents for the guidance
of this : for, though in the offices to be held, cases might be
analogous, yet they were not analogous in this, for the Govern-
ments to which he referred, were either despotic, or had exhibited
symptoms of conduct which, he trusted, would not be adopted
in England. If this Bill was passed, what security had they
that the Jews would not object to our laws [with regard to the
keeping of the Sabbath. At present, they could not complain,
but if they permitted them to hold high municipal offices, was
it not likely that they would refuse to enforce our laws upon
that subject. For all these reasons, he should move that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said that a respectable individual who had
been named more than once was at that moment high sheriff of
the county which he had the honour to represent. He had
nothing to say against that individual. But in this country
we either were Christians or not, and if we were Christians we
were about to admit to office those who derided the name of
that Being in whom, as Christians, we trust, and in whom we
glory. He desired to exalt the name of that Being, and he
thought they were about to invite a desecration of that Holy
name. He was quite sure with the Honourable Member for
the University cf Oxford that this measure would prove any-
thing but satisfactory to the country. He was convinced that
this was not a measure of opinion, or to be classed with the
measures which had been lately passed. It was one that was
disreputable to the House and the Government. He feltassured
that every man who felt any real respect for the Great, Head of
the Church he belonged to could vote for it, for it was one which
desecrated the honour of that great and glorious Being on
whose merits he depended for eternal happiness. If this
Bill were passed, there would be great reason to fear that that
great and glorious Being would cast this nation out of his fa-
vour. Without the favour of Almighty God he would ask
where was the security for the prosperity of this great nation?
God forbid that this Bill should pass, but, if it did pass, they
would neglect the obligations which laid upon them as reason-
able men, and still more as Christian men. He was aware that
theological questions could not be entertained in that House,
on any other than political grounds, but he could not help think-
ing that as Christian men, the Members of that House could
not discuss the question without a reference to the opinions of
the great body of the Christian inhabitants in this country. He
feared that his remarks would receive but little consideration,
yet, in his view, the matter was of such importance that he
could not refrain from seconding the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Honourable Gentle-
man who had just sat down put the question on grounds which
it was difficult to notice, but impossible to avoid. The Hon.
Gentleman had stated that if this Bill were passed there was a
danger of a loss of the favour of the Most High. In the course
of his observations he had allowed that the remarks of the
Honourable Member for Oxford had shown that the office of
magistrates was filled by Jews. He had himself stated, that in
his own county the office of high sheriff was held by a Jew.
These offices were of the utmost importance, and if the Hon.
Gentleman did hold these opinions, he ought to have brought in
a Bill to prevent Jews from holding any offices whatever. But
if such a Bill had been passed, he would have asserted that
offices were only to be held by members of the Church of
England. That was going on the narrowest grounds of in-
tolerance ; grouuds, to which, as a Member of that House, he
could never consent.—( Hear, hear.) The House of Lords,
by the decision of 1828, had declared that Jews might be
safely admitted to the offices to which this Bill gave them a
right. By the solemn decision in 1845 of the same House
that declaration had been confirmed. And so far from losing
the blessing of the Most High, by admitting the Jews to these
offices, they were doing away with religious rancour and dif-
ference, and if this were promoting the cause of charity, it was
the most essential means of securing the blessing of God. So
long as Jews fulfilled every duty of British subjects, they
were entitled to the same honours and advantages as other
subjects. The Hon. Member for Oxford had stated that the
Jews felt that they were a nation; but it should be recollected,
that so long as those Jews were contributors to the revenue,
they were members of the community of this country. The
Right Hon. Gentleman reminded him of a remark of one
whom he would not say was the fairest evidence, Dugald
Stewart. Dugald Stewart had compared the University of
Oxford to a ship moored in a running stream, and by which
the rapidity of the stream was to be measured. The Hon.
Gentleman was moored in the stream, and so he was letting
opportunities pass by. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Newark, whose assistance was not rendered in this debate,
had declared, in one of those speeches in favour of posi-
tions which he was so well able to maintain, that no
line of demarcation could be drawn between the admission
of Jews to seats in Parliament and the highest offices ; and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech in reply to his
Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay),
had asserted that Jews could not be excluded from seats
in Parliament, any more than any other sect.—(Cheers. )
He was not one of those who were so credulous as to suppose
that the Jews will not aim at higher privileges than were be-
stowed by this Bill. He presented a petition some time ago
from a Jewish community, in which it was stated that they
would be glad to have this measure, but that they would not
give up one jot of their claims to higher privileges. He (Lord
John Russell) agreed with them and with the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Newark, and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that the only principle upon which they agreed
to this Bill was, that it would lead to the admission of Jews to
higher privileges. He believed that the religious belief of a
Jew would not interfere with the discharge of his duty. His
Hon. Friend opposite brought forward rather a singular autho-
rity—not for him (Lord J. Russell) or any Hon. Gentleman
on his side of the House to quote—but a singular authority
for him (Sir R. Inglis), Dr. Arnold. Everybody knew that Dr.
Arnold had an opinion which he thought a benevolent, pro-
visionary, theory, that they could unite in one religious and
political community, that they could have a State with a large
comprehension of religious differences, which would be animated
by one generous religious belief ; but for that purpose he pro-
posed that all Christians, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters of
every kind, should be admitted into his nation of equality,
which he proposed should supersede their present imperfect in-
stitutions. Did his Hen. Friend imagine that there could be no
kind of sympathy created between Jews and Christians ? Why
did he take the benefit of Dr. Arnold's opinion with regard to
the Jews only? Let him go the whole way, or let him not
quote Dr. Arnold. He would not have it quoted solely for
the Jews. For these reasons he (Lord John Russell) would
give his hearty assent to the present Bill, though at the same
time he found fault with it because it was not comprehensive
enough. He held it as a step to further measures that would
tend to extend the charitable feelings by which the members of
this community ought to be united, and he would heartily

