appeared at the Bar and read the following reply of Her Majesty to an Address of the House (13th of July):—

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he intends pursuing with regard to the Superannuation Bill.

said, that his intentions with regard to that Bill would depend very much upon the progress of the public business, and therefore he must decline to state exactly what course he intended to pursue with regard to it. He would, however, take that opportunity of mentioning to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and some other hon. Gentlemen who had requested the Government to make arrangements which would enable them to bring on Motions of importance, that he proposed that the hon. and learned Gentleman should bring on his Motion with regard to the Hudson's Bay Company on Tuesday next. As he did not think that there would be any morning sitting on that day, and the House would therefore meet early, he anticipated that that Motion would not occupy the whole evening; and probably the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) would find it convenient afterwards to bring on his Motion with respect to the destruction of timber in the Gulf of Bothnia. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley) and the hon. and gallant Member for Weymouth (Colonel Freestun) also had notices upon the paper which he should like to see disposed of on Tuesday; but if that was found to be impossible, he would try to meet their convenience at another opportunity.

said, he had a notice on the paper to call attention to the convenience it would be to many Members of the House if permission, under whatever restrictions might be considered advisable, were granted to Members of Parliament, coming to or returning from the House of Commons, to ride and drive through the Park by Constitution Hill and the Horse Guards, or by Storey's Gate; but that he did not think he should be justified in detaining the House on this subject at the present late period of the Session. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would turn his attention to the subject during the recess, and would extend the accommodation he desired as far as possible consistently with the preservation of the privacy of the parks. At the same time, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he intends to lay on the table of the House the Reports and Letters of Colonel Browne and Mr. O'Ferrall to the Irish Government in December and January last, in reference to the organization of the Dublin Metropolitan Police?

remarked, that the Chief Secretary having stated, in moving the second reading of the Dublin Police Bill, that in the metropolitan force as at present constituted the Roman Catholics greatly outnumbered the Protestants, the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) attempted to account for the fact by asserting that the Protestant members of the force were continually withdrawn from it by private merchants and traders. That statement was made on the authority of Colonel Browne, but as he himself was at the moment in possession of another statement of Colonel Browne somewhat different from that reported by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis, he thought it right to lay it before the House. It was contained in a communication addressed by Colonel Browne to the Irish Government, and was to the effect that the reason why Protestants declined to join the Dublin police force, or to remain in it was, that they did not get fair play. He (Mr. Whiteside) had then admitted that Mr. O'Ferrall had protested against that statement of Colonel Browne, so far as it might be supposed to reflect upon him. And he must say that the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) and other hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House seemed to have a very singular acquaintance with the correspondence of Mr. O'Ferrall with the Government. No doubt it was the duty of that Gentleman to have written a long statement on this subject to the Government, but he doubted whether it was equally his duty to communicate it to hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, all he (the Attorney General) did, was to repeat what Colonel Browne stated to the Government. He did not say whether Colonel Browne or Mr. O'Ferrall was accurate, but only argued that when they had a police force managed by two gentlemen who entertained such different opinions, the best thing was to superannuate both and place the force under wiser and better heads. It was a mistake to suppose, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to do, that there had been a correspondence between Colonel Browne and Mr. O'Ferrall. There were statements addressed by both these gentlemen to the Government on a variety of matters connected with the police force, but it was not the intention of the Government to submit them to the House. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) had looked over the correspondence with the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and had come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable for the sake of either party that it should be laid on the table.

said, what he understood his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork to have stated was this. Having met the noble Lord the Chief Secretary by appointment, and gone through the correspondence, the noble Lord called his attention to the fact that it would not be for the public service that the correspondence should be produced, and it was on the strength of that representation that his hon. and learned Friend did not think it necessary to press for its production. What he complained of now was that although the correspondence was not fit to be laid on the table, the right hon. and learned Attorney General had read a passage from it to the House which reflected on the character of an absent and honourable man. He did not think that was a fair course in dealing with a public servant who had served the country twenty-three years, on whose character there was not the slightest stain, and who held a position as high as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have any objection to produce so much of the correspondence as Mr. O'Ferrall deemed necessary for the justification of his character?

said, that after what took place on a former evening, the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) called on him on Saturday morning last. At the conclusion of the conference, which was a protracted one, and after looking over the letters, the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed with him (Lord Naas) that it would not be satisfactory, either for the public service or for the parties concerned, that this correspondence should be laid on the table. At the same time he (Lord Naas) told the hon. Gentleman that if a question were put in the House he would answer it distinctly. Colonel Browne had stated his opinion in the terms read by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General the other night. At the same time, in a subsequent part of his letter, he stated his belief that his brother commissioner was not to blame, and that he felt convinced that if these matters were brought before Mr. O'Ferrall he would be prepared to deal impartially and fairly with them. Mr. O'Ferrall, in a letter which he addressed to the Government, referring to that passage of Colonel Browne's letter which had been read the other night said, "In reference to the belief of Colonel Browne, I have to state that nothing ever came before me to lead me to coincide with him in that opinion."

said, he could not but express his satisfaction at the statement of the noble Lord, which if made before would, he believed, have put an end to all controversy or unpleasantness on this question. The Irish Members had thought it right, in the interest of an absent man, to bring this matter before the House.

said, he had an announcement to make that would no doubt save many hon. Members a good deal of trouble. It was with reference to the Sale of Poisons Bill. Intimation had been sent to him from every quarter, and almost every village in the kingdom, that the chemists entertained serious objections to the Bill. He did not agree with all that was said of it, but at the same time he thought the Bill required great amendment, and he therefore did not propose to press it this Session.

