the true faith of a Christian." In considering with
wnat view these words had been inserted in the oath,
it appeared from the report of the committee that they
were first introduced in the reign of James I., not to
exclude the Jews, but to give solemnity to the oath, the
other words containing its whole substance. As Jews,
however, could not sit in that house without taking
this oath, the question was whether parliament should
relieve them—the bare and simple point being whether
religious opinions were to disqualify from political
functions. This question had been often argued, and
the result was, that acts, not opinions, were what
parliament should legislate for.—Sir R. INGLIS reiterated
his former objections to a scheme which was to open the
doors of that house, not only to Jews, but to men of all
religions and of no religion; and, declaring that he
resisted this measure from a deep conviction that the
course of proceeding adopted by the government was
fraught with difficulty and danger, he moved that the
committee be deferred for six months.—Mr. M. GIBSON
called the attention of the house to the humiliating
position in which it was placed in reference to this
question. After what had passed, the measure should
have been introduced earlier; and he hoped, if it were
rejected a third time in another place, the government
would take some decided step. After some observations
from Mr. Plumtre, Mr. Prosser, and Mr. Newdegate,
Lord John's motion was carried by 168 to 98. The house
then went into committee, and a resolution was agreed
to, that leave should be asked to bring in a bill; and
the house having resumed, leave was given accordingly.

On Friday the 4th, Sir B. HALL, in reference to the
recent address of the archbishops and bishops "to her
Majesty, asked Lord John RUSSELL whether he was
aware that the prelates intended to take any steps for
the Suppression of Puseyism. In introducing the
question, Sir B. Hall adverted to the statement, which
had been published, that a clergyman had refused to
baptise an infant child of Lord Londesborough except in
away dangerous to the child's health.—Lord J. RUSSELL
regretted that Sir B. Hall had brought up the ex parte
statement of Lord Londesborough. He then said that
since his last statement to the house upon the subject,
he had, personally, had no communication with the
archbishops or bishops, in whose hands he considered
such a matter was most properly left. He would say
nothing about the address by the twenty-four archbishops
and bishops, but an address upon the question raised by
Sir B. Hall had been presented (signed by 230,000
persons) to her Majesty, who had ordered it to be
referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury for
communication to the other archbishops and bishops, and, with
such reference, there had been added an intimation
that her Majesty was desirous to discourage any act not
in accordance with the law, or with the established
usages of the church. He was content to leave the
matter to the discretion of the Archbishop, but there
would be no difficulty about producing the
communication, which had been made two or three days ago.
He deprecated discussing such a topic in that house, and
added that, though entertaining very strong opinions
upon it, nothing should induce him (remembering the
unfortunate events which had occurred in reference to
the Scotch Church) to take any step tending to a
disruption in the Church of England.—The house then
went into a Committee of Ways and Means and the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made his Second
Financial Statement. After several general remarks on
the principles of financial policy, and taking a view
of the present state of the public revenues and
expenditure, he proceeded to explain the cause which
he had now adopted. He said, that two of his arrangements
formerly proposed—namely, the duty on clover-
seeds, and the transference expenses of lunatic asylums
—having been very generally censured, he should not
press them in opposition to the wishes of those they
were intended to benefit. It had been proposed to him
to repeal the window-tax unconditionally. The best
answer to that proposal was to set the amount of the
surplus against the amount of that duty. He would
then be left a surplus of £40,000, and a small item on
the Kaffir war would occasion a deficiency. But the
sound objection to the window-duty was the mode in
which it was levied. He had conceived that the
substitution he had proposed would be considered equitable
and fair, and he thought that many of the complaints
against it had been more loud than just. At the same
time he admitted that it had been deficient in the
uniformity of imposition, which was so desirable. He therefore proposed to retain the abolition of the window-tax;
thus preserving the sanitary value of his measure. He
next proposed (in lieu of his previous scheme) to charge
a uniform tax upon old and new houses alike, of
9d. in the pound upon dwelling-houses, and 6d. upon
shops and houses used for the occupation of land. He
would retain the exemption of houses under £20 annual
value. His proposal would reduce the number of houses
it had been proposed to charge, from 500,000 to 400,000,
would confer a great benefit upon shops and the other
buildings on which the reduced sum was to be charged,
and would reduce the amount of the total duty by the
sum of £1,136,000, leaving him £720,000 only. He went
into a variety of instances to show what would be the
working of this scheme in different parts of London and
the country, and he contended that the tax would not in
future be paid by the "people," in the ordinary sense
of the word. There were 3,500,000 houses in the kingdom,
the tax upon 3,100,000 would be remitted, and it
would be charged upon 400,000 of the best houses in the
country. This he conceived to be the nearest possible
approach to a fairly-levied property-tax. He next said
that he should adhere to his former proposal as to coffee
and timber, and that the total amount of contemplated
reductions would be £1,536,000, which would leave a
permanent surplus of £356,000. For the present year, as there
would be a half-year's window-duty to receive in July,
there would be £568,000 to add to this; so that the total
surplus for this year only would be £924,000. He could
not consider it right to make any further reduction.
He then proceeded to say that the income-tax would be
retained for a limited time, by which he understood such
time as should enable the country to carry out the financial
reforms for the sake of which it was imposed. After
a brief attack upon the financial policy of the opposition,
he concluded by an intimation, that the consequences of
a protectionist policy might be most dangerous, but
that while the people were properly treated, we might
defy all the perils which had agitated the Continent from
end to end. This statement gave rise to a desultory
discussion; many members making detached remarks
on different parts of the financial scheme.

On Monday, April 7, on the motion that the report of
the Committee of Ways and Means be brought up, Mr.
HERRIES brought forward his amendment respecting
the Income Tax. It was to the effect that that tax should
be continued in such proportion only as might be necessary
for the discharge of the public services, and the due
maintenance of the national credit. Mr. Herries was
glad to find, by the revenue-tables of the present quarter,
that the prosperity of the country, as to which he never
entertained any doubt or anxiety, is even greater than
the Chancellor of the Exchequer lately announced. He
was disposed to swell the Chancellor's estimate of the
surplus of the current year from £1,890,000, to £2,220,000
or £2,300,000. The prosperity, which he does not deny,
he adduces in support of his proposal. When the
maladministration of the Whigs, and their yearly deficit,
compelled the country to transfer the Government to
the hands of the late Sir Robert Peel, there was no
alternative for repairing the mischief done, but the
income tax: it was accordingly proposed to meet the
special emergency. Sir Robert Peel thought that three
years' duration of the tax would perhaps suffice, but he
intimated that a longer period might be found necessary;
and when, at the end of three years, it was found that
the three years had not been sufficient, Parliament did
not oppose the renewal of the tax,—though the gentlemen
now on the Treasury-benches did not submit
without considerable opposition. In 1848 again, it was
felt that a distress sufficiently great, oppressive, and
diffused, then prevailed, to create an emergency which
justified the reimposition of the tax. On that occasion,
the protests made by persons of great weight, and
authority, now occupying the ministerial benches, were
more and more emphatic. Lord Tohn Russell
contended that the tax would be necessary only "in a war