Star. — London, England, 1830-04-06 00:00:00

.IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY. 'F. • I of DERBY presented petitions from Dissenting con. ry, p:.ti.,ris of Bretton, Lancashire, against burning widows in India, atui e.thcr rites. I'stood GODERICH presented a petition from Haslington, Loncashirt complaining of distress, and praying relief. The noble yil , ( tst:l:td a petition from Tipton, Staffordshire, against - the truck systen: ; aml :mother from an individual named Williams, pray 11. g inquiry into the effect of the consumption of spirituous liqums. The petitioner expressed a doubt whether the quantity of sp:tii., consumed would be diminished, even wheu the reduced duties an berr came into operation. .Tte:Duke of GORDON presented a petition from the Lord Pro. vest arl.Town Council of Glasgow against the renewal of the East !min: C.onipany's Charter. Cseottur HOPP:RICH gave notice that on Tuesday the 27th April lie should move for certain papers relating to the funded and “rfurcled Lerd TEYN HA M postponed his motion relating to the admi ri .ra.ion of the poor laws, which stood for the 20th April, until Tuesday the 4th of May. The noble lord expressed, as a reason for the postponement, that it was probable their lordships would not kis,: again assembled after the recess so early as the day for which th, motion was originally fixed. Y•ir ASHLEY, Mr. Homits.s, and Mr. CORBETT, with other hlt.ohers of the House of Commons, brought up the Berwick-upon- Tweed Light-house Bill, and two private (road) Bills, all of which were read a first time. The Earl of CARLISLE presented several petitions from clothing districts in Yorkshire, in favour of throwing the trade spun to India end China. The petitions the noble earl described as being very numerously and respectably signed. It was unneces sary to apprise their lordships how important the woollen trade of Yorkshire was.—Referred to the select committee. The private bills on the table were advanced one stage, some t.r , :ng read a third. others a second time. The Archbishop of YORK presented a petition from the city of York, against the punishment of death for crimes against property. The petitioners expressed their satisfaction at the improvements which had been introduced in the criminal laws, arid hoped that the penal code would undergo still further im provement. Lord KING, when presenting a petition from a town in Romer rctshire, praying a free trade to India and China, said he was glad that petitions were pouting in on the subject. It showed that the people suspected there was a good deal of leaning by the Govern ,nent towards the East India Company, with a view of renewing ttleir charter ; something like the renewing, he sugected, of an old tr..lant's lease, which was about expiring, who had practised some little impositiona on the landlord, and in which the steward was a ...ijolins party. Viscount MELVILLE presented a petition from a body of corporated trades in Leith, praying a free trade to the East Indies' and China. ....- Lord HARROWBY presented a similar petition from a town in the Staffordshire potteries. Ajourned at a Quarter past Five. HOUSE OF COMMONS--MONDAY. MIR WRITS. On the motion of Mr. PLANTA, a new writ was ordered to issue to return a member to sit in Parliament for the county of Kerry, in the room of the right honourable Maurice Fitzgerald, who is appointed to the office of Vice-Treasurer of Ireland. Mr. HUME made a few observations on the inutility, as he con sidered, of tilling up this office. He thought the office one which might easily be dispensed with ; and, if government did not avail tilemselves of the present opportunity for retrenchment, they would rot be acting up to their professions of economy. Mr. PLAN TA moved for a new writ to return a member for Cirfe Castle, in the place of Mr. George Bankes, who has been ap pointed one of the Commissioners of the Treasury.—Ordered. Mr. HUNIE said it was his intention to submit to the hon. mem. bee who had the conducting. of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill (Sir George Clerk) the propriety of having the bill recommitted; but as he did sot see the hon. member in his place, he should reserve what he had to say until the hon. member appeared. Mr. PLANTA moved that a new writ should issue to return a member for East Looe, in the room of the Honourable Henry Thomas Hope, appcinted one of the Grooms of his Majesty's Bed c*,)..urlber.—Ordered. Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from the cotton and other ma nufacturers of Dublin, consuming coals, against the duty on coals. —Laid on the table. Mr. MOORE presented a petition from the operatives of the city of Dublin, complaining of distress.—Ordered to be printed. The same hon. MEMBER presented a petition from the prom. vision dealers of Dublin. praying for the better protection of the provision trade.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. W. WYNN presented a petition from the inhabitants of the clothing district of Woodham, in Yorkshire, praying for free trade to China, and liberty to settle in India.—lteferred to the Committee on East India affairs. Mr. FEROUSSON presented a petition from Robert Kintrie, of Paisley, mason, complaining of the administration of the law in the Sheriff's Court of Scotland. The petitioner complained of the very heavy expense to which he had been put, in endeavouring to re cover a small debt for work and labour done ; the amount of the debt was only 41. 