The Sun. — London, England, 1848-02-08 00:00:00

to serve in Parliament, fur, according to the well known principles of constitutional law, every person who is lawfully choren a Member of the House of Com mons must serve, whether ho be willing to do so or not, and the House has even held that an Honourable Gentlemen who had been elected against his will was eligible, and could nut refuse to sei-ve. Now, by the statute for the trial of election petitions, every Honour able Member who is not disqualified for reasons specified in that statute, may be appointed upon an Election Committee. And 1 find the name of Baron Rothschild on the election panel E, No. 4. He is not disqualified to serve, for " belief in the Jewish religion" is not one of the grounds of disqualification specified in the statute in question. I assume, therefore, that Baron Rothschild will, when his turn comes, be appointed upon an Election Committee. It may be said that the Committee of Selection will not appoint him. No doubt they will at present exercise a sound discretion upon the subject; but if they were to lay down the rule that Baron Rothschild is not to be appointed, on account of his religious faith, then it is evident they would as sume a power which they do not possess under the statute, and for the exercise of which they would deserve censure. I assume, therefore, that sooner or later Baron Rothschild will be appointed upon an Election Committee, and that on a certain day h' will be ordered to attend in his place te be sworn on that Committee. If he do not attend, the law is imperative that " lie shall bo taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for , neglect of his da . y. euel otherwise punished or misused.' If he do attend, without having previously taken certain oaths, what will be the consequences ? There are three oaths, which every Hon. Gentleman who does not pro fess the Catholic religion ought to take before he sit or -vote in the House of Commons ; namely, the oath of allegiance, the oath of supremacy, and the oath of abju ration. Now the statutes which have reference to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy aro different from those which h ave re f erence to the oath of abjuration. I need not trouble the House by referring to the statutes with regard to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. will merely observe that if Baron Rothschild were to sat or vote in the House of Commons without previously taking those oaths, he would become a Popish recusant convict under an Act of Charles 11., entitled, "An Act for disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament," and which Act has been repealed as far as Papists are concerned. Being convicted of Popish re cusancy, Baron Rothschild would incur certain pains, penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities ; for instance, he -would for ever be disabled from sitting or voting in the Muse of Commons ; the House would be entitled to de clare his place vacant, and to issue a new writ fur a new election for the city of London ; and if he were then to be re-elected, all votes given to him, after due notice, would be lost, and an Election Committee would be en titled to seat his opponent. But Baron Rothschild can have no religious objection to taking the oaths of alle giance and supremacy. It is certain that he would be entitled to take those oaths in the same manner as he would take an oath in the courts of justice. For there is no provision in the Act of the 30th Charles IL, stat. 2, as to the mode in which these oaths are to be taken; consequently he would be entitled at common law to take those oaths according to the Jewish mode of taking an oath. There can be no doubt upon this subject after the precedent established in the case of Mr. Pease, formerly Member for South Durham. In that case the House held that Mr.Pease, being a Quaker, was entitled to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath at the table of the Howe, without any specific statute to that effect, on the grounds that Quakers are entitled by sta tote to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath in the courts of law; and being so entitled in courts of law, the House held that they were therefore entitled to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath at the table of the House. Now, in the case of Jews no statute was ever required to enable them to take an oath in the courts of justice, according to the Jewish mode, for they always possessed that eight at common law. Therefore, it follows that Baron Rothschild would be entitled to take at the table of the House the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the same manner as he would take an oath in the courts of law —in the same manner as Jews have taken the oaths in question, when required to do so by various statutes, to which I can refer—namely, according to the Jewish mode. There remains, therefore, only the oath of ab juration which Baron Rothschild is linable to take. What would be the consequences if Baran Rothschild were to attend in his place to be sworn on an Election Committee without previously taking that oath? The statute now in force with regard to the oath of abjura tion is the 6th Geo. 111., c. 53, which refers to 1 Geo. I. St. 2, c. 13, which latter statute contains penalties which an Honourable Member would incur for voting in the House without taking the oath of abju ration. Now „I beg the House to observe—first, that these statutes give no power to the House to unseat * l l Honourable Member who shall sit or vote in the House without taking the oath of abjuration ; secondly, that though they require that every Honour able Member should take that oath before " he shall vote in the House of Commons, or sit there during a debate," yet in the penal clause, the words " sitting there during a debate" are omitted. The penalty is attached only to the act of " voting," and no penalty is attached to the act of " sitting in the House."—(Hoar, hear.) Now, I will not assert that there is any legal difference between the act of " voting" and the act of "sitting in the House." But it appears to me that if Baron Rothschild were to obey an order of the House, and merely to at tend in his place to be sworn on an Election Committee, it would be a question for the judges to decide whether such attendance in obedience to the order of the House, under the statute of 7 and a Vic., c. lets, would consti tate the crime of voting under the statute of 1 Geo. 1., at. 2, c. 13. But whatever might be the decision of the judges with regard to the legal character of such an act, it is certain that the House would have no power under the statute to unseat Baron Rothschild, even in the event of his voting in the House without previously taking the oath of abjuration. And it appears to me, likowite, that the House would have no power to dis pense with the services of Baron Rothschild on an Elec tion Committee, if he were appointed to serve ; for the statute for the trial of election petitions is imperative, that every lion. Member who is appointed must serve, unless specially disqualified, and the omitting or re fusing to take the oath of abjuration is not among the disqualifications specified in the statute in question. It is evident, therefore, that the law is in a very anoma lous state, and that the House has no power either to enable Baron Rothschild to perform his duties as a lawfully chosen Member of the House, or to relieve him from the obligation to perform those duties. It may be supposed that the House has the power to ex pel Baron Rothschild, and to order a new writ to be issued for the city of London. Ido not deny that the House did possess the power, and may still possess the power, of expelling any one of its Members for any teason or for no reason ; but since the period when the House transferred its primary jurisdiction in election matters to its Committees, it has not exercised its power of expulsion, except in cases in which its Members have been convicted of grave offences. According to the law and custom of Parliament, the House would bo entitled to expel an Honourable Member who was convicted of treason, felony, or fraudulent misdemeanour, but not, I think, for any minor offence ; and certainly no law nor custorn of Parliament can be cited, nor precedent can be produced, which would entitle the liousol to expel °no of its Members on account of his religious belief. —(Hear, hear.) But if the House were to ,expel B aron R othschild, i t is qu i te c l ear t h at as t h e taw .now stands, a vote of expulsion would not legally disqualify hi m f rom b e i ng re - e l ecte d to serve i n t h e same P arliament. It is true that in the well-known case of ir• Wilkes, the House resolved that Mr. Wilkes, having' been expelled the House, was incapable of being elected to serve in that Parliament, and when Mr. Wilkes was a g a in elected th e H ouse reso l ve d th a t his election was null and void, and that his opponent, Mr. Luttrell, was duly elect e d. B ut th i s vote cannot b e c i te d as a prece dset, for it was su b sequent l y or d ere d t o b e expunged 'rem the the journals of the House, as " being subversive of rights of the whole body of the electors of this king dent." In another w e ll-k nown case , an Hon. Member Wasc ouvicted (unjustly it now a pp ea r s ) of a c onspiracy !! ) ,..de fraud, an d was on that account expelled the House. 4 t was immedi a t e l y re - e l ecte d ; hi s return , h owever , was_not questioned, and he continued to be a Member of the I r ouse of Commons, though a prisoner in the King's Bench. C ense quentl3:, if the House-, wore to expel Baron Rothschild, that vote of expulsion would not render hi m ineligible, would not disqualify him from being re elected, would andnot relieve the House from the dilemma in which it is placed by his late election,— (Hear, rh ' ' hear.) The sum and substance of my argument llarethis:—Baron Rothschild has been lawfully chosen a mmbar of the House of Commons, consequently o i S legally b oun d to serve, and may b e sum 841u°ralltued, to attend i n hi s p l ace i n P ar li ament. If , w h en Wtoodt);l:ned, he do no t atten d , h e must b e ta k en i nto cus and ,otherwise p un i s h e d. If h e d o a tt en d, h e be entitled to take the oaths of allegiance and su p oath reraaaccording to th e J ew i s h mo d e o f t a ki ng a n but his religious faith would prevent him from taking the oath of fuse to take abjuration. He would therefore re , , that oath. Wh a t wou ld b e th e consequence ? eNove. would or w I cannot pret en d to say w h et h er suc h a refusal ould_not, under the circumstances of . the case, constitute an offence for which he could be punished. It is certain, 'hat the House has no power to re lieve Baron Rothschild from the obligation to take the oath of abjur at i on—no power to relieve him from the o,bligation to attend in his place in the House—no power dispenseo that° power to declare his election null and void; and pno law nor custom mof Parliament can be cited, no recedent can be produced, which would justify the Ions? in expelling him. If, nevertheless, the House not were to expel th e H onourable Gentleman, he wou ld .thereby become l ega ll y i ne li g ibl e; an d as o f ten es the House might I electors of the city ofexpe him, so often would the re-elect him.