said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the National Gallery was shut on Saturdays, while by a recent resolution of the trading community upwards of 50,000 persons in the metropolis now enjoyed a half-day holiday on that day. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was not possible that arrangements could be made to give that vast number of persons the opportunity of visiting the Gallery during the hours of their half-holiday? He thought the case might be met by opening the Gallery from one to six o'clock on Saturdays.

said, he thought that some arrangement such as that indicated by the hon. Member would be very desirable, and that the regulations of the National Gallery should be made to harmonize with that beneficial change in the national manners which gave the working classes a half-holiday on Saturday. He should most certainly give his attention to the subject.

claimed the indulgence of the House while he brought before it a question of a personal character, which he regretted to say involved a reflection upon some proceedings of the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), for whom he entertained, on occount of his public services, the highest esteem. Had those proceedings concerned himself alone he should not have been inclined to trespass upon the attention of the House; but they concerned other Members of the Committee upon the Transport of Troops to India, and it was at their request that he brought this subject before the House. Another reason for his doing so was that he had been told by the highest authorities that the proceedings of the hon. and gallant General were altogether unprecedented, and if they did not constitute a breach of the rules of the House, were so gravely irregular that they ought to be submitted to the House, in order that they might not be drawn into a precedent. In the month of February last a Committee was appointed, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant General, to inquire into the mode in which reinforcements had been, and ought in future to be, sent from this country to India. That Committee originally consisted of Sir De Lacy Evans, Viscount Goderich, Lord Stanley, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Horsman, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Sir James Elphinstone, Mr. Adderley, Sir Charles Napier, Mr. Bernal Osborne, Captain Vivian, Mr. Byng, Mr. Willoughby, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Danby Seymour. Shortly afterwards, owing to the change of Government, Lord Stanley and Sir John Pakington retired, and, upon the Motion of the hon. and gallant General, Mr. Sclater-Booth and Lord John Hay succeeded them. Mr. Adderley was reappointed. That Committee took evidence, and at the commencement of the month of June the gallant General, as Chairman, presented to it a draught Report, with the conclusions of which several Members felt that they could not concur. In consequence he (Viscount Goderich) put in circulation certain Resolutions, and when the gallant General moved the second reading of his Report the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) moved, as an Amendment, that before considering any Report it was desirable to ascertain by Resolutions the opinion of the Committee on the principal points involved in the matters referred to it. That Amendment was carried by a majority of one, and certain resolutions were adopted, which, with the evidence, had been reported to the House. That Report having been made, he did not contemplate that the personal conduct of any of the Members of the Committee would be called in question. The hon. and gallant General, however, entertained a different view of the course to be pursued, and had circulated a document in which he appeared to insinuate that some Members of the Committee were actuated by motives unworthy of their position, and of the trust which was reposed in them by that House. If the hon. and gallant General entertained this opinion, he might either have expressed it in the Committee or in that House, when those whom he accused would have met him face to face. The latter course the House knew that he had not pursued, and so far was he from adopting the former, that on the last occasion on which the Committee sat he (Viscount Goderich) publicly assured the gallant General that it had been with the greatest regret that he had opposed the acceptance of his Report. The hon. and gallant General replied to him courteously, and he left the Committee without supposing that the hon. and gallant General entertained the slightest suspicion that he had been actuated by any other than public motives. Instead, however, of adopting either of these two courses, the hon. and gallant General put in circulation the document to which he was about to call the attention of the House. Before noting the contents of that document, however, he must refer to the mode in which it was circulated. It was printed with the outward appearance of a Parliamentary paper, and circulated under a covering having the heading "Parliamentary Proceedings;" consequently it bore the appearance of having received some Parliamentary sanction. To whom was it sent? It was circulated, he believed, among the other Members of the House, but it was not sent to himself, to the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian), to the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. B. Osborne), or to his noble and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast (Lord John Hay); and yet it was upon their conduct that it reflected. The first intimation which he received was from his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng), who was one of the Members who voted for taking the draught report into consideration; but when his hon. Friend applied for a copy for him, he was told that his (Viscount Goderich's) name was not upon the list, and he could not receive one. He never had received a copy, and that which he held in his hand he had only obtained by the kindness of a friend. The hon. Member for Bodmin also applied for a copy, and was refused. Therefore, if he had a right to complain of the contents of this paper, he had still more right to complain of the manner in which it had been circulated. It did appear to him that in withholding from those whose conduct was criticised in it copies of this document the gallant General was guilty of a want, he would not say of courtesy or generosity, but of the fairness which one man might be expected to extend to another. The paper consisted of the draught report of the gallant General, which had been printed in extenso in the published Report of the proceedings of the Committee, of extracts from the appendices to the Report not yet in print, and of a preface written by the hon. and gallant General, and for the sake or circulating which it must have been that this document was issued. It was to this preface that he especially wished to draw the attention of the House. This preface contained severe criticisms on the conduct of those who differed from the hon, and gallant General, and the charge insinuated was that the seven Members of the Committee who voted against taking the Report into consideration were actuated, not by a sense of public duty, not by the result of the evidence and their own thought, but by a desire to screen the Members of the late Administration from the censure which they deserved. The hon. and gallant General said in this preface—

"The task of drawing up a draught Report devolved upon the Chairman, who deemed it his duty and for the public advantage to mark without favour or affection, and in direct terms, the serious official mistakes alluded to. This, however, seemed displeasing to several of his colleagues. The draught Report was read a first time on the 8th of June. On the 18th the Committee met again, when a Motion was made to consider Resolutions before taking into consideration any draught Report. There were present during this Vote—Sir De Lacy Evans, in the chair, who voted for considering the Report; Sir C. Napier, Sir J. Elphinstone, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Byng, Mr. Sclater-Booth, and Mr. Willoughby, who voted for proceeding by Resolution before considering any draught Report; Lord John Hay, Mr. D. Seymour, Sir E. Colebrooke, Mr. Osborne, Captain Vivian, Lord Goderich, and Mr. Crawford."

The hon. and gallant General then went on to say—

"A technical majority of seven of these were apparently anxious to obtain for their political friends, is far as practicable, the usual amiable verdict, 'Nobody is to blame.' As a censure of the late Administration was involved in the result, an impartial judgment by the Committee could only have been expected from a far balance of parties in the Members, but that balance did not eventually exist, because the unexpected change of Government during its proceedings deprived it of the valuable assistance of the present President of the India Board, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the President of the Board of health. It had also the effect of depriving the Chairman of the right of voting."

That sentence he did not quite understand, because the gallant General had the same rights as any other Chairman of the Committee.

"Thenceforward the seven Members of the Committee abovenamed, some of whom had held office under the late Government, or had been supporters of it, were enabled, though not in a numerical majority, to carry any Motion agreeable to their wishes."