12s. and the expenses he had already incurred amounted to 871. The special pleadings were very voluminous, and, although a whole year had been occupied in the proceedings, be was still ignorant when he might expect to recover the debt. That when the debt should be recovered, the petitioner would be considerably out of pocket by the extra costs. The petitioner did not complain of the judge or any officer of the court, but of the di latory and expensive proceedings necessary by the existing laws in Scotland for the recovery of small debts, and he prayed for their revision and amendment. He (Mr. Fergusaon) could bear testi mony to the many evils arising out of' the recent bill, which was de. n mninated the Improved Form of Process in Scotland Bill. When he stated to the house that there were 22,000 causes tried in the Sheriff's Court in one year, hon. members would be able to judge of the injurious consequences arising from the present expensive sp. tem of the law. Ile trusted the evils were of so glaring a descrip tion as would draw the early attention of the right hon. member (the Lord Advocate) to this very important subject. The hon. member would avail himself of that opportunity of explaining a very erro neous statement of what had fallen from him iu the course of the debate on the distressed state of the country. It had gone forth amongst his constituents that he had stated theme was little or no distress prevailing in Scotland. He could appeal to every hon. Member who heard him that the contrary was the fact; and so fat from his opinion being to that effect, he had stated the reverse, for he was painfully awake to the very deep and afflicting distrees which prevailed in that country—(hear). His constituents had inquired of him whether he had made the erroneous statement in question, and he could only reply that, if he had done so, he should have been lost to the feeling due to them. He had expressed his belief that the agricultuial labourer was not in so miserable a state as in this country ; but that the farmers were equally in as dis tressed a state as the English farmers, if not more so. He lamented to add he had since learned that the distress amongst the agricul tural labouring classes was increasing in a most frightful degree. The petition was then brought up. Mr. HUM E supported the petition, and hoped to see the laws for the recovery of small debts in Scotl and speedily amended, for he knew they were productive of litigation and ruinous expense, as constituted at present, and consequently most injurious to the numerous suitors. The petition was then laid on the table. THE CRIMINAL Laws. Mr. HART DAVIS presented a petition, very numerously fitted by the inhabitants of the city of Bristo l, praying a revision of the criminal laws, and for the abolition of the punishment by death for forgery. The petitioners stated that the severity of the present criminal laws, they were unanimously of opinion, tended to make the public reluctant to prosecute , and consequently in most instances the offender escaped altogether. He (Mr. H. Davis) did not wee with the petitioners to the full extent of the opinion exprena by their, that the punistment of death should be aboliebed in every • case of forgery. His opinion was that the punishment of death should be continued in some particular coats, and he therefore felt. satisfied with the terms of the p measure of the flight Hon. the Secretary of State for the owe Department. • • • The petition area odes* to printed, Mr. HUME • in the absence gulden the behalf of an lion. Mas her (Mr. Sykes) postponed the two motions relature to soap :and candles, &e. to the Ist Jane next • ' Mr. HUME waved for a return of the amount of" mess" levied in the several Revak Burghs in Sward, linth the year 1025 to 1029.—Orderodh • .e. • r 01111011( AMSAINRDOI9. Mr. HUMS moved for ratting . oVe details of the following charges, made by . . h..- , Sir Charles &Ist, our An:thalami& at the Court of the Nether lands, of I, 1491' span dm civil dliithlgoacies for the year 1899; by 11. h .Elesbaresrsg. surAtSl st Stant/card of 6711. by Lora Barg 'the Arnbessellovas Florence. for •• extraordinary 4018 4 11 isurzerof L Swills didosayearivarid.by itoshaay...taromdsr at airitv , or 0161. for ex for tltsillbe Tar. :. '.. s- tti l e g r ai ngt a t 44tit hiVis chi l h itilko ce 4E, movei tar retawrilidecaed silk of obtaid;' which had ndt yet tsar dm. MM. if 2thri . hoesal , •sts he purposed to make a males urea the subject after Bailor, he wished r on examining the papers, found them in a sad state—some signed, • and some not..sons with a heading, and others with nano—some • of them were written in pencil. By these papers he found there • were three distinct lists—the first were the regular claimants, the • next those to whom a separate allowance was made by the French • commission, and the last that in which the Baron de Bode, and a number of others, were included. There was one fact which he thought worthy of notice. In the last plat he found the name of the • Marquis of Wellesley next to that of Bode, and his claims had been paid. He found also in the same list the Irish College at Paris claimants for 103,6011. and another, which had not been presented in time, was that of the East India Company for more, than a mil lion and a half. In presenting the petition, he wished merely to ask what steps had been taken ? which was the principle on which the commissioners