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

THE OPENING OF THE SESSION. —WHAT MAY WE EXPECT FROII PARLIA MENT ? (From Douglas Jerrold's Weekly Newspaper.) Since the Revolution of 1688, which moulded the constitution into its present oligarchic form, under the fraudulent misnomer of a limited monarchy, the grand object of the Legislature has been to raise revenue, burdening industry with taxation while relieving property. The various wars in which we have been engaged since that period have entailed upon us a pressure of indebtedness which has embar rassed all succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer, while the extension of our colonial system has almost annually increased our ordinary expen diture. Against these accumulating difficulties labour has struggled with indomitable energies, but its strength has failed under the unceasing effort; and hence we find that since the peace Parlia ment has been besieged with petitions from all quar ters to modify or abrogate the duties imposed on par ticular productions, each trade of course considering itself specially entitled to relief. To assist any one was regarded as an act of favouritism, and provoked the hostility of those who were refused; to give a universal denial was to raise up a general combina tion against the Government ; moreover, a single con cession animated fresh demands, forming a precedent and encouraging people to hope that the pressure from without could not be resisted if determinedly enforced. These several attacks have been dex terously evaded by the appointment of Com mittees of Inquiry, the fruit of which has been de layed reports, too bulky to read, and too contra dictory to afford any safe guide to legislation. Meanwhile, the expenditure has increased and new debts have been contracted ; revenue has failed, and instead of a surplus, the national balance-sheet has exhibited a deficiency. Amid the clamour and dis tresses of the people, Government has put on a smil ing countenance, declaring itself hopeful of the future, confident in what has been termed the " industrial elasticity" of the trading and working classes, which really means periodical transitions from the gloomiest prostration to fugitive prosperity. We annually increase in population ; every year produces some new application of science to labour, and these ought to add to national lichee and enable us to sustain without inconvenient pressure the exactions of fiscality ; but practically this result is not attained, and session succeeds session, and Par liament is still importuned for the removal of unre dressed grievances. • The ordinary routine of affairs was broken in upon by that vast organization so well known as the Anti- Corn-law League, supported by great wealth, the highest talent, and an admirable working machinery. :It created an ambulatory Parliament, traversing the whole kingdom, and issuing its proclamations through the medium of the local press. It enunciated a doc trine which struck at the very roots of the financial system established at the Revolution of 1688, and which hail prevailed for a century and a half. It inscribed " free trade" on its banner, and aiming at a single object in order to establish its prin ciple, attacked the monopoly of bread, which it abolished. During the contest its more active mem bers achieved high personal popularity, and many of them have obtained seats in the present Par liatnent. To them chiefly the nation now looks for the completion of the promises held out by the powerful organization to which they belonged. At their hands " free trade" is demanded, irrespective of all considerations of revenue as derived from in direct taxation. It is for them to re-construct in spirit, if not in form, that fiscal system which was subverted by the Revolution of 1688. Unless we degrade ourselves by equivocating with the obvious meaning of language, "free trade" im plies the absence of customs, excise, and stamps ; it implies that every commodity shall he as completely relieved of toll ar d duty as corn will be in 1849. In the manifestoes of the Anti-Corn-law League no re servations were male in favour of revenue. Their pledges were explicit and unconditional; in that sense they were understood by the great body of the people, and accordingly every other agitation ceased that no impediment might endanger or re tard its success. The pledges, therefore, are to be re deemed in the same sense in which they were under stood. Such is the mission of the free-trade Mem bers of Parliament, let the Chancellor of the Exche quer raise his revenue as best he can. Their duty is quite distinct from his business. We begin with the article of tea. The cheaper bohea or congou c )nsumed by the poor man, pays the tame duty as the costlier congou or hyson which re gales patrician palates. By conquest, followed by treaties, we have opened the ports of China to our trade, but our tariff neutralises all that was accom plished by arms and negotiations. We, the disciples of Adam Smith, impose a duty of 200 to 300 per cent. on the produce of China, while the disciples of Con fucius are content with a duty of five per cent. on our manufactures. Our practice is a satire on our professions, for we sin ag dust our own conviotions. Are we, for purposes of revenue, to tax the poor man double what we tax the rich man, on a beverage which habit has rendered a necessary of life, and which is so conducive to temperance ? Take tobacco, the only luxury of the labouring man, on which the duty ranges from GOO to 1,200 per cent. IVhat a commentary is this on the teach ings of Adam Smith ! Here again we have violated economical principles for the sake of revenue, and while hypocritical fears are expressed that Parliament will be unchristianized by admitting Baron De Rothschild into the Legislature, we, by our fiscal system, are sapping the morals of our people by the encouragement given to smuggling, and the tempta tion afforded to the adulteration of commodities. From a return, moved for by Mr. flume, it appears that in the three years ending 1845, not fewer than 3,000 persons were convieteo for smuggling tobacco; and the Committee reported that a school was actu ally established in London, under female superinten dence, to teach the art and mystery of smuggling. Take wine. It is a fact that Denmark, not more populous than London, consumes far more of the wines of France than the whole of Great Britain, while Holland consumes sixty times as much as our selves. We wish to be at peace with France; but oppose those commercial relations which are the best safeguard against war. The vine-growers of the Gironde would not easily be persuaded to cut the throat of John Bull, were John Bull a constant cus tomer for their claret on a larger scale. We quote from a copy of the address which the free-traders of Bordeaux recently addressed to Lord John Russell:-- The consumption of N ine in France is thirty-six gallons per inhabitant ; in England it is only one fourth of a gallon In the seventeenth century, the consumption of wine in the British isles was many times greater than now. Suppose a duty imposed of 101. per hogshead, commen wine could then be sold (duty iecluded) at 4i 1. per bottle, ordinary sorts Gd., superior