The Express. — London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

w eion••••••" — "' -- midi saver these nista have sueceeded for a time in hog rarity ' The bon gentleman 1..2= a sra' • • chews, by thanking the house for tb , ▪ Wa ggle with which it had heard him. Lad ASHLEY coanessuod by saying that on= as he meld aseartain, there was a in *i t " lir either great indlff r ases. There was arena, or gnat When hie noble Mend talked of the to serialise entestainod me this subject, he begged to re. s o w s' Dist that t h ey had most of nmemblancie to the pr ow h es tilitLexhitsited In the days of the eosinumwealth, grist 1763. 'fa Jews of the present day occupied a higher ration in the public respect and in the affectioss of the ▪ ma ity. Their resistanco L therefore, woo not founded s ageoul objections to individuals of that remarkable esiggissaity, but solely on a conscientious adlisanos to the .thoples which they pectessed, and which they dared not 6, o2 das. (Hear, hear.) That was the light in which he dared that his opposition to this measure sheald be eon sigwod. However much the introduction of theology at tome discussions war to be deprecated, some meatiest of =was altogether inevitable. Ile was not for that, but those who sought to disturb an sw th which for the last 150 years had been taken s s the table of that ham, and this on the pro opts that religion had nothing whatever to do w i t h politics. That assertion put them on their w attle, for they said that religion had a great deal to do w ith politics—(hear, hear)—and in this he was borne out by the revealed word of God, which said, " The nations and bagasse which will not serve ens shall utterly perish.; Ds very fact of the people in whose behalf this mews was introduced being suppliants at the bar of that was in itself a proof that religion was identified witt e : l 2 r ay. (Hear, hear.) If religion had nothing to do with pithy, why exact an oath at the table of the house Why execi it of the Jew ? Why did the members of the Privy Caned take an oath ? Why make reference to a superue• loath( Providence in the speech from the throne, and in some of their parliamentary enactments ? Was it not per. hotly clear that in doing so they made recognition of a w eal governor of the world, who superintended, directed, sad controlled human actions? It was perfectly manifest also that they recognised the necessity if knowing his will; aid if they recognised the necessity of knowing his will, they most receipts* also the necessity of doing his will es set 'forth in the particular and revealed word. (Hear.) That was the cam of the opponents of the measure. But those who said that religion had nothing to do with politics, showed by their acts that it had a great deal to do with it. One of the most distinguished writers of the pro. sent day, and an ardent advocate of this particular ntereans, whose loss to the present parliament every one must &gime —he meant Mr. Macaulay—(hear, hear)—rye is his nay, " Government is, by its eisantielly indifferent character, In terdietd from the contemplation, and incapable of Abe as complishmeat of Christian ends." Now, he recollected having heard from the awns eloquent lips the following paw sage Everything that tends to lower eltristimuty is public estimation is high mown against the civillastion of mankind." (Hear, bear.) How, he would ask, conklthes• two statements co-exist ? What could so much tend to lower Christianity in public estimation as to declare that &dr dimity was not to preside over the government, and to be their rule in their intercourse with other nations ? It would not do to answer hint by saying that they would govern themselves by the law of nations, because every writer on the law of nations bated his arguments on arils thin principles, and even drew his instances from the scriptures themselves. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Macaulay in the same essay says, "To seek for an essentia ll y Christian government is about as wile its to seek for an essentially pro tenant cook." He thought it was unworthy of the great rags of that gentleman, as it was unworthy of his private end prisono charater,thus to confound, for the sake of a witticism, the lower operations of the mind with the highest hoslty of the soul,—(Hear, hear)—and to bring down to UM same level the spiritual and material character of man. Bspmience told them it was true that there was such a thing as a Christian government, and thatthere was no pond bility of a comparison between • Christian government and protestant cakery—u little as there was between Bow Church and the first of July. If Christianity was not to be the rule in public life, if it could not superintend and control public actions,. what could it do ? His noble friend said ft must prevail tri private life and rule over the dotards) be irth. Lord J. RUSSELL—And legislation. Lord ASHLEY could not understand how Christianity was to govern their legislation if a large portion of the legislature were to be composed of persons whose distinctive existence depended on constant and conscientious denial of the name, character, and precepts of the author of Christianity. (Hear, hear.) if Christianity was to rule is private life it 1111181 break out in public life also ; for he would refuse to dis tinguieh between a man's public life and bin private life. (Hear.) His noble friend said that infidels of various Wade had crept into the house. That might be true. Men like Gibbon sat in the house, and men like Hume might have done sot but at all events they must have taken at the table an oath which recognised Christianity as part and parcel of the law of the land. And he asked his noble friend whether it was not better to have even a nominal Christian than a professor of open infidelity ; just as an external observance of the rules of decency in a person who internally disre garded them was better than open obscenity ? The whole argument of his noble friend proceeded from first to last on this —that oaths were altogether unneaseary, because they might be broken, and were broken. But would his noble friend abolish the practice of oaths in courts of justice because per jury was often committed ? (Hear, hear.) Now he had not beard from the noble lord any advantages which were to be gained by the abolition of the oath ; nor, on the other hand, was he (Lord Ashley) able to point out any great mischiefs which were likely to arise from such a proceeding ; though this application of a false principle might eventually lead to very serious evils. If a case of injustice was made out, that would have a stronger influence on his mind than any argu ment ae to benefit or loss to follow from the passing the mea sure. Bet could the injustice be greater than that to which were exposed the hundreds of nations of different languages and colours within the British dominions ? (Hear, hear.) If they . once declared that Christianity was not essential to the legislative character of that house, from that hour the exelusion of others besides the Jun from that house would become a real and substantial injustice. Perhaps his noble Mend (Lord J. Russell) intended to admit everybody. (Cheers from behind the ministerial benches.) His noble Mead was much too candid to say " no." He would, how ever, uk him to pause. The steps they had bees taking appeared almost incredible. They began by standing out for a protestant parliament. (Laughter and ironical cheers.) They now stood out for a Christian parliament. (Hear, hear.) They might next have so stand eat for a white parliament. (Laughter.) Asithellool would perhaps be for a male parliament. • i nime , Let his noble friend consider, before he geouied_alagl Anther,into what a sea of controversy, dis pute, and fear, he would be launched if he once avowed to the people of this land, that not only Jews, but Mueselamn, Hindooe, and persons professing every form of faith to be found in the British empire, ought to be admitted to parlia ment. He would quote the words of a very high authority in England, and especially on the liberal side of the ques tion, to reference to the subject under consideration. In the year 1838, ate time when the Jewish question was before the house, Dr. Arnold wrote thus:—" For the Jews I see no plea of justice whatever ; they are voluntary dean gen here, and have uo claim to become citizens but by con formity to our moral law, which is the gospel. I would give the Jews the honorary ci tisenshipl which was so often given by the Romans, that is, the