That the hon. and gallant General should say that the majority were quite wrong in their conclusion did not surprise him, but what they had a right to complain of was, that in a document privately circulated he accused them of having been actuated by wrong motives, not by a sense of public duty, but by a desire to screen the Members of the late Administration from a censure which they deserved. To that assertion on his own part, and on the part of those who acted with him, he gave the most distinct and emphatic denial. He was most especially surprised that the gallant General should have made such a charge against the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford), who, as the representative of the first constituency in the kingdom, might have been considered above any such suspicion, and who, on the very last day of the sitting of the Committee, moved the insertion in the last Resolution limiting the praise there given to the East India Company, and most remarkably excluding Her Majesty's late Government from all share in it. He should also have thought that the character of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) and the manner in which he had criticised the conduct of the military departments with reference to the war in India, would have saved him from such an accusation. For himself he would say nothing. He would content himself with giving a distinct denial to the charge made by the gallant General, and would leave his character to the judgment of the House. He must, however, call attention to the manner in which the gallant General had criticized the proceedings of the Committee. Having stated that the Chairman could not vote in favour of his own report—as, of course, according to the rules of the House, he could not—he went on to say that Mr. Adderley, though entertaining opinions entirely in unison with those of the Chairman, did not feel at liberty to vote in this division for reasons apart from the merits of the question. He called upon the gallant General to prove that the right hon. Gentleman referred to did approve his draught report, or had even read it. He believed the fact was, that his right hon. Friend concurred in his opinion as to the conduct of Sir George Grey at the Cape, but he doubted whether there was any further concurrence between them. He agreed with the gallant General in regretting the retirement from the Committee of the President of the India Board and the First Lord of the Admiralty; but as the draught report said that there was reason to fear that the present Government were committing the same mistake as their prede- cessors in sending troops round by the Cape, it was doubtful whether that document would have received the support of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. The hon. and gallant General then went on to criticise the language and grammar of the Resolutions. With regard to that matter, however, he would not trespass upon the House. What he was anxious to do was, to give to the charge of the hon. and gallant Officer, impugning the motives of those who sat with him on the Committee, a most distinct denial. The course taken by the hon. and gallant Officer was entirely without precedent, and if followed upon other occasions would materially alter the character of Select Committees. Members of Committees stood towards each other in friendly and, to a certain extent, confidential relations. They deliberated with closed doors; other Members of the House were excluded, the object, doubtless, being to enable the Committee to consult with the utmost freedom. It was obvious that that object would not be attained if members of a Committee were to be subjected to a criticism of their conduct and motives in coming to a particular Resolution. As far as his own character and feelings were concerned, he should not have thought it necessary to bring this subject before the House, but having taken a rather prominent part in the Committee, and having been requested by his Colleagues to vindicate their proceedings, he had considered himself bound not to shrink from a painful duty. He would be glad to accept an assurance from the hon. and gallant Officer that he did not intend to impugn the motives of those whose names he had mentioned in his pamphlet; but if the hon. and gallant Officer persisted in his assertions, then all he could say was, that he should feel he had discharged a duty he owed to his friends, leaving his own character to the impartial judgment of the House of Commons. With the view of giving Sir De Lacy Evans an opportunity of making a statement, he would formally move the adjournment of the House.

, who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he was not surprised, nor did he regret, that the noble Lord had brought forward this subject, although he thought that due notice had not been given. He himself had arranged with three or four Members of the Committee to call attention to the question of the transport of troops to India on Friday next, because he believed that a full and ample discussion of the whole matter was required by the public interests at the present moment. He could assure the noble Lord that, on personal grounds, he regretted having felt himself obliged to cause the publication which occasioned the noble Lord's present remarks; and he certainly should not have done so, had not the noble Lord and his friends so in adequately appreciated the great national importance of the matter. The noble Lord urged that, if he (Sir De L. Evans) had any complaint to make of the Committee, he should have urged it in the Committee; but the fact was that he had done so, and, he was sorry to add, not in the most polite terms. When the few sentences termed Resolutions were brought forward as the result of three months' labour, concluding in the effect with the statement that no department of the Government was to blame, and that "considering the sudden emergency, and the distance which the troops had to be sent, the Committee were of opinion that credit was due to those on whom the sending of the troops devolved," he (Sir De L. Evans) exclaimed that such Resolution was neither more nor less than a full exoneration of the late Government. If that was not objecting, he did not know what was. It was not correct to say, therefore, that he abstained from stating his objections in the Committee. The noble Lord had spoken of the impropriety of circulating privately criticisms upon the conduct of a Select Committee. How could a document be called private which had been sent to all the principal Members of the House of Commons, including, if his memory served him rightly, the noble Lord himself, and the apparent official publicity of which the noble Lord, in the early part of his speech, had compared to a Parliamentary paper? He had asked the printer of the House for 100 copies of the draft Report, and, setting down 100 names from recollection, requested him also to forward them through the post; and as soon as he heard that the hon. Member for Dovor had been inquiring for a copy, he ordered one to be sent to him at the Reform Club. [Mr. OSBORNE: I never got it.] The noble Lord considered that he (Sir De L. Evans) had made grave imputations as to motives against certain Members of the Committee, but really all he attributed to them was an amiable desire to favour their political friends. He was astonished to find this represented as a grave charge. It was merely a laudable attempt to obtain the usual amiable verdict, "Nobody to blame." It was said, also, that he had violated the forms of the House. He was ready to express his regret if he had done so; but there were some things which, in his judgment, were more important than forms, and those were the great interests of the people. At the same time, he much regretted having fallen into any irregularity, and begged to state, frankly and explicitly, that he had no intention to wound the feelings or impugn the motives of the noble Lord and his friends. When he first moved for the appointment of this Committee, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that he came upon the House "like a thief in the night"—such were the very words used; but he did not think it necessary to call upon the House to protect his character against such an imputation; on the contrary, he laughed at it, and he saw no reason why the noble Lord and his friends should pursue a different course on the present occasion. But, on the subject of party, had not they recently heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from the noble Lord the Member for London also, time after time, homilies on the importance of party in a constitutional Government, and the importance of upholding party ties? He had heard over and over again, from the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord, that the only true way to conduct the affairs of this House was by maintaining party organization and respecting the ties of party. Such high authorities he was bound to suppose were right; and was there, therefore, anything wrong in his (Sir De L. Evans) saying that the majority of this Committee were good friends of their party? He never should have thought of this criticism on the proceedings of the Committee—which, he admitted, was singular—but for the importance of keeping attention directed to the subject, seeing that the Session was drawing rapidly to a close, and the crisis in India did not yet show symptoms of being brought to a speedy termination. The Report, as it appeared to him, indicated a magnificent contempt for facts, and for the evidence on which it proceeded. He (Sir De L. Evans) stated last Session, when the tidings of the mutiny were first received, that it would be practicable to send troops by the overland route. At the same time, he urged that steamers should be employed as well as sailing ships, and expressed his regret that orders had not been at once sent to the various Colonies to expedite the forwarding of whatever military resources they could spare to meet the emergency. He also recommended that some of our great war steamers should be brought into requisition for sending out troops. There was another reason for calling attention to the matter, in the fact that, though the Resolutions of the Committee had been published, the evidence had not been yet circulated. But what in fact was the real state of the case? The evidence completely bore out the statements made on moving for the Committee. Admiral Leeke stated that two or three war steamers, sent at once from this country with troops, would have had a great moral effect. The senior member of the Council of Bombay gave similar testimony. Captain Harris, the naval assistant, who had been sixty-eight times across the Red Sea, and over the route he (Sir De L. Evans) recommended, declared that there was no single objection to it; and the Quartermaster General in Egypt in his Report, and Colonel Fraser, who had conducted the transfer over Egypt, of the dragoon regiments from India to the Crimea, had both borne testimony to its practicability. After such evidence, he thought the House and the country would be surprised at the conclusion to which the Committee came. He contended that the overland route was proved to be perfectly safe; and it was important, therefore, that the country should be made aware of the serious mistakes made by the late Government on this subject, in order to provide, as far as possible, against a repetition of them. These were his objects in the course he had taken.