—(hear, London be l ega lly en titled to do se Ll(_ ear,hear.) Wheth er th e y wou ld or not is beside the question. I have shown that a dilem ma exists, from the horns .of which the House can escape only by means of an Act of Parliament 1 1 hat that Act should be is the question ? The Noble . Lord has proposed his Bill. Members who object to that measure aro bound to propose . es a v i r ubstitnte More in accordance with their prine have they not done so ? They maintain thatP Christianity ,and hy is Part and parcel of the British constitution, that all Persons should be excluded from the House of Commons who not profess the true faith of a Christian, and they affirm that the oath of abjuration is a sufficient test of that faith. To enforce these principles their !loopiest and eas i es t pl an wou ld b e t o propose that the t t,_w with regar d to t h e oa th o f a bj urat i on s h ould be i 't ) same as the law with regard to the oaths of elle -B,ittice and supremacy. For this purpose they need sit Y bring in a short Bill to extend the provi eas't'is of the 30th Ch ar l e s 11., at. 2, t o th e a b- u ' Honourable Members not taking the oath of su J eh rft tion• Then if P ar li amen t were to agree t o shoup a Bill every H onoura bl e M em b er w h o g refuse or omit to take either of the oaths 1MMM1....-__ THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1845: of allegiance, supremacy, or abjuration, would, un less ho were a Roman Catholic, become a Popish re cusant convict, and subject to all the pains of Popish recusaney ; and then the House would be entitled to un seat and declare inelieible both Baron Rothschild and any other Honourable Member who professes the Jewish r 011.,.. The queetien is, therefore, between the Bill of the Noble Lord and a Bill to extend the provisions of the 30th Charles 11., st. 2. Now, will any one of the Ho nourable Gentlemen opposite undertake to bring in such a Bill ? If not, I appeal to them as practical men whether they ought not to agree to the Bill of the Noble Lord as the only practicable means of relieving the Ilouce from the dilemma in which it is placed by the state of the law, and by the election ef Baron Roths child. Now the object of the Bill of the Noble Lord is merely to make such an alteration in the form, not in the substance, of the oath of abjuration (by ()pitting the words " upon the true faith of a Christian"), as shall enable an Honourable Gentleman who professes the Jewish religion to take that oath.—(llear.) Now, what objection can be made to the proposed alteration ? No one can assert that the oath of abjuration was originally intended as a religious test. The only one of the three oaths which had the character of a religious test was the oath of supremacy. And that oath was directed against the Papists, who were the only religious sect of whom our aecoetors entertained any apprehension. On the contrary, the oath of abjuration was directed, no- eneinet the Papists, nor any eelmer religion, but against tee adherents of the Preten der—(Hear, hear)—to whatever sect they might belong —(Hear, hear)—and the words " on the true fuith of a Christian" were employed merely to give additional force to the oath, of abjuration.—(llear, hear.) It is easy to prove this position, that the object of the Legislature was merely to secure the Haeoverien suc cession by the strongest oath it could devise, and not to create a religious test. For whenever the words in question, by acting as a religious test, were found prac tically to prevent a person from taking the oath of abjuration, then the Legislature interfered and sanc tioned the omission of those words. For instance, in • the year 1722, an Act was passed which required that ail persons of the age of eighteen and upwards who had not previously taken the three oaths, should take them before the 25th of December, 1723. Before that period arrived another Act was passed (10 George 1., cap. 4), which contained a clause to the effect that whenever any person professing the Jewish religion shall present himself to take the oath of abjuration in pursuance of the Act of 1722, then the words " upon the true faith of a Christian" shall to ' omitted out of the said oath in administering the•ssame to such person. I find likewise a similar chime in an Act of 1740 (13 George 11., cap. 7, sec. 3), which was passed for the purpose of naturalising persons settled in the colonies, and which Act required that all such per sons should take the three oaths. These two Acts, therefore, prove that it was the intention of the Legielas sure not in any way to create a religious test by means of the oath of abjuration, but only to secure the Hano verian succession by requiring its subjects to take the strongest oath it could devise. Consistently with this intention, whenever the Legislature found that practical inconvenience was likely to ensue from the wording of the oath of abjuration, and that persons who ought to take that oath would be prevented from so doing by the words " on the true faith of a Christian," then the Legislature interfered and sanc tioned the omission of those words. Now, for the first time, the case has arisen that ita Honomirable Gentle man has been elected Member of this House who professes the Jewish religion, and who cannot, therefore, take the oath of abjuration in the ordinary form. Parliament ought, therefore, in accordance with the undeniable precedents which I have quoted, to in terfere, and it ought to enact in this case, as it did in 1723 and 1740, that when any person professing the Jewish religion shall present himself to take the oath of abjuration, then the words " upon the true faith of a Christian" shall be omitted out of the said oath in ad ministering the same.—(llear, hear.) And such is the object of the Bill of the Noble Lord. I do not, however, mean to assert that the question under the consideration of the House is to be settled by mere precedents. For it is in fact a question between two great principles that have battled against each other since the commence• ment of civilisation.. On the one side is the principle of religious equality ; on the other the antagonist principle, that the State is competent to determine, and ought to determine, what religion is the true religion. Now this doctrine of the religious infallibility of the State has been iu all ages, and among all people, the plea for the crimes of intolerance and persecution. Under that plea Socrates was put to death and the Saviour was cruci fied. Under that plea the Pagan emperors immo lated the early Christians, the Albigenses were • slaughtered, and our own fires were lighted in Smith field.—(Hear, hoar.) Under that plea Catholics burnt Protestants, Protestants burnt Catholics, Calvin kindled the faggot of Servetus with the approbation of blelanc then. Even the pilgrim fathers of New England were persecutors, and hung Quakers on the gibbets of Massa chussetts.—(Hear, hear.) Under the same plea in modern times we excluded Dissenters from our corpora tions and Catholics from Parliament. And for the same reasons Jews are now refused a scat in the British House of Commons. But religious liberty has triumphed over the rude bigotry of antiquity and the cruel ! persecutions of our forefathers. It will ultimately achieve a victory over the milder intolerance of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. —(Cheers.) The result will be, peace and goodwill among men of every faith who ere subjects of the British em pire. In legislating on this question, let us remember that we are not merely the representatives of the people of this small island, which is inhabited by men of one race, one language, and one religion; but we are rulers over a mighty empire, over millions on millions of hit man beings of every race, every language, and every religion ; and we are likewise the parent stock whence in future ages still mightier empires may spring.— (Cheers.) In the eminent position that we have attained through the energy of our forefathers and of ourselves, famed as we are throughout the world for sagacity, prudence, and forethought, our practical decisions on the great questions that affect the interests of the human race are watched with intense anxiety by all intelligent and reflecting men. Every onward step that England takes is a step in the civilization of the world ; and the policy of England will gradually become the policy of all enlightened nations. Now, twice, of late years, we have rendered noble service to our fellow-beings—twice well deserved the thanks of mankind for the example we have set to the other rulers of the earth. First, when we freed our negro slaves, and proclaimed that to hold men in bondage was inexpedient, unholy, and unjust. Secondly, when we removed restrictions on commercial intercourse, broke clown the barriers that had long separated neighbouring states, and bound together hitherto hostile communities by the strong ties of mutual interest, which are by far the most potent securities against the hideous calamities of war. New, Sir, to the principles of civil liberty and commercial freedom let us join in the government of this empire the third great principle, of religious equality.