private rights of citizens, fur commercii, jut comniwte, but not ;us sufragn and sue honorarium.' He want on to say " A Jew or a heathen I ' cannot fly to voluntarily I only shay him passively if he has the rule over me." Such were the opinions of one who admitted no right to impase . the smallest disability on any who preferred belief in the name of Christ. The question was, in fact, altogether one of principle. The abolition of the oath would be a legislative declaration that for all the purposes of public government, the making of law., and the administration of affairs, Christianity, as such, was altogether needless. (Hear, hear, and " No, no.") In trying the principle, he bad a right to posh the measure to the fullest extent as regarded consequences. It was possible that in this parliament there would be a majority of persons of the Hebrew nation—that they might assume and retain the helm of affairs; but it was perfectly clear that the course which they well about to take would be a legislative declaration that Christianity, for the purposes which he had stated, was altogether needless. He expected to hoar it said that he was very inconsistent in haring offered no opposition to the bill of 1846, which admitted Jews to corporate offices. No doubt toleration did involve certain inconsistencies and inequalities ; but he thought it possible for them to establish a very valid distinction between executive and legislative functions. (Hear, hear.) The Jew, on taking say execu tive office, knew exactly the terms on which he accepted it he knew that he assumed an office delegated to him by a Christian people, and that it must be executed for Christian purposes • and he also knew that if he did not rightly administer its functions he would be exposed to the same consequences as all other public men. But, in the case of legislative functions, the Jew would come into that house perfectly free ; he might there, in conformity with his own notions, endeavour to repeal old laws and make new one, iniusiog into the latter his own epirit, and directing then:A° his own objects. This would indeed be the natural result of the legislative declara tion which he had already stated to be the effect of abolish ing the oath. Now, with respect to the oath itself, his noble friend bad truly stated that it was not originally framed in order to exclude Jews. There never had been a period, however, in the history of this sou .try, except the short period of twelve years, during which it was possible for Jews to sit in that house. By the Act of Supremacy, the first of Elisabeth, an oath was enjoined so be taken before the Lord Steward. That oath was to be a corporal oath taken on the Evan elists, the party who kissed the book being required to say, " God so help me and the contents of this book." The oath thus prescribed continued in force until the first of William 111., when it was repealed, and in the 13th of the same reign was enacted the Act of Abjuration. It was clear, then, that the oath was not framed for the purpose of excluding the Jews; awl he would tell his noble friend meet explicitly, that if the Jews were in that house then, if they hail always sat there, he (Lord Ashley) would not have supported a measure designed to turn them out; but there was a wide difference between a measure to ex clude Jews from rights which they enjoyed, and the repeal of an oath which had been taken by all parties for so long a period. He greatly doubted whether, with a view to the morality and happiness of the people, they would be acting wisely by declaring that Christianity was no longer predominant in the legislature. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) Now there were some other arguments urged against the bill, to which he would only allude for the pur pose of saying how little he concurred in them. There were many conscientious people in this country who objected to the proposed enactment, because they regarded the Jewish people as the authors of the crucifixion. Now, in the first place, he would say that even could it be proved that the Jews then demanding admittance into that house were • THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 17, 1847. were present with le i sit diked up their daily supplications to Almety GoA 61` • bingos on theta, would be en ds/Mien • II this WWI 110, it would be • consideration affecting • few Jew ea the sae hand, and a large number of Christiaas 11l thootair. Hs had thus endeavoured to deal with the unauptione elide aside friend, and to show that, lie regarded the red auswas of the law they were about to pus they wenunfieended. BO theeenere others who stated their olgiens to th e VOIMOPWO in hapage still stronger If they had ~ ot Wm told, they min mace to he told, that this was an unekirlatiaa seasen, and one which would call down the judgment of Ood lapse them He admitted it would be difficult to dal with such arguments in the tone befitting such subjects, but if It was true that civil justice required the , admission of the Jew into parliament ; and if there would be no great practical evil to the legislature, or grievance to any other class, then he said that this was not a quagliekel expediency, but of principle ; and in proceeding to Man justice to any class of his fellow-subjects, he haws her 0 drawing down the vengeance of the Almighty ; bat feel more fear if, from the dread of olusoar a la prejudice, they refrained from doing jostle,. ' , hats.) It was too late to use that argument now. Wl= too far with the Jew to take that he (Mr. Gladstone) opposed the bill or the wheiwien of Jews into municipal corporations, he said that it Involved the principle of the admission into that house. His noble friend (Lord Ashley) drew • distinction between executive and legislative fuucuons. Yet, municipal offices involved. the functions of the magistracy, the administration of the jai- 1 cial office, and the administration of laws which wen l christian laws, be could not find any ground for so that the Jew was fit for the administration of the laws and for the administering of oaths to Christian men, and yet wee not fit to come into that assembly . (Hear, hear.) But it was not only to executive o ffi ces that the Jews were Od.. I mitted. What did they say to the franchise? Who WON the makers of the laws? Was it not from its periodical return to its mother earth that that house received BO vigour ? It was not the fountain of power, bat the organ of power. The fountain woo the oar stitiency, to which the Jew bad been admitted. It could not be contended that the constituency was net Christian because • few Jews were admitted to the fees chise ; and how could it be contended that parliament was =christianised if • few were admitted there? His noble friend had referred to the authority of Dr. Arnold. He was an able and excellent man, who had some favourite theories, and one of them was to embody the general ideas of Christianity, apart from what was held particular denomina tions, and he endeavoured to terry out that ides in the esta blishment of the London Univereity. His notion was, that I the church and the state were one. It followed from this' peculiar view that he was compelled to reject all who did not acknowledge themselves to be Christian, and his autho rity must be weighed by the practicability of his idea, and not by the weight of his personal character. Up to do present time the constitution did not require that men should be Christians, but that they should make • pre-- fusion on the true faith of a Christian, and that oath ens the same in all cases, " on the true faith of a Chris tian." But they must read that oath by the light of his tory, and see what successive parliaments had done. They began by requiring that all dissenters should take this oath. Concessions were made one after another granting toleration, and among others to the unitarians. Whatever was the ori ginal meaning of the oath, the unitarians acted on the spirit of the constitution when they took it ; and it must be ad mitted that the constitution had ceased to adhere to any I fixed body of truths as the teat of admission into parliament. There was, however, a real difficulty in the admission of Jews into the legislature, arising from the mixed nature of the functions of parliament. So long as these matters re lating to the church and religion were liable te be discussed 1 it was • real difficulty so far as it went. Now, what was its amount, and what was the proper mode of I solving it? With regard to its amount, he had no fear