I rise to order, Sir. I understand that the House, in consequence of a personal charge having been made against some of our Members, agreed to grant an opportunity for a vindication of the character of the Members of the Committee, and also to afford an opportunity to the hon. and gallant General to substantiate his charge, or to give such explanations as he might think necessary. With that view we have consented to the postponement of business of great importance, as I am sure that on all Occasions, when the personal conduct and the personal character of any hon. Member is concerned, there is no sacrifice which we will not be ready to make; but I put it to the hon. and gallant General whether the opportunity thus afforded by the House should be made use of to go into a discussion of the whole question which was the subject of the Committee's investigations? Such a discussion would lead to a debate of great length, and therefore, I would put it to the hon. and gallant General whether it would not be more in consonance with the understanding on which the House permitted this matter to be brought forward to confine himself on this occasion to the personal considerations, without going into the general question?

This matter is before us.

The evidence taken by the Committee is not before us.

said, he should be sorry to trespass upon the indulgence of the House, but he certainly thought himself free, on the Motion of adjournment, to make some remarks upon the evidence taken before the Committee. As he stated orginally, it was on public grounds, and not from any personal considerations, that he wished the subject to be inquired into. But as the right hon. Gentleman did not wish the discussion to be prolonged, he would but refer to one statement of the Committee, which he thought demanded some comment. They stated that, though the overland route might be advantageously resorted to in an emergency, it would not be advisable to rely upon it for the transport of troops to India. Now, he had only adverted to the case of an emergency ("Question!"). If this is not the question, I have nothing more to say.

Sir, in all these cases, in which the conduct of a Member of this House, and especially a Member who, on so many grounds, is entitled to our respect as the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, is impugned, there are generally details of a painful character which it is desirable that a fair opportunity should be afforded of discussing. But in this case I think it proper that the House should take an early opportunity of expressing its opinion. It does appear to me, after having listened, not only to the noble Lord (Viscount Goderich), but to the gallant General himself, that he (General Sir De L. Evans) has committed a very irregular act. That Act, the irregularity of which he himself admits, is, I think, not free from con- siderable impropriety also. I do not understand how the business of our Select Committees is to be carried on in a manner to give satisfaction to this House and to the country if, when the proceedings of a Select Committee are concluded, any hon. Member of that Committee who has not succeeded in having his opinions adopted, is not only to play the critic but to circulate a document which impugns not merely the judgment but the motives of his colleagues who were in the majority against him. Suppose this proceeding of the hon. and gallant General was accepted as a precedent, and that after a Committee had come to a decision and made its report, an hon. Member, who may be in the minority on that Committee, should publish a pamphlet imputing motives to the majority, and circulate it amongst Members of this House? I think the inconvenience to the public business as well as the injury to the private feelings of hon. Members would be so great that it is not necessary to make it the subject of comment. The hon. and gallant General has alluded to me—I am sure in no unfriendly spirit—in regard to some observations I made when this Committee was first proposed. Those remarks were made, not certainly in my character of leader of the House, but in a character of far less responsibility. However, I am sure the hon. and gallant General will not for a moment put in the same class observations made openly, in the full heat of public debate, and which can be immediately noticed and answered, with a document written and printed and circulated certainly in a manner and under conditions which, whether intended or not, succeeded in preventing the parties most interested from being acquainted with their contents. Sir, the gallant General will not on reflection put under the same head that freedom of debate which always is indulged in during our discussions in this House, and which is necessary to a frank and satisfactory criticism of public affairs, with the course which he has thought proper to adopt. Now the hon. and gallant General has, I am sorry to say, directed most of his observations in vindicating the course which he took, and which I think all Members of the House must regret that he did take. At the same time the hon. and gallant General has frankly expressed his regret if he has not pursued the usual course. He has expressed, in a manner more marked and emphatic than any other part of his observations, his re- gret that he should have hurt the feelings of any hon. Member who served on that Committee or should have violated the usual order of proceeding in this House. I trust, therefore, that that will be considered sufficient, and that this conversation may now end. The noble Lord has fairly and completely vindicated the conduct of himself and his colleagues whom he represents in this matter, before both the House and the country. The gallant officer has shown to the House—what indeed was not necessary—that in all he has done he has been animated solely by that high sense of public duty which always actuates him. I hope, therefore, we shall not be drawn into debate on this matter; especially as the matter is not formally before us, and the House is not asked to give any opinion on the subject. The object of this conversation has been, I apprehend, not, on the part of the noble Lord, that the House should express any censure on the conduct of a hon. and gallant General, whom we all very much respect and honour, but rather that he should place the conduct of himself and his colleagues in a right position, and also that the general rules regarding the conduct of business by Select Committees should not be changed, or in any way departed from without some notice to this House, conceived in such a spirit and expressed in such a manner as that the violation of our rules should not be drawn into what I think would be a very dangerous precedent. The object of the noble Lord being entirely gained, I think this Motion should end without any feeling on the part either of the noble Lord or of the gallant General, which would disturb that accord which I hope will always characterize our debates, and which tends so much to maintain the dignity of our privileges.

said, that he had not the slightest wish that this debate should be continued after the regret which he understood the hon. and gallant General had expressed for having impugned the motives of the majority of the Committee. He most cordially agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not permit anything that had passed to interrupt that courtesy and good feeling amongst the Members of the House, which he (Lord Goderich) concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking were so necessary to be continued. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the handsome manner in which he had done him justice; and would now ask leave to withdraw his Motion. Motion by leave withdrawn.