—(Loud cheers.) Now is the time—now that the electors of London, the wealthy and energetic citizens of this com mercial metropolis of the universe, have chosen as their representative a gentleman professing the Jewish faith; and let me remark that wherever Jews are to be found despised, persecuted, and oppressed, in Germany or Poland, in Russ is or Asia Minor, there the result of this election for the city of London has been hailed by them with joy and exultation, as elevating them to the social state, and putting them on an equality with their fellow-men ; for admission into the British House of Commons is justly considered to be a mark of higher distinction to their race than any title or honour that monarchs can bestow. Now let us confirm this decision of our foremost citizens. Now is the time to declare that as legislators we have no business with articles of faith, that our laws should be silent on all questions of religion, and that as the adherents of every creed are to be found among the subjects of the British empire, adding to its wealth, augmenting its resources, and in creasing its power, so they should all possess tho same civil rights and privileges as citizens. And thus let us sweep away the last relics of the ancient reign of imbe cile bigotry and intolerance in its dotage.—(The Hon. Baronet resumed his seat amid loud cheering.) Mr. H. S. WALPOLE thought that the reasons for admitting the Jews to Parliament did not predominate over the arguments against the measure. The problem they had now to solve was, whether a country ought or ought not to be governed by those who professed its national religion. Christianity was a fundamental law in the constitution of our state ; and if that were so, such a law never should bo altered, except at the desire of a very large majority of the people, and unless their own wisdom deliberately approved the change. _Had religion nothing to do with the affairs of a legislature? Why the very writ under which they were summoned desired their attendance to advise her Majesty on the religion of the realm. Hew could a Jew legislate for that religion, when a sincere adherence to his own faith necessarily debarred him from blending his opinions with the reli gion of the country? But . was it established that the majority of the people desired the change ? Histori cally they never had desired that the Jews should take a part in public affairs, and whatever society you went into now you would find the same feeling still prevail ing. And this brought him back to his first proposi tion, that sufficiently preponderating reasons had not been given for the al:cra:i n. It was said that they had gone so far that they must invitably go one step further. But the distinction between those who made laws and those who were to execute them when made, was broad and well defined. The executors of the laws had only to carry out the intent of the law makers, but the makers of the laws were guided by their own feelings. The executor of the laws need not bo a Christian—it sufficed that ho should be a good citizen; but not so with the law maker. But then it was urged, that inasmuch as you admitted a Jew to be one of time electors, why not allow him to be one of the elected? But that argument proceeded on the assumption that the qualification for a franchise and the qualification for an office were the same. But the qualification of the fran chise belonge:i to every man as a subject, but the office was a matter of trust, not to be hold by right for the benefit of the individual, but to be held by sufferance for the benefit of the nation. The subscribers to an hospital might all vote in the choice of a physician; but would all the subscribers be qualified for the office? An entire corporation might vote at the election of a town clerk; hut they would be very much surprised to hear it urged that they were all qualified to be town clerks. But the strongest case of all was the case of a minister of reli gion. You said, " he may elect, but he shall not be elected." Apply that case to the Jews. Both the Christian minister and the Jew had rights that ought to be protected, and therefore they said both may elect; but as to their right to be elected, they said of the one that it was not desirable he should be mixed up with tempo ral disputes, and of the other that it was not desirable that he should b e m i xe d up with a system of which he formed no part.—(Cheers.) But the Noble Lord oppo site had urged one further argument—that all who born the burdens of a state ought to share its honours and its privileges, The best answer to this was this very case. If all who bore the burdens of a state were en.. titled to share its honours, why exclude the Jew from the office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Lieutenant? Why, there were a thousand tests of exclusion from Parlia ment even at the present time—the tests of age, of sex, of property, of office, or of country. Age was not always a disqualification. Mr. Fox sat for the borough he (the Hon. Member) represented before he was twenty. If another Mr. Fox were to arise. " How hard," they might say, " to exclude him!" Property! How many men there .were competent to legislate in this country, who had not sufficient estate to qualify them for a seat in that House. Then take the case of a naturalised alien; that individual was excluded, under the laws, from a seat in Parliament, and yet they pro posed to admit a Jew, who, so far from being their own countryman, either by birth or by law, was a native of no country, had no land except that whereunto he lcoleed with hope that God in his own good time would restore him.—(Cheers.) But the next great argument was, that this Parliament was an expansive Parliament; that at one time it was exclusively Church of England, but that Dissenters hud been admitted, Roman Catholics had been admitted, and why not Jews ? True it was that they were, in a religious point of view, a divided people, but they were up to the present time at least a Christian people. Their differences were in no respect analogous to the essential differences between Judaism and Christianity, and he thought it well worth con sidering whether a unity was not given them by the • mode of life prescribes) under the New Testament, which it was desirable at any sacrifice of feeling to preserve. It was well worth considering, in his opinion, whether, it' they introduced all sorts of religion into that House, they might not give the people a notion that the State was indifferent to questions of religion, inasmuch as whenever they saw a novelty or change, they adopted it without mistrust or hesitation-.—(Cheering.) He would willingly hero conclude his observations, but as others had introduced into the subject not merely questions of expediency and principle, but matter of feeling, he could not refrain from one word upon that point also. If there were one people more than another to whom he would extend indulgence, that people were the Jewish people; and it was not until he hud considered the subject well that he felt it incumbent to vote as he propesed to vote. When he reflected on their peculiar history—on all they had been, and on all they were -rich in recollections of the past, and rich also in their anticipations of the future—and when he bore in mind, as he was bound to bear in mind, that this people had, as it were, the promise that at some period they would again be the favoured people of God; when he considered these things, he owned that he felt for the Jews so deep a sympathy, that he would extend for them every indul gence that a Christian member of a Christian Legisla ture could conscientiously extend.—(Cheers.) But be lieving as he did that Christianity was so interwoven with the principles of the State. that they could not be separated the one from the other; and fearing, as he did, the detrimental effect of such a measure as that which was proposed, he would not consent to destroy or weaken that national character, based as it was upon Christian precept, which had so greatly contributed to the moral and political elevation of the nation. The lion, and Learned Member concluded with expressing his convic tion that, as our national prosperity lay deep sunk in our national religion, coy blow struck at our national religion would shake the pillars of our national pros perity. Mr. SHELL—If the Honourable, Learned, and ex ceedingly able Gentleman had been a Member of this House of Commons in the year 1529, at the period when the Member for Tatnworth brought on the measure of Catholic Emancipation, I think it must strike every Gentleman in this House that the speech which he has just delivered would have been almost as apposite— hear)—as it was at the present time. I do not think that he himself, with all his habits of fine forensic discrimination, would be able to show that he urged a single argument which might not have been pressed in 1829. Ile referred to the writ by which we are called together, in which special mention was made of the An glican Church. I will ask, is not that objection directed against the Jews, applicable to the Unitarians, Baptists, and Independents—(Bear, hear)—and equally so to the religion to which I have the honour to belong ? I am convinced that his speech, from the commencement to the conclusion, if thoroughly sifted, would be found to be equally applicable to that Bill to which I have alluded, and that each of the arguments might have been pressed with equal force, and even a great part of it might have been made against the Bill introduced by Lord Lyndhurst granting municipal franchise. The Hon. Gentleman had adverted to the fact of a Jew being admitted to the office of high sheriff. Why, it is a fact that a Jew may empanel a jury, by which the first Christian commoner in the land may be tried for his life. Have you not already admitted the Jews to power ? and the only question for you to de cide is, whether you will not go one step fur ther, and remove the only remnant of intolerance which eppears upon the statute•book.—(Cheers.) It appears to me, from the liability to duty the enjoyment of right ought not to be dissociated ; and it appears to me, that if a Jew was born in England, and was doomed to do duty as a British subject, he ought by every right to be entitled to the privileges of one. He does not derive immunity from his religion, and his religion ought not, therefore, to subject him to disqualification. I am aware that this is only designated by the word privation— (Hear, hear)—but between penalty and privation there is no substantial difference. The privation of life, of property, or of liberty, are only degrees upon the f ra duated scale of persecution.