unsafe depositaries of power. Having laid down this
proposition, Lord John insisted that the special ground
of religious faith was first introduced in 1830. And he
contended that differences of religious opinion, that
errors in faith, are no ground whatever for depriving a
man of his right to serve the crown and to sit in
parliament. Following this up, he disposed of the stock
arguments advanced by the opponents of the bill,—as
that the Jews are aliens; that they are a separate
people; that their moral character is not good; that
their admission to parliament will unchristianise the
nation; and that they are so few in number that
exclusion does not amount to injustice. "I ask you," he
concluded, "to take away this last disqualification, and
then you may with truth say, that having, for political
reasons, done away with it in regard to others, you have
now done away with this remaining disqualification
solely upon the grounds of truth and justice; that you
have no other ground to do it away upon but truth and
justice; and that it is upon that truth and that justice
that you found your truly Christian character."—Sir
ROBERT INGLIS opposed the motion for going into
committee. He would never take off his hat and open the
gate to let Lord John into the sacred enclosure. Let
him break down the barrier if he could. Sir Robert
maintained that power is a trust and not a right; that
if the Jews were admitted to parliament, they would be
unfit to legislate, on Church matters for instance, because
they regard our blessed Lord as an impostor. He
revived the argument that the admission of the Jews
would annul the Christian character of the house.
Replying to Lord John Russell's statements respecting
the purpose for which the restrictive words of the oath
were introduced, he said, that whether the words existed
in the oath or not, no Jew could take his seat in that
house except by virtue of an oath sworn on the New
Testament. The hypocritical respect which Gibbon
and Wilkes paid to Christianity, bad as it was, was
better than the avowed blasphemy of the Jew. If the
admission of Jews were conceded, Mahomedans might
come in.—Sir ROBERT PEEL supported the views of
Sir R. Inglis. His main argument was, that the
admission of the Jews had nothing to do with civil and
religious liberty. The Jews are better treated here (he
affirmed) than in any other country; neither are they
dissatisfied at being excluded from seats in Parliament.
He denied the justice of the praise bestowed on the
Jews: why, they are the chief instigators to crime, and
the receivers of stolen goods. The house was now
considering a personal affair of the noble Member for
London. He represented the City of London with a
Jew—a very wealthy man—but everybody knew
how his wealth had been amassed. He helped to
gag Liberal opinions by lending money to the
Despotic Powers. Sir Robert trusted the other
house would reject the bill.—Lord Monck, Mr.
W. D. Seymour, and Mr. O'Connell, supported
the motion; Mr. Napier, Mr. Wigram, and Colonel
Sibthorp, opposed it.—Lord DRUMLANRIG, announced
that he was about to reverse the vote he had formerly
given against the Jew Bill, and to vote for going into
committee. The house divided—For the motion, 234;
against it, 205; majority forgoing into committee, 29.
The house then went into committee; and Mr.
WILSON PATTEN, from the chair, read the following
resolution:—"That it is expedient to remove all the
civil disabilities at present existing affecting her
Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion, in like
manner and with the like exceptions as are provided
with reference to her Majesty's subjects professing the
Roman Catholic religion."—When this resolution was
put, the cries of "Aye" and "No" were nearly equal;
and strangers were ordered to withdraw, as if for another
division.—But Mr. WALPOLE explained to the new
members, that it was not usual or necessary to divide
again on the formal motion after such a decision as
that just taken: accordingly, without further contest,
the resolution was carried, reported, and a bill was
ordered to be brought in by Lord John Russell,
Viscount Palmerston, and Mr. Wilson Patten.

On Monday, Feb. 28, three Election Committees
reported that the following members were unseated:—
Mr. Mathew Wilson, member for Clithero, Sir Robert
Pigot, member for Bridgnorth, and the Hon. Robert
Edward Boyle, member for Frome; the first two on the
ground that bribery had been practised at their elections,
and the last as the holder of an office of profit under the
crown.

On the motion of Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, a select
committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances
attending the Withdrawal of the Norwich Election
Petition.

On the motion for going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. HUME called attention to alleged Abuses in the
Administration of Army Allowances. He said, that in
1837 a committee was appointed to consider the various
naval and military sinecures, and the general pay to
colonels of regiments, with a view, if possible, of putting
an end to the outcries then being raised against colonels
of regiments being tailors, and curtailing the vestments
of the soldiers for their own profit. That committee
consisted of a great portion of the members of the
present government, and they recommended that
allowances to colonels of regiments of the line should not be
less than £1000. But they made a distinction. They
agreed that the regiment held by the Duke of Wellington
should, in consideration of the great and glorious
services rendered by his grace, be exempt from the
alteration proposed by them, and that no change should
be made in the emoluments attaching to the colonelcy
of the Grenadier Guards so long as the duke should hold
the command. Agreeably to that recommendation, an
exception was made in the case of that regiment and of
the Coldstream Guards, and it was agreed that the
colonelcies of those regiments should be retained as the
reward of long and distinguished services. He
complained, however, that the late government had not
attended to the recommendation of that committee on the
demise of the Duke of Wellington, but had conferred
the command of those two regiments upon Prince
Albert and the Duke of Cambridge respectively, without
any reduction of the allowances. Now, although
he was willing to give all possible credit to Prince
Albert, and to acknowledge that he filled the position
he now held with credit to himself and advantage to the
country, he thought the appointment of his royal highness
and of the Duke of Cambridge was an interference
with the recommendations of the committee, and that
he was warranted, therefore, in calling attention to the
circumstance. Mr. Hume wished also to know whether
the government intended to take any steps towards the
union of the administration of the army and the ordnance
under one department—that of the Secretary of
War being, as he considered, most obviously
appropriate.—Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that the subject
was involved in great impracticabilities, and he could
not say that the government intended to carry out the
recommendation of the committee on the subject.—
Mr. ELLICE said, that when he was offered the post of
Secretary at War, he declined to accept it unless a
committee were granted which should make minute inquiries
into the emoluments of the army. Before that time the
hon. member (Mr. Hume), Sir H. Parnell, and other
members kept the house in discussion for five weeks
together upon the army estimates. The committee was
appointed, and in consequence of the inquiries then
made and the reforms set on foot, his (Mr.Ellice's)
successors were now able to pass the army estimates in a
single night. He had asked the committee not to
interfere with the Duke of Wellington's emoluments as
colonel of the Grenadier Guards, and the committee
consented. The emoluments of the late duke were
between £4000 and £4500 a-year and he enjoyed them
during his life. He (Mr. Ellice) proposed to fix the
allowances in future at £3000 for the Grenadier Guards,
and £2000 for the other two regiments of Foot Guards
upon the understanding that these two regiments were
to be regarded as the highest rewards for distinguished
military services. Upon this ground the committee
adopted his recommendation. With respect to the disposal
of these regiments he had nothing to say; he had not
the appointment to these regiments. But he must express
his great regret at the statement he had just heard.

The house then went into committee on the Ordnance
Estimates, and a number of sums were voted with little
comment.