sorts at 81 per bottle." Our judges have declared that the chief cause of crime in this country is drunkenness, arising from the excessive use of ardent spirits of the most per nicious quality. The Flench are a very sober people, and this may, in a great measure, be attributed to the innocuous beverage that they consume. We have had numerous Committees specially appointed to investigate the causes and report on the progress of crime, and they have come to the same conclusions as the judges, and yet our rulers, for the sake of revenue derived from filthy gin, prohibit a lucrative trade with France, which has the additional recorn mennddation of being of a r e f o r ma t or y c h arac t er , and en ucive to the permanence of pacific relations be- tween the two countries. The whole of our Excise system merits unqualified condemnati on. Its efficiency requires an organized army of spi es . In their presence an Englishman's house is no longer his castle. Th e y can en t er hi s hour, premises at anyand even even in the night. They v can harass a trad esman they please, by i ns i s ti ng on taking stock at th e time he is known to be most engaged with his cuatompeerristnenTthis intrusive super vision is fatal to all ex which science may recommend, none being toalloweinsue deviateh from pre scribed processes, lest the revenue should be cheated. These restrictions are purely barbarous, swear by daily practised among a people i t t i , me Adam Smith. They are a tax wuap w rot o b hinderance to invention. Mr. delivered in the H o u se of Commons on thea2Btiof speech l as t May, gave a striking example of th e pernicious action of the Exci se re g ulations on industrial disco veries. verics. Twenty yea rs a g o the dut y o n salt was -re pealed, when a new chemical manufacture w as at once created. Soda, before produced from the kelp of the Highlands, and the barilla of Spain, began to be derived from common salt. This new trade w as prosecuted with success at Liverpool and elsewhere. Mr. Ewart further stated that lenses for telescopes ordered by foreigners could not be made, on account of the Excise obstructions, hut since the duties on glass have been repealed, the most beautiful improve ments have been made in this manufacture. Take paper. 'That on which newspapers are printed is chiefly made out of the sweepings of our flax and cotton mills. Now mark this monstrous contradiction. There is no duty on the raw mate rial", but directly they are converted into paper, a tax is imposed. 'c t iun cotton into calico, you escape fiscality ; transmut e it into pap er you come un d er the f angs of the Excise. P aper, h owever, i n alli ance with printi e t t printing, vil is one of th e great i nstruments of educati on , y nt d we profe ss a w i s h t h at our people s h ou ld b e educated, we take away t h e facili ti Consis es, an whlegislatorsy? becauS ! w e e must keep u p th e revenue. te amazed at you r wisdom 7 bow before your shrine, The tax on life assurance is a tax On family affec tion and solicitude ; th e t ax on fire I n surance is a t ax a c t o ax on health, on prudence. The tax on windows Commissioners. . and gives the lie to th e S an i tary s uk,„no.mattcr ; let widow s an d orphans nbenits left s with ' a n d goo d s b e reduced to ~ ~:~. '~- _~lr 11 - 1 • _S" • '44, 7 1:t ft I. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1848 , IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 7. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. NEW MEMBERS. Nearly twenty Members took the oaths and their seats, among whom we noticed Sir Charles Burrell, Mr. C. Bruce, the Marquis of Worcester, Viscount Adare, Sir W. W. Wynn, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. J. Denison. PETITION FROM THE CITY IN FAVOUR OF THE JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. Mr. Sheriff HILL appeared at the bar and presented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, arid Common Council of London, in favour of the Jewish Disabilities Bill. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. On the motion of Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE the following Standing Orders Committee was nomi nated :—Sir William Heathcote, Mr. Ord, Sir Robert Ferguson, Mr. Greene, Mr. Wilson Patten, Sir John Yarde Buller, Mr. Aglionby, Captain Jones, Mr. Home Drummond, Mr. Wrightson, and Mr. Elliot. The HoN. MEMBER then proposed the appointment of the following Committee of Selection, which was agreed to :--Sir Robert Ferguson, Mr. Wilson Pat ten, Mr. Sotheron, and Mr. Evelyn Denison. ashes—let typhus rage—let us be consoled—we have raised our revenue. One word on stamp duties. Here i 3 the tariff. The , reader will judge of the equity of its details, and how tenderly it regards the poor man ! Stamp duty on a sale of land 501. value 12/. 10s. per cent. Ditto on a sale „ 1001. „ 51. It 7) 3001. „ 2/. 10s. „ 5001. „ 11. 14s. 3d. „ Ditto on a sale above 500/. „ 1/. 11 The tariff on mortgages is framed in the same equitable spirit:— Stamp duty cn a 501. mortgage 21. per cent. I/ 20,000/. „ 01. 2 s. Od. 17 100,0001. „ 01. Os. 6d. It The facts detailed sufficiently indicate the purpose we have in view. They abundantly prove that " free trade" has yet to he realised, and that the members of the late League will have to work as hard within Parliament as they formerly did without its walls. Of course they will be resisted on the ground of revenue ; therefore, to redeem their pledges, they must necessarily he driven to the advocacy of direct taxation, for they are bound to remove every ob stacle which stands in the way of their great prin ciple. However, one other course is open to them. They may urge the advantages of an indirect mode of direct taxation. This is to be effected while retaining the existing fiscal machinery of customs, excise, and stamps, and needs nothing more than a free trade in gold. The difficulty with Mr. Cobden seems to be, that in his ideas the price of that metal, when arrayed with the attributes of legal tender, is not fixed by Act of Parliament. We endeavoured, last week, to explode the fallacy by which Mr. Cobden and many of his friends are deluded, and we have a strong hope that our labour will not be fruitless. We believe him to be quite free from prejudice, and ever open to conviction, and it is at least certain that he once opposed the monopoly of the Bank •f Eng land ; but if that opposition no longer exists, then, as a public man, he is bound to state the reasons why his opinions have changed. A correspondent of the Daily News has published some statements male in 1840 by Mr. Cobden, when examined by a Parlia mentary Committee on Banks of Issue, which prove his former hostility to the establishment in Thread needle -street, and which we subjoin : " Managing the currency and regulating the cur rency I consider to be just as possible as the manage ment of the tides, or of the regulating of the stars or the winds. I have seen no plan which places the thing wholly beyond the power of a body of men to increase or diminish the quantity of money; which power is as intolerable as that a body of men should have the power of regulating the length of the yard periodically; and it is as reasonable, in the case of merchants who may manage a bank like the Bank of England, as if they should be privileged to sell by the short yard and buy by the long one. I object entirely to such a bank being in the hands of a body of merchants. I object to any body of men having the power to increase or decrease the quantity of money.