The Press. — London, England, 1853-06-04 00:00:00

JUNE 4, 1853. reign through all future tunes. Alluding then to the rumours that his bill was designed to admit Jews to Parliament by its indirect operation, Lord Lyndhurst declared himself compelled, reluctantly. to retain the words "on the true faith of a Christian" in his amended formulary :- - In the first place, I should not feel tayself justified in a:tempting to do by a sidewind what 1 conid not do openly. (11.14 e, hear.) Ala us Ido not wish in any wry to alter the class of persons who are to ether that house, I should pr.pose to strike out those general words in committee. and to confine the Lill, its now, to Quakers only odfirming in the ma iiiii er described by the net. I have been asked to strike out the words 'on the true faith of a Christian.' My answ er to this has been 1001111t1I41 respect the decision of this house. I cannot strike tins those words, beesnse, if I strike them out, there is no chance of any passing this bill. I yield to necessity on this tKwasi on ; ut the same time 1 must be allowed to say, having voted in the minority upon the deeisiont to which I have just referied, that iu yielding to this necessity it is against my own convictions. ( liter, hear.) 1 say, that it is utterly ttujitst to exclude the Jews. against. the principle of the c onstitution. I say, no British subjeet, Ito natural-horn st6eet of the Queen, ought to Ike deprived of the rights enjoyed by his fellow -subjects, ndess he has committed some crime, or unless he is excluded by some act of Partite meat directed against him or against the Blass to which he belongs. ( Hear. hear.) That is the true principle of the constitution, and. such being the case, these persons can only rightly be excluded by the concurrent voice of the two Houses of Parliament kind with the assent of the Crown. If you exclude them by the casual operation of a Anise which was never directed against them ( me i t the plass to which they belong, you unjustly deprive them of their birthright. I say, then, my lords. that it' I retain these words the true faith of a Christian' in my bill, I retain them entirely es n eeo,itate, and as entirely against my decided conviction on the subject." Tho Earl of DERBY had no opposition to offer to the principle of the bill. He admitted that in the three oaths there were many things it might lie de sirable to amend, and others which might be re trenched as mere surplusage ; but he would not pledge himself to adopt the alterations suggested by Lord Lyndhurst. whose new version he found many causes to disapprove. Recollecting, however, the cir cumstances under which the bill had been intro duced—the expectations to which it had given rise, and which Lord John Russell himself had apparently shared with regard to its possib effect i admitting Jews to Parliament —he looke d upon it s with very grave suspicion : He felt quite certain that his noble and leamed friend had no intention of reversing the decision to which their lordships hail come on the subject of the admission of the Jews to Parliament, for that question had been most so lemnly disenssed, and decided by a considerable majority /Pao%) His noble and learned friend said he ivtaitied iu this bill the words which excluded the .lews, But he put this to his noble and learned friend. This Lill was introduced now on the last day of May. The House of Commons had Leen so overwhelmed with the amount of financial bolsi itess that they had made very little progress with many other important subjects of legislation. Now, he wanted to know this, what security had they that, supposing their Lordships pissed the bill, and it went to the House of Com mons worded as his noble friend proposed it. should he, it would not Le amended there by the omission of these significant words, and then not remitted to their lordships t'or their assent till the end of July or the commencement of August, when very few of them would still be in their Olives. (Hear, lace,'. )" He called, therefore, on the Government, as a reason able assurance against the possible perversion that might be given to the effect of the bill, to pledge themselves to resist in both houses every amend ment which might have the consequence of revers ing by a sidewind the decision lately pronounced in that house. The Earl of ABERDEEN, after characterising the speech of Lord Lyndhurst as a triumph of good sense, and to whose . convincing arguments he felt it superfluous to add a word, proceeded to decline giving the pledge required by Lord Derby 7- With regard to that suggestion, I must any it is one of the most unusual description, late I never recollect hearing made in this house before, dud one to which it would be impossible for me to secede. (llear, hear.) I do) not wish to interfere with the progress and success of a measure so manifestly consistent with reason and common sense us is the Lill proposed by the noble and learned lord, and I shall therefore sbstuin entirely front interfering with any of the provisions of the bill. Stich will be' the comae of the Coo vernment ; but then. as to what may he the consequences if amendments should take pine.