Sir, I purpose to intrude for a few minutes only upon the indulgence of the House while I state the grounds of my unconquerable repugnance to the provisions of this Bill. I have to thank the noble Lord the Member for London for the ready courtesy and kindness with which he met my application to him last night, that he would not proceed with the Bill at a late hour; but I was taken by surprise when at an early hour this Morning I found that, by what appeared to me, I own, something like a little management in a quarter not far from me, the intentions of the noble Lord were nearly frustrated, and might have been so, had not a number of hon. Members on this side the House resolved that the matter should not be huddled up in a corner, and the Bill passed in so discreditable a manner. Sir, nothing that I have ever heard since I had the honour of a seat in this House, has satisfied me that the fundamental principle of this Bill is one to which a Member of a Christian Legislature can possibly give his assent. This Bill which has been sent down from the House of Lords, comes to us under circumstances so extraordinary and so utterly unprecedented that everybody must have been taken by surprise. It is a conclusion in which nothing is concluded. It is a concession in which nothing is conceded. It is a settlement in which nothing is settled. And I do believe in my conscience that every Member of this House, on both sides, whatever his views on the great question before us, really entertains that opinion. The noble Lord the Member for London is deservedly a great constitutional authority, and has much experience as a Member of the Legislature; but he has not one syllable to say in favour of this extraordinary production of the wisdom of the upper House,—of which I desire to speak with unfeigned respect and deference,—except that he receives it simply because he cannot get any- thing better, and that at all events it is, in his view, a step in what he considers the right direction. We have several of the occupants of the front bench on this side of the House in favour of the Bill, yet we have had no explanation from any of them of the nature of its precious provisions; whilst there seems to be on the part of the House generally a sullen acquiescence in the passing of the Bill. It is considered as bad a Bill as can be; but, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) said the other night, bad as it was, it would be accepted by him, because he saw at present no chance of getting anything better. If this Bill does involve a great principle, and the country believe it does, is it, I ask, consistent with the dignity of this House to pass it in the manner—the furtive manner, in which it was attempted to be passed at an early hour this morning? not, certainly, by the noble Lord the Member for London, to whom I again tender my thanks for the readiness with which he consented to give us the opportunity of deliberately expressing our opinions. In the name of those friends with whom I am acting, I would also thank hon. Gentlemen opposite for the promptness with which they responded to the appeal addressed to them on the same occasion by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Hope). Sir, I know it is utterly in vain for me to move, as I am moving, an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. I have no doubt that within twenty minutes or three quarters of an hour from the time at which I am speaking, the Bill will have received the formal and final sanction of this House; but that is no reason why the Members should not listen with patience for a few minutes to one of those who have often taken part in this great contest, especially as the present is the last occasion upon which I shall open my lips upon the subject. For that very reason, then, I ask the House to favour me with their indulgence, whilst as a Member of this Christian Legislature I protest against the passing of the Bill. The other branch of the Legislature very recently, within a few weeks, appeared to justify the confidence of the country that it was firm in its determination to uphold the Christian character of Parliament. The Bill which was sent up to their Lordships by the House of Commons they rejected by an overwhelming majority; but at length, in the very hour of triumph, as we thought, a scheme was propounded by a noble Earl which resulted in the Bill now before us, and placed us in a totally different position with regard to this important and harassing question. The Bill provides that one co-ordinate branch of the Legislature may receive as an element—as one of its Members—a person whom the other co-ordinate branch of the Legislature solemnly pronounces to be morally unfit to legislate for a Christian country. Now I think that that is a wholly unprecedented course—a course which is calculated to lower the Legislature in the estimation of the country; and that those who have been parties to this so-called compromise, will find that it turns out to be nothing but a sham, or in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, a piece of patchwork legislation. And here I beg to thank my right hon. Friend, for the noble part he took the other night, in coming forward and unhesitatingly committing himself to that view of the question. I follow humbly and at a distance in his steps, and I say that if it were possible for anything to raise him in the estimation of the country, in the estimation of the educated, the thinking, the religious classes of the community, and the great and distinguished constituency which have done themselves the honour to elect him as their representative, it would be the fearless conduct of my right hon. Friend in differing from so many of his colleagues on that occasion. But, bear in mind that it is by no means all smooth sailing in respect to this Bill; for I find, upon looking at the division list, that on the Motion for the second reading, not fewer than twelve Members of Her Majesty's Government in this House went into the lobby with the opponents of the Bill, of whom four were Cabinet Ministers. And I do entirely concur with my right hon. Friend, that, if this important step is to be taken, of admitting the Jews to seats in this House; if the great principle, in opposition to which we on this side have so long, so anxiously, and consistently laboured, is to be established, it ought to be done in a direct and straightforward manner, in a manner worthy of the dignity and character of the British Legislature. Let both branches of the Legislature concur in submitting to Her Majesty a Bill which she shall have the satisfaction of knowing is the production of the united efforts of the two Houses with a view to future united action upon it. But, with reference to this Bill, nothing of the kind has taken place. I repeat that the Bill is presented to us under false colours. It is not a compromise; for the case is not one for a compromise in the opinion of the conscientious Members of the Legislature. It is not a concession; for it is a case in which no concession can be made, except by those who unhesitatingly range themselves under the banner of expediency, as opposed to that of principle; and I shall never be tired of enunciating the truth, which I so deeply feel, that that which is morally wrong can never be really expedient, however it may appear so to shallow, shortsighted, and selfish politicians. About a century ago another Jew Bill was submitted to the Legislature. In the year 1753 a Bill was brought forward in the other House of Parliament, and sent down to this, and passed, after much opposition, for the purpose of enabling Jews to be naturalized without first partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I am alluding to the Act 26 Geo. II, cap. 26, and it recites—and the recital is particularly significant in reference to the present case—the Act of the 7th James I., which required that every person, before being naturalized, should have taken the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one month before the Bill for naturalization was presented to the Houses of Parliament. It then goes on to say, that "Thereby many persons of considerable substance, professing the Jewish religion, are prevented from being naturalized." On that ground the Legislature was prevailed upon hastily to pass that Act—the 26th Geo. II.—and so "certain persons of considerable substance, professing the Jewish religion," were entitled to be naturalized as such, without receiving the Sacrament, or giving evidence of their being members of the Established religion of the country. But what became of that Act? Why, it was repealed in the very next year—the year 1754—because of the strong indignation which it had excited throughout the length and breadth of the land; and on that occasion an ancestor of a noble Friend of mine in "an other place" particularly distinguished himself by the spirit and power with which he contributed to that result. The Earl of Egmont said, that if the Act of 1753 were a proper measure it ought not to have passed into law until the coun- try had had an opportunity given it of pronouncing an opinion on the measure; and he declared in his place in Parliament that if on the general election then pending, any Member of the House should be found supporting it before the people of these realms, he would be there to oppose him in order to mark the sense he entertained of the surrender of principle involved in the acceptance of the Bill. Now, I cannot help thinking that much of what was then said is especially applicable to the present case. Rather more than a century has since elapsed. That Act of 1753 was repealed in 1754; and it was not until the year 1830 that the question of the admission of the Jews into the British Legislature was brought forward by certainly an excellent person (Sir Robert Grant). Ever since that time the struggle has been maintained to the present moment, and only a few weeks ago the country, as I have already said, supposed that the matter had been set at rest, at least for another year, by what had just taken place in the other House of Parliament, when, to their and our 'astonishment, a sudden change of opinion was announced on the part of that House. Sir, I say I cannot help thinking that the measure we have now before us ought not to be passed into law until the country shall have had an opportunity given them of answering a specific and direct appeal as to whether the admission of Jews, as such, to seats in this House is consistent with their sense of duty as a Christian community; and if an affirmative answer were returned, everybody must give way to the public opinion of the country so expressed. Whilst I still retained my own conscientious convictions and opinions upon the subject, I should, nevertheless, say, that the Legislature was bound to give effect to that public opinion, as it has already done on several memorable occasions. But if we this day set our seal to the extraordinary Bill before us, we are at once declaring that in this House we are ready to receive a person whom the other House declares to be morally unfit for entrance into either House; that although their Lordships will not receive such a person there, we may, if we choose, receive him here. I hold that that is a position of things derogatory alike to the character and dignity of this House—nay, to the whole Parliament—and equally offensive to the feelings of members of the Jewish persuasion, whom the Bill vouchsafes to give us an opportu- nity of seating in the House if we think fit. In whatever light I regard the measure, I protest I see nothing but irresistible reasons for persevering in my opposition to the principle on which it is founded. And I ask the House why they should give it a third reading, when there is not a single Member of the House who will rise in his place and say that it has his cordial approval? Is that a fitting position for the House to occupy before this great country? Shall we be conciliating the respect of that country, by passing a Bill effecting an organic change in the constitution of Parliament, of such vast moment in the opinion of three fourths or four-fifths of the most enlightened and pious members of the community, in the way in which we are challenged to pass this? Sir, I am not one of those who regard the assertion of Christian principle, or the maintenance of Christian supremacy in a Christian legislature, as a mere counter with which heartless politicians may play the selfish game of politics. I believe Christianity to be the vital source, the very mainspring of the welfare and prosperity of the country, and that it is only by submitting ourselves to its injunctions, obeying its principles and practising its precepts, that we can promote the happiness of our species, advance the interests of this mighty empire, and commend our selves to the blessing and favour of Almighty God. I know that there are French philosophers, so called, in the present day who speak of Christianity as a decaying superstition, a form of religion nearly effete, though still useful to statesmen and politicians to further the ends they think expedient, so long as any considerable number of persons are found believing in an expiring faith. But, if they were to be the last words I have to utter in this House, I would with indignation and horror repudiate all such doctrines. I would say that, as