acted ? and also whether the claims of De Bode were to be taken into consideration ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had no intention of entering into any discussion on the subject, as there were such a number of conflicting facts that it would be extremely diffi cult to come, in the present stage of the business, to any satisfactory • conclusion. He could not, however, agree in the view taken by the hon. gentleman, and, though he would not take upon him to say whether the particular case which had been alluded to was hard or not, he was bound to state that in call cases where general rules were adopted it might be next to impossible to devise remedies for particular cases. The hon. gentleman had expressed his sur prise at the items in the papers respecting claims on France, and the manner in which they were marked. (Hear.) AU he could say on that subject was, that he had endeavoured to mark the whole from the original papers in the correctest manner possible. But the great difficulty was about the distribution of the sums. There were a variety of cases under consideration ; and, if the appeals should be decided in favour of the claimants, the sums in the hands of govern ment would be demanded of them, and until this was ascertained it would not be easy to exercise any bounty on the part of the crown to particular claimants. The East India Company had claims for maintaining French prisoners during the war, but they had not pre sented their claims in time, and he had given them a distinct and positive answer that they had no claims whatever. That answer was only agreeable to the law laid down in reference to similar claimants, who had not put in their claims in due time. Until, then, the eases were decided, which he hoped would be ere long, he could not say whether any sum would remain to be disposed of at the discretion of the crown. Dr. PHILLIMORE regretted that the right hon gentleman had not given any specific answer to the question put to him by the honourable member. The question was whether the Baron de Bode had any legal claims ? and the only answer was, that the demands were so many that it was impossible to say whether there woad be sufficient funds to satisfy all claimants. The Baron de Dane's case was included among those of th seventh class, in which was the College of Douay and other claims ; so that nearly 380,0001. must be distributed before the funds could be available he any other purpose. Parliament was bound to give the nest attention to this case. It was one of the most unprece. I dented hardships 'that ever had been submitted to its attention. He did not merely ask them to sympathise with the misfortunes of an individual, but he called upon them to consult the honour of that house. Parliament had by its own act guaranteed the indemnity to this individual—it had rendered itself a trustee to his interests. What was the simple case of this claimant ? it was admitted that his property had suffered spoliation during the French revolution. It was admitted that his father had been English, and his mother a foreigner. There could be no doubt that he had a just claim, for the indemnity of his losses. But, when he came to the English Government for repayment, they said, No, you are French, go to the French Government for redress • he applies to the latter, and he is told that it had transferred 300 ,0001. into the hands of the English Government to liquidate all such claims as his, and that to it he must prefer his demands. Was this an equitable mode of dealing with this gentleman ? He re peated that Parliament had pledged itself as a trustee to the interests of the Baron de Bode; it was bound to see him fully righted—it was bound to require from the Chancellor of the Ex chequer that plain answer to a plain case which was called for by honour and justice. Mr. BERNAL begged to call the attention of the house on this occasion to the claim of Mr. Newland, from whom also a petition had been presented. That claim was as sound as any upon the list before the house. He had reason to have expected that his case would have been decided on the same principle as that of Boyd v. Luxembourg. He had expected to have received five per cent. on his losses, as had been allowed in that case, and it was not until lately that his claim had been questioned. Ile (Mr. B.) considered it much more sound than the claim of the East India Company.— Here was a public body, with the revenue of India at its back, claim ing a remuneration for the maintenance of prisoners of war—a claim for the enormous sum of a million and a half. He would tell his hon. friend that they had no claim by the law of nations for this same mil lion and a half. No regulation had been made or attempted on that subject. This was a consideration worthy the attention of the house. With regard to the claim of Mr. Newland, it stood in his opinion upon better ground. It was in vain to refer hint to the French government. That government had made over 800,0001. to the British government, to satisfy all claims upon it. If this fund had not hitherto been fully and satisfactorily distributed, it was the duty of the Treasury to nominate new commissioners, who should now proceed to classify all outstanding claims, and divide accord ingly the disposable balance to hand. If there were only the will on the part of Ministers, surely these transactions could easily be set at rest for ever. He did say that he felt disappointed at the conduct of government, which had allowed this matter to remain without any final settlement, after having been three years before that house. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER maintained that no blame could be attached to hint or his Majesty's Ministers, if it were considered In what situation they were really placed. Every individual of the claimants of this indemnity fund had it in his power to recover his just demands by an appeal to the Privy Council. But if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should, in following the recommendation of Honourable Gentle. men, have exhausted the fund by such a distribution as he might have deemed equitable, what would have been his situation when called on to answer a decree of the Privy Council in favour of those who had applied to it instead of to him ? and how would that House have received an application on his part for a grant of money to supply the deficiency created by his premature distribution ? He hoped the House would consider that his Ma jesty's Government could not have acted otherwise than it had done. Mr. ROBERT GRANT concurred in the views of the honour. able members who brought forward and supported the present claims. He considered the subject quite important enough to de mand the serious consideration of the house ; and he expressed his opinion shortly on it, because he did not wish that his silence should be construed into the evidence of a contrary feeling. Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was not a claim on the French government, but on a well-ascertained fund in the possession of our own ministry. He well knew that it had already been the subject of two most able motions oil the part of his hon. friends the members for Staffordshire and Preston. The question was now encircled by novel and embarrassing circumstances, and it came in reality to this—whether the sum of 250,0001. which had been given by France for the purpose of indemnity, should be applied to the building of palaces ?—(hear, bear.) lie should be quite satisfied if it should be the opinion of that house that this sum should be re- invested according to its original appropriation. He should feel it his duty to submit a motion to that effect to the house, the hon. member for Preston did not do so after the Easter recess. On the motion that the petition be brought up and read, Mr. STANLEY begged to ask the honourable gentleman oppo. site, whether, by the act of the commission for settling the demands of claimants on the indemnity fund, the Baron de Bode had not been debarred from making any c l a im s on the French government to know what progreeslad breams& in making out these returns ; he hoped they would be plepard during the recess. • 111r.•LENrIARD eald that the goedingient of the Netherlands had reduced the allowance of eh* angiotidors to this country from a high to a low class. He wished Wham whether there was any -intention of making &correspondent ndnetlon on the part of this government with respect to oar ailaberisslor to that court? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCSISQUER said that the noble lord at the head of the foreign department had it in contemiplatim to make some reductions in the diplomatic department, but he.wes not exactly able to say what these reductions would be. The returns were then ordered. Mr. HUME next moved for returns of the charge of 1,1091. fee robes of knights of the several orders ; of 2,7981. for defraying rile expenditure of the public offices of Whitehall and Westminster; sr 1,2781. for the colours of the foot guards, all being items of the civil contingencies which required explanation.—Ordered. THE FISHERIES. Colonel WILSON rose to present a petition from a large number of fishermen of a parish in the North Riding of Yorkshire, praying that the bounties, which would expire shortly, upon the curing of fish, might be further continued. He assured the house that this was a subject of great importance to those concerned. He had taken very great pains to inform himself upon the matter, and from all he could learn, it would be a great hardship, as well as a most injurious policy, to discontinue these bounties. lie was sorry, while he was thus giving the benefit of his information to the how, to see ministers leaving their places. He hoped to hear some ex planation from them upon this subject. They ought, at least, to continue the bounties for another year. If they did not, they mast expect to have his vote against them with all the weight of a sledge hammer. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a similar petition from a body of fishermen in another parish in Yorkshire, recommending the claims of those persons strongly to the notice of government; at the same time, it would be a great satisfaction if some explanation were given of the course which government meant to take. Mr. HERRIES assured the two hon. members that the interests of so Important and numerous a body of persons as the fishermen were not a matter of indifference to the government, but that, on the contrary, this subject had been under their most anxious consi deration for some time ' • whether the result of that consideration would be a determination to continue the present bounties upon the fisheries, the affair was not ripe enough yet for him to say. It had been found necessary before taking any decisive steps, to make very extensive inquiries, and these were not yet finished. He hoped shortly to be able to state the final resolution of govern ' man upon the subject. At present, however, he had no hesitation Is saying that there was an undoubted indisposition on the part of governinent to entertain the proposition for continuing the bounties. Parliament had already determined that at a fixed period these bounties should cease, and it would require a very strong case in devil to continue them beyond that time. The continuance of the whole of the bounties was out of the question. This subject was to be looked at in a two-fold way ; first, how far it was advisable to continue the protection as regarded the curing of fish ; secondly, as to the importance of the trade as a nursery for seamen. This last was the only light In which government could look at the question with any favour.