—(Questions 531 and 536)." These opinions strike at the roots of the present monetary system. We wish not to put any strained construction upon them, but to us the inference is obvious that the sole power of issuing money, or legal tender, ought again to be restored to the Crown, as one of the brightest jewels of th• prerogative. This is, indeed, an important step in the right direc tion, for it is the abolition of the monster monopoly. Then comes the question, if the monetary preroga tive was restored to the Crown, would the Crown undertake to provide and keep within our shores gold, as the instrument of taxation ? It could not ; therefore it would be compelled to substitute its own paper pounds guaranteed by the whole national credit, in which notes gold would rise and fall in price in common with all other commodities. This would be free trade in the precious metals, while it would also enable the industrious to add taxation to the intrinsic value of their goods ; and thus we should establish an indirect mode of direct taxation, and relieve labour from the burdens by which it is crushed. ALADDIN. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 7. (Sittings in Banco.) WEALS V. RING. This was an action tried before Mr. Baron Parke, at Hertford, in which the plaintiff sought to recover dama;.;es on the ground that the defendant had sold to him 500 store sheep which turned out to be un sound, Upon the trial of the cause the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, on the ground that they were of opinion that there was an implied warranty of their soundness. A rule was obtained a short time since by Mr. Chambers on the ground of the verdict being a per verse one and against evidence. Mr. Sergeant SHEE now showed cause against the rule, on the ground that it was the custom to sell store sheep with an implied warranty of their sound ness. The defendant had also been written to by the solicitor of the plaintiff, charging him with a breach of the warranty, and the defendant had not denied that there was a warranty of soundness in the sale of the sheep. Mr. Baron PARKE said, that he certainly did not think the jury ought to have found any such verdict as they had done. They acted, no doubt, under the belief that it was a fair and proper thing for the plaintiff to obtain the verdict. lie was of opinion that the rule ought to be made absolute, with costs to abide the event. Rule absolute. (Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD Cum , BARON and Special Juries.) THE ATTOBNEY•GENERAL V. CROSSLEY. This was an information against the defendant, a soap manufacturer, at \Vhitechapel, to recover penal ties fur cutting and removing soap within the time specified by Act of Parliament. The case was in part heard on Saturday. Mr. MARTIN, on the part of the defendants, now contended that it was absolutely impossible for the defendant to have removed the soap without the knowledge of the Excise officers who had charge of the premises, and called several witnesses to prove the course of proceedings in the manufacture of soap, from which it appeared to be the duty of the Excise officers to examine the state of all the soap on the premises every four hours, and enter the result of their examinations in books kept for the purpose. Upon the officer leaving the premises at night, it was usual for him to place a luck upon the coppers in which the material of the soap was boiled, which it would be impossible fur any person to opm without the knowledge of the officer. Several of the Excise officers who were present when the soap was cut down gave it as their opinion that the soap was as solid as that article usually was at the expiration of the period allowed by law, but they th.,ught that it was some degrees warmer. Numerous witnesses were called in support of this argument. A reply was made by the Attorney• General. The Lord Chief Baron was proceeding' to sum up, when The jury expressed themselves agreed to give a verdict fur the Crown, to the amount of 7001. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. An extraordinary scene took place in the justice room to-day, in the presence of the Lord Mayor and the Commissioner of the City Police. Rose Morris, and five other young women, who were said to have frequently received relief at the City of London Union, were brought before the Lord Mayor, and charged by Lloyd, one of the assistant relieving officers, under the following circum stances : John Lloyd, of No. 5, Northumberland-alley, said that on the preceding day, as he was going to the union, he saw at the corner of Northumberland court the six defendants. lie asked them whether they wanted relief, and Rose Morris and two of the others said, " you imprisoned us for three months, and we are come to pay you off, and are determined to do it." They then struck at him with their fists, but a policeman came up at the moment, arid he gave his assailants in charge, having good reason to fear the worst from their violence and vengeance. The LORD MAYOR—What sort of relief do you give these females ? Witness—We give them an order for one night's lodgings at Peckham, and some bread when they get th e r e . Kno w i n g all the paupers who were ' at the s p o t, I th oug ht th e y were th ere t o rece i v e relief. I have relie ve d th em all m os t freq u e n tly, a nd I lated t o am mostremnyethe certainly i i m n p b r o e d ss i i ly on f . ear of them, and their subseq uent conduct to the policeman was not calcu- The women said the whole of the statement made by the relievin g standing ofn i cer . was false. Two of them had, they said, been stai at the corner of the alley when the other females being aware of the were about to apply, arid cruel natureonrony t of the Peckham,r elief,unlona tal ro g u b i ed u ex t t h j ey morning, after a i NV iie h e ic e h of co b n re s a is d te , dof urandtumble down upon a filthy had ,in no notion of making any application themselves. without having re ce i ve d the sliosmht(t:ie n syt t Mr. Lloyd saw them he gave them int o thee m e custody of c , e b ' ut certainly, as he had st ruc k and kicked one of them, the blow was returned. Mr. Lloyd—l never returned a blow or a kick, and I am always liable to be treated in this manner. The language they use--towards me is the grossest that can be conceived. Rose Morris—Well, I am sure you are big a n d ugly enough to defend yourself. The LORD MAYOR (to the relieving officer)—Did You try to expostulate with them ? Mr. Lloyd—l did all I could, as I always (19, but it was useless. The L ORD M AYOR. —W e II I canno t h e lp saying that e By stem Pursued by the City of London Union the must be a very bad one, for the complaints made to me against it by the poor are tt n times as numerous as those against any of the other unions. 