on this head of the admission of Jews into parliament, because, to • great extent, the good feeling of individuals', and the force of public opinion would retain them from in terference in matters relating to the church. This had beau much the case since the act of 1823 and 1829, and it was usual to see gentlemen rise and say that they thought it more fitting to leave such questions to those who had • natural interest in them. But he should be worry if he were obliged to say, that because a portion of the duties of parliament were of a religious character, he must stand between the Jew and ell civil and political duties. This was a question which excited greet interest among the clergy, as might be seen by I the letter addressed to the noble lord at the head of the go- vernment, by Mr. Trower, who expressed the difficulty he I felt at the infusion into parliament of elements which had no , sympathy with the church. lie (Mr. Gladstone) had in nis ' hand a petition of Archdeacon Wilberforce, the brother of the Bishop of Oxford, who said that he could understand the necessity for Jews setting in parliament, and in the present state of the country he was net prepared to offer any objeo tion to it, but he feared that the parliament, by that act, would cease to be a Christian parliament. They would re peal the 26th Henry VIII., c. 19, by which the mode of appointing bishops was provided for. (Hear, hear.) It re quired caution to prevent the effect of the change they were about to make, being to produce in the country and among the clergy and the zealous members of the church a desire for an organic change in the relations between the church and the state. There might be some in that house who ooh-' templated such • change ; but he (Mr. Gladstone) was not one of them. He confessed that the real difficulty which presed on him was the conviction, on the minds of churchmen and the clergy, of an increasing want of sympathy between parliament and the church. His solution of the difficulty was this: he did not de-' sire an organic =Lege in the church, and in , saying this he begged not to be understood to allude to recent events. He said, on the part of las church, that now they were about to admit into parliament those who had no sympathy with the spiritual interests of the church, they were bound, while reV that prise ciple, ,hew that a regard for the f : those een ueete to d with th e church guided them in legkinthe principles, and the ministers of the crown in the falterers which was placed in their heads. He said that, Writ twat to the church, they might take one of two COMM IS popular principles continued to make rapid p thers might be • majority in that house that would be i to exhibit • severe policy towards the church; but he expremed his deep and solemn conviction that the adoption of mash • course would be attended with deplorable results. Ttwy must feel that the history of the church in the last century was a painful one, that the =larch was in a state of decline, and that when, towards the end of the century, the French revolution buret like thunder upon the world,the relations be tween the clergy and their flocks were reduced to • mere dude ton, to the mere dry bones instead of vigorous life. This life and rigour could not exist under a system of stringent and coercive policy. There could not be a working and efficient church unless there was respect for the church and unless its own real and moderate spirit were recognised, and they studied to develop it in a spirit of candour. It would be a great misfortune if the admission of alien religionia a into parliament caused an organic change in the church ,• but it i would be • still greater ansiortune if , after having admitted the Jew to the exercise of the franchise and the magistracy they took such narrow ground as the principle of „them 1 exclusion. Having thus adverted to the objection of hie noble friend to the measure, and having shown that the principles he laid down were not proved, and that he had overstated the admissions which the legislature would make by such a law, and having 'hewn that he was unable to find • practical evil in the ad mission of Jews to parliament, which against that which they would suffer by exclusion aft admission to functions of ouch importance had been neer nised, he could only say that he agreed with the noble lug (J. Russell), this question assumed the shape of one ajar tice. The more the arguments drawn from former time and used in successive parliaments were urged, the mire their thinness was shown ; while, on the other hand, if they admitted the Jews into parliament in spite of prejudices WO =actable in themselves, but which reflection would= they would feel that they had done their duty in political rights to their fellow-subjects, and, so `r from as paraging Christianity or lowering u l s t in pablie estimation, they would tend to elevate it, if 'hewed when, in the lapse of after years, the history . of swesuo was read, that Christianity . was a religion Willlk MAW them to fulfil their duty in spite of pnjudices end peopsermioss, and that, by fulfilling the peirolpLs of juies,ll7 had been also acting on the principles Meagan. ( Ma ma.) Mr. BANKS said the me th Lei ( Lead J. Russell) ha armed that infidels had held mete in ale house. It wee woe that Gibbon had taken the daloweles en the true filth of a Christian, but he held I se podgiest la that house, but, as an atheist he was powerket; and suet Ind& not have been the case if he had not made that deolenden. It was One that Bolingbroke had oat there, and exeedsed considerable power, but he never avowed his infidelity. It was only after his death that his infidelity had been discovered; but had it been known before, great as had been his eloquence sad talent, he would have been powerless in this house. He (Mr. banks) felt snared that if the existing barrier which-I excluded the unbeliever, or, if not excluding him, disarmed him of all power, was broken dowa, a mischief would be inflicted upon the religious character of the legislature which never could be remedied. Mr. ROMILLY said he woo anxious to explain the reasens why he thought the proposed measure ought to re. , ceive the sanction of parliament. lie denied the justice of the principle laid down by the hon. baronet the member for the University of Oxford, that before any British born sub- ' ject could obtain his rights as such, he must prove his quell- &anon. Such a principle was contrary to the vigour of the constitution: it was not for him to prove the qualification incidental to his birth-right ; the burden of proof lay on the opponents of the bill to show that the individual was not en titled to the rights and privileges, and to participate in the honours which belonged to the rest of his fellow-subjects. The question was not so much one of substance as of name. Those who opposed this measure formed a poor estimate of the vigour of the church of England, when they entertained 1 the notion of the slightest possibility of the Jewish religion ever becoming dominant. It had been asked, what would be the state of things if a Baron Rothschild became Prime Minister, and as such have to advise the crown on the issue of *owe d'elire fir the choice of a bishop ? His answer was, that already many Jewe possessed the right of presenting to lawmens and now presented to ecclesiastical preferments, but had there been the slightest objection urged to the man• ' nor in which they had exemeed the right of presentation ? Allusion had been made to the opinion of Dr. Arnold; but it should be remembered that that gentleman was alike opposed to the &design= of Unitarians to parliament. Of the valu able services of that persuasion the house had hadone instance that evening. (Haar ' hear.) But was the parliament a Unitarian parliament because there were one or two Uni tarians in it ? Wu it • Roman catholic parliament, an Inde pendent, or a Methodist parliament, because it contained a few members of those pervasions 1 (Hear.) Mr. GOULBURN regretted to differ on this question with many in whose views he had generally coincided. He re garded it as a question of principle; and he opposed the admission of Jews to parliament, not on any of the grounds which had been aseigned or imputed, as promoting the fulfil- mile , a lleey, or as lielkodeg the Jews Se be destitute by whirl elltineenneenimerisel. He re -2041611-77., im on made et She peel*. deli legis- Winn se a . They ought not to be 1 filtannistd by Cl = an heiVdOne by the constituency of Leedom the