POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

The second reading of the Jew Bill in the House of Commons was car- ried last night by an increased majority, though with a strong opposition.

Sir FREDERICK. THESIGER led the dissentients. He moved, at the end of a very long speech, that the bill be postponed for six months. There was no novelty in the arguments he adduced against the bill, except a new historical reading of the origin of the words "on the true faith of a Christian." He admitted that, as there were no Jews in England when the act was passed, the Legislature could not have intended to exclude them ; but then he contended, it was only contemplated that none but Christians should be admitted to Parliament. At the end of his speech, Sir Frederick caused some excitement in the House.

He did not know why Lord John Russell, having admitted the Jews and the Deists, should refuse admission to "the fool who says in his heart there

is no God." Such a person might say, "Away with the mockery of all forms of religion! every subject of this realm is entitled to all the privileges of a citizen." (Cheers from the Ministerial benches, and counter-cheers from the Opposition.) He understood from that cheer, that gentlemen opposite did not wish Lord John to stop at the Jews, and that he was to make everything smooth for the admission of persons of all religions and no religion. (Cheers and counter-cheers repeated.)

Lord M. GRAHAM seconded the amendment.

Mr. OSBORNE replied to Sir Frederick Thesiger's new historical read- Why, there were Jews enough here in Oliver Cromwell's time : they offered to buy St. Paul's and turn it into a Jewish synagogue. Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND supported the amendment in his usual style. The time was when Rome was the centre of government : we are still bound together, but now our centre is the Stock Exchange, and the talisman which governs us is not "credo," but "credit." It is not now credo, I be- have—everything; but credit, he believes—nothing.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT delivered a long and able speech in support of the bill; in the course of which he mentioned, that on Thursday, for the first time, the proposition to petition against the bill was resisted in the Con- vocation House of Oxford ; 31 voting against the petition, and 73 for it. He showed that opinion is advancing on the subject, and that more tolerant views prevail.

Mr. HENLEY. took his stand on religious ground in opposing the bill. At the end of his speech the House grew impatient for a division.

Lord Joan Russnu, then rose. He advocated the bill on the ground of religious liberty. Those who condemn the imprisonment of the Madiai are acting on the very principle they condemn when they exclude Jews from Parliament. He believed that Christianity would triumph amidst the greatest liberty and the most free diffusion of opinion and he thought the triumph would be hastened by the removal of the fast of these disabili- ties.

After Mr. NBWDEGATE had delivered a speech, constantly interrupted by the impatient House, a division was taken—For the secend reading, 263; against it, 212; majority for the bill, 51.

Both Houses were engaged in a discussion on the grievances of India, and the intentions of Government with regard to the future govern- ment of that country. In the House of Lords, the Earl of ELLEN- BOROUGH presented a petition from the British and other Christian re- sidents of Calcutta, complaining that the law of India is bad, the judges are bad, and the executive officers most inefficient. He explained the allega- tions of the petition at great length, adding facts from his own experience. A debate arose on the question that the petition be referred to the Com- mittee on Indian Territories. Lord MONTEAGLE, Lord BROUGHTON, and the Earl of DERBY recommended further inquiry. Lord Derby urged the Government to reconsider their determination with respect to legis- lating permanently on the affairs of India during this session. Ho sug- gested a continuation of "the Charter" for five years. The inconvenience of a temporary act could not be measured against the evil of hasty legis- lation.

The Earl of ABERDEEN disagreed with Lord Derby.

The House of Commons' Committee has arrived at the conclusion that in- quiry had been sufficient, before the Lords' Committee of inquiry had pro- ceeded far enough for legislation ; and he conceived that they were now in a po- sition to legislate, taking the present system as the foundation of that legis- lation. The blessings and advantages we have already conferred on India it is the earnest desire of the Government, guided by past experience and the mass of evidence that has been collected, to confer still more widely, still more solidly, still more beneficially.

The Earl of GLENELG urged, that it is our duty, mission, and voca- tion, to facilitate that progress on which our Indian empire has entered ; and he contemplated that period when the natives of India should govern themselves as "the most glorious day in British history."

Petition referred to Committee on Indian Territories.

In a speech of an hour's duration, Mr. BRIGHT complained of the in- tention to dispose summarily of the great question of the Indian Govern- ment; and asked whether Ministers had formed a decisive opinion ? if so, whether in favour of temporary or permanent legislation, and for how many years ? and when the measure would be brought in ? To these questions, and to Mr. Bright's accompanying speech, Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied at length. Government intend to introduce a measure this session, such as they think "will prove best for the perma- nent welfare of the people of India " ; but he would be departing from his duty if ha stated the nature of that measure at present. Ministers deprecate postponement, which would lead to uncertainty and agitation.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS 8.10110 supported the Views of Lord John Russell, in favour of instant legislation. Opposed to the Government, were Mr. BLACKEIT, Mr. PHILLIMORE, Mr. DANDY SEYMOUR, Lord JOCELYN, MT. OTWAY, Mr. COBDEN, Mr. IIUME, Sir J. FITZGERALD, Sir HERBERT MADDOCK, and Mr. DISRAELI.