Sir, I rise to move that the temporary experimental alteration in the central compartment of the Ladies' Gallery, with some immaterial modification, having been generally approved, a similar change should be made in the side compartments, and the whole permanently completed under the superintendence of Sir Charles Barry. In accordance with the Resolution I have placed upon the paper for the consideration of the House, I have now to suggest whether it would not be desirable to increase the present most inadequate accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery; and in doing so, I sincerely trust no opposition may be made on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will act with the same degree of generosity I have already experienced at the hands of the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works. It may be in the recollection of hon. Members, that some weeks ago I brought the question before the House, and received a promise from the noble Lord that an experiment should be made. That has now been effected, as far as the central compartment is concerned, and we have seventeen if not eighteen seats, where before only seven could be placed, in consequence of the space allotted to the anteroom. Should the House think it desirable to sanction my Resolution, and alter the side compartments in a similar manner, they will afford additional accommodation for thirty-three persons, making in all fifty-four seats, instead of twenty-one. Since the question was first mooted, I have heard of two objections, and two only—one, that in dispensing with the ante-room you took away the tea-rooms—the other, that one compartment should certainly be left untouched, in order that Members of the Royal Family might visit the House. The first objection falls to the ground at once, when we consider the rooms available for that object in the immediate neighbourhood, in the same gallery. And with regard to the second objection, I really cannot imagine what harm can arise to any Royal visitors from increasing their accommodation. We are not often favoured with the presence of Royalty; but should one compartment be required at any time, it can be kept free for that purpose. I would, therefore, propose, that the three compartments should be furnished in a similar manner—one be- ing reserved for Royalty in case of notice being given, but occupied at other times as the other two. The cost of refitting the whole permanently would not exceed £300, according to an estimate I have received from Sir Charles Barry, and the comfort from improved ventilation would be greatly enhanced. The majority of the Members of this House, I believe, will bear me out when I state the difficulty hitherto experienced in procuring admission to the ladies' gallery; and I think, in addition to the contemplated extension, we must look forward to some reform as to the admission of ladies to the gallery. Your own gallery, Sir, is always full on the occasion of an interesting debate. The one in question is frequently partially unoccupied till a late hour of the night, because certain privileged parties have their names on the list—and perhaps never intend to come at all—to the exclusion of the families of less fortunate Members and their friends. I, therefore, beg to move that—

intimated that the hon. and gallant Member was out of order in proposing the Motion of which he had given notice.

said, he would then ask whether there would be any objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the alteration he had suggested?

thought that, although the space allotted to ladies in the gallery appropriated to them was somewhat limited, the alteration proposed by the hon. and gallant Member would be productive of considerable inconvenience. Under the existing arrangements the ladies had front seats in the two side compartments, and they had a very comfortable lobby behind in which they hung up their bonnets and cloaks. The hon. and gallant Member had suggested that the partition between the seats and the lobby should be taken down, in order that a second seat might be placed in the compartments; but he (Mr. Malins) did not think any lady who had been induced to occupy the back seat would ever be willing to do so again. He hoped that, although the Government had given way to the vagaries of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the central compartment, they would not make similar alterations in the side compartments. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the limited space now afforded to each visitor in the central compartment was quite incompatible with the present style of ladies' dresses. He hoped that before hon. Gen- tlemen expressed any opinion on this subject they would walk up to the ladies' gallery and judge for themselves.

said, he thought that perhaps the Government might not object to appoint a Committee on the subject, in which case it would be necessary to examine those who alone could give evidence, the ladies themselves.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that some of the Crown rights of Epping Forest which are nearest to London, and most frequented, have been sold by the Government during the last few months? and to call the attention of the House to the importance of securing the yet uninclosed portions of Epping Forest for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis. He believed that the rights of the Crown had been disposed of for a mere trifle, and the enclosure of the forest would be a great disadvantage to the poor and labouring classes of the eastern districts of the metropolis, who were accustomed to resort to Epping for exercise and recreation. There had been more land enclosed in the last two years than in the foregoing twelve years.

said, that as the hon. Member had not given notice of his intention to ask this question of the Chief Commissioner of Works, he had omitted to obtain the requisite information on the subject; but he would take an opportunity of inquiring into the matter, and ascertain whether the statement on which the hon. Gentleman relied was correct.