home ought never to ' , mender an existing --w Wee ill the country chose to act contrary to al Oleg aught at once surrender all their fuse = If this principle were sanctioned, its I' 1 1 61 / 61is. be most extensive . Already we heard of jades its somict an the clearest evidence, because tillseggemed of capital gnu. Instead, then, of this point out of dieftenes to the Becton of Lon the hones seed rather le mike a more decided stand a the throdenell easamehmens. (hear, hear.) This vendee did not rest ea the eme ground as the admis sion of Roman catholies, keheemen peeiestanta and Roman catholics there was the memnsei bend of • belief in Chris tianity, which did not mist in the ors of the Jews. In their case, exclusion was essential, if the legislature wished to preserve and carry out in Christian character. From the earliest period two taste bad bean required of members of the legislature-I'll*mm to the sovereign, and a belief in Christianity. (Hear, hear.) It was true them nets had undergone various modifications in w of dissenters and Roman catholic*, but still ale nee great testa were preserved. If one of these was die. =with at the instance of the electors of Loo might very soon be asked, by some other or thso awe essastituency, to dispense with the other obligatioe, et elleggeme to the sovereign. (Hear.) There were may hedge merchants in London as well qualified to serve in parliament es Bunn illinehild, but whose allegiance wee entirely glees to for powers ; and in his optima it would be just en cafe toe diymel with the test of allegiance to the sovereign Is Ida dot of belief in Christianity. daisies had been nide to the practice of the house comomedag its re=e with prayer; and the numerous other pulls' proceedings with which the house connected inelfsesneed this as a Christian legislature. (Hear hear.) It had bee. mid that thew tests were inefficacious for pre venting them who were not bound by the dictates of their modem been entering that house. The fact of Gibboe having %hen the oath was a bad argument for the repeal of the law ; brews the power was not sufficient in every case, ought they, thereicte, to dispense with it altogether ? To do this would set only affect the Christian cheraater of the logieleture—it would give • shock to the Christian feeling of the nation, and would discourage the efforts of all who were' main to promote Christianity. He did not fear that the few Jews te be admitted would seek to overturn the 'stab fished ref" on ; the great danger to be apprehended was in the public feeling. The necessary impression on the public mind would be, that the legislature had be- Come beallina to the great truths which they pro fessed le billowe. (Hear.) It was most important to pre ewe the erallileatee of the nation. Many measures brought Mike the legislature demanded implicit confidence from tbe i mplis; and were the measure now proposed to be cede would any one doubt that a fatal blow would be given to the public confidence ? (Hear, hear.) This nation was one which wielded the most mighty influence , it was a deeply-religious nation, notwithstanding the existence of much ignorance and crime, which the moat enlightened were daily striving to remove; and would the legislature = o to those benevolent individuals their disregard or to the great principles of Christianity ? Not only at home, but in our distant ponesuo' is', would the effect of such a measure be severely felt. In the east, the British nation earnestly inculcated the troth of Christiasity upon its millions of Hindoo subjects; and of what avail would be those efforts and profes sions if the Hindoos learnt that at home no difference was recognised by the British legislature between Was who held Christianity and those who denied it? After this, how would it be possible to persuade the Hindoos that the Eng lish were sincere in their professions of Christianity ? (Bear, hear.) The greatest obstacles to the Mission of Christianity I had always arisen from the inconsistent conduct of ill IRO- teasers ; and if the step now proposed were taken by the legislature, it would weaken the efforts of all the pendetes of chrotianity in every part of the world. (Hear, end eels. of " Divide.") He looked upon it as a question of a N. ligions nature, and viewing it in this light, he =dieny eon. curred in the sentiments of the learned body he represented, that if this measure was passed into a law, it would be cal culated to shock the religious feeling of the country. (Hear, hear, and loud cries of " Divide.") Mr. PLUMPTRE opposed the motion. Mr. DISRAELI said the noble brd at the bead of tba government introduced the question as a question of prin ciple, and he had just beard the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge oppose it also on principle. The I principle of the noble lord was religious liberty, and that of the I right hon. gentleman, he supposed, was the principle of re- ligious truth. The principle of the noble lord was compa ratively novel, and one which he from his position and descent had • right to support. He did not impugn its soundness, but he might say he will one of those who be lieved there was something more excellent than religious liberty, and that was religious truth. (Hear.) Religious conformity was • great blessing, and although he did not impugn the arguments of the noble lord, it was not on that principle that he should be influenced in giving his vote. The right honourable gentleman the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) confessed it wag the progress of events that rendered it ne cessary for him to support the motion. He (Mr. Disraeli), how ever, differed from him in supposing that the vote which the noble lord wished to obtain from the house would convey to the country an idea of a decrease of religious feeling in that house. He thought they ought to admit the appeal which had been made by the Jews on amount of their reli gious connexion with them. They acknowledged the same God, and they were, humanly speaking, the authors of the Christian religion—of the revelation which had been given to this world. The extraordinary claims of those professing the Jewish religion on a Christian society, had been ad mitted by some of the opponents of the motion. The noble lord the member for Bath (Lord Ashley) was a noble in stance, and he only regretted that he concluded his able speech by saying that he should oppose the motion. (Hear.) Setting aside the question of religious liberty, he would place his advocacy of the measure upon • solely religious ground. If religion was valued as the sanction of human conduct, you have in the Jews a people who profess a true religion, • religion founded on sacred oracles, which every member in the house bowed down to with veneration ; for, so far, every member of the house was a member of the Jewish persuasion,—(No, no !)—at least, all such of them as, in common with Christians, believed in Moses and the pro phets. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) That Christianity was nought which did not believe in Judaism, its immediate grow. The question of the exclusion of Mohammedans or Pagans had no analogy whatever with the exclusion of the Jews. lie contended that no precise or definite objection had been advanced against the motion. In every country where the Jews had established themselves they had been conspicuous as a religious, a loyal, and a well•disposed people, in no de gree seeking to molest or supersede the religious or the ec clesuaatical establishments of the land which had noeived , them. The Christian religion use, above all others, that which, if not persecuted by it, the Jews would themselves feel most attraction towards, for it was a religion founded by their forefathers, taught under divine superintendence by Jews, and the finest thanksgivings, and praises, and consola tions of which were from the mou ths of Jewish poets. Sir T. ACLAND must on fixed principles rest has ob jection to the motion. In a constitutional point of view, he denied that it was simply an extension of those principle* of religions enfranchisement which had of late years been de velopiag themselves; it was a wholly new principle, now first introduced. On the motion of Mr. Law, the debate was adjourned, amidst 100 cries of "Divide." NEW HOUSES OF PARlis v 5...