give his vote, not only to this measure, but to any other measure
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, by which
the Jews would b- admitted to all civil offices.—( Cheers. )
Mr. TRELAWNEY made a few observations in favour of
the Bill, which were scarcely audible in the gallery.
Mr. M. MILNES condemned the continuation of the preju-
dice that at present existed against the Jews. He knew the effect
which it had in Prussia, where the animosity existing towards
them was only to be equalled by the animosity existing between
the blacks and whites in the United States He thought that
they ought to extend the privileges and the rights of the Jewish
creed as far as possible, without injury to the State, and
he would, accordingly, vote for the mea.ure.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority in favour of the motion —Bo
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Upon the motion that the House do go into Committee on
the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland) Bill,
Mr. LOCKHART said he hoped this Bill would not be pro-
ceeded with. He was very anxious that it should be postponed
for a few days, say a fortnight, as the people of Scotland were
under the impression that the Bill would not be at all suited
to the country. He could assure the House that in many parts
of Scotland there were a great number of Irish and English
located, who had found their way into those places, and had
obtained a location that they were not entitled to, and therefore
It would not be fair that the parishes in which those people
resided should be taxed for their support. Altogether the Bill,
in its present state, differed so much from its original form that
time ought to be given to consider it. After a few further
observations, which were totally inaudible in the gallery, the
Hon. Member concluded by saying that though he had at
S rst intended to move the postponement of the House going
into Committee on this Bill for a fortnight, yet, upon a more
mature consideration of the question, he would withdraw the
motion.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD defended the Irish la-
bourers resident in England, and contended that they
would never have come to that country but they were wanted
as artisans and labourers.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would reserve any observations
he had to make upon this discussion until the House went into
Committee on the Bill.