members of a Christian Legislature, we are bound to assert the supremacy of Christianity in principle, in practice, in our public, and in our individual capacity; and that he is a traitor to Christianity, he is false to his own convictions, and lost to a sense of his duty, as a member of a Christian Legislature, who is, for an instant lukewarm or backward in expressing his opinions upon a matter of such unspeakable moment as that involved in the present discussion. If a flagrant dereliction of principle is involved in the Bill introduced, but. in a straightforward manner by the noble Lord the Member for London, the present Bill varies from his only by its greater departure from principle, and the unsatisfactory and discreditable grounds upon which it is based. The noble Lord the Member for London occupies a worthy place in the history of his country; and I tell him here to his face that I know he is really ashamed to have his name connected with the passing of such a Bill as this through the House of Commons. It is true that the noble Lord, who has been throughout his career the sincere, the dignified, the temperate, the conciliatory, the constitutional promoter of the great but, in my view, unhappy change now impending over us, may say that he accepts this wretched Bill as an instalment—that he regards it as a step in the right direction, and in a guarded and stern spirit, not acknowledging it to have any good in itself, except so far as it gets in the thin end of the wedge, and will enable him to secure the final triumph of the principle for which he has so long contended. But has the House well considered the statement which a very few years ago fell from the lips of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, himself one of the most brilliant and successful defenders of the measure against which we contend? He, nevertheless, was obliged to admit that if a Bill for admitting Jews to Parliament should become the law of the land, it would undoubtedly tend directly to the separation of Church and State. I ask the House, is it prepared to sanction a change of that description—a change, moreover, presented to us, at last, in so anomalous and discreditable a form as it is by the Bill upon the table? Sir, 1 belong, and have always belonged, to a party which is called Conservative; and if the principle upon which we have from the first resisted the admission of Jews to Parliament, and which as I have shown involves as many other momentous changes, is sacrificed, I, as a Member of the Conservative party, do not see what there is really left that is worth fighting about. The next thing to be surrendered is that exponent of the union between Church and State, which is to be found in the maintenance of church rates. The enemies of the Established Church—all who contend for the unqualified and unconditional abolition of church rates—will find their hands strengthened, and the path before them cleared, by the enactment of the Bill now under consideration. For many of the occupants of the front bench below me, Sir, I entertain feelings of the warmest regard and personal and political confidence, and especially for the noble Earl at the head of the Government, at whose hands, unsolicited, I have received a great and proud academical distinction. I will not attempt, therefore, to disguise with what pain and reluctance I feel it my imperative duty to stand up in my place and protest against any Bill sent down to us with the noble Earl's sanction. I should hardly have ventured to take the part I now do if I did not believe that, in yielding reluctantly to a pressure of circumstances constituting an exquisite—I may say an excruciating embarrassment which all must appreciate—the noble Earl is really acting contrary to Ids better judgment. Nay, I go further and say, that to pass this Bill with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, will inflict a very deep wound upon that great Conservative party, the Members of which constitute the most attached and faithful supporters of the noble Earl and of those Members of the Government, not few, thank God! in number, who have shown themselves entitled to the confidence of the Conservative party in the country. That party is greatly shocked and deeply hurt by the step which has been now taken. It is not a noisy, it is not an agitating party; but I shall be very much surprised, indeed, if unlooked-for results do not follow the adoption of this measure. It may even lead, for aught I know, to new political combinations, and effect not only temporary but permanent changes in the relations of parties, which are not contemplated by those who have so unexpectedly sanctioned the introduction of this Bill to the House. Dr. Paley has some admirable remarks in his Chapter on Government, one of which is this. He says, that in politics the most important and permanent effects have for the most part been incidental and unforeseen, a proposition, he continues, inculcated for the caution which teaches that changes ought not to be adventured upon, without a comprehensive discernment of the consequences, without a knowledge as well of the remote tendency as of the immediate design. He gives various striking instances which are familiar, I have no doubt, to many Members of this House. But I follow this matter no further. As for the structure of this Bill, brief as it is, I think I may challenge the acutest intellects in the House to say that they can make sense, especially of one of the sections. But I pass on. The House of Lords have not only sent us down this Bill, but returned that which a majority of this House had sent up to them, and have accompanied that latter Bill with their Reasons for not agreeing to it; and I must take leave to say that in all the records of our constitutional history and of our Parliamentary annals I do not know of any thing approaching, in inconsistency, and, if one must speak out, in utter absurdity—the course of procedure which is now forced upon us. I appeal not only to those friends with whom it is my pride and pleasure to act on all occasions, not only to the friends and adherents of the great Conservative party in this House; but I fearlessly appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether in their opinion also we are not called upon to enact a derogatory legislative absurdity. But I have now done. Sir, the members of the House of Lords are privileged to exercise a function which we are not. Peers who dissent from the majority, may place upon the journals of that House their reasons, in the form of a protest, and some of these protests contain the loftiest sentiments and noblest expressions of wisdom and patriotism that the annals of mankind can furnish. We have no such privilege entrusted to us by the Constitution. We speak only by our votes, and by those discussions which precede and govern our votes; by those debates which instantly find their way to every quarter of the country—of the world indeed—and by which the nation, so vitally affected by our proceedings, acquires an opportunity of knowing what were the premises from which its representatives deduced the inferences eventuating in the contents of our statute-book. But, with the leave of the House, I will sum up these remarks, some of which I have made with no small pain anti reluctance, by reading the grounds upon which I protest, to the last, against this, or any Bill admitting Jews into either House of Parliament. Several of those reasons, I am sure, must commend themselves to the judgment of even hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so near the hour of triumph that they may well—as I am sure they will—be forbearing and patient. I Protest, then, against the passing of this Bill, because—I. In language used in "another place," a Jew, demanding admission, as such into the Legislature of this Christian country—and that for such purpose the profession of Christianity required from other members of the Legislature be dispensed with—is a man repudiating HIM, who is the central point of the whole Christian Revelation, and declaring HIM to be an impostor. The Jew must, therefore, in the whole tone of his thoughts, and in the whole series of his principles, be so at variance with the principles and tone of thought of a Christian community, that he cannot safely be trusted with the discretionary, power of making laws for that Christian community. 2. That it is reasonable and just that none but Christians should be Members of the Legislature of a Christian country, whose laws are, and have for ages been, professedly Christian. 3. That the Object specified in the summons to Parliament being to consult "for the state and defence of this kingdom, and the Church," it is a mockery to summon a Jew to take part in such deliberations. 4. That a Jew cannot, as such, join in the prayers with which both Houses of Parliament have from time immemorial commenced their daily deliberations, one of such prayers concluding with a supplication that "the result of all our counsels may be the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the realm, in true Christian love and charity one towards another, through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour." Such prayers a Jew must treat with derision, or recoil from them with horror. 5. That the greatness or smallness of the number of Jews who may be admitted into this hitherto Christian Legislature, is immaterial, the principle contended for by the opponents of the Bill being finally and completely surrendered by the admission of a single Jew, as such, and of right. 6. That the fundamental principle of the Bill is one which, when formally adopted and promulgated by the Legislature, will tend directly to lower the influence of Christianity upon public opinion, and promote indifference to Christianity and unbelief. 7. That the formal and deliberate surrender of the exclusively Christian character of the Legislature, is fearfully inauspicious at the moment of inaugurating a new system of Government for India; and is calculated to entail disastrous consequences on legislative and executive action when made known to the many millions of the Queen's subjects in India. 8. That the admission of Jews into the Legislature is opposed to public opinion and the wishes of the people, which ought to be distinctly ascertained by means of a general election before taking a step so seriously affecting the constitution of the Legislature.—And here I beg leave to pause for one instant, to point out that I have found the signatures to petitions presented during this Session against the Jewish claims to be 14,500 in number, and those in favour of them only between 300 and 400. 9. That the Bill now before the House empowers one of two co-ordinate branches of the Legislature to admit into its number those whom the other has solemnly declared to it that they are "in a state of moral unfitness to take part in the legislation of a professedly Christian country;" and from such an anomalous and incongruous organization, no safe or advantageous legislation for the highest interests of the country can proceed. 10. That the Bill before the House is, in the above and other respects, without precedent in our legislation; opposed to the genius and spirit of the Constitution; offensive to the Jew; derogatory to the dignity of this House; provocative of disunion and collision between the two Houses; and violates equally the principles of both parties to this unhappy contest. Lastly. That the admission or rejection of the Jew as a member of the Legislature is either morally right or morally wrong; and, as such, cannot legitimately form the subject of concession or compromise. I most sincerely and respectfully thank the House for having listened with such patience to one who, upon this question, may be said to be in extremis. Henceforth my lips are sealed, so far as this matter is concerned. When this Bill has passed into a law, no doubt a Resolution will be submitted to the House for the practical carrying into effect the objects of the Bill. That Resolution will doubtless be agreed to with acclamations by the majority; the usual organs will announce to the country and the world at large that the result was received with vehement cheering; but from that moment I believe will date the decline of the moral and religious influence of the House of Commons. Sir, I have no quarrel whatever with any Member of the Jewish persuasion. With regard to the particular gentleman whom the City of London has returned as its Member, who takes his place so frequently under that gallery, and is so soon—it would seem—to find himself on the floor of the House, and sit on its benches, I have only to say that I cannot anticipate, without emotion, the moment when he will stand at that table;—when a new volume will be presented to him for the first time in the annals of the House; when he will put on his hat, and take an oath which is utterly different to, and irreconcilable with, the oath which all other Members of the House have taken, and must take before they can occupy a seat in this House. Well, Sir, if such be the will and pleasure of the House, then there is of course nothing left for the minority but to submit; but to submit with a solemn protest against the entire proceeding. I now beg to move the Amendment, of which I have given notice, that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.