- Sir R. H.:INGLIS moved the following select committee 11 on the present state of the New Palace at Westminster, with j , It view to the reception and amontmodation of this house therein:—Sir R. H. Inglis, Visa. Morpeth, Sir R. Peel, , Earl of Lincoln, Mr. Bernie, Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Card well, Mr. Stephenson, Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Osborne, Lord B. Bruce, Mr. Deering, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Tufnell, and Lord Robert Grosvenor. Mr. FOSTER thought they ought to have some informs. tion with regard to the proceedings of the former committee, and also as to the enormous expenditure of money which was taking place, before they consented to the present one. (Hear, hear.) Be should therefore move that the motion for the committee be postponed. Sir R. H. INGLIS said that all those whose names were on the committee were on the former one, with the excep tion of Mr. Stephenson, and no persons could have devoted more attention to the discharge of their duties. Dr. BOWRINO thought that • statement with respect to the proceedings of the former committee should have pre ceded the pretest motion Mr. BANKES woof the same opinion. Mr. B. OSBORNE thought it was high time that this job of the new houses of parliament was stopped. (Leoghtes.) A more wasteful expenditure of public money had taken place. The original estimate was 780,0001. ; 1,500,0001 had already been expended, and yet the building was not near completion. On the bringing up of the report he would state all the facts of the case. Lord H. VANE believed no advantage would arise from the appointment of a committee. Lord LINCOLN defended the parties engaged in the management of the new erections. The investigations made on this subject had shown that Mr. Barry had in no material instance exceeded the estimate. Col. SIBTHORP advocated inquiry. Viscount MORPETH, after the charge brought forward against Mr. Barry, and the uncourtsous way in which it had been pressed, had no hesitation in saying that a committee ought to be appointed, before which Mr. Barry should have an opportunity of rebutting the very coarse attack that had been made upon him. He had no hesitation in saying that be regarded Mr. Barry as as honourable a man as any be knew. Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the appointment of a com mittee might have the effect of stifling inquiry. Sir R. PEEL expressed an opinion that it would be desi mble to have a full inquiry into the whole subject of ex pease, works, the probable period of completion, and causes of excess upon the original estimate. Such an inquiry, if entered into in a good spirit, might be very useful en its re sults. Mr. B. OSBORNE, on his part, was determined that the matter should not be hushed up. After one or two further observations, it was agreed that the question be adjourned until to-morrow (this day.) THE RAJAH OF SATTARA. Mr. G. THOMPSON begged to ask whether it was the intention of her Majesty's commissioners for the affairs of India, in conjunction with the court of directors, to send out any orders or instructions to the government of India in reference to the future support of the family and relations of the deceased Rajah of Setters, and of his numerous de pendents ? And also, whether any despatches have been re ceived from India, stating the steps which have been taken by the Governor-General of India, in porusquenco of the death of the ox-Rajah of Setts:l? 7. 4 4 110 Mr. C. LEWIS said the Board of Control and the India Board had not received Oklal intimation of the death of the Rajah, but when they did the subject would be taken into consideration. The house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock. really the descendants of thou parties, it would be • matter of great doubt whether they (the House of Common') had any right to take cognisance of such • matter. Bat it could not be proved that they were. After the captivity in Babylon there were thousands of Jews who urea returned to Jerusalem ; and it might be that the petitioners at the bar were descendants of those who were absent at the time of the crucifixion. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that in the few gm:ovations which he had made lie had said nothing which could give offence, collectitely or individually, to the Hebrew people. (Cheers.) Such an event (said the noble lord) I should most deeply regret, for I em not ashamed to confer that I regard the very poorest Israelite with feelings akin to reverence, as one of the the soendants of the most remarkable nation that ever appeared on the face of the earth, one of the forefathers of those who are yet to play th e noblest part in the history of mankind. (Hear, heu.) Sir, I believe very few persons understand the actual position of Jewish people. They are regarded by many as • degraded, illiterate, money)-loving race, lit only to frequent the stock exchange or to take can of orange stalls. I am perfectly astonished when I &moves, even in the writings of one of their advocates, such words as these: " I have ao doubt that a Jew has great qualifications for the office of an English legislator, and although I would give him full power to go into parlia ment, I would take good care not to vote for him. • • • As he is likely to have a strong interest in the more material pros perity of the country, he is almost certain to value that prospe- rity above the well-Wog of those who composed it." Su-b is the language of Professor Maurice, of King's College. Now lan opponent of the bill, say very nearly the reverse of this. I say that the Jews are a people of very powerful intellect — with cultivated minds, and habits of study, which would defy the competition of the most indefatigable Germans. Their literature descends in an unbroken chain from the days of our Lord down to the pretest time. An bon. friend on my right says it extends beyond that. I conclude that he intends to throw into their literature the old range of the his- torians and the prophets of the Old Testament. He would be perfectly right in so doing ; but I was speaking, not of the ancient Jews in the palmy days of Jewish history, but of the Jews as oppressed and despised in the days of their dis persion. Under this aspect their literature extends through. out the lengthened period I have mentioned, and embraces every branch of science and learning, of secular and religi ous knowledge. I am told by • very learned friend of mine that as early as the 9th century the Jews took the lead in grammar and lexicography, and that towards the end of the 12th century their labour. in that respect formed the basis of everything that has since been done by Christian dater.. They have a most abundant literature in Freer ie and German, and especially in Hebrew, and I believe that the Jews of the prawn day have, in proportion to , their numbers, • far larger list of men of genius ' and learning than can be exhibited by any Gen tile nation. Music, poetry, medicine, and astronomy, all 'occupy their attention, and in all they are more than • match for their competitors. But, sir, the most remarkable feature in the character of the Jew of the present day is this, that he has discerded very many of his extravagant and anti-social doctrines. The hatreds and sus picions of the Jewish people are subdued, and they exhibit a greater desire and a greater fitness to re-voter the general family of mankind. Now, I know I shall be asked why, with this belief of their merits, I hesitate to adopt the pre met measure. The answer is simply this t lam fully pre pared to contribute to every measure which can contribute to their honour and comfort. I offered no opposition to the measure for admitting them to corporate offices, and I should be ready to undergo the charge of inconsistency again, so that I could exhibit in any way my readiness to do that which should conduce to their welfare; but when I am summoned, in obedience to the principle which from my soul I repudiate, that religion has nothing to do with poll tics—when, I say, I am summoned to strike out from the oath certain words which assert the truth and maintain the supremacy of the gospel, then I must at once declare that I cannot give my vote for the admission of any one to the high and solemn functions of the British parliament, unless he profess to do so " on the true faith of a Christain." (Hear, hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE said his hon. colleague having that evening presented a petition from the University of Oxford against the projected measure, it WWI not without pain, though, after full consideration, that he announced it to be his intention to give the measure his support. (Loud cheers.) Ordinarily