—Laid upon the table. Mr. HUME presented petitions from Arbroath, against the East India monopoly, and Kidderminster, against the barley duty.—Laid upon the table. Petitions from Maidenhead fora reform of the criminal code, and from the publicans of Newark, against opening the beer trade, were laid upon the table. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from a parish in Salop, against the intrusion of Scotch and Irish vagrants. Sir J. GRAHAM said that a notice had been given of a Commit. tee upon this subject, by a noble lord (Stanley,) which he hoped would not be abandoned. Lord STANLEY, In reply, said it was his intention, after the Easter holydays, to submit a motion relative to the passing of Scotch and Irish paupers. Mr. LEN NARD rose to present a petition, in the name of an hon. baronet, who was absent from indisposition, from the clergy, magis trate., and inhabitants of the town of Braintree, in Essex, praying for a milder punishment for the crime of forgery. The hon. member said that a great number of petitions had already been presented on the subject and a much greater number would have been laid on the table of the house, but for an opinion entertained by the country at large, that the right hon. secretary would introduce some important mitigation of punishment for the offence. For his part he was much satisfied with the speech of the right hon. gentleman, and wily re gretted that the exceptions for the capital punishment were sot more extensive. He was at the same time bound to say that the country would not be satisfied with what had been done, and that some more extensive measure was expected. It had afforded him great pain to hear in that house from commercial men that British property would not be safe without retaining the sanguinary punishment of death for forgery. lie had only to add that he had given notice of a mo tion for the repeal of all capi tal punishment for forgery, and it was his intention to persevere in the motion utiles, the hon. member for Knaresborough should bring forward a similar motion of which be had also given notice. Sir J. MACKINTOSH said he concurred entirely in what had fallen from the hon. member, and would most undoubtedly bring forward his motion unless he should find, on the second reading of the Forgery Bill, that the right lion. Secretary (Air. Peel) arrived at the same object with himself—namely, the mitigation of punish ment for forgery of all descriptions. ENTRANCE FROM WATERLOO PLACE INTO ST. JAMES'S rank. Mr. HOBH OUSE presented a petition from certain inhabitants of 11 - estminster, respecting a passage from Carlton-place into the Park. The petitioners stated that they did not believe any specific promise had been made that s passage would be opened, but the general impression was to that effect. They did not see how the opening could encroach at all on the Royal domain, as St. James's Park had already been thrown open to the public, nor were they awire that the passage would be at all injurious to the property in Carlton-place On the contrary, they thought that the passage would not only be useful, but that it might be rendered ornamental, if "some of the architectural design s which had been proposed were adopted. Many of the petitioners were tenants of the Crown, and they hoped that the merits of the case would be represented in the proper quarter. Unless this were the case, he should, :after the holydays, bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. The hon. gentleman at the same time presented a petition from Aaron Newenhant, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases except murder; and also for returns of all Exche. quer suits issued against parties for using drugs or chemical preps. rations to adulterate beer during the year 1829. Returns of all writs proved on the Exchequer against the same. Returns of the number of Individuals who had compounded for the offence, and the mode in which the fines had been appropriated.—Ordered. Mr. CAREW presented a petition horn Lady's Island, county of Wexford, praying for the abolition of tithes. Mr. F. hIUNDY presented a petition from the bankers, mer chants, &c. of Derby, in favour of opening the trade with India and China; also a petition to the same effect fromn town in Derbyshire, and a petition from a mining company in the same county, praying fur a heavier duty on foreign lead. Lord LOM"I'HER presented petitions from two pieces in York. shire in favour of a free trade with India and China. The noble lord also moved for a copy of the report of the commissioners appointed to ascertain the boundaries of Dean Forest, and gave notice of a motion on the subject for the 29th of April. Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented petitions horn Dundee and Glas. gow, in favour of free trade with India ; also a petition from Flint, in Cheshire, against the duty on coal. - Mr. BLAIR presented a petition from Kilmarnock against the charter of the East India Company. THE BARON DE 10DE. Mr. STANLEY rose to present a petition from this individual Is Aids, but for its coo — duet, heahould imee been sailed to re. respecting his right to a portion of the funds paid hy the French boot This question he had asked when he brought forward • government to England to liquidate the claims of British subjects hems motion on this a motion which he had founded on .L 2 France. He had no wish to enter at length into the subject. Ills the pound of censuring the conduct of the commissioners in this only object was to remind the house of the hardships under which case. He had arrayed against him then all their feelings; yet, ne. the Baron de Bode laboured, and to ascertain from the Chancellor of endwise", such had been the state of opinion in the house at the the Exchequer whether any measures were to he adopted for pandit time, that his motion had been lost only by a majority of 37. him relief. Last year petitioner had made a statement on the subject. After a few weeds from the SOLICITOR•GENZIAL, the petition Nothing had occurred since to alter his opinion. !le was convinced was read, and laid en the table. the baron's claims were as strong as when he first brought them fee. Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from attain innkeepers at ward, and of the justice of these claims he had no doubt.— Salford, and another place, against opening the beer trade; also, a He wished merely to state the pecullaihardship of this gentleman. petition against the severity of criminal law respecting forgery. No doubt his property had been confiscated, because the property Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved for returns, to be obtained was supposed to have been in possession of his father at the time of through our consuls, of the precious metals which had been raised confiscation, but still the gentleman was a British subject, and, in the various South American suites from the year 1700. to consequently, he had not lost his right to the claim. In the first and from 1810 to the present time. instance a mixed commission was appointed, consisting of English Lori TULLAMORE moved Mr certain accounts of expenses' and French t this was mot thought sufficienteand'a new commission attending the canal, in Ireland. was appointed, consisting entirely of English, who undertook to Lord HILLEE presented a petition from the Roman Catholic settle all the claims by paying at the rate of 60 per cent. It was inhabitants of the county of Leitrim against the vestry act. His qquite clear that this gentleman must come in for his claims under lordship also prenuted a petition from the t outhern district of Loa. this commission. Though a British subject his property had been don against the Jewish disabilities. confiscated by the French Government, and, when he applied in Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from the ship.ownen of that quarter, he was informed that a sum of .money bad already North Shields, playing the attention of the house to the distress of beet paid to Great Britain to repay all British claimants; that the the shipping interest. BIWA Government had entered into a contract with the French to Air. BELL concurred in the prayer of the petition resented by thateffect, and, consequently, they could not listen to hisapplication. his hoer colleague. The resinance made to his claim* by the British Government was Mr. LIDDELL peesoneed another petition, signed by the most the more anklet sod severe as a large surplus still remained respectable inhabitants of North Shields, praying that the trade int the hands of Government to satisfy similar claims. The with India and China WOt be thrown open. The bon. member Honourable Member for Plympton had said that it made also presented a petition ftm the same place, praying fie returns of all the difference If the sum had been paid ; but he would say the vessels which had emseal kto British ports, separating foreign, that whether the Money had been paid or not, the cialmeof the 80, from British ships, with the Immege of the latter. run de Bode were as strong in equity as if it had .been paid. He Mr. B. COOPER peented a petition from the innkeepers of had intended to move for accent is ail the aunts paid; but Wee iris Gloucester, against nos the beer trade. formed that the returns would be exceedingly eitpetadve and. Mr. PENDARV ( S ted a petition from Cirencester, praying troublesome ; bur, if it would answer hit purpose, he Weir bard the repealing of the mdt duty. an opportunity of examining the papers. He accept e d the o ff e r) card I ..fl. • '?a the west of London, against the Jewish disabilities. Also a petitto, from Mr. John Rea d, a resident in the Edgeware-road, complatm:, of delay in the delivery of letters in that neighbourhood, and also r• the additional postage of twopence, and praying a remedy for ecru an unjust exaction. _ Mr - . SPENCE moved for certain returns of the expenses attend. ing proceedings in Chancery, and of the fees and salaries paid i; several officers and underlings in that Court. Sir J. MACKINTOSH submitted to hon. members that o.e time for the commencement of public business