Sir, at the request of a number of honourable friends, in conjunction with whom I have opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament for several years, I have undertaken to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months; and I think some apology is due to the House on my part, because on a former occasion I felt it my duty to move the rejection of clauses in the Oaths Bill, which, according to the understanding of myself and my hon. Friends, would have had the effect of abrogating the Christian character of this House—a matter the importance of which I fear hon. Gentlemen opposite undervalue. For one, I wish to observe, and in this I know I speak the sentiments of others, that the opposition to this proposal of the admission of Jews to Parliament, has been with us no mere party question; but that it is founded in a deep conviction that the Legislature of this country, which under its various phases has ever been Christian by its constitution, should so continue—a deep conviction that there is nothing injurious to real freedom in those restrictions which are necessary to preserve this character, but that, on the contrary, the Christian character of the Legislature and the constitution of the country constitute the great guarantee for the freedom of the people, a freedom that has survived the vicissitudes which have proved fatal to the liberties of the nations that surround us. I cannot conceal that it would be a piece of futile hypocrisy on my part if I attempted to conceal the deep regret which I feel at opposing a Bill which has the sanction of the vote, if not of the judgment, of the noble Earl at the head of the Government. For many years I have been a very humble but very determined supporter of that noble Earl. Upon the reconstruction of the Conservative party in 1846, it was my lot to be appointed to one of the offices upon which so much of the efficiency and good conduct of this House depends. That office I held until the year 1851, and when I resigned it I assured the noble Earl that he should never need a man to collect the opponents of those whose object is to destroy the Christian character of Parliament. After this lengthened connection with the noble Earl, and after the many assurances I have given to others that his convictions on this subject were so firm that he might be implicitly relied upon, it is with the deepest regret that I have seen the noble Lord change his course of conduct, at a period when, as I believe, there was really no occasion for his doing so. I desire not to speak disrespectfully to this House when I say that I am firmly convinced—more firmly convinced perhaps than I have ever been—that those who advocate the admission of the Jews to Parliament do not truly represent the feelings of the people of this country; I say this because, that since it has been felt that this change in the law is now, I fear, inevitable, I have seen no indications of satisfaction on the part of the people in whose name the change has been urged. I therefore feel entitled to assume that the measure has been forced upon the country; for, so far as I can observe, the only feeling which the probability of its passing has caused throughout the kingdom is one of disappointment, enhanced, perhaps, by the fact that the proposed change is to be effected by the powerful aid of one from whom such a measure was little to be expected. Hon. Members opposite can show me no demonstrations of satisfaction to prove that, in seeking to abrogate the Christian character of Parliament, they are acting thoroughly in accordance with public opinion. With reference more immediately to the Bill upon the table, I feel that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London adopted an unseemly course, when on a former occasion, before the Bill came down from the House of Lords, he moved the adjournment of the House in order to dictate the course we should pursue with respect to this measure when it came down from their Lordships, and while doing this sneered at the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, because that noble and learned Lord had declared that if the House of Commons had been so misguided as to attempt to override the law for the sake of admitting a Jew to a seat in this House, he would not have shrunk, in the performance of his judicial duty, from vindicating the majesty of the law, but would have abided the consequences of its true administration be those consequences what they might. There is not too much public spirit operative in this country, and it was with much regret that I heard a Member of this House, occupying so high a position as the noble Lord, speak sneeringly of a declaration which, I think, does the highest honour to the noble and learned person who uttered it, and to the profession of which he has so long been an ornament. What more did the noble Lord the Member for London say? He proclaimed that the House of Lords, by having yielded on this question, had established the supremacy of the House of Commons—not, mark you, merely in relation to financial matters, but on the widest and deepest religious and constitutional question that has been submitted in modern times, perhaps ever, to Parliament. Sir, this House is a proud and a powerful assembly; but I scarcely think it is consonant with the feelings of the great majority of the Members of this House to find themselves congratulated upon having established this House as the supreme authority in this country, by having overridden the convictions of the House of Lords, or to have it implied that they consider it as ridiculous on the part of the Lord Chief Justice to declare that he is prepared to vindicate the majesty of the law against a Resolution of this House. I do not believe that, if the House of Lords had adhered to its sincere convictions against the admission of Jews to Parliament, that the House of Commons would have been so misguided as to attempt to override the law. If, however, it had done that, so grave and serious an event would have required Lord Derby, as the constitutional Minister of the Crown, to advise Her Majesty at once by a dissolution to appeal to her people, whether they are prepared to submit to the authority of this House as supreme, when no longer Christian by its constitution, and after this House had overridden the independence of the House of Lords, and had even assailed the pure administration of the law. The noble Lord the Member for London did not condescend to state what might be the probable result of such an appeal, though he said the decision of this House might possibly have led to much inconvenience. That inconvenience, I believe, would have been felt by the noble Lord especially, if he had ventured to recommend the adoption of a Resolution such as that to which he had alluded; it would, also, have been felt by every other Member of this House who ventured thus to assail that which is the great guarantee for the personal freedom and safety of every Englishman. I regret, deeply regret, that this question, involving, as it does, the Christian character of this House—that this issue was not fairly placed before the country—that the people have been deprived of the opportunity of declaring their will upon this subject. I shall not trouble the House with any observations upon the frame of the Bill now before us; I deprecate the measure, because it will accomplish the destruction of the Christian character of Parliament. Like all departures from sound principle, it involves incidental circumstances which can scarcely recommend it to the general approval. I allude particularly to the provision of the Bill which enacts that, in the case of every Jewish Member, there should be in fact a second election before he takes his seat in this House. Let the House consider the principle which is involved in that clause. It tends to constitute the House of Commons a close corporation. It provides that the House shall not be satisfied by a free election on the part of constituencies in certain cases, and gives to Members of this House the privilege of declaring their objection to receive a Member upon grounds which are not stated in the law, but merely in accordance with the decision of a majority of this House, based on no recognized grounds, but cogent when the Member presents himself for the purpose of taking the oath and his seat. There can be little doubt that if, after the passing of this Bill, Baron Rothschild, a very wealthy man, should present himself at that table to be sworn, he would be admitted to a seat in the House under the Resolution which the Bill provides. There is little doubt if Alderman Salomons, a very convenient person, were elected and presented himself here, he would be recommended to the majority of this House; but I want to know why the law should not declare what are the circumstances under which the House ought by Resolution to admit a Jew. If this measure pass, why should not this principle be extended? Why should not this or some other Bill provide for the admission of avowed atheists to seats in this House? We should then have to make a pick among the atheists who might be elected and presented themselves to take their seats. How should we be able to distinguish among them? Let us, then, for the sake of illustration, further test the principles of the Bill by extending the application of them; and suppose that you had admitted the Jew and the atheist by Resolution, why should not the principle be applied to others? Why should not some Christians be esteemed objectionable by the majority of the House? Tell me, therefore, what is the security that this House, if this principle be extended, should not by Resolution select from the candidates who have been sent up by the constituencies such as may at the time please them best, and reject others, on grounds and for purposes not recognised by this or any other law? These are, however, considerations relating to comparatively minor matters. If you pass this Bill, and destroy the Christian character of the House, that step will tend first to the alienation, and then to the separation of the Church from the State. But, observe, this Bill anticipates that evil, for it provides for the severance of the State itself. No one doubts that if this Bill passes, the House of Lords will refuse to admit a Jew to their assembly, whilst the House of Commons will admit him to theirs. Thus you will sever the only bond of union in principle which remains to connect the two branches of the Legislature; you will have this House invested with the supremacy which the noble Lord ascribes to it, but constituted upon a totally different basis from that of the House of Lords; and do you not see in that severance and that supremacy elements of confusion? I can regard this as no settlement whatever. It marks our first entrance upon a new phase of political existence for the country. It is the first step in a course which I myself view with the greatest apprehension; and I very much doubt whether many hon. Gentlemen on the other side have weighed the extent of the change which they are about to effect; but of this I am confident, that wherever in a State this principle has been introduced, where-ever a State that was Christian by its constitution has ceased to be so, the freedom of that State has not been long maintained; and I challenge hon. Gentlemen to produce me an instance to the contrary. Upon this stage of the Bill I will not further intrude upon the patience of the House; but in justification of my own vote and the vote of those who have asked me to propose the Amendment, I will read the Reasons of the House of Lords for insisting on their Amendments to the Oaths Bill which involve the justification of their long continued opposition to the admission of Jews to Parliament.

"1. Because, although the words 'on the true faith of a Christian' were originally introduced into the oath for the immediate purpose of binding certain Roman Catholics, it is unreasonable to assume that the Parliament which so introduced them did not intend that the profession of Christianity should be a necessary qualification for admission to the Legislature, when they enacted that a declaration of that faith should form part of the oath required to be taken by every Member of both Houses.

"2. Because the constant intention of the Legislature may be further inferred from the fact that neither at the time of the introduction of these words were the Jews admissible, nor have they at any subsequent period been admitted to sit and vote in either House of Parliament.

"3. Because exclusion from seats in Parliament and offices of the State on the ground of religious opinion, and for other reasons, when the general good of the State appears to require it, is a principle recognized in the settlement of the succession to the Crown, and in other cases; and has moreover been further and recently sanctioned by the House of Commons in some of the provisions of the present Bill.

"4. Because, in the prayers with which both Houses daily commence their proceedings, they implore in Christ's name the Divine assistance and guidance in all their undertakings, professing themselves his unworthy servants; and this act of worship will become a mockery when among those who are therein declared to be gathered together in His name are numbered those who deny Him through whose merits alone those prayers can be acceptable.