—(Bear, hear.) The exclu sion of the Jews has been designated by the phrase to which I have referred; but I think that privation is of a most signal character. The exclusion is commensu rate with the dignity and imperial ascendancy of your body; and I think that there are many of those by whom the Jews are opposed who ought to be the very last to advocate such a measure ; and I think I may speak most as a witness more than an advocate. I am a member of a community subject to those privations which now affect the Jews. I will not now speak of myself, but I will speak of one more deserving of praise. I have often sat under the gallery of St. Stephen's, by the side of that great man to whom my c o un t r y owes h e r liberty. I have sat beside him when th e f or t unes o f m y coun t r y trembled in the balance, and too oft en h av e I s e en him repine at his exclusion from this field of intellectual contest, until he was at last tardily admitted after much capricious procrastination. How have I seen him chafe at the chains that bound him down—those chains which by an effort of gigantic :prowess ho ere long broke asunder! Ho was at the head of millions of organized and indissoluble men; the Jew comes here with no other arguments than those which reason and truth provide,— (Hear, hear.) But truth and reason are accounted mighty; and in this great assembly, which I believe re presents not only the high intelligence, but the high mindedness of England, I am sure that reason will not long be &baffled, and I am convinced that truth, in the fulfilment of its august aphorism, will at lest prevail. Sir, I think I may assume as conceded or indisputable, that exclusion from Parliament is a great detriment. It remains to be considered whether that great detriment amounts to a great wrong. Nothing but necessity—the lion. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst admits—no thing but necessity can justify the exclusion of a British subject. But of necessity, of the plea of necessity, so readily misapplied, beware I Caraffs rued it. l?ope Paul 111. relied upon necessity when he revived, or rather established, that celebrated tribunal for the ex tinction of error—(Hear, hear)—whose practices you abhor, upon whose principles have a care lest you may not yourselves proceed ! Necessity must, upon the witness of your heart and conscience, to the satisfaction of all men, be clearly made out, and you must show that you have some palpable, some unmistakeable ground for fear. What is it you fear ? What is the origin of this Hebrewphobia?—(A laugh.) Do you tremble for the Church That Church may have reason to fear, perhaps, from eight millions of Catholics, it may have something to dread perhaps from three millions of Methodists, it may have something to dread from a million and a half of Free Churchmen, it may have something to apprehend from sectarian assault from without, and from spurious Popery and mutiny from within—(llear, hear)—but from the synagogue, the neutral, the apathetic, the unproselytising spirit of the synagogue, pervaded by the spirit of Gallic) of old, the Church has nothing to fear.—(Hear, hear.) But it is said that the Church will be unchristianised, and the Hon. Gentleman, the lawyer, who apprehended so much damage to the interests of religion, the Member for Midhurst, again and again takes a distinction be tween Judaism and every other denomination of reli gionists. Sir, in my opinion, the Christianity of the Parliament depends upon the Christianity of the country.—(Hear.) I mean, by the Christianity of the country, the belief in Christ crucified, risen from the dead. It is secured in the faith, and inseparably in tertwined with the affections of the people; I think the Christianity of the two islands as stable as the islands themselves. And as long as the Constitution of England stands, until the Parliament itself can perish, as long as this mighty mirror of the nation's mind shalt remain untarnished and unbroken, so long the religious feelings of the people of England will and must be for ever reflected in its surface.—(llear, hear.) This—this is the true security fur the Christian religion of the country, for the religion of the people, and it affords a far better test than any that can by possi bility be applied by a mere phrase at which an honest man will pause, but which the sardonic sceptic disdainfully swallows.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.) Repeated reference has been made in this House to the celebrated author of " The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," but I think that an example still more illustrative might have been cited. Was not Bo lingbroke—the fatally accomplished, the admiration of the admirable, he to whom genius offered tributes amounting almost to idolatrous veneration—was not Bo lingbroke, who united in himself all the external accem plishments and all the intellectual endowments requisite for a perfect Parliamentary speaker, and who, in the in tercourse of private life, exercised a species of fascination upon all those who had the misfortune to approach him —was not Bolingbroke, the infidel Bolingbroke, a :Mem ber of this House I Was he stopped by the test which arrests the Jew ? Did ho not rather tread it contemp tuously under foot, as he mounted to the heights of power, and b ecome , th roug h th e i n t erven ti on of the House of Common s , th e con fid en ti a l an d f avour i te a d v i ser of his Sovereign ? Is it not, then, monstrous, that a man by whom all revelation is rejected, who doubts the im mortality of the soul, who doubts a future state of re wards and . punishments, who doubts eternal Pro v id ence , who believes in nothing, fears nothing, hopes for nothing, who has no restraint upon brutality, and no incentive to virtue beyond such natural promptings as God may have given him—is it not, I say, mons trous that such a man should find his way into the House of Commons, and should climb to the very pinnacle of power, and yet that you should shut th e doors of this House with indignity upon an honourable and conscientious man who adheres to the religion in which he was born and bred, a man who believes in the great facts that constitute the foundation of Christianity, who believes in the perpetual existence of the nobler part of our being, who believes in the :racy of God, and practices humanity to man, who fulfils the ten great injunctions in which all morality is comprised—(Hear, hear)—whese car is never deaf to the supplications of suffcrinee whose hand is as open as clay to charity, and whose life, perhaps, presents a better exemplificetion of the precepts of the goepel than that of men by whom, for the sake of the Christian religion, his dishonouring disabilities are wantonly, injuriously, and hopelessly maintained ?—(Cheers.) Where will you find authority in the Scriptures themselves fee the imposition of a tem poral penalty, with a view to the propagation of heavenly truth ? You may find it in the writings of jurists and divines, you may find it in the alsgmas of aus tere theologians, who bring their testimony to the truths of religion, or their authority to the traditions of the Church, whilet in their precepts of discipline the vanity of human wisdom is demonstrable and irresistibly proved. But you will not find it in the New Testament; you will not find it in the evangelic pages of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, or of John; you will not find it in the Epistles, written by the meek and hutn!sle man to whom the teaching of all nations was confided; and, above all, you will not find it in anything that was ever said, in anything that was ever done, in anything that was ever euffered, by the Divine Author of the Christian religion, Him }silo spoke from the mountain to the benighted throng, who said he came to take the heart of stone away from us, who said that the merciful were blessed, • and in place of ratifying the terrible anathema which the Jews invoked upon themselves, preyed for mercy for those who knew not what they did, whilst in voking the great sacrifice offered up upon the cross of trial. It was not by persecution—nay, it was in despite of persecution, despite of exile, despite of spolia tion, despite of shame and death, diorite the dungeon, the wheel, the bed of steel, end the couch of flame, that the Christian religion made its superhuman end miraculous way. And is it not repugnant to common 5(0130, as well as to the elementary principles of that divine religion, to tell us that the Christian religion is to be maintained and propagated by an instrumentality diametrically the reverse of that by which it was estab lished ?—(dilear, hear.) But, alas, for frail human nature! No soener had the professors of Christianity become associated with temporal authority, than they practised and enforced a severity of which their prede cessors had been the objects. The Jew was selected as the special object of their inflictions. His history through centuries is one of blood, of torture, of every form of cruelty and every art of extortion. Men of mercy occasioually came forth to raise their voice in his behalf. The great St. Bernard took a part in his favour; but the light that appeared in the Abbey of Clairvaux was faint and evanescent. Centuries of new dark ness and new persecution followed the Reforma tion did nothing for the Jew. All of us—Catholics, Protestants, Presbyterians, and the rest, who had torn to pieces the sacred garments of the Sovereign Pontiff, terribly sinned in this regard. But it is some consolation to a Roman Catholic to reflect that Roman Catholic countries were the first to repair this injustice. in Belgium and in France all distinctions be tween the Christian and the Jew have been abolished; I trust that Protestant England will follow that great ex ample. The force of prejudice once existir ' s in this country was insuperable, but it is beginning to disperse. London has made a noble attestation of its will. Are you prepared to throw back the Jew upon London, in order that London may throw back the Jew upon you ?