• in the House of Com mons, I must u nquestionably decline to give any pledge with regard to the course which the tiovemment may think it their duty to take. ( Hear, hear.) 1 think it most in. reasonable that any noble earl should expect us to fetter our discretion in such a way. Why is the noble earl who talks of inability to meet such amendments as may be made unable to exercise the same power in opposing the amendments as he exercised in opposing the bill which was rejected by hint and his noble friend.? At all events, he has the power—which loss been used more than once—of en forcing a majority by means of proxies Only the other night the noble earl bad a greater number of proxies exer cised on his side of the house than were exercised by the Government. It' his friends find it inconvenient towards the close of the session to attend to their duties in this house, they eau thou again have recourse to the same THE PRESS. means. 1 can say no more than this, that I&t in'. to give any pledge or to fetter my diseretion in dealing with any amendments that Made in the bill of my 'whit and learned friend." After some further debate the bill was tidlOWM to pass the second reading without a di% i s ioti. The MU tanning on again on Thursday, upon the motion for committal, The Fowl of ELLENuonovon considered any further progress with the measure inexpedient. Ile did not approve of the present tenor of the parliamentary oaths, thinking many of the expressions %ague and others idle. But he feared that if this bill went down to the Commons it would stimulate new attempts to introduce the question of the dews' admissibility to Parliament, and he thought they had hail enough of that controversy for the present For himself, he should be most willing that the oath should commence with the words, ' L Sittt . Bl' till 11le trite faith of a Chritailui, in order that the Christianity of Parliament might be put forward itt the very begi tttt of the oath. He was not disposed. however. by sending this bill down to the House of Conn 11111 l s. to 'drool to gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion any additional futility of bringing their question again before the house this session. Then' WOW no debate ilm•ing the whole which Wits to tarn so tlituwres.able as that upon the Jewish claims. lie gate his tote with pain upon that question; but he gave it cull. St• io iously , and shuttled always to the ( 111111 W be had hitherto taken. The Jewish gentlemen, it sts.nwel to hint. had knocked enotefli at their doors already. He wold not give hem a oppiirtunity of doinc so again. If their lordshipst owed n tlwin money they coal not ktmek Avner than they had diet—( a laugh undoubtedly, he was not disposes( to afford theta new facilities." The Earl of InAtitv concurred in opposing the bill, and added many reasons for his determination to resist its further progress : " Aitl gh lie fnutkly admitted that the wording of the present oath was not altogether satisfactory, illaßlallt.ll as It had It'd to some differences of opinion tutu some doubts which they were bound to respect, yet be thonght it was nut undesirable that. the Protestant members of Parliament should, in the oath upon taking their semi', continue to 'word their protest against the usurpation of lamer. mei. ritual, ecclesiastical, or temporal, within these realms. ( Hear, hear.) Now. the oath as proposed by his noble and learned friend altogether omitted such consideration. Ile confessed, too, he did not feel sanguine in regard to the certainty of stud' an attendance of their lordships at a very late period of the session as would ensure the rejection of such amendments as might lie sent up front the I louse of Commons. He thought. her Majesty's tiovernment would have done. well it' they had IV 'Ca those a pprehensions and those doubts, by doing that which they might have dime without in the slightest degree