the men who sat there to represent his constituents was supposed to be superior to them in mental cultivation and in opportunities of acquiring knowledge ; but he represented • body in IT terence to which he gladly acknowledged that its members were, in these respects, at least equal to himself That cir cumstance, however, would not absolve him if he stiffed the dictates of his own conscience ; and in the present case he felt that he should be betraying the real interests of his con mituenta if he succumbed to their opinions. (Cheers.) Upon the question of admitting Jews to parliament he eheuld be brief. It had been asserted as an argument against the proposed bill, that to withhold a political privilege did not of itself constitute a grievance. That was a proposition which he apprehended could neither be affirmed nor denied in universal terms. The case must be judged of by the cir cumstances. If there were strong and adequate causes inca pacitating parties for the performance of certain duties, then to withhold a political privilege did not constitute a griev ance ; but if no such causes could be shown, then to with hold the privilege did constitute a grievance. (Hear, hear.) Now, how then stood the ease of the Jew with regard to those points which told in their favour ? His noble friend (Lord Ashley) had admitted their remarkable qualities and great capacity ; and he could hardly fail to perceive that what he had set forth greatly enhanced the bees of the anniments in favour of the further extension to time of civil rights. (Hear, hear.) There was one point as regarded the Jews which his noble friend forgot to meagre, namely, their success in all mat er iall sea ledastrial pursuits. (Hear, hear.) It must be spalkassi, then, that the civil and political argue nosh were in favour of admitting Jews to parliament; cad if they were obliged to withhold from the Jow, on se Moat of interests peculiar to themselves, those civil prief. loges to which he thought he bad a natural claim, the grievance would, in his case, mount as high as any grievance possibly could. Recurring to his own position, he felt a great reluctance to withhold from the Jews an honour Width he himself possessed, end he also felt a still imam reluctance to be instrumental in placing Ole university which he represented in conflict with the civil rights and privileges of any portion of his fel low subjects. The policy which had been too long and too uniformly punned by that body, was one with the results of which he certainly did not feel satisfied. His noble friend (Lord Ashley) contended for the maintenance of a long established and ancient system, but he reminded them also that for many generations they had been in a state of per petual conflict and of progressive movement in one and the same direction. (Hear, hear.) His noble friend said that they had had to contend first for a protestant parliament. Hs ought to have begun earlier. (Hear.)'He should have told them that between the periods of the restoration and the Hanoverian succession the conflict was for a church parlia ment. (Hear, hese.) The contention was next for • pro testant parliament, and in both cases those who were con tending for what was sought were not defeated unawares. but owing to a profosnd and uniform tendency associated with the movement of the human mind , with the course of events, and, perhaps he ought to add, with the providential government of the world. On the same principles that they regarded Magna ; Charta and the Bill of Right', as a portion of the British constitution, were they bound to consider all other acts of the legislature in accordance with their spirit. After two or three generations, in which the contest had been for a church parliament, and two or three more Ia which it had been for a protestant parliament, in both of which the parties contending for the object were defeated, they were now called upon to decide the question whether or not they did contend for a Christian parliament. (Heir.) And here he must say that his noble friend had made ramp lions with regard to the views of the promoters of the ma: sure, which were entirely inconsistent with the etateessats of hi noble lord by whom it was introduced. (" Hear, hem," from LordJ. Russell.) His noble friend said what was asked was a declaration that for all the purposes ofgovernment and of making laws Christianity was needless. The question really was whether, under all the circumstances of ilie cue, and with the present position and temper of society, it was necessary to exclude the Jews from that assemrV r (Hear, hear.) Now this was the question, whether, u the circumstances under which we live, we might open the door to the Jews, who might enter by ones an twos ? The question was not whether Christianity was needless. His noble friend had said, how could the principle of Christian ity govern the legialature if the Jews constituted • large proportion of it, or an equal majority But that was not a fair assumption, because every one most believe that there could not be more than • few Jews in parliament, leaving the residue exactly as they were. The connexion between religion and politico was not only not denied by the noble lord (J. Russell), but asserted. But the question with re gard to Christianity was this. Ills noble friend appeared to attribute too much substance and efficacy to the bond which was constituted by the name of Christianity, which was defined by each men for himself, and not by the law, and which did not involve any body of fixed TIM". His noble friend assumed too much when he said that all who took that name were it for political duties, but those who did not acknowledge it were unfitted for those duties. It would be difficult to prove the unfitness of the Jew for the duties he would have to discharge in parliament, without also proving many who already sat there, not only as indivi duals but as chases, wore also unfit for it. lie (Mr. Glad stone) knew that by adopting this measure they gave up the exclusively Christian character of parliament. (Hear, hear.) In saying this, he made a larger concession to the opponents of the measure than perhaps he ought; but could it be said because they did give that up, that of necessity unchristian. iaed parliament. It might be true in name, but . was it substance. He was by the indignation pressedex by his hon. colleagu amused e when he r ebuked Dr. Vanoven, that we were not a Christian nation, because them e er few Jews in it, and yet what was now proposed o ad mit a few Jews into parliament, the whole body being Christian; and no doubt his hon. colleague would be as angry with any one for asserting that this was init& Christian parliament as he was with Dr. Vanoven for denying that we were a Christian nation. (" Hear," and laughter.) When the noble lord (J. Russell) spoke of the oath as affording an insufficient security, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not understand him to signify that they were altogether worthless, but that they should not pleas exclusive reliance upon them, but de pend more on the qualities of the men of whom parliament was composed. He (Mr. G.) could see grave objections to the 'immure, and a practical grievance to them (the present members), if the noble lord had proposed that their position should be altered. He hoped that he meant them still to discharge their duties under the sanction of the oath, and that they who were Christians would give solemnity to it by contracting their obligations on the true faith of Christians. (Hear, hear.) Nothing was more idle than to anticipate, as some persons appeared to do, that by the admission of two or three Jews into parliament the devout and seemly custom by which the Speaker and ail those members who - . -~.~-- . ghe erprto. MAILS The mans kr British 1!W Amerhe, Btrothdt w eg hm the United statae, will be made hp all the 41Pralig et Ur 17th The worked mile fir Oheeller lthete.Greote, the leek; Nadi. ErtrefealmetbikkLiallbelterlhier=be Mae up r io heethempho, win mkt op saute swiest The evertn • i dead hoOk ode IlinirMaa, to the . Ilekterreseea =halsk M i l imemr alik Hag . Le& fta. ni Irk es the lithe The Nib kr Iflue, Oporto, Limbos. lamietre, Oaks, end Gieralhe will be mei up ea the monis, of the blth Doeseher. =oft kr New theuth Wales, Vaa Memo% losd. had New Tabs ark up the eyeing of kit SI R Deember. 