§ MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, of which he had received notice previous to the recess. A Bill had passed that House for the purpose of relieving the Jews from certain disabilities, and had been rejected by the other House of Parliament. The City of London had returned a Jew to represent it, but that Gentleman was unable to discharge his duties. The seat was full, and a new writ could not issue. Holding the noble Lord responsible for the arrangement of business in that House, and in reference to the very peculiar position of the City of London, he wished to ask him what course he would advise the House to take, and also whether it was the intention of the Government to make any further effort during the present Session, or at any future time, to settle this important question.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had to state, in the first place, that he did not think this question could be settled by leaving it as it stood at present. In his opinion it was much more probable that it would be settled by a Bill which should make a general alteration in the oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament, than by recurring to a Bill of the nature of that lately rejected by the House of Lords; but at what time such an alteration might be proposed, he could not at present undertake to say. He, however, might observe that a Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament for an alteration of the oaths. He had not seen that Bill, but it was possible that it might be sent down in a short time, and in such a shape as to remove the difficulty which now existed.