11r. Harvey (the City Police Commissioner) said, " this case is of greater public importance than the facts stated upon it are capable of disclosing. I have received many applications from bankers and mer chants for protection against the growing system of window breaking, and I have been most anxious to learn the cause of such outrages as have been daily occurring. Yesterday I visited all our station houses, and upon arriving at the station-house in Bow-lane I heard great noise and confusion, which, I was told, proceeded from six women who had been placed in charge by one of the officers connected with the Cannon-street Union, and who were so outrageous and furious that the policemen were obliged to put handcuffs upon one of them, and to threaten to restrain the rest of them in like manner. I considered it to be my duty to see the women, and I spoke to them upon the subject, and was listened to with quiet and respectful attention. My conviction is, that if these poor creatures were kindly treated, your Lordship would not be so much annoyed by the complaints against the City of Lon don Union, and the outrages described would no longer be perpetrated. The cause of this evil I must say I can trace to nothing but the conduct of the officers of the Unions, particularly of the city of London Union, for when the unfortunate creatures go to the relieving officers for relief, they do not re ceive the order of admission till an advanced hour of the day, and then they are obliged, exhausted and worn out, to walk a distance of four miles to Peckman, before they get a morsel of bread. In fact, the officers of the city of London Union do all they can to abate the number of applications, by rendering them as disagreeable as possible to the persons making them. I hope and believe that this state ment, which I cannot help making thus publicly be fore your Lordship, may reach the ears of those to whom the great responsibility attaches. These outrages are being incessantly perpetrated, and the unkindness with which those necessities oblige them to apply for relief are treated is the positive cause. When an indi • victual asks for relief, it is the duty of the officers ap pointed to give it, to ascertain the wants and claims of that individual, and to administer it without the ac companiment of an insult. The relieving officer, however, adopts a course calculated to throw the trouble of dealing with the refractoriness resulting from their own severity, upon the police, to whom they hand over the poor person who may dispute their authority, to do as they please with the distresses of others. It is time to administer a check to such pro ceedings, and to prevent the relieving officers from looking to the police and to the magistrate, to save them the trouble of properly and humanely performing their duty. It is right that they should know that if they do not perform their duty with kindness and humanity they must not expect any assistance from the police. It is manifestly the duty of the relieving officers to inquire into the cases of those who ask for relief, and to grant the relief if the application is found to be legitimate, with promptness, kindness, and humanity, instead of postponing for hours the granting of orders, and then sending the miserable objects four miles off, before they are to receive a morsel of bread. If the duties of the relieving officers were performed in the manner I have stated, you may depend upon it, my Lord, that you would have nothing of this system of window breaking, which entirely proceeds from the exasperated instinct of insulted poverty." Here there was a murmur of approbation from the crowd assembled in the police-room. Mr. Lloyd said he felt exceedingly awkward under such circumstances as those represented by the City Police Commissioner. He was under distinct orders, which those who employed hint would not permit him to deviate from. He uniformly granted orders to the female applicants without delay, but it was considered necessary by the authorities to postpone the granting of orders to the men until two o'clock, for reasons connected with the cleanliness and free dom from disease of the establishment. He began his business of passing to Peckham at ten o'clock in the morning, and continued to the latest hours, as would be seen by his books, and it was a rule with him never to refuse an order to a woman. The defendants said the relieving officer had refused them repeatedly, and most offensively. One of the police stated that he had frequently been present when Mr. Lloyd refused to give orders before two o'clock, and that there were crowds of ap plicants waiting about the house, culd, and in evident distress, on these occasions. Mr. Lloyd—l am obliged to obey the directions of those who employ me, and I treat the poor with all possible kindness, but women of this description it is quite impossible to deal with. The LORD MAYOR—It is, indeed, evident that we owe these numerous and alarming acts of outrage to the conduct of the City of London Union. The least I can say of that union is that it is singularly unfortunate, for I have fifty complaints against it for one against all the rest. A vast deal depends upon the management of the poor, and I believe that Cannon-street and Peckham operating together in the manner described is the cause of the mischief. It is a system of experiments made to ascertain the most complete way of relieving themselves from the trouble of relieving the poor. One of the women accused was then charged with having kicked one of the police in a most dangerous manner while he was conveying her to the station. The LORD MAYOR required that each of the defendants should find bail to the amount of 51., the relieving officer having sworn that he apprehended danger to his life from their violence; and directed that the City 'solicitor should prosecute Mary Phillips the woman who kicked the policeman. His Lordship concluded by emphatically calling upon the authori ties of the City of London Union to remedy withott further delay, an evil which they bad allowed to reach a fearful magnitude. When the six females were ordered to be taken back to prison, they turned upon the police, and a violent scuffle took place in the narrow bar of the justice room, between the constables and their prisoners, and long after the latter were locked up in the cage, they continued to scream and bellow through the building, and to curse the magistrates, and the police, and the poor-laws, in language the most revolting. BOW-STREET. Henry Voller, a footman in the service of Dr. Fincham, 5, Spring-gardens, was charged with stealing a silver spoon and 2/. 