, in seconding the Amendment said, that it was a bold assertion to make; but if the Bill passed in its present shape, he believed they must of necessity exclude the Jew from Parliament. By the first clause any Member professing the Jewish religion, and coming to this house to be sworn was not compelled to use the words "on the true faith of a Christian;" but, according to the second clause, it was provided that, "in all other cases, except for a seat in Parliament, the words "I make this declaration on the true faith of a Christian" should be omitted. He really should like to have an explanation of that. He had pointed out the seeming discrepancy to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Adderley) who had addressed the House, the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, and a great supporter of the Bill opposite, the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Hugessen), and none of them was able to give a satisfactory explanation of the matter; in fact, they could not understand it. What, then, he wished to know, was the use of passing a Bill which few cared for, everybody despised, and nobody could understand? He thought the clauses were contradictory in the extreme; for whilst the first admitted the Jew, the second excluded him; and he believed that if, after the passing of the Bill, a Jew were to present himself and take the oath, omitting the words "on the true faith of a Christian," any hon. Mem- ber could move that the Act had not been complied with. He would take the liberty, therefore, of suggesting to the noble Lord the Member for London, that his better course would be to withdraw the Bill, and next Session introduce a measure that should be a little more intelligible and consistent with itself.

observed that Dogberry, in a fit of virtuous indignation, wished that somebody would write him down an ass; but the House of Lords, unlike Dogberry, without calling for extraneous aid, had done that piece of business for themselves. A more remarkable proceeding never occurred in the annals of Parliament, for the Lords, after stating that a Jew was morally unfit to sit in Parliament, sent down a Bill by which the Jews might be admitted to Parliament. He accepted the Bill, but his opinion of the wisdom of the Lords was not increased. But it was not surprising, as the House of Lords was always doing the same thing. He recollected that the measure to do away with the Test and Corporation Act was described by the Lords as the destruction of the constitution; but they passed it nevertheless. Then, again, it was said by the Lords, that Catholic emancipation would destroy the Protestant constitution of the country, but the Lords passed that also. Then came the measure for amending the representation of the people, and the Lords nearly drove the country into revolution by opposition to that Bill; but, in spite of their strong feeling that the British constitution was about to be destroyed, they assented to that Bill likewise. Then the English and Irish Municipal Corporations Acts were both destructions of the constitution, according to the Lords, but the Lords passed them both. At last came that measure, which was to destroy, not the English constitution alone, but the English people—namely, the abolition of the Corn Laws. The Lords were in fits about that matter, and thought ruin was coming on the country headlong. Well, the Lords passed that measure, and now the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warren) was thoroughly astounded at what the Lords had just done. The truth was, they had done a good thing in a foolish manner. If the Lords had passed the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London, they would then have done in a straightforward and candid way what they bad now done, for the sake of saving their dignity, as they fancied, in a paltry, piti- ful, and disgraceful way. The House of Lords had cut a remarkable antic on this occasion. It had attempted to maintain its own dignity, and, in so doing, it had covered itself with dirt. He congratulated the House of Lords upon its feat, and he congratulated the country upon having obtained a right, even from the folly of the House of Lords.

said, he felt greatly honoured that the vote he had given on the last occasion had been thought worthy of the remarks which had been made, not only in that House, but in those public organs to which they were indebted generally for very accurate accounts of their proceedings; with reference, however, to that vote, he wished to set himself right with the House and with the public. It had been stated that his vote was given under a mistake. Now he wished to say that it was given under no mistake at all. It was given advisedly, and with a full conviction that it was a right vote. His vote on that occasion had nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits of the Bill. If the question had been that the House should resolve itself into Committee on that day three months, he would have unhesitatingly supported such a Motion; but what was the fact? Every hon. Member who had spoken against the Bill in the course of the debate, recommended that no division should take place on that occasion, and he concurred in that opinion. A division was, however, suddenly challenged by sonic two or three hon. Gentlemen who sat behind him, and who did not assign any reason for the course they adopted. The effect of negativing the Motion before the House would simply have been to occasion great inconvenience to hon. Members, because the Speaker could not have left the chair, and the only result would have been the loss of a day, and at such an advanced period of the Session, he for one was not prepared to make such a sacrifice. He wished it to be understood, therefore, that he had neither given his vote by mistake nor had he changed his opinions. He had acted advisedly; and if his opinions with reference to the Jew question had undergone any change, he would have frankly stated the fact. He would not have followed the example of many others in proclaiming that he retained his opinions while he reversed his vote. He hoped this explanation would satisfy those who were under the impression that he had given his vote either by mistake or in consequence of a change of opinion. He had been informed that the noble Lord the Member for London had charged certain members of the Conservative party in that House with want of respect towards the noble Earl at the head of the Government. Now, he begged to tell the noble Lord that he entertained very great respect for the Earl of Derby; he also felt great respect for the noble Lord himself; but, however deep that respect, nothing should restrain him, so long as he had the honour of a seat in that House, from exercising that freedom of speech which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair always claimed for the House at the opening of every Parliament, or muzzle him in the expression of his views upon any measure which came before the House, no matter the quarter in which it might have originated. With regard to the Bill itself, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Warren) that the ingenuity of man could not have devised a measure more calculated to degrade the House of Lords, to drive the House of Commons into the commission of an absurdity, and to insult the very persons to whom the Bill professed to afford relief—for any person of the Jewish persuasion taking his seat under the provisions of that Bill, took it also under the ban contained in the "Reasons" sent down from the other House for being morally unfit to legislate in a Christian house and for a Christian community. He believed this measure would by no means settle the question, and he would give his vote for the Amendment.