"5. Because, when the Commons plead in support of their views, in a matter which equally concerns the constitution of both branches of the Legislature, their repeated recognition of the expediency of removing this disability of the Jews, and admitting them to their Councils, the Lords desire to refer to their equally firm adherence to the principle of retaining those privileges which they believe to be peculiarly and inseparably attached to Parliament as an exclusively Christian assembly."

seconded the Motion.

said, he had hoped to have heard something from the other side of the House. He was not in the habit of addressing that House often, and especially when he could not do so for an object. He knew that anything he could say would be in vain to undo what had been done, but still he could not give a silent vote on the present occasion. He had hoped to have heard some remarks from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on the Bill. Although he (Mr. Spooner) had formerly contented himself with giving a silent vote on this question, he was not of those who had altered their opinions, and he could not follow the example of those high personages who, retaining their opinions, had altered their votes. He had changed neither his opinion nor his vote. He had no vulgar prejudice against the Jews. No one could regard their past history, or contemplate their future destiny, without feeling deep respect for them, and a full belief that they would ultimately be restored to their high destiny. Respecting the Jews as a nation, and many individuals of that nation with whom he had the honour to be acquainted, he felt that no such consideration would justify his vote for their admission to legislate for a Christian people. He believed that real conscientious Jews would feel themselves in an awkward position, although they had been relieved from taking the oath with the words "on the true faith of a Christian," when they were called on by their allegiance to the Crown to legislate for Christianity in that House. The Reasons of the Lords seemed to be conclusive against such a measure as this. The fourth Reason stated their Lordships' opinion, that a Jew was "morally unfit" to take part in Christian legislation, and yet a Bill was sent down to this House by the same parties who had communicated that Reason, for the purpose of enabling them to admit a Jew, though it had been so declared that he was morally unfit to take his place in a Christian Legislature, and that without the other House of Parliament going into such an unconstitutional proceeding, while at the same time the great prerogative of the Crown and the ultimate veto to all their proceedings were set aside. He agreed with his hon. Colleague that they were introducing a new principle into the Constitution; that they were giving the House the power to say by Resolution whether a Member should sit in that House or not. If there were one thing of which they should be more jealous than another, it was that the House should not be able by a majority to say to one man you shall, and to another you shall not, sit in this House. Would the noble Lord agree to such an unconstitutional proceeding? It was said that the admission of Jews had become a necessity, and that the Bill under consideration was the result of pressure. What was the feeling of the people out of doors on this question? Why, up to July of this Session there were only two petitions before the House in favour of the admission of Jews, and those petitions contained two signatures. There had been 250 petitions sent up against the measure, signed by 11,808 persons. Was that the pressure to which the House of Lords had yielded? No; it was to pander to the views of party that the principle on which the Legislature had so long acted in this matter was to be abandoned. He had extreme fears that the passing of this Bill would inflict a deadly blow on the Constitution, and sure he was that the confidence of the people in the other House of Parliament, to which they had long looked as the bulwark of their liberties, had been shaken beyond the possibility of redemption by the unfortunate concession they had made on this question. He was old enough to remember the impression made, and which had not passed away, by a declaration made in the House of Commons of that great public man Mr. Fox, held in veneration by Members on the opposite side of the House—namely, "that what was morally wrong could never be politically right." That was the motto which ought to have governed the conduct of Parliament in this matter. A great historian, and now a noble Lord, once wrote, "Talk to me of a Christian Legislature; you might as well talk to me of Christian cookery." He (Mr. Spooner) did not think the country was quite prepared to coincide with that view; but he did feel that if this Bill passed an irreparable blow would be inflicted on the Christian character of that House. Expediency had done more to shake the Throne than anything that could have occurred. It had broken in on our Constitution in 1829, and had led from change to change, until, in this Bill, we have the last vestige of the Christian character of our Legislature taken away. He should have gone down to his grave with deep sorrow if he had not made this protest against so great a dereliction of duty on the part of the other House of Parliament. He deplored what had been done chiefly for its effect on the Christian character of Parliament, and he looked on it, moreover, as a great error in that it was calculated to take away from a large portion of the thinking people of this country that confidence which they were willing to repose in the Government of the Earl of Derby. It had greatly shaken his (Mr. Spooner's) confidence in that noble Lord who headed the party with whom he had been in the habit of acting. He trusted that support had always been given as became an independent Member of Parliament. Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew well that he had frequently supported measures brought forward by them when he was convinced their measures were right. He would give the same kind of support to measures proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but instead of yielding his opinion, as he had hitherto done, on matters where lie entertained doubt, and presuming that to be right which was not proved to be wrong, he must now adopt another course, and support only such measures as be conscientiously believed were proved to be right.

said, he thought that the silence which was maintained with regard to this Bill by the distinguished Gentleman who had hitherto taken the most active part in promoting the admission of Jews to Parliament was most remarkable. The noble Lord the Member for London seemed disposed to force the measure through the House without condescending even to explain its principles or details. But were the House of Commons a flock of sheep that they were to be thus treated? Had they nothing else to do but to obey the nod of the noble Lord, and read the Bill a second time without discussion? He did not know whether they were prepared to adopt that course, or not; all he could say was that he was not, and that he should trespass for a few moments upon the attention of the House for the purpose of stating his opinion with regard to the position in which the two sides of the House now stood, and particularly the position which was occupied by the other House in reference to this question. As yet they had not heard one word in favour of the measure, which was an entirely new one, based upon entirely different arrangements, and, in the opinion of many who were even favourable to its object, was open to very grave objections. Before the House went to a division, therefore, he trusted they would be favoured with the views of the noble Lord upon the principle and details of the measure—upon its probable effects on the position of the two Houses of Parliament; and whether or not he was perfectly satisfied with the manner in which it dealt with the important question at issue. He would not go into the question of the noble Lord's consistency on other matters, nor would he draw comparisons between his conduct in and out of office, but, to give him his due, he had for many years past been most consistent, determined, and energetic in his endeavours to insult the Christian community of the country, and to destroy the Christian character of that House. Now, if they destroyed the Christian character of the Senate of this country, they would seriously impair its polititical efficiency, and shake the confidence of the large majority of the people in this House by giving them the impression that they were not influenced in their conduct by religious considerations. The question was not one of civil and religious liberty; it was simply a political question, and that a political question confined to a very small circle of persons. There was neither civil nor religious liberty mixed up in the matter. It was an attempt to destroy the Christian character of the Senate of England for the purpose of carrying an insignificant political object; and the only political object that had been attained by its agitation up to this time was that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was the representative of the City of London instead of some small and obscure constituency. The portion of the subject that he approached with the most anxiety was the position taken by- the House of Lords with regard to this measure. No well-wisher of his country could have witnessed what had taken place in the other House of Parliament during the last few weeks without feeling the most sincere regret at the extent to which the events occurring there had lowered the character of public men in that branch of the Legislature. He wished he could entertain a doubt upon that point; but he was sorry to say that he could not. At no period since the melancholy year 1846 had public men so utterly and irretrievably lost their character, or exhibited such a degree of tergiversation, as in reference to the question now before the House; but it so happened that the present case was worse than that of 1846; for whatever might have been the demerits of those who in 1846 sacrificed their opinions and their characters, the question upon which they did so was a financial question; whereas the subject now under discussion had been argued upon religious grounds. It had been held that on these grounds Jews ought not to be allowed to occupy seats in a Christian Legislature; and he entirely concurred in the argument, and said that it would be a desecration of the character of this House as a Christian assembly, and a mockery of their profession of Christianity, if they did so. But what became of the consistency of those who, having always hitherto opposed the claims of the Jews, now turned round and sent the present Bill down to this House? He must again express his sincere regret at the position in which the House was now placed; and he regretted it the more, because the majority were the representatives of the £10 householders, and the feelings of the £10 householders upon this question did not represent the feelings of the people of England, who, he believed, were opposed to the admission of the Jews to Parliament, He was convinced that what had recently passed in this House and in the other House of Parliament was calculated to derogate in the highest degree from the estimation in which the two Houses were held by the people, and he trusted he should never again witness proceedings so disreputable to the character of all concerned in them.