11s, from a dresser in the kitchen. The servant girl in the house finding, on getting up, that the contents of the dresser had been strewed about the kitchen, and one of the windows open, aroused her master, who came down stairs to see what was the matter. As the footman slept in an adjoining apartment, he was questioned upon the subject, when he said he heard some one in the house, but was afraid to get up. The prosecutor disbelieving his story, caused his bed to be searched and the spoon and the money were found therein upon which he was given into custody. Mr. lIALL committed him for trial. MARYLEBONE. The Rev. Dr. Spry, the rector of St. Marylebone, attended before Mr. Broughton, the sitting magis trate, in order to make a statement with regard to a shameful system of fraud and imposture which had recently been brought under his notice. The Rev. Gentleman briefly set forth the particu lars of his complaint, which was, that certain parties had been in the habit of sending letters to the nobility and gentry, purporting to be signed by him, and vouching for the truth of the allegations contaked in the said documents relative to the distressed condi tion of the applicants for assistance. Some letters and other papers produced by the Rev. Gentleman were handed over to an officer of the court by Mr. BROUGHTON, who directed that they should be shown to the officers of the Mendicit♦ Society, which course of proceeding might probably have the effect of tracing out the guilty parties and bringing them to justice. _ LAMBETH. Drydon Elstob, a young man who, it is said, is most respectably connected, was charged with steal ing a horse and chaise, the property of Mr. Tucker, livery -stable keeper, in llart-street, Long-acre. From the evidence it appeared that on Wednesday last the prisoner hired a horse and chaise to take him to Richmond and back, at the stables of Mr. Tucker, and as the servant of the prosecutor was to accompany him, there was no scruple made about letting him have them. He had not gone far when he changed his mind, and instead of pro ceeding to Richmond he drove into Essex. At the end of Upton-lane he pointed out to the servant of Mr. Tucker a farm-house, and desired him to stop there, and borrow from Mr. How, its occupier, two sovereigns, on bis account. The servant proceeded towards the farm-house as directed, but while doing so he looke i back, and found the prisoner had driven off with the horse and vehicle as fast as the former could go. Information of the robbery was givan to the police, and it was discovered that the prisoner had left the horse and vehicle at the Three Mackerel public-house, in the Mile-end-road, having first endeavoured to borrow 305. on them. The prisoner, himself, had not been heard of until Sunday evening, when, from his description, he was taken at Peckham by George Quinnier, an active officer of the P divi sion of police. The prisoner, in reply to the charge, said it was a mere lark. Quinnier informed the magistrate that the prisoner had acknowledged to him, that he had deserted twice from the ad Dragoons, while stationed at barracks in the city of Cork. The prisoner was remanded until Wednesday next. GRAND BALL AT THE MANSION-HOUSE.—The Lady Mayoress gave a splendid ball and supper at the Mansion house on Friday night, to about two hundred. The supper and wines were first rate, and the dancing was kept up &co a late hour. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Petitions in favour of the removal of the civil and religious disabilities of the Jews were presented by the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, from Roman Ca tholic clergymen and others, from Yorkshire; by Mr. Thornely, from Presbyterians of Chester, and the Unitarians of Lancashire ; by Capt. Berkeley, three petitions from Cheltenham, one of them signed by 1,500 persons; by Mr. Williams, from Macclesfield, Marylebone (signed by 5,000 persons), and various places in Leicestershire ; and by Mr. C. Lushington, from Westminster and Hastings. Petitions against the measure were presented by Sir R. H. Inglis from various places in the counties of Cheshire, Norfolk, Cornwall, King's County (Ire land), Surrey, and Middlesex, and by Sir J. Y. Buller from Exeter. NAVIGATION LAWS. Sir J. Y. BULLER, presented a petition, nume rously signed by the inhabitants of Torbay, against any alteration in the existing Navigation Laws. NATIONAL DEFENCES. Mr. M. AiILNES presented a petition from Pom fret, praying the House not to increase their present peace establishment, but to make great reductions therein. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON gave notice of his intention to move on an early day for a return of the correspondence which had taken place between the Governor-General of India and the Home Govern ment on the subject of the claims of the late Raja of Sattara. CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. Mr. HUME gave notice that, to-morrow, he would move for a return of the amount voted for the ordi nary services of the Cape of Good Hope, during the years 1846 and 1847, and of the nature of the ex penditure of 11,0001. in war services during these two years. WINDOW-TAX. Lord DUNCAN, understanding that the Noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests had intimated his intention to bring in a Sanitary Bill, should on an early day renew his motion on the repeal of the window-tax. IRISH RETURNS. Mr. GROGAN moved for certain returns relat ing to the exportation of horses, cattle, and live stock from Ireland. Mr. REYNOLDS rose to oppose the motion, but was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who called his attention to the fact, that the motion was for a return of the cattle and live stock exported from Ireland during the last year. Mr. REYNOLDS—Oh, I thought it was for re turns connected with the Corporation of Dublin. The return was agreed to. Tll E POPE. Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that to-morrow he should ask for leave to 'present a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster against the usur p4ion of the Bishop of Rome upon the integrity of the British constitution and liberties of the British people. MONMOUTH ELECTION. Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved that the pe tition of Lord Granville Somerset, as to the rocog nirinces entered into of the county of Monmouth pe. tition, be referred to the Committee on the Chel tenham Election petition. Sir G. GREY would not resist this motion, but he could agree with the Honourable Member for Youghal that the petition of the Honourable Member for Dublin could legally be referred to the same Committee. The petition after a short discussion was ordered to be referred to the Committee. Mr. PACKE presented a petition from certain electors of Leicester, praying to be allowed to attend before that Committee. The petition was ordered to be printed. DUBLIN ELECTION. Mr. C. ANSTEY moved, pursuant to notice, that the petition of Mr. Reynolds, one of the Members for the city of Dublin, should be referred to the Com mittee on the Cheltenham election, notwith standing what had been stated by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De partment, and he should press his motion, if it was necessary, to a division. Sir G. GREY observed that if the Hon. Member pressed his motion, the House must decide it; but he thought the Hon. Member did not fully under eland the objection he had to the petition being presented to the Committee. The points were fully discussed before the Examiner, and he held that the person was properly described ; and if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would look at the next section he would find that the decision of the Examiner was final and conclusive against all parties.