After a few words from Mr. P. M. STEWART, the House
went into Committee on the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was a party to recommending the
introduction of the clause in this Bill in reference to the settle-
ment question. In respect to vagrants he begged to say that
no alteration whatever had been made in the existing law in
regard to them, and therefore his Hon. Friend near him had
been mistaken in saying that the Bill would have an injurious
effect in reference to vagrants. And then, as to the period of
settlement, that had been extended from three to five years.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he objected to the adoption of
such a principle, as he considered that any Member had an in-
disputable right to speak to the question, and oppose it if he
chose, prior to the Speaker leaving the chair.
The House having gone into Committee,
Sir J. GRAHAM, on the 73rd clause being put by the Chair-
man, said that as he had been a party to the recommendation
of that clause in the Bill which referred to the right of settle-
ment, he should support it in its present stage, as well as en a
former occasion he did its introduction. With respect to va-
grants, he begged to say that no alteration whatever had been
made since the measure was first presented to the House, and
therefore the complaint made by his Hon. Friend the Member
for Lanarkshire (Mr. Lockhart) was unfounded and uncalled
for. His Hon. Friend was also mistaken in his statements re-
specting the hardship, implied by the change which the pro-
posed law of settlement effected over the former, the fact
being, that the present provision would extend the claim to
settlement from three to five years.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he could not help thinking
that the Scotch Members had been treated very uncourteously.
Almost every one of them had urged the postponement of the
measure, at least until another session. All their requests
had, however, been treated with disregard, till at length a
motion was suddenly brought forward by an Hon. Member,
who had previously supported the Bill, to retard it for a
fortnight. if the Hon. Member for Lanarkshire had pressed
his motion, he should have opposed it, as it was not upon an un-
important provision, nor for such an insignificant delay that
a stand should have been made by those who failed to oppose
the obnoxious principles of the Bill.
Mr. HENLEY wished to osk his Learned Friend the Ad.
vocate- General a question respecting the provision of the 73d
clause—viz., What was the meaning of the medical certificate
there mentioned, and whether the Sessions Court of Scotland
was the soul and conscience of the Scotch doctors?
The ADVOCATE-GENERAL replied that the provision
bad reference to the issue of the medican certificate alone, and
was not to be found in any other part of the Bill, or applicable
to any other subject.
Sir E. COLBROOKE thought that either the law of set-
tlement in England, or that now proposed for Scotland, must
be erroneous, as the Government measure was totally different
from the existing law in this country. The Scotch, as native
occupiers, but above all as rate-payers, and the Irish and
English settlers, had equally a right to complain of the in-
justice comprehended and threatened in the measure, and
for his part he regarded all its provisions unfavourably.
Sir GEORGE CLERK controverted the statement that
the people of Scotland were opposed to this measure. On the
contrary, it was his firm belief, that they were universally in
favour of it, and regarded it as it really was, a Bill calculated
to be of great benefit to every class of the community.
Mr. DUNCAN would have supported the Member for
Lanark, had he pressed his motion to a division, in order to
give the people of Scotland an opportunity of forming and
expressing an opinion on the measure, but as his Hon. Friend
had declined to take that course, he had only to support a
clause which he regarded as useful and beneficial.
Mr. Darby supported, and Mr. P. M. Stewart and Sir W.
Somerville opposed it.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that, after what fell from the
Lord Advocate, he would not press that part of his amendment
which related to the province in which the party was born, but
he would move the remaining part, " that no person shall be
so removed, if by sea, save in a vessel affording sufficient cover-
ing and protection." . . .