said, that it was not for him to defend any inconsistencies of the House of Lords, or to palliate any absurdities of the present Prime Minister; but when he heard it asserted by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill was an absurd measure, which every one despised and nobody could understand, he would venture to state that, in his opinion, the Bill would effect the purpose for which it had been proposed, and that it would not hereafter prove a despicable measure, although it had come from the House of Lords. Indeed, he had no right to cavil at the Bill, for the fact was that the measure was simply the Resolution of which he gave notice in December last, wrapped up in the form of a Bill. When the noble Member for the City of London introduced his Bill on this subject in December, he (Mr. Duncombe) had said of it that it seemed as if it was framed for the purpose of tempting the pruning-knife with regard to one of its clauses, and that had been the case; for when it was sent back by the House of Lords on the 30th of April, the clauses relating to the Jews were omitted. On the 11th of May the House placed a Jewish member upon a Select Committee, and sent him to confer with the Lords as to their reasons for rejecting the clauses relating to the Jews. That step placed the House of Lords and the Prime Minister in a new position. It was very well known that in the House of Lords a great deal of bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance existed on this question, but the noble Lord at the Head of the Government was rescued from his difficulties by the intervention of the Earl of Lucan, who brought forward the Bill now under consideration. Lord Brougham truly stated at the time of these occurrences, that the moment the House of Commons placed a Jewish member, who lied not taken the oaths, upon a Select Committee, and sent him to a conference with their Lordships, the contest as to the admission of Jews into the House of Commons was at an end. It was said that a compromise had been made on this question, but there had been no compromise so far as that House was concerned. The fact was that the House of Lords had made a concession, because they found such concession was necessary. He only wished the concession had been made in a more noble and generous spirit by assenting to the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), with the restitution of the clauses which had been struck out in the House of Lords. The noble Earl who brought in this Bill had stated that he was aware that by the Resolution of the House of Commons a Jewish Member had been placed upon the Select Committee, and he expressed his hope that that hon. Gentleman did not attend the conference because it would have been an insult to their Lordships. The noble Lord might, however, easily have ascertained from Lord Eversley, or the Bishop of Carlisle, or any other member of the conference, that Baron Rothschild attended and voted upon the Committee, and that he was also present at the conference, He (Mr. Duncombe was convinced that by such a proceeding, neither that House nor Baron Rothschild intended to offer any insult to the House of Lords, and he did not believe that any of the Peers who conducted the conference felt themselves insulted by the presence of a Jewish member. Baron Rothschild asked his (Mr. Duncombe's) advice as to whether he should attend the Committee and the conference, and he told him by all means to do so, as then was the moment to prove himself the champion of a great principle. That step did much to settle this question. He saw at that moment an hon. Gentleman, a member of the Jewish persuasion, who had been returned to that House by the city of London on five different occasions, sitting, as it were, by favour, among strangers below the bar, while he ought by right to be seated within the precincts of the House. [The hon. gentleman referred to Baron Rothschild, who was sitting on the benches allotted to Peers beneath the Speaker's gallery.] It was disgraceful and discreditable to a reformed Parliament of the 19th century that any man should be excluded from that House on account of his religious opinions, but he rejoiced that this exclusion would speedily be removed by the present Bill, which he did not regard, therefore, as so despicable a measure as it had been represented to be. It had been said that the feeling of the country was opposed to the admission of Jews to Parliament, but he thought that statement was unjustifiable, for a member of the Jewish religion had been repeatedly returned to that House by large majorities, and year after year they had seen the representatives of important constituencies voting in favour of the object which would be accomplished by the Bill before the House. The struggle upon the question of the admission of the Jews to Parliament, which was now about to terminate, was not likely to be soon forgotten, but he trusted that the acrimonious language which had been used in the course of the discussion would; and that without reference to the religious opinions of any party or sect whatever they would hereafter meet only for the purpose of consulting for and promoting the rights, welfare, and the happiness of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.