'Dee Welt Me ezetwalag Ilhaemo, Hamm, Sheasee. Mg Oder e. Tees Oa. art rote Rico, sod Whig theme kr Makin. Josemei. heath Martha, Cheer% ?sets. Weet Peet et Seek sod Bt. Jossade iltershos, uS be nab up ea the harsdog of the and Jewry. She woke kr the Brody the Meer Pleb. Monte Vldeo, Versara r=gDarth.lizatt:: sod Bono Ayres, ba toads up on tke TO COMISPONDSPITIL ••• Abberibbrat• !Mesabi lee • Izynes.• Lambs embus!, yam, nowt be my On bibs. 1411••••Yobeabbb by Two.febork Ow bay at peollanles. MOH MATES AT LONDON SUDO& Tan DLIII—MOMIA4 I WM. pa 1 liftman. efta. aft A T.-Monson—Yacht. lain. ar IA; liftman 3W. aft it. LONDON, FRIDAY, DEC. 17. Ir is impoesible to contemplate the new parlia ment, and its mode of handling the one or two great questions laid before it, without coming to the con viction that it is utterly incapacitated from grasping any of the great difficulties of the time, and solving them with that power, resolution, and independence, which ought to be expected from the representative assembly of the nation. The first and crying defect of the new parliament is, that there is no opposition, no compact and united popsympathising with popular wants, breathing ear feelings, and impressing both with potent voice upon the minister of the day. Instead of this constitutional division of parties, and allotment of duties, we have the benches on both sides of the SPEAKER'S chair occupied each by a set of politicians, which, though one calls itself whig, and another tory, do in fact but play into each other's hands, avoid each other's enmities, respect each other's prejudices, and carry on a joint rule over the destinies of the country by putting their heads I together under the table, not over it. Both of these I parties are led by veteran statesmen, men who have wielded power, and who are more impressed with the exigencies and necessities of office than with any thing else. Every question that is brought beim the house is arranged tacitly, and before hand, between these governmental parties, without the public or people of England having a voice. The currency =, and the:manner,in which it has been and will with, is a complete case in point. 0* this question, the whigs, when they were a po pular and opposition party, held popular ideas. And when we say popular, we mean the opinion of the re spectable and wealthy mercantile classes. They op posed the bill of 1844, the sacrifice of the coma,- armee and the private credit and the commercial freedom of the country, to that mania for legislating and regulating, and restricting, which is always the spidemv of every Jack in office, that epidemy being always stronger in proportion to the ignorance and inexperience of those whom it affects. But since 1844, the whigs have ceased to be • popular opposi tion, and have become a reigning administration, as =oh by the grace of Sir R. PEEL'S tacit support as 11 the general adherence of public opinion. To conciliate PEEL has become one of their first neces sities ; and accordingly we find Sir C. Woof) come forward in the character and with the words of a second GOULBUB.N. As the elector. could not have made choice of candidates with an exclusive view to a question so recondite as the currency, and as they trusted to the general tendencies rather than to the particular theories of the liberals, the result has been that public opinion on these questions is unrepre sented in parliament, and public wants unexposed. There is, we repeat it, no opposition. The independent members of the liberal party are either too new to the house, too modest to come forward in contradiction of two such opinions as PEEL'S and RUSSELL'S, or else have unfortunately become too much entangled in the extreme opinions of Birmingham, to admit of their forming an opposition. And even in the case of a new member having been returned who has fall knowledge of the subject, he is too much awed by the conjunction of such powerful constellations in favour of the bill of 1844, to attempt more than a modest cavil, or venture more than a sneaking and unintelligible caveat. This has been the case with Mr. JAMES WlLseni. As to the protectionists, the country party, those I sticklers for every old abuse and every exploded theory—those men who have no principle save spleen, who have no ideas or arguments, or line of conduct for the evening which chance does not improvise for them in the morning ; these men can serve no cease, can represent no interests, can merely slaver over and discredit anything which they abet. In saying this we speak not of the country party itself, I but of its leaders, who, by their folly and presume tiou as much contribute to nullify parliament r—_ I render it unfit for its legislative task, as the neutral position of PEEL and the anomalous and distracted attitude of the present whig administration. As long u parliament and the parties within it re main as they are, not only will no great question be fairly solved, but no great question will be fairly or fully discussed. Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord JOIIN RUSSELL have but to agree, in order to cram what they please down the throat of the country, be it cur rency or coercion. A; to the debates in parliament on the currency, they were a mockery, utterly behind the intelligence, and unsatisfactory to the expectation, of the country. Can we expect the labours of the committee to be anything more? Or could we expect that committee to be named in any way that could possibly produce anything more - Have we not had the dogmatic declaration of Sir ROBERT PEEL, echoed by Lord Jonw RUSSELL, and exaggerated by Sir CnsfiLEs WOOD. What hope is there that the committee will venture on any other than the same cuckoo-cry, when not one powerful voice has been heard to expound the popular and plain doctrines of general interests in parliament ? Racestr accounts from Ceylon have forced upon us the suspicion that the Bashaw system of government is not yet quite obsolete in the British colonies. The manner in which Lord TORRINGTON was not long ago pleased to receive a deputation of the householders of Colombo, if fairly represented in the newspaper report, was grossly indecent. It appears that the local government in Ceylon has for many years been anxious to increase the beauty and improve the sanitary condition of Colombo, by widening streets, removing obstructions to the free eir culatienof air, improving the drainage, &c. Verandahs attached to houses, and incloeurea surrounding them, were sometimes found to stand in the way of these improvements. As an economical mode of getting rid of these obstructions, government, in the year 1836, instead of offering to purchase them, instituted a series of actions y for their removal. Go vernment was defeated in the first action (King v. Osmbs), no allegation having been hazarded that the building sought to be removed was an encroachment on the public street The next action (Superintendent of Police v. Vanderstraaten) contained such an allegation : the district judge, however, decided that the building in question was neither an encroachment nor a nuisance. Here the government authorities appear to have paused. In 1844, however, the assistant surveyor-general, having called several people in Colombo to show their title-deeds, found that in the greater number of instances these papers made no mention of the verandahs in front of the houses. It was resolved to take advantage of this cir cumstance, in order to obtain the removal of the verandahs: . . To this end an advertisement was inserted in the government gazette by Sir EMERSON TENNENT, to the effect that all verandahs and fences in front of houses standing on government ground were to be removed, if they interfered with the proper width and drainage of the streets, and that even when they did not they would be demolished, if not purchased. Under this notification it was intended to destroy or force a purchase of all verandahs and fences not ex pressly mentioned in original title deeds. It appears that with a very few exceptions none of the verandahs or fences in question interfere with the proper width and drainage of streets ; and also that if they are removed the houses to which they are an- nexed will be rendered much less healthy and mate rially deteriorated in value. Many of them were erected under the Dutch government, or immediately after the transfer of the colony to our government. They have passed from one generation to another, or through many successive purchasers, and owing to the careless manner in which the register of land grants was kept under the last years of Dutch rule, and the culpable neglect of it since, the original tickets containing the