Lord DUNCAN was very glad to see the way in which the
discussion had proceeded. He hoped that the inhabitants of the
three kingdoms would be treated on a perfect equality.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Clause 74 was then proposed.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD objected to the clause
altogether. They had no such power in Ireland as that which
was empowered by this clause. And he did not see why it
should be given in Scotland and England, when it was with-
held in Ireland. As the feeling of the House, however,
appeared to be against him he would not press it to a division.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to.
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following ad-
ditional clauses were inserted in the Bill—" That in estimating
the annual value of lands and heritages, the same shall be taken
to be the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and
heritages might, in their actual state, be reasonably expected
to let, from year to year, under deduction of the probable annual
average cost of the repair, insurance, and other expenses, if any,
necessary to maintain such heritages in their actual state, and
all rates. taxes, and public charges payable in respect of the
same. Provided that no mine or quarry shall be assessed unless
it has been worked during some part of the year preceding tha
day on which the assessment may be ordered to be levied.
That no person shall be liable to be assessed in any parish or
combination, on his means and substance, unless the estimated
annual value thereof in whole shall exceed 301. That clergy-
men shall be liable to be assessed for the poor in respect of
their stipends. That in all cases in which, by the provisions
of this Act, notice or intimation is required to be given with-
out prescribing the particular form of the notice, or the manner
in which the same is to be given, it shall be lawful for the
Board of Supervision, from time to time, to fix the form of
such notice or intimation, and the manner in which the same
is to be given."
Mr. SMOLLETT moved the insertion of the following
clause after. clause 36—" That where the one-half of any
assessment is imposed on the owners, and the other half en
the tenants or occupants of lands and heritages, it shall be
lawful ftir the Parochial Board, with the concurrence of the
Board of Supervision, to determine and direct that the lands
and heritages may be distinguished into two or more separate
classes, according to the Purposes for which such lands are used
and occupied, and to fix such rate of assessment upon the
tenants or occupants of each class
respectively, as to such
boards may seem just and equitable.
The clause went through the different stages, and was agreed
to without opposition.
Lord DUNCAN proposed that the board of supervision
should have power to unite two parishes, whenever such
parishes should think it expedient to Le combined for the mere
effectual management of the poor.
The clause was agreed to.
Lord DUNCAN inquired whether the revenues arising from
harbours were to he assessed to the poor-rates?
The LORD-ADVOCATE said he had not yet perused the
Harbour Act, and was not prepared to give an answer.
Clause 16 was then agreed to with amendments.
The further consideration of the Bill was postponed till
twelve to-day, the Chairman was ordered to report progress,
and the House resumed.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir
J. GRAHAM moved the third reading of the Bills of Ex-
change Bill.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that in 1839 an alteration of
the usury laws took place, which exempted all bills of
exchange not having twelve months to run, and
all sums of money not exceeding 101. from the effect
of the usury laws. His object was to repeal the restriction
which was contained in the Act of 1839. It was necessary for
the public advantage that no restriction should be placed on the
power of borrowing money on landed property. The opinion
of Sir Samuel Romilly was, that laws against usury were very
injurious to the landed interest, because it compelled land-
owners to borrow money from illegal sources. Sir Edward
Sugden said he considered those laws had been decidedly
inimical to the public interest. He was quite sure that the
continuance of the Bill any longer, instead of being a pro-
tection, would operate most injuriously to the landed interest.
In times when money was scarce many valuable and important
improvements in land would be lost to these proprietors if this
restriction on the interest of money was preserved. He thought
money should be free, and that no restriction should be imposed
on the rate of interest that should be charged. He moved that
the clause be added to the 1111.
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the clause. He thought a re-
striction on usurers was a necessary and salutary arrangement.
many instances poor
Were the not restricted by law, in
tradesmen and and small shopkeepers would be victimised by un-
principled moneylenders, leading to bankruptcy and ruin.
Usurious interest had been the. curse of all the nations of the
world. It was denounced in Scripture.—(lronical cries of
Hear, hear.") Perhaps that was no authority with Hon.
Gentlemen, but it was with him. He knew of instances in
which needy tradesmen had been mulcted by money-lenders of
60 per cent. for the use Pars, and
He objected to the Bill
being extended to five years, hoped that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would limit the Bill to one year. If he did not, he
(Mr. Williams) should certa'nly move that it do not pass.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER differed
with both Gentlemen who had spoken, and adhered
it was before the
to the Bill as House. With
out expressing any opinion as to the advantages or dis-
advantages of abolishing altogether a fixed rate of legal inte-
rest ; for the reasons which I have stated to this Howe I hope
the House will agree with me in thinking it wise to agree to
enough to prevent any doubt as to the
provisions of the Bill for the limited period I have mentioned.
The period was long
continuance of the Act. Ho would not enter into the ques-
tion whether or not landed proprietors should not borrow mo-
ney on the same terms as on other property which was not
real. He would not discuss the question as to the propriety
or impropriety of continuing the usury laws. He thought
that question was settled. He did not believe that the argu-
ment of the Hon. Member for Coventry hail any weight, nor
that the House attached any importance to it ; at all events,
it had no bearing on this case. A high rate of interest had
been deprecated, but the annals of this county would furnish
numerous instances where men had been saved from ruin by
having the opportunity of obtaining money even at a high rate
of interest, and being thus enabled to keep up their credit.
Mr. F. BARING had no wish to endanger the Bill, but he
thought that the suggestion of his Hon. Friend deserved at-
tention. He thought there ought to be a revision of the Bill
in a future session, and that a Committee should be appointed
to inquire into the effect of the usury laws on the landed inte-
rest, and he hoped that, if that assurance were given, his
Hon. Friend would withdraw his motion. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer did not seem to know what the state of the law