—(No, no, and cheers.) But, Sir, not only do I think the dis qualifications that press upon the Jew inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion, I think those very penalties impede the progress of Christianity, prevent the conversion of the Jew, and produce teFeets diametrically the reverse of those they were intended to produce. The disabilities imposed upon the Jew are not sufficiently onerous to be com pulsory, but sufficiently vexatious to make conversion a synonyme for apostacy, and to affix a stigma to what is held an interested conformity to the estab lished religion. You have struck off the massive fetters by which the Jess' was bound neck and foot, but the fet ter3 which remain, though apparently light, were strong enough to fasten the Jew to his faith, and to make it a matter of discredit that he should desert his belief. Nothing effectual will be done in this country for the extinction of Judaism until yourselves shall have begun by making a restitution of his birthright to every Eng lishman by whom that persuasion is embraced. I know that an idea is entertained by some that there is no such thing as an English, or a Spanish, or an Italian Jew— that a Jew is a Jew and nothing else, that his nation ality is engrossed by the country of his hopes and his recollections, and that the house of Jacob must remain for ever in bondage. It is not wonderful that, when the Jew was oppressed, plagued, branded—when he was in the midst of a captivity worse than the Assyrian —he should have felt by the Seine or the Thames as did his fathers by the waters of Babylon. It is not wonderful that in a lend of exile he should have felt as a banished and homeless outcast; but what has been already done has produced a most-signal amelioration in his character and feelings in this respect. In proportion as you have mitigated the laws against the Jews, the instinct by which men are taught to love the country of their birth has been revived and fostered; British feelings, British patriotism have taken root in the heart of the Jew, and nothing but perfect justice is required for their develop ment. Emancipate the Jew, abolish all distinctions between him and the Christian, and you instil into his heart the perfect consciousness of country. his exulta tions and mournings will be the same as yours; his heart will beat with the same joy at the tidings of Eng lish victory; and if there should he need, his life will be poured out for his country with the same prodigality as yours.—(General cheering.) Mr. NEWDEG ATE said, as it was now so late (25 minutes to 12), ho should move the adjournment of the debate. Sir G. GREY hoped the House would not adopt the practice of early adjournments. Great objections had been already made to the e, djournment of the debato so often repeated, and certainly at such an early hour the proposition would be very unreasonable. After a few words from Mr. Newdegate, Sir R. H. Inglis, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the amend ment was withdrawn. Mr. NEWDEGATE laboured under the greatest dis advantage in haying so abruptly to address the House. Retaining a deep impression upon this subject, he thought the eloquence exerted by the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite, when he compared the feeling which opposed this measure with that which opposed the Bill of 1829, came strangely from a Roman Ca tholic, a member of the Church most exclusively Chris tian, yet casting aside every consideration of Christianity. They had heard a great deal about the scenes which had taken place in the City with reference to this election, but it had come to his knowledge that wealth had been brought to bear in gettin g up petitions in favour of the measure before the Iloase.—(Hear, hear, from some Members on the Oppositio n benches.) The first price offered was ls , 6 d. for ono hundred signatures to a prie e petition;the next pri ce o ff ere d was 25., an d t h e next offered was .53.--.(Hear, hear.) Those wore facts which he could prove, and he thought it right that the House should bo informed of them. Had it ever entered into the mind of Honoure)le Gentlemen who supported the measure before the House that the majority of the people of this country were Christian, and that it was therefore desirable maintain the Christian character of the Legislse ere. It had been stated by a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite that such e, measure as this would tend towards the conversion of Jews to Christianity, but he (Mr. Newelegate) could net s „ an y such tendency in the measure. Was it reason able, he would ask, to suppose that the admission of a f ew persons of the Jewish persuasion to Parliament would have such a serious effect upon their faith and tradition, and Christianize the Jewish community ? For his great the people in this country were clegat e ) did not believe that thci de sirous to sacrifice the Ch r i st i an c h aracter o f th e Legislature. It was . rather r emar k a bl e th a t the Prime part,b body y e o ( of Mr. Minister of the -country should bring forward a measure founded upon principles which had originted with the French National Assembly i n 1791. Were they, the Members of the English Legislature to forget that they were Chris tians ? Were they to forget that for so many years the Jews had been the chosen people of God, and that for 1,800 years they had been scattered over the earth an exhibition of the truth of what had been prophesied concerning them ? Were , thee-a Christian Legislature, to forget all the predictions and prophecies of the Scrip tures, and not to regard the great monument of Divine justice which the Jews presented ? Were they to admit to legislate for this country those people whom the Deity thought unfit to legislate for themselves, and thus to adopt the principle of a double conscience, and believe that religion should he a guide to a maim in his house hold and private concerns, but that he might cast off his religious feelings and his conscience when he became a member of a Legislature, and confor m to every act which might be in accordance with that repudiation ? Upon what principle was it proposed to destroy the Christian character of the Legi e r ature ? Where was this system of progress, as it was called, to end, which had already broken down so many barriers, and which tended to so much confusion ? lie could not agree to a measure of this nature, which was SO much opposed to his principles. On the motion of Mr. C. PEARSON. the debate was adjourned. DISTILLING FROM SUGAR. The following Resolutions were reported and agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Parker:- 1. Resolved, That it is expedient to allow the use of molasses in the distillation of spirits. 2. Resolved, That it is expedient to make regulations relative to the distillation of spirits from sugar and from molasses in England, Scotland, and Ireland. 3. Resolved, That an allowance of twelve shillings and tenpence halfpenny , be g ranted to every distiller of spirits in the United Kingdom for and in respe c t of every eleven gallons of proof spirits produced from sugar, used by such distiller in the making o f spirits upon which the duties now by law imposed have been paid, provided that one hundred and twelve pounds weight avoirdupois of sugar have been so used in the production of every eleven gallons of such spirits; but if a less quantity of sugar has been so used than after the rate of one hundred and twelve pounds of sugar for every eleven gallons of such spirits, then instead of the allowance lest mentioned an allow ance of twelve shillings and tenpence halfpenny be granted to such distiller for and in respect of every one hundred and twelve pounds weight of sugar so used. 4. Resolved, That an allowance of four shillings and sixpence be granted to every distiller of spirits in the United Kingdom, for and in respect of every seven gallons and one half of a ,eallon of proof spi r it s pro d uce d from molasses used by suchb distiller in the making of spirits upon which the duties - now by law imp ose d h ave been paid; provided that one hundred and twelve pounds weight of molasses have been so used in the production of every seven gallons and one half of a gallon of such spirits; but if a less quantity of molasses has been so used than after the rate of one hundred and twelve pounds weight of molasses for every seven gallon! ; and ono half of a gallon of such spirits, then instead o F the allowance last mentioned an allowance of four shil lings and sixpence 13: - .‘ granted to such distiller for and i n re spect of every one hundred and twelve pounds weir; lit of molasses so used. WEST INDIA INTEREST. Lord GEORGIA] BENTINCK moved the nomination of the following Members, to form a Select Comm ittee to inquire into the present condition and prospects cif the interests connected with and dependent on sugai? and coffee planting in her Majesty's East and West India possessions and the Mauritius, and to consider whether any and whet measures can be adopted by Parliitment for their relief:—Lord Gcorge Bantinck, Mr. Labou chere, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. OtrOwell, Sir Thomss Birch, Mr. Henry Hope, Mr. Char:les Vil liers, Mr. Philip Miles, Mr. James Wilson, Lora George Manners, Mr. Evart, Sir John Pakington, Mr.. James Matheson, and Sir E. Buxton. The motion was agreed to. The other orders of the day were then agreed to, add the House adjout ned at half-past twelve. HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 7. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack shortly b€fore Five o'clock. The Bishop of MANCHESTER took be oaths and his seat. His Lordship was introduced by the Bishops of London and Worcester. JEWISH DISABILITIES. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition against the Jewish Emancipation Bill. Lord KENYON presented several petitions to the same effect. exported from that country in 1834 was only 13-1,000 cwts., but in 1846 it had increased to 1,690,000 cysts.; and vi hat was the amount of our ex ports of manufactured goods to Indi a In 1834 it amounted in value to 1,574,0001, and in 184 G-7 it amounted to 4,240,0001. Surely those who had uged the Government in the course of free trade should consider these things, and should not rvshly deprive the country of such a market as this. In 1834-5 735,0004 was the value of the cotton imported, and in 1846 7 the value of the cotton imported had in creased to 3,097,0004; and of the whole imports of India, amounting to 2,600,000/., the increase in cotton alone was 2,300,000!.—(Hear, hear.) He contended, then, that the supply of sugar from India was of great importance to this country.—(Hear, hear.) The con• sumption of sugar in this country during the last year had exceeded the usual quantity by 40,000 tons, and it had been attributed to free trade; but the fact was that, encouraged by the promises of protection, our own countrymen and colonists had applied their skill and capital, and had produced a greater quantity of sugar than ever they had done before; and the result of the Act of 1846 would be to consign to utter ruin and bank ruptcy every one of our West India colonies. The prices in this country had fallen from 355., 365., 375., and 3Ss. per cwt. down to 21s. (he believed it was now 235.), all of which was to be attributed to the same cause, involv ins, a loss to the colonists in th e l as t y ear o f 2,500,0001. The" prices of sugar, he thought, were fixed now, and there was no hope, therefore, of this loss being redeemed. Although there had been a decrease in the price of West India sugar to so great an extent, there had been absolutely a rise of from Is. to 2s, per cwt. on Cuba sugar, in consequence of its more easy admission into this country. And when it was said that Cuba and Brazil would take our manufactures in return what was the fact ? He would take a p er i o d o f s i xteen mont h s before the passine• of the Act of 1846, and also of sixteen months since, and he found that whereas our exports to Brazil; Cuba. and Porto Rico in the former period had been 2,309,0004, in the latter they had not been more than 2,477,000/ ; an increase of just 168,000/. Com- ' paring this with cur imports to Asia for the same period, the result was that to India, the West Indies, and British Mauritius, there had been a d ecrease i n our exports the last sixteen months, as compared with the first period, of 1,339,000/, and this was to be set off against an increase to the slave-labour colonies of 165,000/.