said, he had no intention to attack hon. Members for want of consistency, which he thought was sometimes carried to far too great an extent, until it degenerates into obstinacy, nor would he impute any improper or personal motives to the noble Lord the Member for London. He was not surprised that the noble Lord had not risen to advocate the Bill of which he had moved the second reading, because it was not the noble Lord's Bill; and he very much misunderstood the noble Lord if he would ever have produced, had the task been left to him, a measure of the character which was now submitted to the House. As he understood the matter, the noble Lord had accepted the Bill with a view to avoid what might appear to him to be a greater evil; not that it was his choice, but that necessity had forced it upon him. And he could not concur in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) that the noble Lord had been actuated, with reference to this question, by personal considerations; or that it had been the means of placing him in the position, which, as a statesman of high standing, who had for many years enjoyed the esteem and confidence of this House, he so worthily occupied, and was so well entitled to assume, of Representative of the great and important constituency of London. His (Mr. Adams's) objection was not so much to the admission of the Jews to this House on principle as it was to the form in which the Bill was presented to the House. Had the other House been pleased to accept the Bill which was sent up from this House he should have cheerfully acquiesced in their decision, as being in strict accordance with the rules and principles of the Constitution, though he might have entertained the opinion that it was a dangerous innovation for them to make; but to that Bill he entertained strong objections. In the first place, he held that the Bill, which had been called a compromise, was no compromise at all, but that it was a concession—a giving up of the whole question. He repeated, however, that his chief objection was to the form—the insulting form—in which the Bill had been sent down from the House of Lords, inasmuch as it had come down accompanied by Reasons which were as complete and thorough a condemnation of it as they were of the Oaths Bill itself. One of those Reasons stated that the Jew was morally unfit to take part in the legislation of this professedly Christian country; yet the Bill would admit him to a seat in this House upon a Resolution of the House. But supposing it should be the grace and favour of the Sovereign to grant a peerage to a Jew; why, was he not as worthy to occupy a seat in the House of Lords as in this House? Wherein was the House of Commons inferior, as far as moral standing was concerned, to the other branch of the Legislature? He contended that a man who was fit for the society of the House of Commons was equally fit for the society of the members of the House of Lords, and that the other House had no right to send down a Bill for the admission to seats in this House of persons who, in their reasons against the Oaths Bill, they branded as morally unfit to sit in a Christian Legislature. For his part, he thought the separate legislation now proposed to be established was a most dangerous and unconstitutional, though not unexampled proceeding; and he feared that the other House, which had now set the example of declaring that the House of Commons might by their own Resolution seat any one particular individual, would find that the practice of separate and independent legislation might again be carried, as it had been in former times, to an inconvenient extent by which their Lordships would be the sufferers. Hitherto their principle of legislation had been concurrence between the two Houses of Parliament. Now they might have a Resolution of that House absolutely opposed to the practice of the House of Lords. The measure had come down to the House in the most offensive shape. It was conceded as an almsgiving to an importunate beggar, not gracefully given, but thrown in the face of the applicant; and he regarded it, in every point of view, as most objectionable.

said, he thought the House would not expect him to go into arguments which had been repeated over and over again on the subject of Jewish disabilities, but some points had been raised and some references made to him by previous speakers which he could not wholly overlook. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire seemed to suppose that in the event of the present Bill being rejected it was his (Lord J. Russell's) intention to propose or at least support some Resolution contrary to the law. The hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him, for the fact was that the only ground upon which he intended to ask the House to support a Resolution in favour of the admission of the Jews, would be that it was in conformity with the law, and in so doing he would be resting upon a very high authority, that of the late Attorney General. Upon that question he should have been glad to hear, what he never had heard, the opinion of the present Attorney General; but, fortunately, the House was spared the necessity of going into that subject, thanks to the Bill now under consideration. It had been observed by an hon. Member (Mr. Adams) that he (Lord J. Russell) could not possibly like the present Bill; but, as the House of Lords had sent down the Bill, and desired the concurrence of the Commons to it, he was simply moving, in accordance with that desire, that the House should concur in the Bill thus sent down. He certainly considered that the Bill sent up to the Lords, with part of which the other House disagreed, was in its nature a compromise, because he thought that no Bill could be entirely satisfactory which made a distinction in the form of oath between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and he endeavoured to put the oaths in a form which would meet with the concurrence of both Houses. The hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) spoke about pandering to passions. With all that he had nothing to do. With respect to the conduct of those who had all along been opposed to the emancipation of the Jews, and who now consented to the proposed mode of admitting them to Parliament, he could only say that he thought the mode effectual for the purpose, though the manner of concession was not the most gracious. If the House did not accept the present Bill, it must either go on in a continual contest with the House of Lords, asking their consent to a Bill, to which they were not prepared to consent, or carry a Resolution which a majority of the House might have concurred in, thinking it agreeable to law. But that might have been a question in a court of law, it might have led to very much dispute, and caused very much inconvenience, and possible collision with the courts of law. With these alternatives before him, he must confess that, though he should never himself have proposed the present Bill, he was glad to take a course in which both Houses could concur, and which relieved the House from the difficulties he had mentioned. That was the reason why he recommended the Bill to the acceptance of the House. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had spoken as if the only object of carrying the Bill was to enable him (Lord J. Russell) to retain his seat for the City of London. He certainly valued highly the possession of that seat, but the object to be attained by the passing of the Bill was of a very different nature. It was unnecessary for him to enter upon that topic now. The great majority of the House understood the principle of religious liberty, in accordance with which Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters had been admitted to Parliament. Those were principles with which, he was afraid, if the contest was to go on for another ten years there would be no imbuing the mind of the hon. Member. He had now stated very shortly the grounds on which he recommended this Bill to the House. He believed that it would furnish a practical solution of the difficulty he had adverted to, with some inconvenience in the way, but not with the inconvenience insisted upon by the hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Adams). So far as the terms of the Bill went, both Houses were placed upon an equality, and either House might say that it would, or would not, admit a Jew. According to all experience, it was probable that when a Jew presented himself to be sworn at the table, the House of Commons would be disposed to admit him. At present, it was not likely that any Peer would present himself to be sworn in the other House, objecting to the words "on the true faith of a Christian" on the ground of being a Jew; and by the time that any Jew would be enabled, by the favour of the Queen, to receive a patent of peerage, it was likely that the Peers would have come to a different opinion from that they entertained at present. The sons, in many instances, were wiser than their fathers, and probably the House of Lords would then agree to admit the Jew. When the Bill was read a second time, he should give notice of the course he proposed to pursue with respect to the Oaths Bill.