was. If this Bill did not pass,• the Usury Act would apply to 7
all bills of snore than three or six months date, so that, al- !
though the Bank Charter Act was only a temporary one
in its general provisions, it was in effect a per-
manent one in r_•spect to this particular.—( Hear. )
The Honourable Gentleman quoted from the evidence given
before several Committees to show that the repeal of the usury
laws had had a most beneficial effect. He did not understand,
therefore, why the Chancellor of the Exchequer hesitated to
make this a permanent measure. They had had the best evi-
dence that it worked well for eleven years. He could not under-
stand why men should be prevented from dealing with their
money as with any other property. He regretted that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to render the
Act merely one of continuation. If his Honourable Friend
would not consent to withdraw his motion upon the expectation
of a Committee next year, he would vote with him.
Sir R. PEEL would have no objection to the appointment
of a Committee to inquire into the operation of the law as
regarded the land. He did not know but it might appear that
the land itself would be benefited by being placed in the same
condition as other property. In the meantime, he thought
that there could be no objections to the continuance of this
Bill for five years.
Mr. WARBURTON said that his Hon. Friend had reason
to be satisfied with the result of his motion, as it elicited from
all aides such satisfactory testimony. There could be no doubt
of the good working of the Act.
Mr. V. SMITH said, as the Right Hon. Baronet intended
to appoint a Committee on the subject during the next session
of Parliament, he should only hope that it might meet the
general wish. He hoped the Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr.
Williams) would be upon it.
Mr. HUTT was satisfied with the explanation which the
Government had given to the House, and congratulated the
Hon Member for Manchester on the success of his motion.

Mr. MUNTZ hoped to see the usury laws abolished.
Mr. GIBSON then withdrew his motion.
After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS, the Bill was read
a third time and passed.
THE JURORS' BOOKS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND
SOCIETY BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the manner in which
the funds had been managed, and suggested that' the Bill
should be referred to a Committee up stairs for inquiry, with
a view to a redress of this grievance. If this were acceded to
he should not oppose the second reading.
After a few words from Mr. CORRY, who acceded to the
suggestions of the Hon. Member for Kendal, the Bill was or-
dered to be read a second time.

The Physic and Surgery Bill, and the College of Physicians
and Surgeons Bill were by Sir JANIES GRAHAM deferred
till to-morrow.

The second reading of the Stock in Trade Bill was postponed
till Thursday.
THE GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (DUBLIN)

BILL.

The House then went into Committee on the above Bill.

The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the House
having resumed, the Chairman reported accordingly.
The report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
ROTHWELL PRISON BILL.

The report on this Bill was brought up, and ordered to be
engrossed.

BONDED CORN BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.

On the first clause being put,
Mr. M. GIBSON remarked that the object of the Bill was
to continue an Act which enabled the owners of foreign vessels
to victual their ships out of bond, or free of duty, and as the ex-
tension of railways was likely to diminish the coasting trade
very seriously, he trusted Government would take into their
consideration the propriety of extending the same privilege to
coasting traders.
The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the House
having resumed, the report was ordered to be brought up
to-morrow.

THE EXCISE DUTIES BILL (CHANNEL ISLANDS.)
The House then went into Committee upon this Bill.
The clauses were gone through.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be
brought up to-morrow (this day).
The Unclaimed Rock and Dividends Bill was then read a
third time and passed.
The Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers Bill (Ire-
land) was read a third time and passed.
The Bail in Error Bill was then read a third time.

On the order of the day for the third reading of the Lunatic
Asylum Bill,
Sir R. FERGUSON objected to the mode of inspection, and
suggested that some improvement ought to be made in this
particular.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, and
the Bill was read a third time and passed.
The report on the Drainage ( Ireland) Bill was brought up
and received.

TAXING MASTER COURT OF CHANCERY (IRE-
LAND) BILL.

On the order of the day for' the second reading of this Bill,
Sir R. FERGUSON suggested that the Bill should be de-
ferred to give time for inquiry into its merits.
Mr. T. B. C. SMITH said that he bad been requested by
the trustees in Ireland to introduce the Bill, for such was the
accumulation of business in the Court of Chancery there, that
this Bill was absolutely necessary to enable them to get through
it. He could not, therefore, think of deferring it until an-
other session.
The Bill was then read a second time.
The Masters and Workmen's Bill went through Committee.
On the motion that the Merchant Seamen's Bill be read a
third time,

Sir C. NAPIER objected to the Bill, because he did not
consider that it contained one single provision against the per-
nicious and nefarious practice of the crimps. The Gallant
Officer concluded by urging on the Government the propriety
of postponing the measure.
Sir G. COCKBURN denied that the Bill was inefficient to
prevent the iniquities of the crimps. It had been introduced
after mature deliberation, with the express purpose of remov-
ing them, but as the gallant officer appeared disposed to im-
pede it as virulently as he could, under the pretence of bene-
fitting the sailor, he (Sir G. Cockburn) was almost tempte3
to throw it up altogether.
Sir C. NAPIER threatened to count the House if the Bill
were persevered in, when
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the third reading of the Bill was adjourned
till to-morrow (this day).
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'clock.