—(Hear, hear.) He was anxious to show their Lordships that our own colonies had suffered and were still suffering by the acts of the Legislature, and that the crowning injustice under which they must irretriev ably sink was the Act of 1846, and he thought he had succeeded in doing so.—(Hear, hear.) The petitions prayed for a full supply of African labour—the equali zation of the duties on rum—the admission of molasses into breweries and distilleries—the removal, either wholly or partially, of the duty on colonial sugar imported into this country; some of them applied for a loan—the peti tion from Demerara made application for a loan for thorough drainage—and, he was happy to say, there was only one petition, namely that from Jamaica, which prayed for an alteration of the Navigation Laws. If, however, every interest was to succumb, he could see no reason why they should stop short in the ,work of de struction.—(Hear, hear.) The West Indians had a right no doubt to say, you have declared there shall be free trade in sugar, and we have a right to demand that all obstruction shall be removed from the mode in which we send our produce to the market. But they lost sight of the fact that Great Britain had almost the entire car rying trade of Cuba and Brazil, because those colonies had no mercantile navies of their own ; and he did not, therefore, see how the West Indies were to be benefited by an alteration of the Navigation Laws, for if they took away these laws, and cheapened the trade from the West Indies, in precisely the same ratio would it be re duced from Cuba and Brazil.—(Hear, hear.) Into the question of introducing their molasses into distilleries, he would not now enter. He understood Government had intimated their intention to make these concessions ; but in the very last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that molasses could not be introduced into the distilleries without serious loss; and, in the like manner, he had strenuously resisted the reduction of the duty on ruin. Thus it was that no interest could be able to rely a single twelvementh on whatgovernment intended to do. The question of emigration was of immense importance. He :doubted whether it aas possible to obtain such a supply of labour from the African coast as would pro dace any material reduction of the rate of wages. He was not opposed to such supply if it could take place without interfering with previous arrangements. When he was in the Colonial-office, he had striven to promote the introduction of Hill Coolies into the West Indies ; but he was never very sanguine in his hopes of the sue cess of that measure. As to any permanent effect upon the price of production, it was out of the question. While desirous to afford every facility for the introduction of labourers from Africa, he was convinced that if the planters were allowed to go to the coast of Africa for I this purpose, without any surveillance on the part of the Government, it would create a just jealousy on the part of other nations as to the practical revival of the slave trade and the encouragement of thoso intestine wars in Africa for the sake of supplying the demand for labourers. The petititioners declared their con viction that it was impossible to procure a sufficiency of labourers in this way without negotiating with and conciliating the chiefs; and were British merchants to be permitted to approach for this purpose a coast which was so jealously guarded from other countries such a step would certainly involve the Colonial-office in great difficulty. He asked for no additional differential duties in favour of our colonial produce; but ho was firmly of opinion that whatever palliative was applied it was impossible for the West India colonies to compete on equal terms a ith slave produce.—(llcar, hear.) The stock of sugar now on hand was larger than ever was known. In consequence of the increased consumption of slave-made sugar, thirty six thousand tons of our own colonial produce had been rejected. The conse quent distress of many merchants was most extensive. The house of Reid, Irving, and Co., had sustained by the fall of prices a loss of 100,000/. in one year—or estimating the profit at ten per cent., an actual loss of one million sterling.—(hear, hear.) Mean while the price of sugar in Cuba and Brazil had been raised. lts importation from the East Indies had been stopped, and though the reduction in the price of sugar might be boasted of, this would be dearly bought by depriving us of the supply of sugar from our own colonies, and by allowing all our love of liberty and ve neration of religion to evaporate for the paltry conside ration of a penny a pound in the price of sugar.—(Hear, hear.) After all, this miserable boon would not be ob tained, but the slave trade would be encouraged, and our own colonies ruined.—(Hear.) Nothing could relieve their distress but a postponement at least of the period at which the differential duty was to be further reduced. He, for one, had not bowed down before the idol of free trade, at whose shrine, it appeared, ono great interest after another was to be sacriticed.—(Hear.) This idol was a very sorry idol `after all, and would perhaps be found to be composed of even baser materials than had hitherto been imagined.—(Hear.) Earl GREY said he was bound to :admit the existence of most severe and painful distress in the colonies ; and the Noble Lord opposite could not deplore this more sincerely than he (Lord Grey) did. But he entirely dissented from the opinion that this distress was solely attributable to the free-trade measures of Government ; and of this he hoped to be able to convince their Lord ships before he sat down. Though the distress was in part attributable, no doubt, to circumstances peculiar to the West Indies, yet in a large part also those colonies were but suffering in common with all the trading inte rests of this country. The fall of price in many other articles had not been less serious than in sugar; in some kinds of tea, in indigo, rice, sago, and other articles, it had been scarcely less considerable. For some months after the passing of the late free-trade measures, the sugar market had not been affected ; and it was only when the general depression occurred, that the serious fall in the price of sugar ensued. At the same time he ad mitted there was a cause of depression operating in the West Indies, which did not apply to other interests; but wben the Noble Lord attributed this entirely to the free-trade measures ho flatly contradicted his own clients, who dated their distress, not from 1846, but from a much earlier period. One large proprietor said their estates had been profitable up to 1838, s in c e which period they ceased to be so. This distress might even be traced to a much earlier period; so long ago as 1833 the Noble Lord himself had described their condition as one marked by short and delusive periods of prosperity, and long ones of distress ; this description being supported by a report of the House of Assembly in Jamaica. Still he must admit that since the emancipation, distress, which before was frequent, had become almost con tinual; and it would be difficult to point to anything like prosperity in these colonies at a later period. H e wished: to be candid, and would therefore state hie belief that the great cause of this distress was the mis take in our legislation of 1833—the defective Bill which was passed for the great and holy purpose of extinguishing slavery. This was no new opinion of his. He had predicted the consequences that had followed. Even the distress had not been so great as he anticipated, nor the difficulty of continuing the cultivation of sugar so insuperable. He only alluded to this as being abso lutely essential to his argument. The measure of 1833 was defective in this':—lnstead of obviating the causes which were likely to leave the negroes without any , adequate stimulus to labour, the measure merely post poned the difficulty by leaving. them in a modified kind of slavery for a certain time, as the Noble Lord himself now admitted the apprenticeship to have been. Instead of this, some adequate stimulus ought to have been pro vided for inducing the negroes to labour; while all that the measure of 1833 had done was to postpone the crisis. At the time he (Lord Grey) had declared his conviction that Parliament was incompetent to legislate as it hai done, and suggested that they should merely lay down the great principle that each man was free, leaving the local legislatures to adopt the measure to the requrements of the several colonies. Ho had suggested that the establishment of freedom should be postponed for a year, in opposition to the wish of the Noble Lord opposite, who proposed it should take place in two months. This was too short a period to allow the local legislatures to make the necessary regulations, which the Noble Lord had there fore imposed upon the Imperial Parliament. The great and paramount object of that measure ought to have been to subject the negroes to some necessity to labour. He did not believe that there was in the negro race any peculiar indisposition to labour, but held that they g . ite were wt accessible to the same motives in that resp e c t a I very was men. It was perfectly obvious that when befo s re had the entirely abolished, the negroes ha gratuitous use of a provision ground Iving and hut, and wages equivalent to a shilling a wee k, earn in a single day more than they received from their masters for the labour of a week. The necessary conse quence was a large increase of wages ; and what would have happened here, or anywhere else, in such a state of things? Unquestionably the labourer would content himself with a shorter period of, labour, and wou ld not ODD FELLOWS. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition frcnt the society of Odd Fellows, praying that they might be recognised as a legal society, so as to be entitled to all the privileges accorded to other societies under the Benefit Societies' Act. NAVIGATION LAWS: The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition against any alteration in the navigation laws. JEWISH EMANCIPATION. Earl FITZ \\TILLIA.M presented a petition from the Mayor and Corporation of Doncaster in favour of the Jewish Emancipation Bill. TOBAGO. Viecount CANNING- presented a petition from the planters of Tobago, praying their Lordships to adopt measures to relieve the distress prevalent in that island, consequent upon the general depreciation of West India property, and specially in consequence of the recent destruction of property in that island by the late hurricane. DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH ROME. The Marquis of LANSD 0 WNE rose for the purpose of making use of the privilege, which he possessed as a member of their Lordships' House to authorise the Government to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. He should give notice that he would move that the Bill should be read a second time on Friday. Lord STANLEY considered it extremely desir able that diplomatic relations should exist between the Sovereigns of this country and of Rome as temporal princes ; but, considering that the sovereign of Rorie claimed dominion as a spiritual prince, he thought that several matters worthy of grave consi deration would arise, and, therefore, he thought that longer time ought to be given to the country to consider the subject thin the time that would elapse between Monday and Friday. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would consider the subject, which, however, could not Imo come unexpectedly upon the House, and he would to-morrow state whether he could postpone the second reading. The Duke of RICHMOND thought that, consider ing it would be impossible for the inhabitants of Scot land or Ireland to know the day fixed for the second reading of the Bill before that day should have passed by, he thought that a longer period should have been fixed for the second reading of the Bill. Earl FITZWILLIAM considered the measure as one entirely of diplomacy, and he could not conceive how the religious privileges of the people of England (he would not say the prejudices of a few of them) could be violated - by the Court of England entering into diplomatic relations with Italian States. The Earl of EGLINTON trusted that in justice to the people of Scotland, who could not be informed of the introduction of this Bill into the House, that the second reading would be delayed. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE replied. The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday. WEST INDIA DISTRESS. Lord STANLEY then rose for the purpose of presenting a petition from Trelawny, in Jamaica, praying their Lordships to adopt measures for the relief of the distress at present existing in the sugar producing colonies, and in doing so entered into the whole question of West Indian grievances. His Lordship said that if the House were determined to persevere in the policy which had been pursued towards those colonies, it would be better at once to pronounce their sentence, and to consign them to utter ruin, rather than, by the inconsistent legislation which they had of late been pursuing, to protract their agony, which must end in ruin. The present state of the West Indies was entirely the consequence of legislation, and when they were struggling with the difficulties which had been imposed upon them by the highest motives, when they had nearly overcome these diffi culties, a sudden and to them an unexpected change of policy had plunged them into ruin, and for that they demanded compensation from Parliament. He entirely went with the petitioners on this point. The de plorable condition of tho colonies was too well known to the House to render it necessary for him to enter into any details on the subject. (The Noble Lord then proceeded to read various [returns, showing the outlay of two West India estates, stating that in one estate last year the expenses had been 10,0001., and the rental 9,512/. ; and on the other the outlay had been 8,4071, and the returns 8,1701. only.) The consequence was, that it was impossible to get the advance of a single penny upon mortgage on estates in Jamaica, Demerara, or Trinidad. He must go back to ,the history of the past. He would admit that the sacri fice of 20,000,000/., made by the nation on the abolition of slavery, was a great, glorious, and unheard-of sacrifice. But it was not equal to the amount of property sacrificed, and it was by no means an adequate compensation to the West Indian proprietors for the property they had sacrificed. It had been originally proposed to accompany a grant of 15,000,0001. by a period of twelve years of modified slavery, for such he would now admit to the Noble Earl opp osi t e the apprenticeship was in reality. He was still of opinion that it would have been politic to have made the negro contribute something towards the purchase of his freedom, and that the period of apprenticeship should have been twelve years; but the House of Commons determined otherwise, and Parliament determined that 20,000,0001. should be granted, and that the apprenticeship should be for seven years instead of twelve. But Parliament afterwards deter mined that the apprenticeship should terminate at the end of five instead of at the end of seven years, thus depriving the planter of two years' labour, which was part of his compensation. Then with regard to the protecting duties which had since been removed. At the time of the debates on the emancipation it had been argued, that although the production of sugar might be diminished in consequence of, the abolition of slavery, yet as the Indian colonists possessed the monopoly of the British market of sugar, the increase in price would never compensate them for the dimi nution of quantity. Before the emancipation, the British colonies possessed, in effect, no monopoly, because they not only supplied all England, but the greater part of the Continent of Europe. Before emancipation, without any monopoly price, they were enabled to supply all the United Kingdom, and to export their surplus produce to the Continent. During the years of apprenticeship the surplus became a deficiency, and after the abolition of the apprenticeship, the supply had constantly fallen oft Under the last years of slavery the average annual supply of sugar for the British West Indian colonies was 3,700,000 cwts.; during the apprenticeship it fell to 3,004,000 cysts., and since the abolition of apprenticeship it had fallen to the annual average of 2,450,000 cwts. The cost of producing this last quantity had been much greater than under former circumstances. During slavery the cost of the production of sugar was 4s. 3d. per cwt. ; during the apprenticeship, 6s. 7d. per cwt. ; up to 1843, 16s. 11d. per cwt. ; and since that period, 21s. 9d. per cwt., and of this amount 13s. 4d. found its way into the pocket of the negro labourer. Since 1833 legislation had placed obstructions and difficulties in the way of the sugar planter,and for those obstructions and those difficulties he was entitled, in justice, to some co . mpen sation from the Legislature. The Legislature had deprired him of the right of employing slaves, and they therefore demand to be entitled to some protection against those who employed slave labour. In 1840, when sugar was at an iinmense price, it was proposed to admit slave-labour any at a low duty ; this was proposed by a Minister of the Crown. It was opposed, the Minister was defeated, Parliament was dissolved, and a new Parliament was el ec t e d , the majority of which were pledged to protect colonial free labour sugar against slave 'labour Na s ll h t e h they ul sugar. Such being the case, could the W es t Indians be blamed for acting on the faith o f dnot hesitate that decision, and investing their capital i n pro moting the free-labour cultivation of su gar i n t h e Nest l u d e is; in had passed a as to say, a bounty upon t h e slave trade, and yet they wasted lives and money in bloodshed in Africa IyBe4t6, in which spite of v a , to put down the slave trade , while they were by the Act of 1846 encouraging by a bounty,Cuba and the Brazils. measure Then, with regard to India, the quantity of sugar --~~ ~~ ,~ 4- l e be tempted, even by the increased wages, to . ' teso hard as before.--(Hear, hear.) Then the compel` i jlesleveen - ov the landowners in letting their patches of IL would be',_., sure to enable the negroes to obtain it talen'eChettply . , 7.- another motive for slackening their exoriiQs. .. Attdi, : e without some legislative measure for increatiittg thelieicei.Li4 of land to the negroes, he had expressed his Yon‘idipu j that the quantity of sugar produced must suffer a con-'..~ siderable decrease. This objection had also been enter tained by another Noble Lord (Eerl Ripon). Still, he had felt that it was a less evil for the production of sugar to be decreased than that the great measure then under discussion should be perilled. On this point only had he differed from his excellent friends who supported that measure, and who thought that, to a great extent, whatever was bad for the planters was good for the negroes. He had entertained a very different opinion, believing that the interest of the one was strictly dependent on the other, and that opinion he still held.— (Hear.) The system of apprenticeship which the Eman cipation Act established was in the course of a few years abolished, not by direct legislation, but by a measure which had necessarily the effect of putting an end to it. So little had the colonies themselves desired the appren ticeship, that Antigua had dispensed with it altogether; and even in Jamaica it was not looked upon with favour. The termination of the apprenticeship in 1838 was perhaps a more dangerous crisis for the colonies than the eman cipation itself. The negroes had been told for five years that they were freemen, and had enjoyed none of the ad vantages they expected. The planters, on the other hand, had not derived advantage from the change, and there was a general want of confidence in the permanence of the system. Many planters were anxious to make all they could of the compensation during the continuance of the apprenticeship, and then give the concern up. The consequence was that the estates were not properly attended to, nor was the compensation applied in the best way that it might have been.