said, that the question was whether the matter in dispute should be settled in this shape, or in that desperate manner which some of the advocates of the admission of Jews had alluded to—namely, by a Resolution of the House, which Resolution was to be taken as equivalent to an Act of Parliament. A more revolutionary doctrine than that he had never heard broached. They had lately been told by a high authority that that House was supreme in the State; but he had always humbly thought, in his ignorance, that they were living under a constitutional monarchy. It seemed, however, that such was not the prevailing opinion. Tories and Conservatives by profession had heard that statement with- out a murmur, and he surely thought their squeezability must be of a most extraordinary character. But that was not all. It was said besides, that if that House by its own authority passed a Resolution admitting the Jew, and if Lord Campbell, in interpreting the law, should punish and fine the Jew for sitting and voting in the House without taking the oaths, the House would be bound to protect the Jew from the consequences of the breach of the law. It really was high time that they should have a dissolution, in order that the constituencies should speak their minds upon this matter. He should like to know, moreover, how that House could set about such a proceeding. It was said, that if the House did pass such a Resolution, the Judges would be squeezable, and would be, no doubt, disposed to interpret the law according to the decision of the House of Commons. Now, he did not believe that Lord Campbell or any Judge on the bench at present would dishonour himself by such conduct. But that was not all, for the House had been told that it could, by Resolution, take the government and direction of the army and navy off the hands of the Crown, totally irrespective of the laws. Now, all the mischief done in the beginning of the French Revolution was done by Resolutions. By Resolutions they abolished primogeniture, they abolished nobility, and they abolished tithe. ["Hear!"] He thought, from that cry of "Hear," that there was at least one hon. Gentleman willing to walk in the footsteps of those revolutionists. It was also said that if the Jews were not admitted, the House of Commons could stop the supplies. That was rather a strong measure. It was said, "We will stop the supplies and refuse the Mutiny Bill." Well, what would be the effect of such a proceeding? Why, he supposed the army, the navy, and the police would help themselves. They would live at free quarters until Parliament passed the Mutiny Bill and paid their wages. But these were mere idle threats, which were never meant to be carried into execution. He agreed with those who thought that the legislation they were now asked to sanction was the beginning of a new system. It was no answer to say that this was only the climax—the necessary consequence—of the repeal of the Test Acts, the Emancipation of the Catholics, and other similar measures. It was a perfect farce for hon. Gentlemen to talk about a conciliatory measure with reference to church rates. As far as he was concerned he would have no conciliatory Bill; he would have church rates or nothing. The Dissenters acted honestly on this subject. Mr. Miall, of The Nonconformist, had argued the question with great fairness and ability, and avowed that the Dissenters only sought by means of the abolition of church rates to insert the small point of the wedge, and that what they were really fighting against was tithe. He (Mr. Drummond) believed this was the necessary consequence of previous legislation on such questions. With regard to the Test Acts, he remembered that several persons of notoriously immoral character, who blazoned forth their opinions to the offence of all honest and decent people in the city, received places under the Crown, and when they went to St. Martin's Church to receive the sacrament, the clergyman, although very much disgusted at being required to administer it to them, instead of doing his duty by refusing to administer it, came to that House and prayed for the repeal of the Test Acts. The legislation adopted at that time and since must go on, and it was impossible now to maintain that, as was formerly the case, the Church of England and the State were one. He was not referring to these things to frighten the House, but he was only anxious to point out to them the course upon which they had entered, and he knew that its consequences were evident to many hon. Gentlemen. The ablest man among those whom he called advanced Liberals—the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright)—had foreseen them. There was no necessity for hon. Gentlemen to go into Committee-room No. 11, or elsewhere, to find a head; for the hon. Member for Birmingham was the only man among them who had, from the first, foreseen the end of these measures, and who had honestly and plainly expressed his opinions; and if that hon. Gentleman lived as long as he (Mr. Drummond) wished he might do, he would see his anticipations realized. They were now merely considering in what manner they should admit the Jews to Parliament, for they had settled—be it right or wrong, religious or irreligious—that whether the House became infidel, or what not, have the Jew they would. Of all the measures lie had seen on this subject, the one now under consideration was, in his opinion, the least likely to lead to public disturbance. The simple question for the House to determine was, what was the best and least mischievous mode of admitting Jews to Parliament?—and as this Bill seemed to provide the least mischievous means of effecting that object, he would give it his support.

said, he was anxious to defend the course he had pursued on this, question from the charges made against him. He denied that he had recommended the House to act upon any revolutionary principle. He had found that the great constituencies of the City of London had repeatedly returned a Jew to that House, and as he conceived that the House was justified under the existing law in proceeding by Resolution, he had recommended the adoption of such a course with the view of admitting Baron Rothschild to a seat. He was justified in that course by the opinion of some of the most eminent English jurists who had written upon constitutional law, by the express declaration of the late Lord Canterbury, and by the opinion of a late Premier. He felt strongly the force of the objections which had been urged against this Bill by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He thought it unsatisfactory, inconsistent in its character, and objectionable in the highest degree, because it did not secure the admission of the Jew to Parliament, unless the House decreed by a Resolution that they would do so; and practically, therefore, he remained excluded. They would only have continually party fighting and personal squabbles from religious motives every time a new Parliament was elected. If a Jew were qualified to sit in that House, it was not the House itself which ought to exclude him; and he objected to the Bill because it gave them a right to do so. The present measure was no final settlement of the question, and was altogether so objectionable in its principle that he hoped it never would be allowed a place on the statute-book.