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. REYNOLDS begged to state that the facts, as they occurred before the Examiner, were precisely as the Hon. Member (Mr. C. Anstey) had stated them ; and though personally affected, but not being a lawyer, which circumstance he might have occasion to regret, he wished simply to state, that in raising the objections which he did, he acted under the advice of several eminent lawyers, who stated that in consequence or the misdescription of the recognisance that it was void. He was con tent, however, to leave the matter in the hands of the House.—(Hear.) The Examiner stated to him that if he could prove that the person described as " George Gregan" was commonly described as " George William Grogan," that he should declare his recognisance void. The Examiner advised him to visit Dublin to make inquiries, and having done so, at great expense and inconvenience, he ascer tained that the person known as George William Grogan, but described as " George Grogan," kept his banker's account, voted as a freeman at the last election, and was admitted as a barrister in the former name, and that he was never known under any circumstances as " George Grogan " alone. Ile pressed this before the Examiner, and his solicitor asked Mr. Grogan if his name was George, and he replied that it was not, that it was George William; and on being asked if he was the George Grogan mentioned in the re cognizance, he declined to answer the question. Not withstanding proof of these facts were adduced, the Examiner decided against him, stating, in explana tion, that he had changed his mind. If, however, he was to labour under this legal injustice, he asked the House if it was not time to amend the Act by rendering the decision of the Examiner not omnipotent in the future as during the past.—(Hear, hear.) Ile suggested to his Hon. Friend that he should withdraw his motion. Mr. C. ANSTEY consented to withdraw the mo tion. He wished the House clearly to understand that he simply stated that the petition ought to be referred to the Committee, and that he did not express any opinion on the legal merits of the question. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. RETURN FOR BODMIN. On the motion of Mr. C. ANSTEY, the following motion was agreed to :—That the petition of James Wyld, Esq., M.P., complaining of the recognizances entered into in respect of the petition against the re turn for the borough of Bodmin, be referred to the Committee appointed to inquire into the petition of Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., M.P., or be otherwise dealt with as the House may deem fit. Mr. BAINES moved that the petition of Edward Richard Littleton, against the return for the borough of Walsall, be referred to the Select Committee ap pointed to inquire into the petition of Sir Willoughby Jones.—Motion agreed to. RELIEVING OFFICERS. Mr. P. SCROPE said that he had put a notice upon the paper of his intention to ask the Secretary for Ireland whether any and what legal proceedings have been taken against such boards of guardians or relieving officers as have neglected the duties imposed on them by the Act 10 and 11 Vic., c. 31, of affording due relief to the destitute poor, but as he wished to preface that question by n few remarks, and the House appeared to be very impatient to proceed to the consideration of the Jewish Disabilities Bill, he would postpone his question till to-morrow. WEST GLOUCESTER ELECTION. Mr. G. BERKLEY wished to know whether the Home Secretary had duly received ten petitions from the inhabitants of West Gloucester with reference to the West Gloucester election? Sir G. GREY said that he had received them ; but owing to some inadvertence the receipt of the petitions had not been acknowledged. IRISH DESTITUTION. Mr. SCULLY, in the absence of Slr. O'Connell, wished to ask whether, considering the enormous and every day growing increa'e of destitution in many parts of Ireland ; the nearly total want of means among her small farmers and agricultural labourers to purchase food and maintain tbeir families ; and the inability of the poor-law to support the over whelming pauperism of the country, the Government had not some measure ready for the providing of relief by means of food or employment; and thus for preventing the wholesale wasting and destruction of human life among the poorer classes of Ireland Sir G. GREY complained of the inconvenience attending upon putting questions of this nature, involving considerations of the ►hole question of the state and condition of Ireland, at so short a notice.— (Hear, hear.) He would, however, state, for the satisfaction of the lion. Member, that the Govern ment were not prepared to bring in any measure for the commencement or resumption of the public works in Ireland ; neither were they prepared to propose any measure to feed the whole of the destitute poor of that country. A t the same time he would state that a great deal had been already done in aid of the poor-law guardians by the British Relief Association in relieving cases of extreme and urgent distress, this assistance had been given in the shape of food and clothing to the children attending the various schools of Ireland without regard to their sect or religious persuasion. From a return which had just been made to him, he found that in the week ending the 21st ult. 2,136 children attending 118 different schools, had been afforded relief by the association. The total number of rations of food supplied to the children had amounted to 6.50,000, which had been distributed to between 94,000 and 95,000 distressed persons. In justice to the Irish people, however, he must take that opportunity of stating that the collection of poor-rates during the last three months of 1847 far exceeded the collection of any former period. The total collection of those months amounted to 441,7801., as compared with 105,0001. for the same period of the preceding year. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. On the motion for reading the order of the day for the second reading of the Bill for the removal of Jewish disabilities, Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition in favour of the measure, signed by 280 members of the British bar. Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, Mr. DRUMMOND, and several other Honourable Members, presented peti tions against the Bill. Lord Duncan, Mr. Cockburn, Sir Charles Burrell, Mr. Baynes, and Mr. William Brown, presented a large number of petitions in favour of the Bill. Mr. LAW presented petitions from places in Suffolk and Norfolk against the Bill. Mr. MITCHELL presented petitions from Brid port, Wolverhampton, Enfield, and several other places, in favour of the Bill. Sir 11. VERNEY presented petitions from Bed ford to the same effect. Dr. BO WRING presented similar petitions from Bolton, signed by 3,000 persons ; from Newington green, and other places. Mr. WARD presented similar petitions from the aldermen and burgesses of Sheffield and other places. Mr. SIMEON presented a petition from thirty one clergymen of the Isle of Wight against the Bill. Lord GEORGE MANNERS presented similar petitions from Fifeshire. Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from Bungay in favour of the Bill. Mr. GIBSON CRAIG presented a similar petition from Edinburgh, signed by 4,000 persons. Lord I). STUART presented similar petitions from the select vestry of Marylebone and Kentish-town. Mr. J. WALTER presented a similar petition from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Not tingham. Mr. KERSHAW presented a number of similar petitions from Stockport. Mr. FOX presented a number of similar petitions from Oldham and other places. Mr. lIODGE presented similar petitions from Tunbridge Wells, Gravesend, and other places in the county of Ken t. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from the Jews of Birmingham in favour of the Bill ; also another signed by 4,000 of the inhabitants of the town to the same effect. Mr. STRUTT presented a petition to the same effect from Derby. An lIoN. MEMBER presented a petition from Barn staple against the Bill. Lord G. BENTINCK presented petitions from King's Lynn, Canterbury, and other places, in favour of it. An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from a place in Wilts against it. Mr. BOLLING presented a petition from the parish of Bolton to the same effect. Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions in favour of the Bill. Mr. COWAN presented several petitions from Edinburgh to the same effect. Mr. COBDEN presented similar petitions from Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Bridgewater, and Caer narvon. _ . Mr. C. PE ARSON presented a similar petition from the borough of Lambeth, signed by 2,879 persons. An IloN. INlEstuun presented a petition from Wigan against the Bill. Mr. IIEYWOOI) presented three petitions in favour of it. Mr. lIUME presented four petitions to the same effect, one of which was from Boston in Lincolnshire, and another from Arbroath. Mr. TUFNELL presented a petition in favour of the Bill. Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition, signed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and upwards of three thousand inhabitants, to the same effect ; also one from the Loyal National Repeal Association, signed by the chairman, on behalf of the members, whose number amounted to 1,000,000. Mr. LAW said he apprehended that the petition could not be received otherwise than as the petition of the chairman. It was a mere figure of speech to say that he represented all the members.—(Laughter.) The petition was, however, received. Mr. M. GII3SON presented a petition from the Catholics of Manchester to the same effect. 7 - 7 Petitions against the Bill were also presented by Lord Brooke, signed by 1,600 persons of Warwick; by Mr. Henley, from Oxford; by Mr. Plurnptre, from various places in Kent ; by Sir W. Jolliffe, from Somerset; by Lord 11. Lennox, by Mr. Spooner from Belper; by Mr. Newdegate from several places in the county of Warwick; by Mr. Bullies from the clergy of Dorsetshire . ; by Mr. Floyer, and Mr. B. Cabbell. Petitions in favour of the measure were pre sented by Mr. Sharman Crawford from Rochdale, signed by 2,786 persons ; by Mr. G. Thompson ; Mr. Cowper, from Hertford ; by Sir W. Clay, from the . Tower Hamlets, by Mr. Aglionby, from Carlisle; by the Attorney-General from Chester ; by Mr. Rice from Dover; by Mr. B. Osborne, from Finsbury, signed by 2,080 persons ; by the Earl of Lincoln from the Falkirk Burghs; by Lord Palmerston from the majority of members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge. Mr. GOULBURN stated that he had himself re ceived a petition from the University of Cambridge against the Bill, and trusted that the House would not consider the petition of the Noble Lord as that of the majority. Lord PALMERSTON, upon referring to the num bers of the votes in both Houses, found that his petition was that of the minority, and not of the majority. (The discovery:of the mistake caused con siderable laughter.) On the question that the Bill be now read a second time, Mr. STAFFORD proceeded to move, pursuant to notice, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He contended that there was comparatively little feeling out of the House on the subject, and that the proposition was one which almost entirely ought to be discussed as an abstract principle. It was no ques tion of religious persecution, of religious toleration ; that question had been settled by the concession to the Jews of the civil liberties which they already enjoyed. Those liberties he had no desire to renal, but while he was w lling to admit the Jews to a full participation in the benefits of our legislation as fellow-subjects administered far, he conceived that it would be wholly contrary to our duty and interests as Christians to admit those who were the enduring antagonists of Christianity to a share in the legislation itself. The chief argument that had been used in favour of the Bill was the certainty that so few Jews would be admitted under its provisions as to be utterly unimportant in the Houses of Legisla ture.—(hear, hear.) But if such an argument were worth anything what would it have amounted to in the case of a neighbouring island, part of the realm, wherein there were 7,000,000 Catholics who demanded admission, and to whom the answer would conse quently have been—" We cannot admit you because you are so great a number of Catholics." Why, the ar gument itself was an insult, or little better, to Judaism. The Bill was described by the Noble Lord who had broaght it in as one that would abolish the last remains of the intolerant spirit of former ages. With reference to this assertion he might refer to a notice of motion which stood on the paper, to the effect that it should no longer be imperative that the Lord Chancellor of Ire land should profess the Protestant religion. Let such a measure as that obtain the sanction of the Commons House of Parliament, and it would then not prove to have expunged the last remnant of what was termed the spirit of intolerance, for the English Lord Chancellor would still of necessity be a Protestant, and those who resisted a similar relaxation of the law in his favour be termed intolerants and bigots, as were the persons con scientiously opp ose d t o th e present Bill. Nor would the steps of concession after concession which led into the broad path of infidelity be finally passed until the measure to which ho had alluded had been agreed to, and then it would be for the Legislature and the country to reflect how it could be proposed to prevent the holder of the Crown from becoming a Roman Catholic, when the keeper of the royal conscience was allowed to profess that faith. With regard to the operation of religious opinions on the chief magistrate in a state, he might instance the case which had formerly presented it:adf in a ii;2ighbouring king dom; and he was justified in asserting that when Napo leon placed the imperial diadem on his own head with his own hands, he well knew the meaning of that symbolic act which was to withdraw his temporal power from the power of religious reaction. When the fleece and the country were told that the present 13.11 had actually swept away the last remnant of religious dif ferences, and of the compulsory observance of certain forms, let him assume that it had passed, and that the Jews had taken advantage of its provisions to become Members of that Hothe. He had been exceedingly anxious to secure a seat at the present sitting of the House, and he had accurziingly come down to prayers. — (Much laughter.) Hon. Members might