descriptions of the grants have in many instances been lost. It is pro posed by the government to take advantage of this its own neglect of duty to force on the demolition or purchase of many verandahs, and of inclosures which do not interfere with the health or amenity of the town, and which have been in the uncontested occupation of the houseowners beyond the memory of the oldest inhabitant. In the course of the remonstrances addressed to the local governor by the householders, and to the home government by their agent, Mr. WCHRIBTIE, some warm reflexione and recriminations have been interchanged between the complainants and the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon. This may be regretted, but when we take Into account the sharp practice attempted on the part of government, is scarcely to be wondered at, and certainly cannot justify the rade deportment of Lord Ton meoroe to the last deputation which waited on him in the name of the householders. The utmost courtesy and respect bad been uniformly observed by them in their demeanour towards his lordship. The object of this deputation was to propose a set tlement of the verandah question. Their proposal was that the verandahs should be divided into two classes—such as were and such as were not required for public purposes. With respect to the former class it was proposed that such as had been possessed for any period under ten years should be removed without any compensation to the owners : while such as had been possessed for upwards of ten and less than fifteen years should have a compensation allowed for them, at oae-fourth of the assessed value, such as ad been pos sessed for upwards of 15 and less than 20 years of one-half, such as had been possessed for upwards of 20 and less than 25 years of three-fourths of the assessed value ; and that for all which had been occupied upwards of 25 years fall compensation should be allowed. As to verandahs not required for public purposes, the deputation offered, in the name of their constituents, that the full assessed value of the ground should be paid for all that had been occupied for any period under 10 years, two-thirds of the value for all that had been occupied more than 10 and less than 15 years, one-half for all that had been occupied more than 15 and less than 20 years, one-fourth for all that had been occupied more than 20 and leas than 25 years. On the other hand, they asked that all who could prove undisputed occupancy for more than 25 years (quarter of a century), should be left in quiet possession. Really : when we consider the nature of the contro versy, this seems a very fair and liberal proposal on the part of the householders. It was only in 1844 that the local government discovered by accident the flaw in the householders' titles, of which it is seeking to take advantage. Before the flaw was discovere government had been defeated in several attempts to wrest the law into an engine to get pos session of these verandahs without compensa tion. The householders allege, with great plau sibility, that they have, in many instance', been deprived of the means of proving their titles by the shamefal manner in which the land register has been kept. It may be added that government has ever since 1820 been levying rates upon the verandahs, the title to a hich it now denies. All these considerations notwithstanding, Lord TORRING TON refueedeven to receive the proposal, and to distract attention from the injustice of this proceeding he appears to have sought to fix a quarrel on the deputation. He kept them standing the whole hour that their inter view lasted, although chairs were provided for the subordinate officials in waiting. He insisted upon their declaring whether they were prepared to prove all the statements contained in a letter of their agent in England--some of these statements having no essential bearing on the question, and others relating to an interview at the Colonial-office, of which they could know nothing. He refused to receive in writing a statement of the averments they were pre pared to prove. He concluded by telling them that they had uttered falsehoods respecting the Colonial Secretary ; that some of their statements were "per fectly Wm," and that he (the Governor) " was not misinformed, and could not be." Unable to obtain anything but brow-beating from the local authorities, and unable to persuade the Co loaird-office to entertain any , representation of the II" except what the local authonties have made on their own behalf, the householders of Colombo have resolved to petition parliament. That an attempt is being made to deprive them of property which many of them have long held without challenge, by a pro cess of very questionable legality, and of unques tionable inexpediency, is certain. And if it can be farther proved that for representing their case with sturdy independence, they have been treated with wanton insolence, we can scarcely entertain a doubt. that parlialiament will take care to have justice done 4.. them. and Our Paris despatches of Wednesday say that the members of the opposition in the chamber are already engaged in the choice of a candidate for the presidency to oppose M. Sauzet, who will be sup ported by the cabinet. The choice of a Presi dent of the Chamber is thought to be the point, if any, on which all the sections of the opposition are most likely to coalesce, and thus defeat the ministry. Overtures have accord ing been passed between the parties, which scarcely agree in anything except in the abstract question of reform, and the practical one of turning out the present cabinet. MM. Dupin and Dufaare have been named es the individuals on whom the greatest unanimity could be expected. Although these deputies are said to have declined the candi dateship their friends nevertheless do not discounte nance the propositions which are still advanced in favour of one or the other. It is said that the pro ' ressive conservatives, whose sentiments are expressed l in the columns of La Press:, would support either of 'these candidates. A fear having been expressed that the sections of the left could not be induced to eupport either of them, and that M. There, especially, would be opposed to M. Dnfaure, the Conelitstionnel and the Steele have come forward in the names of their respective parties, and disavowed any such opposition. A distrust on the other hand ie entertained of the steadiness and consistency of the progreesist conservatives themselves, who are charged with having so little ooherence that they fall to pieces on the slightest assault from the ministerial benches. Meanwhile, it seems pretty certain that there will be a serious struggle on the question of the presidency. A reform banquet, attended by 800 guests was held at Montpellier on the 6th, and another at Castres on the sth, attended by 400 persons. The latter was presided over by il. Leon de Maleville, vice-presi dent of the chamber. The reform banquet of the Eure took plece - on Sunday last at Nieubourg, ander the presidency of M. Dupont (de PEare), and was attended by 900 guests. The reform banquet of the 14th arrondissement of Paris was held at St. Denis on Tuesday. A reform banquet is to be held at Romars, in the department de la Drome, on the 19th, and one at Vienne on the 20th. The Gazette de Prance, on Tuesday evening, an nounced, on the faith of a letter from Genoa, of the 7th, that news had arrived there by a steamer; from Naples, that not only Sicily was in full insurrection, but that Naples itself had risen and proclaimed its independence. It is added that the King and royal family bad taken refuge on board a ship-of-war. We have received the Leghorn journals of the ith, in which we find no reference to such events. Its Naples dates, however, come down only to the 3rd. It is circulated, and generally credited, that M. Guizot has succeeded in obtaining the consent of the Emperor of Russia to accredit a minister plenipo tentiary to Paris, in piece of the charge d'affaires, which is the only class of representative he has ever condescended to maintain at Paris since the revolu tion of July. Every sacceedinjs its interest. There is, mason, and Sir S. _ joaraoy to Constantinople. It line andisatand that 7 Main agesiftest r=ka • ro/ mail strips the fitt sissi"N' s us, in fact, nothing xi l ei V s slis; Canning is at liberty:kr his • 3 'l ntineple. --, , ''' d ' ' • - i ad that M. Rilliat • A ntmeot of , . 7 1 Paris, vacant by ilie All iii •; 1 ,tt4l s : -' .) \ n lg ./ .. . 7 / .Nr. '-...1.." 'VMMI 1 i