said, he was unwilling, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), to give a silent vote with respect to this measure. His hon. Friend was one of those who had always entertained the opinion that the admission of Jews to Parliament would destroy the exclusively Christian character of the Legislature of this country. His hon. Friend had given a somewhat severe lecture to noble Lords in "another place," as well as to those who usually agreed with him upon political questions in that House, with reference to the mode in which great legislative measures should be treated; and he had spoken, with considerable apprehension, of the course which Parliament was now pursuing. In many of those views he (Mr. Walpole) heartily concurred; but, he must say, he thought it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had contented himself with entering a silent protest against the principle to which he objected by recording his vote against it. His hon. Friend thought the question of admitting the Jews to this House was settled. Consistently, however, with the views which his hon. Friend said ought to be taken by the statesmen of this country, he believed that if they apprehended evil from any measure submitted to Parliament it was their duty, in whatever minority they might be left, to record their vote against it. The House had so often indulged him by listening to the expression of his opinions on this question that he would not repay them so ill as now to trespass on their attention at any length. All he could say was, that he saw no reason for changing his opinions; and that being so, though the measure might be supported by those for whom he entertained the sincerest respect—he might say, the warmest affection—he could not yield up his convictions on the subject. Having said so much on that part of the question, he would add that there was one point which he thought even those who supported the admission of the Jews ought deliberately to have considered before they adopted the present measure. For the first time, as far as he knew, in the legislation of this country they were now enabling either House of Parliament, if it pleased, to do away with a general law by a Resolution. Now, general laws when passed ought to be maintained as general laws; and he must say that if the House of Lords were prepared to give way upon this question it would have been better and more satisfactory if they had frankly acquiesced in the Bill sent up from this House, instead of passing what was but a patchwork measure, and one which could not be a permanent settlement of the question. It was a patchwork measure, because it enabled the Houses of Parliament, not upon any general principle, but according to the opinions entertained by them at the time, to say whether they would or would not admit the Jews to the Legislature. But, besides this, if there existed a reason why the House of Commons should admit a Jew to a seat, he contended that the Crown ought not to be deprived of the right to place a Jew in the other House, independently of any opinion which that House might choose to entertain on the subject. Again, he thought the worst part of the Bill was that the Resolution which must be carried would not constitute a law of a permanent character, but might be reversed by the next House of Commons, whereupon the whole controversy upon this much-vexed question would revive, and it would be found much more difficult to deal with the subject on principles of sound policy. In conclusion, he would willingly have given a silent vote; but he could not forbear expressing his conviction that, in a constitutional point of view, they were not settling this question in the best manner; and, at the same time, he wished to enter his solemn protest against the admission to a Christian Legislature of those who, according to all the principles of our constitution, could not, he believed, safely and properly be allowed to sit there.

said, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on this question, lest he should be supposed to assent not merely to the object and effect of the Bill, but the manner in which that object was attained. He entirely concurred with the right hon. (Mr.Walpole), in regretting that those who in the House of Lords had made up their minds to pass this Bill should not have resolved fairly and handsomely to settle this question. He quite concurred, also, in the objections stated to the method by which the admission of Jews into this House was to be accomplished; and he confessed it was with considerable reluctance that he gave his support to the present Bill. He felt so strongly, however, the expediency and the justice of admitting the Jews into Parliament that he was content to accept it on the ground on which it had been objected to by some hon. Gentlemen—namely, that it was the first instalment of a larger and more complete measure. He could not believe that a Bill so objectionable in principle, upon constitutional grounds, would be allowed to remain permanently upon the statute-book, He was persuaded that those who had hitherto opposed the admission of the Jews, having conceded so much, would in the course of no distant period go a step further, and would yield to the claims of their Jewish fellow-subjects not by the objectionable mode of a Resolution passed by one House of Parliament, but by the more constitutional operation of a general law.

said, he must also express his dissatisfaction with the mode in which this question was to be settled. They could not, as had been supposed, admit one Jew under the Bill and exclude another; but a Resolution passed in one Parliament might be thrown out in the next, and while on one day the House of Commons resolved to seat the Jews the House of Lords might on the same day resolve to exclude them. He regretted that the House of Lords, if they felt disposed to settle this question, had not done so in a straightforward, manly way, by passing a general law binding on both Houses.

said, he must repeat his objections to this Bill, on the ground that it was a violation of the principle and sanctioned a course of proceeding to which the House ought not to lend itself. He had no objection to open Chelsea Bridge free to passengers, if that could be done consistent with keeping public faith; but he thought it was perfectly impossible, without committing a breach of public faith, to make any alteration in the original agreement. A positive bargain had been made, by which the tolls were to be liable for the amount lent for the construction of the bridge, together with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum; and he contended that the agreement so entered into ought not to be violated on any pretence whatever.

said, that as soon as the West End line of railway was completed to Pimlico the revenue of the bridge would dwindle to nothing. He only regretted that the Bill did not go further and throw open the bridge. He was of opinion, that all bridges across the Thames in the metropolitan district should be free.

said, he rose to move an Amendment, the effect of which was, to abolish the toll on foot passengers after the passing of the Bill. Practically the toll of a half-penny, which was really a penny (for nobody was allowed to turn round on the bridge and go back, however much he might desire it—he must go to the other end, and pay again to come back) operated to the deprivation of the poorer classes, for whose benefit the park had been formed, of its enjoyment. The Earl of Derby had stated to a deputation which waited upon him that he would be ready to assent to the abolition of these tolls if it could be proved that the value of the land belonging to the Crown in Battersea Park would be proportionately increased. Before a Committee which had inquired into the subject Mr. Pennithorne, the ar- chitect of the Board of Works, had stated that by freeing the bridge of foot-toll the land in the neighbourhood of Battersea Park would let both more quickly and at a higher price. He was informed that a builder had that day applied to the Board of Works to know the price of this land; and he had been informed that even now it was £3,000 per acre, whereas it had been estimated at £2,000 an acre, so that there was every ground for saying that a much larger sum would be realized than was taken into the account by the Government. In a financial point of view it would he wise policy to take off the toll. They had made a bad speculation in spending £300,000 in forming a park. They had done so on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who reported the Battersea Fields were a nuisance. They formed a park for the working classes, and then they found that nobody would go to it, and that the land around it would not let. They built a bridge at an expense of £80,000 to get out of that difficulty, and they placed a toll upon it, which destroyed the efficiency of the remedy. If they took off the toll people would go to the park, and the land would be readily taken up at £3,000 an acre or more, and they would get back at least some of the money which had been so badly spent.