compromising their own position, namely, by giving the assurance which bit ventured to ask the other night, that, as far as the inductive of the ti o vernment went. they would not allow the ostensi ble object of this bill to is' changed by the introduction of words which would give it a totally ditti.rent effect from that embodied in the measure ass it now stood. But in the thee ~t' the refusal of the noble earl opposite to give any assurance to the house with regard to the t wurse. which the Government might pursue —knowing the opinions of all the members of her Majesty's Government with regard to this question, namely, the introduction by a aidewind of the Jewish claims into this hill —knowing that, on the part of the Government, there was a determination to favour those claims—and knowing that the NSW reaolut . existed on the part of a majority in the other house, that majority being sanctioned and upheld by the members; of her Majesty's Government there, —knowing all this, could he shut his eyes to the possibility, or rather could he ex• chide from himself the absolute moral certainty, that such an amendment as that, they deprecated would he made in tho other house, and that that amendment. if so made, would he supported by the whole ' s trength of the I 'oven'. The Earl of ABERDEEN remonstrated against this course taken by the Opposition, declaring that it. was disrespectful to the House of Commons : " They had before them a bill which it was generally considered wise and expedient to adopt. The only objec tions were precisely such as admitted of amendment in committec—objectiona, Some of them grammatical, some more or less important, but, all eapable complete Amend ment. And their lordships were asked to decline to muter• take the a mendment. of the bill Is.cause, forsooth, it. WWI itottodloitt till' HOUS4. of Commons might amend it in a neat! of which their lordships might not approve. ( Hear, hear.) It was not respectful to the !louse of l'oinußnift to object to a good measnre, from MI apprehension that they would exercise their lawful privile ge of amending it according to their own views. Nor did he think it creditable to their lordships to reject a measure of which they approved, in conmespienee of vague apprehensions. (Hear, hear.) With ref erenec to the practical objectiiin made by the made earl, that this bill, if sent down to the of Contmons in the present state of the session. might he returned at a time when their lordship; would be unable to deal with it, he could only say this, that although he mold give Ito pledge as to Ant any tnemlwr of the House of Commons might think proper to do, be would 'pledge himself that no delay should take place which it was possible for her Majesty's iiovernment to avoid. Olean) Ile only looked at this bill us at any other bill in the eourse of their lord ships' proceeding's, and be thought they were bound in fairness to go into committee in order to remove any oh jeet ionable portions of the bill (Hear, hear.( do far as he knew, on the part of those who were friendly to the ail mission of Ow iewa, no attempt would be made to introduce any amendment.' Their lordships then divided : For going into eouttuittee tin .%gainst It‘jority --15 'lite bill k therefore rejected. Tll I.: MIMI clll'ltcll. 'Mr. Moouv. on 'Uttesilay moved for a *elect com mittee •• to inquire into the eeelesiastical revenues of Ireland, with a view tit ' ascertaining how far they are made applicable' to the benefit of the Irish people." 'Phut people, stilt' the ham. ittentlatr, were altogether void of loyalty to the Itriti4ll Crown. There way scarcely a point on the coast of Ireland where. it' nit English a n d an American Ship came into collision. the large. Illajorit of the IookCIN on from the shore would nut a isit the .kittericatts to win. A. 4 regarded cased t antlartaahs at home, this disloyalty might be of no apparent consequence. 111'610 was then the mouse under the paw of the lion. lint the tinte had been, and might be again, when loyal Iridimmi ha i l a lone Mt IllittlSl`.S 'ollie(' to England, awl when Irish tlitli cnities hail threatened her with no mouse's perils. 111. then traced the origin of this i lisiiifeciiou to the do minion . ) of the Protestant Establishment, to the Amin put round the necks of Irish Cittlittlics, and the insults tittered to their understandings, and especially 1 to the vast stuns drawn out of the resources of the eountry anal lavished upon the t'lturelt of the mino rity :- - 'Elie Church rt. , Voillit'S Weri , it property In thettotelva.