—(Hear, hear.) lie would have had it applied, to a large extent, in loans for the extension of drainage and other improvements of the estates. None of these things had been done ; and the consequence was that, in 1838, the change to complete freedom took place under the most un favourable circumstances that it was possible to imagine. It also took place without any attempt by any descrip tion of legislation by the colonies to subject the negroes to that moral restraint by which they would bo com pelled, like the English labourers, to work for their living. Such being the csse, it was to him matter of astonishment not that the consequences had been so disastrous, but that, on 'the whole, the system had worked so well. These matters had exposed ;1 s planters to all sorts of difficulties—one arose froz the system of taxation, so contrived as to make it th interest of the negro to devote his labour to his owl provision ground, instead of working for hire. Another circumstance was one which to some might appear para doxical—namely, the existence in this country of pro tective duties in favour of the produce of the colonies. Those duties, he contended, had materially aggravated the difficulties of the planters. The effect of those duties had been to limit an adequate supply of labour, which was one of the greatest evils to which the planter was exposed. The higher the price obtained in this country, the higher wages the planter was enabled to pay; and the higher the wages, the less was the amount of labour the negroes need perform in order to live as well as, according to their notions, was necessary. This was not mere inference, because positive facts showed that the higher the wages the less was the amount of labour performed, and, consequently, the less was the amount of produce. A deputation had waited the other day uponhis Noble Friend at the head of the Government in Down ing -street, which deputation he (Earl Grey) had at tended. One of the gentlemen present made a statement as to the cost at which produce had been obtained in St. Kitt's, which had struck him as remarkable. That statement Jae had since been furnished with, and it showed, that for four: years, commencing eight years ego, a cost of 6,5601. had produced 13.965 cwt. of sugar; while during the last four years, 8,663 L was the cost of producing 14,800 cwt. of sugar; so that while labour cost 2,0001. more in the last four years, the quantity produced had fallen by upwards of 1,000 val. This proved that as wages rose, the labourer became inde pendent of his master, and hence the amount of labour done was reduced. Similar facts were stated by Gover nor Higginson of Antigua, and by the Governor of British Guiana, dated Ist of January, 1848. Under such circumstances, would anybody tell him that the system of protection had been beneficial to the planters? On the contrary, he held it to bo the interest of the planters that the Legislature should adhere to the wise determination at which it arrived in 1846. ' Would it be just that the hard-worked and over taxed people of this country should pay 3,000,0001. per annum by the renewal of protection in order to keep up the wagenjin Demerara to that point which gave the negroes 2s. Id. for about four or five hours' labour? Without protection the planters would have a greater amount of produce at a cheaper cost, whileat;the same time there was secured to them a market free from those changes and vicissitudes in price which existed under the protection system. For these reasons ho could not concur with the Noble Lord opposite in think ing ;that the measures of 1846 were to be charged with all the dificulties in the West India colonies. Still less did he think that Parliament ought now to retrace its stops. Even the West India interest itself admitted that it would be in vain to do so. It was beyond the power of any Parliament to create the slightest confidence as to the permanence of any system of protective duties; but it was certainly right that whatever the legislatuere could do should be attempted. He would now shortly advert to some of the other topics touched upon by the Noble Lord opposite, and contained in the peti tion which the Noble Lord had presented. In the first place with regard to emigration from Africa, the opinions expressed by the Noble Lord were precisely those which he (Earl Grey) entertained with respect to that sub ject, trtul he thought the measures that the Government had adopted were as much as they could be in that direction. Following the views of the Noble Lord, he (Earl Grey) :had endeavoured to extend to the West Indies all the Africans taken on board slave ships. These men not only soon improved in civilization when in the colonies, but also contributed to the advancement of the colonies, while on the other hand, if they were left at Sierra Leone, their case would be very different. It was impossible to contemplate the feature which Sierra Leone presented, without the most melancholy feelings—all attempts to improve the negroes there had ' most lamentably failed. Its local ;disadvantages were so great—the want of sufficient good land was so mani fest, and above all its dreadful climate operated against its advancement and improvement. To him (Earl Grey) it was absolutely painful when he was call upon to fill up the vacancies which so often occurred in the civil establishment necessary to be kept up there, and he could not bear to send out officers and missionaries to a place whore he knew their deaths would be almost certain. —(Hear.) On all grounds it was of vast importance that all captured slaves should be sent to the West. Indies. The colonies hitherto had been able and willing to pay the expenses of their transit, but, looking to the distress which now prevailed among them, he thought it but fair that this expense should iu future be borne by the British instead of the colonial treasuries.—(Hear, hear.) These captured negroes would only ho sent from British settle ments on the African coast, or from the Kroo coast, where the slave trade did not exist, and in order to pre elude the possibility of abuse, it had been provided that they could only be conveyed to the West Indies under the superintending control of a British naval officer. From such a system of immigration he (Earl Grey) en tertained great hopes. It was proposed to give a return passage to a certain number after serving a (Pertain time in the colonies, and from this it was anticipated that those who returned would report to their countrymen in Africa the high wages they had obtained, and thus an encouragement would be given to others to go out. As an instance of the success of this system, he would men tion that on the first voyage of the Growler, she took into back the hands of the Crown, their arrival in Africa, no less a sum than 5711. 15. 10d., which they had accumulated by their in industry in that colony. This showed not only the high rate of wages, but that the Kroo men, whose affection for their native land was most extraordinary, bad a great desire speedily to acquire a sum of money to take back with them on their return to Africa. The return of such men must have a considerable effect in stimulat ing emigration, and in introducing civilization and knowledge among their countrymen. But to save the expense of maintaining steamers to convey them the Government had found it was possible to make arrange ments by which merchant vessels bound to the West Indies would at a moderate cost take Africa on their way, and convey immigrants to the colonies. In case of ' a failure to obtain such passengers, her Majesty's Goverment had made arrangements to compensate the owners by a moderate payment. Under this arrange ment two ships had gone out to Jamaica, four to British Guiana, and two to Trinidad. There was another point which, however, only referred to two of the colonies. Her Majesty's Government proposed to ask the sanction of Parliament for a grant of 200,000/. to British Guiana. and Trinidad. The reasons for that proposition were these. In 1834 the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) gave his sanction to the adoption by these colonies of a plan for raising money by loans, for the purpose of Indian immigration. Ho (Earl Grey) confessed that looking at:the cost of that h temporary advantages which I was of far too costly a charac case, he did not think it wise expense of it on the present He therefore lamented that the duced (reluctantly, he believed of proceeding. In the last ‘ raised on terms not disadvan ago an attempt had been mad( the expenses of the irumigr b( a, ,, no offers on any terms h ad circumstances, the Governme however strong the objections, th e col loan to of loan to this extentommendto proposed to_ ies should —a s I the colonies loans es w h i c a l l canes, earthquakes, and other ' ponod. The first of these low ptoaYsommenet:f of St. Vincent, St. Lucie, and a 948,1504 ; and it was propot ment for a further period of stpheoci,fineedxitnrt,heiAiecht had d f 1840 said, 1 u a n d p m a i i d t — ni I. o ' i l z a .`s,s molasses for the u t s r e h The done with respect to the boat Montserrat, and Nevis, of w paid. The next measure would be one for the admissi , distillers in this country. Lord opposite (Lord Stanley . said, " How was it possible when the Legislature did on' t lated the duty on rum ; am A . I J. - - immigration, and the very it afforded, he thought it lcter ; and, that being the or prudent to charge the t resources of the country. he Noble Lord had been in- two • t sanction that course years loans had been. ntagcous, but some weeks l e to raise further loans for -ati )11 now in progress, but been made. Under these lent were of opinion that s to advance money by way system liable to abuse—a be granted. It was also Parliament that the ro- Idvanced some years ago 3h had suffered from hurri- ✓ disasters, should be post- ans had been to Barbadoes, Jominica, and amounted to )sed to postpone the repay- • ' five years from the time )1' tbeamount now remaining o same was proposed to be an of 135,0001. to Antigua, which 102,0001. remain un- which would be proposed [on of molasses for the use of On this subject the Noble F) had been very severe, and e any trade could flourish le thing ono year to undo it " Last year you refused to of distillers, and you regu- id this year you intend to • kit ••-• 14 5 q., \ ,0 . '~ `,! '= _ !rf I' '~ jJ a~ ~i .ir \Z ~' 1 1 1