Sir, the hon. Member for Finsbury has appeared in the character of the apologist general, for the measure before the House. He has apologized for the House of Lords; he has apologized for Lord Derby; he has apologized for the nature of the measure itself. He has endeavoured to reconcile this House to this measure, which I humbly centend is most vicious in principle. Very different was the tone of the hon. Member for Sheffield: he declared that the House of Lords has written itself down an ass, because that House has declared its reluctance to having this measure forced upon it. He says also that their Lordships have at different times, of late years, unwillingly passed measures which they considered dangerous to the constitution of the country, and condemns the House of Lords for having entertained these scruples. Now, I wish the hon. Member would some day state to the House what he understands to be the constitution of the country. I have been in the House with the hon. Member for some years, and I have heard him support changes of many kinds as being consistent with the constitution of the country. I should be glad therefore to know what is his impression, not only of what the constitution is, but what it ought to be. It appears to me that the hon. Member, and those who think with him, accept every concession to their demands with contumely, and are for ever assailing the House of Lords for not yielding implicit obedience in a spirit of sufficient humility. I deeply lament this Bill. I understand it as a concession wrung from the House of Lords contrary to their own opinion against the admission of Jews to Parliament. I do not defend the House of Lords in the course which they have taken, because if this is a measure contrary to their judgment they ought to have rejected it. I do not defend the conduct of Lord Derby, who has agreed to a measure contrary to his principles, because I think he ought to have appealed to the country. I see, in the form of this measure, that it is the intention of its framers to give this House time to reflect, which, in reality, is a recognition of the fact that the country ought to have been appealed to. I cannot say anything in condemnation of the principle of this Bill, and of its tendency to destroy the Christian character of this House, that I have not already ventured to state; but when the conduct of Lord Derby is assailed, I cannot bear all the imputations which are heaped upon him, without calling attention to the difficulties of his position. Now, who has been the main promoter of this infraction of the Christian character of Parliament on this side of the House? Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—himself of Jewish extraction—fosters towards the Jewish race feelings which one can trace in almost every work of fiction which he has written. Especially do we find that feeling honestly and frankly declared in the chapter which he has interpolated in his biography of Lord George Bentinck. He claims as the right of the Jewish race the government of the other races of mankind, and claims for them this supremacy, whilst they remain in the present state of rebellion against their own true King. He endeavourd favourably to contrast Judaism with Christianity, and he tells us plainly that our blessed Lord came to expiate, not to teach. Perverting the fact that the doctrines of the New Testament are substantially the same as those of the Old Testament, he arrives at the false assumption that Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament, and, consistently with that false assumption, justifies the crucifixion. When, therefore, I see sitting on these benches, and taking a leading part among the members of this party, one holding these opinions, who has declared them, and uses his influence to carry them into effect, I will not hear Lord Derby's difficulties underrated in regard to this question. I have seen several leading Members of the Conservative party brought over to his opinions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And when the noble Lord at the head of the India Board seceded from his noble father's opinions on this question, and joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I felt that Lord Derby's position, sooner or later, might become intolerable, and that there was great danger that by degrees he would be forced from the high position which he has held for many years, as leader of the great party whose pride it still is to be the defenders of the Christian character of Parliament and of the State. In my anger I will have justice—I will not hear Lord Derby's difficulties undervalued; and although I lament that he has succumbed, I see in this a manifestation of a weakness, which is natural, however much it is to be deplored. The House knows that I am sincere on this subject. I thank the House for the patience with which they have heard me upon this, as well as upon former occasions. I trust that liberal Members opposite will pardon me if, when I see them urged forward in a course of which this measure is only one of the steps, I venture to address to them a few words of warning against the danger of the course upon which they are entering. There are many hon. Members opposite who value as highly as I do the Protestant Christianity of this country, who value the freedom of our constitution, who would not willingly retrograde from the great principles upon which the Revolution of 1688 was based—who are, in short, still Whigs at heart, and attached to the great principles upon which that party was formed. I beg them to consider this—they are exposed to the machinations of an enemy who is now powerful throughout almost the whole of continental Europe, who is making constant advances, and whose power is felt more and more, until it threatens the constitutional freedom of these islands. I mean the Jesuit confederation, which is now all-powerful at Rome. It was only a year or two since in Holland, our nearest Protestant neighbour, when the Roman Catholic bishops in that country had forced upon them the dogma of the immaculate conception, that these Dutch Roman Catholic Bishops protested emphatically against the reception of that doctrine, and attributed the enunciation of it to the Jesuits, whom they declared to be all-powerful at Rome. I allude to this circumstance, because so strange are the machinations of that order that they have persuaded many actually to ignore their existence as an order, and thus to favour the secrecy of their operations. Now, Sir, I warn the Liberal party in this House and out of it that the Jesuits use them for the objects of their order. The Jesuit knows how to profess himself a Liberal. I do not ask you to believe this on my statement, but I refer you to the works of the fautors of the Jesuits, to those who proclaim and desire the accomplishment of their objects—to the works of Lammenais, of De Maistre, of Montalembert. The latter writer shows in his work, The Political Future of England, that this system of using Liberalism for their own purposes was first put into operation by the Jesuits in England 200 years ago. The first instance was what Count Montalembert cites in 1632, when this system was tested in the constitution of Maryland, then one of the dependencies of the British Crown; but I will be content with referring you to the Proclamation of James II., in 1687, which was based upon the principles on which the Liberal party are now acting. That Proclamation was identical in principle with the measure before the House, and for refusing to read that Proclamation in the churches of this country seven Bishops of the Church of Eng- land were sent to the Tower; their imprisonment was the culminating point of the policy which led to the Revolution of 1688, and the termination of the Stuart dynasty. The Proclamation upon which the Bishops of the Church of England refused to act was drawn in precisely the spirit in which you are now legislating; it virtually abolished every religious test, and declared practically that religion has nothing to do with either civil or political administration; that Proclamation was issued at the instigation of Jesuit councillors. Trace the operation of the Jesuits in every free country, and you will find that its tendency is almost invariably to turn liberty into license, and to break every safeguard of freedom, whether it be civil or whether it be religious, for the Jesuits know that they are bound together by a most wonderful organization, by means of which they operate against freedom, and, wherever freedom is undefended by adequate institutions, with every prospect of succeeding in its overthrow. I do not ask the House to accept these statements on my mere assertion, but to look to the works of those writers who are the supporters of the Jesuits, who boast of the success of their system, and who, like the Count de Montalembert, show how they make use of Liberals and Liberalism, for the establishment of their own tyranny, who land the policy by which the Jesuits strive in every free State to create a legislative equality as to religion, with a view to establish their own ascendancy. Hon. Members opposite proclaim that every safeguard for the preservation of the constitution is an absurdity. I beg them to read the history of their own country and of the Jesuit Confederation, and not obstinately to ignore the effects of the iron hand of this wonderful confederation abroad. The persons to whom I refer boast of the success of the Jesuits in this country, and consider the late Mr. D. O'Connell their most efficient minister. Mr. O'Connell went to Rome and died, and who pronounced his funeral oration? [A laugh.] The circumstance may seem trivial, but I think it an incident worth recording, that it was a Jesuit who pronounced the funeral oration over the remains of O'Connell, and that this was done by the Jesuit Ventura, the very man who first appears to have fostered the Republic of Rome, and afterwards to have betrayed the city to his master, at Gaeta. It is my firm belief that in this fatal measure you are taking the first step in a course that the Jesuits will most heartily rejoice to see you pursue, which they seem almost to dictate to you. By adopting this course, you are in reality playing the game of the Jesuits against the freedom of England, and are introducing into the constitution and government of this country the very principles which were effectually resisted by our ancestors in the Revolution of 1688. I shall not detain the House any longer. I thank them for having allowed me to attract their attention to these circumstances. I am firmly convinced, that every step you take in this course of pseudo Liberalism is injurious to the constitution of this country, and that by adopting such a course you are doing the work of the Jesuits, and sacrificing that freedom which deservedly you value so highly, but which you imperil by exaggerating the liberty which you enjoy.

said, it was from no feeling of indifference that he had not hitherto taken any part in the debate on this all-important subject, because, looking to its consequences, both religious and political, he was of opinion that the dangers which were likely to result from it, had not, and could not, be exaggerated; but as these dangers had been so ably and fully urged upon the House by other hon. Members with great ability, he preferred sparing the time of the House, and recording his agreement in the reasons thus given by his vote. However, as the debate had been so protracted, he desired not so much on his own account, as from a feeling of what was due to those whom he represented, and who were conscientiously opposed to this measure, to say that in a relative point of view he regarded it with great sorrow and apprehension. He could not agree with those hon. Members who defended the course which had been pursued by the House of Lords, as he believed it was most inconsistent and unfortunate to send down to this House a proposition accompanied with, perhaps, the strongest reasons that had anywhere been urged against its morality and propriety; and yet, on the other hand, he did not think it was his duty to join with those who expressed themselves with great bitterness against the course pursued by that House. Upon the Lords must rest the discredit, whatever it was, of sending to this House those Reasons under such circumstances. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury as to the results to be expected, and the acerbity which he had said had been shown by some hon. Members who had spoken, he (Mr. Lefroy) might add that he had not rendered himself liable to such a charge, nor would he, looking back to the history of the Jews with solemnity and pain, and forward to the future destinies of that people with hope, after this measure had passed, view with any jealousy a Jew taking his scat in this House, or apprehend that, as an individual, he would attempt to injure the Church or constitution; but he would now rather indulge the hope that as those who with him had conscientiously opposed this great change in our constitution had been defeated, their failure might be overruled for good.

said, that believing that the House of Commons ought to have the power of modifying the oaths, he rejoiced that the House of Lords had passed this Bill, and trusted that it was a prelude to the establishment of one oath for all its Members.

said, it might be difficult to defend the conduct of the Lords on the ground of consistency, but he did not consider the rejection of the Oaths Bill at all unfortunate. He infinitely preferred the present measure to the one passed by this House, and should have no objection to see a difference in the proceedings and practice of the two branches of the Legislature on the subject. Indeed, he believed the deliberate opinion of the House had always been limited to the admission of Jews into the House of Commons, and that they had never desired to interfere with the proceedings in that respect of the other House.

Sir, in reference to the Bill on the table of the House, I will endeavour (seeing that the debate has been exhausted), to condense my observations into the smallest possible compass. I cannot admit the principle of the Bill, and I regard with a deep-rooted objection its ultimate consequences. If passed, that form of oath which gives us the assurance of Christianity will be abolished. Now, the Jew, in whose favour this Bill is principally introduced, is not degraded by his exclusion from this House. He is simply regarded as a foreigner, and so is debarred from certain privileges. For the sake of a few thousand persons it is proposed to set aside what had hitherto been a fundamental law of our constitution, and thus wound the consciences of millions. For a slender benefit to individuals—virtually aliens in religious habits and wishes—we are desired to slight that sacred claim upon this country which a religion professed for centuries had inculcated—a faith which is the foundation of our monarchy, our laws, our social happiness, and the ground of our hope hereafter. I cannot be a party to any such proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to a statement in the public papers, to the effect that a corpse had been for several days moored to a stake in the water, in the immediate neighbourhood of Sheerness, and whether he intended to take any steps to compel the proper local authorities to put an end to the scandal.

said, that he had received no official information with respect to the dead body which had lately been found exposed at Sheerness. He had merely seen an account of the circumstance in the newspapers, and had learnt that it was owing to some conflict of opinion between the local authorities. He should, however, make further inquiry upon the matter.