had arrived, and that the attention of the house should not be occupied to a later period is the transaction of matters which could be transferred, without pre. judice, to other evenings. THE JEWS. Mr. R. GRANT said he should have, for his own part, preferred simply moving for the permission of the house, and been content to defer all discussion upon this question to a future stage. As to an. ticipating any difference of opinion, he could scarcely foresee any objection, at least to a preliminary statement ; but as the discussion was entirely new, and as one or two members had expressed the in. tendon, as undoubtedly they had the right, to object, and contest the principle of the measure, and as one or two other honourable members had also intimated that they would suspend their opinions until the merits of the question were fully before them, no option was left to him but that of troubling the house, however reluctantly, with an explanation of the grounds upon which he advocated a change in the laws, as regarded the members of the Jewish persua sion. He trusted that he might preface this explanation by declar ftig that his connection with the subject was entirely fortuitous-- Understanding that measures upon the subject were in contempla tion, he turned his attention to it, not, he would confess, without sonic prejudices, but which prejudices had been entirely dissipatal by investigation and consideration. Such having been his opinion, and the proposal coming entirely from strangers, he did not feel him self at liberty to decline this honourable office, though he thought it right at once to make this declaration, as his sole object was, that his advocacy might not lose even the small weight attached to it, it being the result of conviction alone. In order to submit the case as well as it was in his power to do to the judgment of the hotor, he would first show what was the actual state of the law, as applt. cable to this class of English subjects; secondly, he would beg t lay before the house the grounds upon which they considered them selves entitled to be relieved from the state of the law ; thirdly, he would mention the plan (which would be comprised in one sentence,) and the nature of the measure he purposed to bring forward, and then he would shortly adduce some reasons in support of his views. This fourfold division would include both the evil complained of and the remedy proposed for its adoption. It was necessary, though it might be curious, and, in some cases, highly important, to enter into an historical account of the condition and treat ment the Hebrew nation had experienced. It would be only rte. cessary to mention one or two facts. It was perfectly notoriouv to all who had examined this subject, that members of the Jewish community had been at an early period domiciled in this realm. After the cmquest, and during the reigns of the three first Princes immediately following that event, they had received pro. tection. But it unfortunately happened, after that period, the sue. ceding Princes had given way to persecution ; and it was difficult to decide whether, for the 150 years following, the Jewish people suffered more from the mad malignant folly of the populace, or the cool and calculating villainy of the Princes who professed to be their protectors. The populace were inflamed by incrodible reports of crimes, such as plotting against the state, conspiring to burn the metropolis, crucifying christians, and charges of a similar na. hire, so that the fury of the people was exasperated by such in. credible rumours until it was vented in excesses only lens hor rible than those which were imputed and attributed to the Jews. —(Hear, hear.) They were protected by the Sovereigns, but how ? The protection afforded them was solely that which they gave to the beasts in the Royal forests—they were only protected from the invasion of others that they might be exclusively preyed on by their masters. At this time laws of the most odious description were enacted, and their persecution became a matter of profit, be cause, from their greater connection with other nations, and from their being possessed of greater intelligence, they were more opu. lent than any other class of the community. Great protection ass nominally afforded the.n by the edicts of our Kings, which, at the time, 1 the force of laws, well as by laws specially enacteri7 e a s t geas all ' of which were mere pretexts for plunder and ra pacity. These laws were enforced by the most shocking cruelties. of which he could give no better explanation than was afforded by one short sentence of Matthew Paris, which, though figurative, was so picturesque that he would rather leave it untranslated. Of this quotation, from the low tone in which the Honourable Member spoke, we could only catch a few words, which struck us as being " Non solum excoriendo sed eviscerando extomtt." In the reign of Richard the First a law was passed to deprive them of the power of possessing or transmitting lands. The law de. scribed them as being the serfs or villains of the crown. Among its other provisions was one restricting the Jews as to their modes of worship, by declaring that they should conduct their worship so low as not to be overheard by Christians. In the reign ot Ed ward the First, the Act " De Judaism" was passed, which con (erred many privileges on the Jews, but which denied them the privilege of ,taking usury, which, in the language of that