said, he rose to make one observation. The principle of the Committee was that every desirable improvement should be carried out; but it was not thought advisable to tax the rural for the advantage of the metropolitan population.

said, he should oppose the Amendment. It was most desirable to assist the poorer members of the community, provided that faith were kept with the public; but he did not see bow that could be done if this Amendment were agreed to. If they admitted the principle that public money was to be lent for a local object, under specific conditions as to its repayment, and that subsequently an Act might be introduced annulling the previous one, how could it be expected that public money would henceforth be lent for a local object?

said, he willingly admitted that the provisions of the original Act were most unwise; and if he could agree with the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) that there would be no breach of faith in doing away with the foot tool on the bridge, he would have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. But having looked most carefully into the case he had been compelled most reluctantly to come to a different conclusion. The hon. Gentleman had also mixed up two questions. The park and the bridge rested upon two separate Acts of Parliament, and however much the lands at Battersea Park might rise in value there was no power authorising them to appropriate any amount they might receive from the sale of the land to the repayment of the charge for erecting the bridge. At the same time he quite admitted the absurdity of forming a park at a great expense for the benefit of the working classes, the only access to which was a bridge, and then to place a toll upon that bridge, which must to a greater extent or a less exclude those for whose enjoyment the park was intended; but as Parliament had in its wisdom so determined he was bound to oppose the Amendment.

said, he thought that in the present instance, as in the case of the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be advisable to infringe on the public faith.

said, he must beg to deny that there would be any breach of faith in the matter whatever. They would recover the money they had expended if they would only throw open the bridge.

said, he thought the principle, as he understood it to be laid down by the noble Lord, most vicious. The park at Battersea having been laid out at enormous expense, the imposition of a toll would render it impossible to let the land, which might be profitably devoted to building purposes. A very bad bargain had been made by the Bill with respect to the park, and he could see no reason for adhering to it.

said, he would move, as an Amendment, the omission of the words after "said," in line 19, down to "shall," in line 21, and the insertion of the words "capital sum of £80,000, with 4 per cent, interest per annum thereon, and all arrears of such interest up to the date of payment."

said he must oppose the Amendment.

said, he should support the Amendment as its object was to carry out the agreement which had been originally entered into, and to keep faith with the public.

said, that within the last ten minutes the Committee had voted that black was white, by rejecting first the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), and next the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Stanhope). He would ask the noble Lord on what ground he could justify breaking the pledge he had given for specific application of the money?

said, he must deny that the Amendment proposed to give up the interest on the £80,000 advanced. All it did was to give to the Treasury a general control for the benefit of the public. The hon. Gentleman had put a construction upon the clause which it would not bear.

said, he wished to move at the end of Clause 3 to insert the words—

"Nor at any time previous to the said sum of £80,000 being paid off as aforesaid shall any toll be demanded or taken for or in respect of foot passengers passing over or on to the said bridge on Sundays."

said, the only effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to postpone for a considerable period the free opening of the bridge. He would not, however, oppose the adoption of the Amendment if it were pressed.

remarked, that in the interests of the working men of the neighbourhood, he should support the Amendment.

said, he was so pleased that such a provision had been adopted, that he now thought the measure really worth something, and he should not, in consequence, feel it his duty to offer any further opposition to the Bill.

said, that although entertaining a high opinion of the judicial talents of Sir John Patteson, on whose arbitration the present Bill was founded, he still felt bound to oppose the measure, as the House was not in possession of all the documents necessary to forming a correct judgment on the matter. [Cries of "Move, move!"] As he would not be allowed to proceed, he would now move the adjournment of the debate.

said, it was unusual for an hon. Gentleman to move the adjournment of a debate the only portion of which the House had heard being his own speech. He therefore hoped he would not persevere with his Motion.

said, he would also remind the hon. Member of another consideration—that if the debate were adjourned, he could not again address the House.

said, this matter was of more importance than hon. Members appeared to suppose, and he would therefore strongly urge delay, to enable hon. Members to read the provisions of the Bill.

said, that if the Motion were withdrawn, Government would give hon. Members every information they might desire upon the question.

hoped that his hon. Friend would press the Motion, as it was the clear understanding that no opposed business should be proceeded with after twelve o'clock, and it was then half-past.

said, he would move that the House should resolve itself into Committee on Monday next. The hon. Member for Truro had a speech which he wished to deliver of about half an hour in length, and he himself wished to make some remarks on this, which was a very important Bill. It related to an arbitration between the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall, but there was another party, the public, whose interests should be taken into consideration. It was impossible to have a debate that night.

said, he thought the House would do well to consider the state of public business. When a great strain was put upon the energies of hon. Members, he said he would not ask them to enter upon opposed business after twelve o'clock. But as at present it was his wish not to ask the House to take any more morning sittings this Session except upon rare occasions, he trusted they would consent to remain at their posts for an hour longer in the evening, in order to assist the Government in carrying on the public business; and therefore he trusted the hon. Gentleman who made this Amendment would not press it. The case was simply that of carrying into effect the award of a learned Judge between the Duke of Cornwall and the Crown; and it was expressly stipulated that the rights of all proprietors would be saved. It was thought that it would be better to settle this by legislation than by a course of litigation.

said, he must complain that he and the public, whose rights depended upon those of the Crown, had not been fairly treated in consequence of this Bill being brought in so late in the Session. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give a Wednesday morning sitting to the measure.

remarked that the Bill concerned nobody but the Crown and the Duke of Cornwall, and he could not understand the reasons for the opposition.

also appealed to the hon. Member to allow the Bill to proceed.

said, he could not withdraw his Motion.

said, he viewed with some alarm the discussion that was now being carried on in a very thin House. He thought that if the hon. Gentleman would allow this stage to pass, the Government would fix an opportunity for taking the discussion.

said, he was willing to agree to the suggestion, and if the present stage of the Bill were not opposed, an opportunity would be given, on bringing up the Report, of making the necessary statement.

said, he believed that was the only occasion in which any statement or discussion could be taken.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Truro had not been fairly dealt with. He thought the hon. Gentleman was entitled to have the question discussed. He should Support the Motion of the hon. Member for West Surrey.

then moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, the hon. Member's power of making Motions at that particular stage of the Bill was exhausted.

said, as the hon. Member had no more shafts to fire, he would now interpose in his behalf and move the adjournment of the debate till Monday.

said, he wished to express a hope that the Secretary for War would take into consideration the large bounty offered for recruits, which had a tendency first to tempt men into the service, and then to desert it; in order that they might enlist again into other regiments.