alarmist, but he thought it was our duty to be secure against all contingencies. At present it appeared we had not the command of the sea. We ought to be prepared not only for war, but for surprise. We had lost the command of the Mediterranean, where the French force was double that of the English. There was a railway between Toulon and Cherbourg. A blow might come unawares. Let the Government tell the truth, fairly explain the state of our Navy and our dockyards, and the House of Commons would generously answer any appeal. He wished the Government had asked for larger votes.

After an explanation of some details by Sir John Pakington, the votes were agreed to.

The next notice in Parliament of naval affairs was on the 18th of May, when Sir Charles Napier had a motion on the notice paper on the subject of manning the Navy, and though the great debate on Lord Canning's Proclamation was at that time proceeding, the gallant officer was firmly resolved not to give up his motion, although at the time much pressed to postpone it. It was in the form of a resolution praying the Queen to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of manning the Navy, and improving its manage ment with a view to reduce its expenditure without impairing its efficiency. The system of impressment had never been abolished, and unless some regular mode of manning the Navy were adopted, we must, in a moment of emergency, have recourse to that system again. But the seamen, who know their rights better now, would not stand it.

We were in a defenceless state, and ought to put the Navy in a proper condition without delay. Greater encouragement should be held out to those who enter the service. The wages of petty officers should be increased, and they should be allowed to rise to the rank of mate. The Merchant Seamen's Fund should be better managed.

Sailors should be entered for five years. Ships should be kept constantly moving about. Sailors should be allowed to go ashore. The French had forty, we had forty-three screw steamers; but they had 70,000 seamen. A quarrel might arise, and we should be prepared to send a fleet to sea certain of victory. He wanted, he said, a commission of experienced men to inquire into the dockyards, and to make a thorough investigation into every branch of the service.

Admiral Duncombe moved, by way of amendment, that the inquiry should be conducted by a Select Committee, concurring in the object of the motion, but believing that the mode of obtaining it which he proposed was preferable to a Commission. The object, he said, was of paramount importance, and the time had arrived when Parliament must apply its attention to it. Magnificent ships were unable to proceed to sea for want of sufficient crews.

Mr. Lindsay was in favour of delegating the inquiry to a Parliamentary Committee. Admiral Walcott preferred a Royal Commission. He gave a more encouraging picture of the resources of the Royal Navy than that drawn by Sir C. Napier. Mr. Bentinck was in favour of a Commission.

Lord C. Paget was of opinion that there were ample resources in the hands of the Admiralty for maintaining an admirable fleet in regard both to manning and ship building. He, however, thought there were matters connected with manning the Navy which deserved inquiry, especially as to keeping up the Coast-guard, and that the inquiry should be intrusted not to a Commission, but a Committee.

it

Sir J. Pakington admitted that this was a subject of immense importance, and he had pressed upon the attention of the House in moving the Navy Estimates, when he adverted to the slow manning of our ships. But he denied that the country was, as alleged by Sir C. Napier, in a defenceless condition. We had in our ports some of the noblest ships of war ever built, and if a case of emergency should arise, with the means at our disposal, a very powerful fleet could be prepared for sea at a very short notice. He admitted that the question as to manning the Navy was a fair subject for inquiry, and as a previous Commission

had not considered an important point-namely, by what means the mercantile marine could be made more useful in contributing to the Royal Navy, he consented to so much of the motion (preferring a Commission to a Committee); but he could not assent to the second part, extending the inquiry into the dockyards, the Admiralty, and other branches of the service.

Lord Palmerston observed that all agreed as to the importance of this subject; the only difference of opinion was as to the relative advantages of a Commission and a Committee. Perhaps either would accomplish the object in view; but there were reasons why the former would, in his opinion, be preferable. He recommended Sir C. Napier to accept the limitation proposed by Sir J. Pakington.

stages of the Bill. The second reading was therefore passed without opposition, and there was little discussion in Committee; but on the consideration of the report a debate of some importance took place.

Mr. Cogan moved an amend ment, providing that one form of oath should be taken by all the members of the House. The object was to remove the Roman Catholic members out of the position of "invidious inferiority in which they are placed by leaving unaltered the oath prescribed for them in 1829, while the oaths for other persuasions are amended.

Mr. Walpole opposed the motion, as there was a tacit compact made in 1829, and it ought not to be altered.

Lord John Russell admitted that to have but one oath would be a benefit. But when in 1854 he proposed one oath, he did not help the cause of the Roman Catholics, while he injured that of the Jews. If he now took up the amendment, he should again embarrass the cause of the Jews. The Roman Catholics enjoy privileges from which the Jews are debarred; and it is not reasonable on their part, because they object to the oath they take on entering the House, to shut the door upon the Jews.

Mr. Cogan's amendment was supported by Mr. Collins and Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, and opposed as inopportune by Mr. Horsman, Mr. Gibson, and Lord Palmerston. Upon a division the amendment was rejected by 345 to 66. After some discussion on the clause which negatived the jurisdiction of any foreign prince, prelate, or potentate, terminating, however,

in no result, Mr. Newdegate moved the omission of the fifth section, containing the material enactment of the Bill, by which a Jew was empowered to take the oath with the omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian." He had held, he said, for many years a strong conviction that it would be highly impolitic and absolutely wrong, that this country, which had for a thousand years been governed by a Christian Parliament, should at once cast away the recognition of God as they knew Him, and as He had declared himself through our blessed Mediator. He asked the House still to exclude the Jews from sitting in a Christian Legislature. The clause objected to would bind persons to a religion immoral, anti-national, anti-social. Persons professing Judaism would be placed on a par with persons professing Christianity. The Jewish religion is not based on the Old Testament; it is based on the Talmud-of those traditions, which, in the words of our blessed Redeemer, had made the Law of none effect. Mr. Newdegate quoted a document from the records of Hamburg, to show that isolation is the predominating mark of the Jews that they are often absolutely repulsive to persons of a different creed; and he referred to the works of Dr. M'Caul and the elder Disraeli to show that moral obligations are loosened by the oral law, and that the Jewish religion is one to which the pride of dominion is congenial. He referred to cases to prove their immoral practices. Continuing to quote, Mr. Newdegate brought forth a pamphlet on Jewish emancipation by a Jew, a sermon by Rabbi Adler, from