day, meant what was now termed interest. At length, however, fee some reason which It would be impossible to discover in the 18th year of that reign a royal edict was issued which expelled all the Jews front this kingdom, to the number of 15,000. That edict was carried into complete effect, and every Jew was not merely banished the kingdom, but its execution was accompanied with the scorn of those who plundered them of their fortunes, and in some cases extended to actual privation of life. It was racism. eholy to reflect that such stains blotted the brightest pages of the history of England, and darkened those periods upon which every Englishman loved to dwell with pride and with satisfaction. It should, however, be observed, that these atrocities were more than rivalled by the different sovereigns throughout Europe. The pro ceedings of this country were followed in France by Philip Augustus. and their counterparts were abundant throughout the whole of the German empire. Let them go to Spain and Portugal, and there it would be found that not merely 13,000, but 130,000, Jews were expelled in more modern times, under Ferdinand and Isabella, while the most revolting cruelties were had recourse in Portugal, to compel their conversion to Christianity. (Hear, hear.)—Alter this period, one hundred and fifty years elap sed before any Jew appeared in England. At length, after, as is said, a fruitless negotiation with Oliver Cromwell, they entered this kingdom by asinivance, under the reigns of the Stuart Princes. Letters of deni laden were given to several by Charles and James the Second, and they protected them against the imposition of the Alien Duties, to which they were subjected in the reign of William the Third. No. thing afterwards took place until the Act of Anne, which compelled a Jewish parent to support any child converted to the religion of the Church of England ; and again in George the First's time, to which he would not further allude. Nothing occurred after this but the Act which parted in the middle of the last century, that was a matter of history, in its details too well known to need explanation, and h: only mentioned it to impress the distinction upon honourable mem bers, inasmuch as that Act had reference to foreign Jews, whereas the measure he proposed to introduce would refer only to the natural-born subjects of his Majesty professing that religion. It was well known that, through the prejudices of the people. mani fested by overt acts of violence, and the miserable pusillanimity of the Administration, it was speedily repealed, and from that time to the present nothing whatever had been done upon the subject. The Hon. Gentleman then proceecdcd to slow how they were affected by various enactments not levelled at them. The first. was the Oath of Allegiance, prescribed by the Act of Elizabeth, for that was to be taken en the Holy Evangelists, and, of count, could not be taken by Jews. Again there was the oath of Abjura tion.eThere was nothing In that which they could not willingly take. but the conclusion of the formula was, that it was to be taken on the " true titbit of a Christian," and this, of course, an utter impediment to its being taken by any Jew. The Sacramental Tests were also an obstacle as long as they continued in force, but there intervening the Annual Indemnity Act, which was an abolition, but in the nature of perpetual received respite, they were thus enabled to enjoy the same respite which was extended to Protestant Dissenters. These were repealed by the present fortunate administration In the Act of the year before last ; but what was substituted in its stead 7 The in demnity was at an end, but a declaration was introduced, not cer tainly in this, but in the other House of Parliament, which corn. named with the words, " oar the true faith of a Christian; and thus again were the Jews excepted from this benefit—for observe, it was necessary that this should be like other oaths, taken upon the Gospel. The house would ace that there was nothing in the body of the test that could not be adopted and maintained by every Jew. (Hear.) They were thus deprived of the relief bestowed upon others by the collateral effect of this introduction into the oath. Secondly, he would observe that all this was not only indirectly and collaterally, but fortuitously, or, at least, incidentally intro deiced. The prescribing of the taking of oaths on the gospels was amide when there was no Jew In the country. lewould be also in the recollection of the house, that when the oath of abjuration was introduced, it was intended not to apply to subjects who were not christians, but as a political test to th ose who were. (hear, hear.) This declaration was inserted in tho bill of the maim before last, by the House of Lords, and was only Atopted here not to dietutb the great measure; and the lboilpe would surely, theftfore, not allow this to be taken as a deliberate and direct provision. Vat being all - that excluded the Jews from the civil rights 00101 lay leis libjeate's ether subjects, be would begin, without • the,peeseel *cries to the"voial Castowit So VISO . Mon if di. tlisabthttss udderWhith !her14 11 941m4, on dassibed ip. an ancellent pamper lately Pohliilhod. IM ODthe •ealSject. They were impala/ el' eluded Fran all offices, civileued ; t asty could not either be Wrists"' or attorneys ; they could not be high er chief constables, nor could they be members of either house of parliament. It was