%, set apart lay piddle authority for it public purpose—they were a slireitsi of itellit•lN • lit, itliterliir and superior tea lite fight of any individual proprietor; awl it was the duty of OW State to Stre that they were nut diverteil trout the ori• gittal purposes of the trust. It was clear that they haul been set apaii for the religions instruction and spiritual imamate 60111 o f the whole Vs pie , Rua, it' they had lust (Weil VIM . thi lied tat be strictly 1%04641 to that end, they' had manifestly been diverted frsant their original purpose. Itut. were the. etaclesiastical revetaateaseillrelatall Mamie applicable tea the lour poses of the religintta instruction of the Irish people? It Wits idillitltt at mockery to gas into the eletailed stattsties of the abuse, gross, palpable, end already cost& vi by the voter' of the whole tit distal world. Its 17:11 the eallatlie population of Ireland wits I AIM 1.1)110. iiii4l the Preatestatat alatial ?MIAMI(); but in le:al the Catholic population (anal hal ascii tea 11,MaIAMIO, whilst the tnembeis of the Est ahlislitsl 4it unit were SIMIAN aI. Inuring the whoae of this period the 'stabile of England were autineed with stories of the marvellous sttecesot of l'ottestantisui.ausl the ge moats tool deluded people of England altsolittely routs i. bluest a parliamentary grant of 1,0410.00 0 /., Ills ' ally to supply the inerelowil necessities of Protestant minirti'le ttislis, but. in reality to feed the maw of the laminable and oiergorgell Irish clergy. This. pritiviovs salt Whii•iii every rational plea all' am establirehtlielat all.' funned were, II 1/.1 , that the poor slitattil have a right to religious itetritetiolt ; anti, SV4 . I mill y , that the pastors should have aright to their ittaintenanee 1.. r life. Inn what was the system on which they titled in It...laud? They endowed the religion of the rich, whilst they handed over that of the poor tea the U nfettered operittion of the voluntary system. l'hey de prived the Suns , endowment of every argument which rendered it defensible, whilst they placed the moluntaty system ill the very position in which, twcortlitag to their own principles, it was capable of working the greatest moonlit of evil." Protestantism itself, he conte . ided, would benefit by having fair play, and the removal of the golden col lar now around its neck. Ir. M. O'CoNNEt.i., though he seconded the rmo tion, stigmatised Mr. Moore's appeal to the volume.. principle as rash and impnulent, being mire that it was utterly distasteful to the Irish people. Sir .1. Yorso treated the motion, tattensibly ono for inquiry, as an undisguised pmposal to abolish the Established Church in Ireland. This he could not consent to, knowing how notch it would disturb the public mind in England, r.til Inc- ' ornpletely it would shake their faith in parliament , . y leaders and pro mises. He adduced many reasons for his cohelitsion that. the evils of Ireland grew out. of bail mom. : .inn legislation and the ernaleotts method Of treatitii; . • people, and lay in no degree at the door of the Pro testant Church. That Church, he adtletkettioyed her present revenues by a prescription of three hundred years, and they were not too great for the necessary purposes to which they were appropriated. Mr. MultltAtill attpliorttst the 'notion on the prece dent set with rearo the C anadian t "lergy Resrves. f ool Mr. Itom.vgitod t FIN, it virr by the ettatn ale Of Scotland. Sir IL !Solis rested his opposition to the motion upon the solemn vonipact entered into at the Union : " A solemn treaty was than passed between two nations perfectly indepcialoit. t i lrar, hrar. 1 Tlw Ciattrdi 4.t• i rt .h in d h as h ry n .wl to mist from the looming 114 the eat ; the Chllreh ut 11.11111,1111111 had also eeill4Cd to exist, and the two lourclics 'oceans: sone itudivisled—atitl, he trusted, sintlivisilol44-1144), 1114. united Churl+ of Englund unit lye. land, sod no litbliklit I . lslllll be Insole to slnike the fostiolit titans of the property of the one without affecting the liPell• rity of the other. ( I blur, hear.) mends.' .4 \ll . l'e n d ru ittsyl i n to that house on the faith that their would not disturb the preperty of the Established t hnrci, as Lt low it now exists, and yet that was the proposition of tls.• litotiossrs6l4l tneinloer for Mayo. It wiis not because ht• believed the Chtirvli to he true that he willed upon them to support it. but because honourable members, both itonum Catholic and Proteatant, sat iu that house on it 101