laugh, but he did nut wean to imply thut he had been inattentive or unob.ervant of the form of prayer. In order to n:ake good his claim to one particular seat it was necessary for him to take one of the cards which lay on the tali!c, whereon were inscribed two words, "at prayers write his name under those words—and fix that card to his seat. Could it be expected that the name of Lionel Rothschild would ever be found to fill up that blank? That gentleman might very fairly and justly say that he came down to the House because he had been told by the Prime Minister that religion Lad nothing to du with politics, and therefore he might urge that politics ought not to be mixed up with religion. A Jew might, on such gronnds as were advanced in favour of the present Bill, argue that he was prepared to act On the maxim cited in its favour. Let every man wor ship God in private according to the form of his own conscience. It had been very fairly put by the Honour able Member for Oldham, that it was unfair to compel the Jew to observe the Christian Sabbath when he so strictly kept that which was to him sacred in that sense. And yet how could the law enforcing the obser vance of the Christian Sabbath be maintained towards a Jew, if, in other respects, he was placed on a level with Christians? Could society be kept together if the House were to sanction and promulgate the opinion that legislation proceeded only from human authority? The forma; enjoined by the Church must, in relation to such a system of legislation, prove a sorrowful subject of reflection to all who did not believe in a higher des tiny than that marked out for her. But the question for the House was not one which regarded the forms of tlie Church only, it affected the Christianity of the whole nation, He was not desirous of involving the Church as a singe institution in such a controversy as the present. Ile was ready to fight the battle of the Church when that institution was assailed, but did not wish unneces sarily to expose it to assault. The Honourable Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six mouths. Lord BURGHLEY seconded the amendment, and said that, in his estimation, the question before the House was one of no small importance, for it was whether the House was or was not to possess a Chris tian character. lie regretted very much that the very form of the words necessarily inscribed on the oath, " on the faith of a true Christian," did not sufficiently show to the Noble Lord (J. Russell) that, by proposing to emit them from that oath, he would inevitably offend a vast number of the Christian community. But it would be heard from the Noble Lord that when the form of oath now extant had been proposed during the reign of James, there was no reference whatever con templated to the situation of the Jews. What he would say on that subject was, that the oath had hitherto ex cluded the Jews, and what reason was there why it should now tie altered? The answer was, that a par ticular indivdual of that nation could not take his seat unless the law was altered. If that was done, the door of the House was opened at once to Turks, Mussultnen, or indeed to whoever might possess money or influence enough to induce people to send them to that place. He hoped it would not be considered that he was actu ated by a hostile spirit towards the Jews. He had not read their history in any such spirit, and he trusted his opposition to the Bill would not be ascribed to a want of Christian charity. He begged leave to second the amend ment. Mr. P. WOOD said that he had come to the conclu sion, as well on social grounds as on those of Christi unity, and as a member of the Church of England, that it was high time so disgraceful a memento of intelerance as the Bill before the Howie was framed for the purpose of removing should be swept from the statute-book. Twenty years since he had signed a petition for effect ing that which the Noble Lord (J. Russell) now pro posed t o the House to sanction. That religion had nothing to do with politics, was an adage which, though constantly cited, was not altogether true, for religious opinions, which ought neither to qualify or disqualify any one for holding a political station, still did have that Of ct The! I on. Member for North Northamptonshire had talked of a Jewish theocracy, but he (Mr. I'. Wood) challenged him to show from Scripture any word by which the union of Church and State was enjoined or even sanctioned. One of the arguments used against the present Bill was, that Christianity was part and parcel of the common law of England. lle begged to deny that proposition, in so far as the present question was concerned. That such was the case to a certain extent was undeniable; but if that doctrine had prevailed to the full extent claimed for it, the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, could nut have practised his religion without beir ' ! a traitor, for he offended against the statute of Six Articles of Henry VIII., enjoining the belief in transubstantiation. That statute was part and parcel of the common law of the land. By the old law of the land, all persons in it were assumed to be Christians, and consequently these who were not so were excluded from the State. This practice had been enf,recd in Spain, Portugal, Naples, and other continental states; but the first. instance which occurred in English history of a law being directed against heretics was in the reign of Henry V., when a law was passed against the Lolla.rds. The Jews were not dreamt of during those days. From the time of Henry V. to that of Henry VIII. no statutory mention was made of them, nor did they re appear in England from the tisne of Edward I. until that of the Commonwealth. The decisions in ilie law courts, which had been referred to as having affected the social and political position of the dews, did not upon examination bear out such construction. That of Hale which had been cited, was directed against an infidel, and the judge's dictum en that occasion was, that the man who said all religion was teeheat could not claim the protection of the law, for his sentiments were subversive of all government of whatever description. Lord Hardwicke's decision in 1753, in the case of a Jewish bequest to educate Jewish children, was questioned by Lore Eldon, who had ob served, that much surprise would be felt in his time if such a decision as that come to by the Court of Chan cery were to be given then. But Lord Hardwicke's judgment was intelligible when it was recollected that the year in which he gave it was that of the celebrated Jew Bill. Again, as to the assertion that the Jews were all aliens, and could not hold land, Lord Mansfield had settled that point at once by purchasing an estate from a Jew. The Jews were banished from England in the reign of Elward I, and they did not, as he had st ited, re-appear in this country until the time of Crom well. The first place in which they were encouraged to settle was that of the Honourable Baronet (,ir Robert Inglis) and himself were the representatives (Oxford), where the Jews had three halls, namely, Moses hall, Jacob-hall, and Bernard-ball. (it laugh.) So that, until the time of Cromwell, the social and political condition of the Jews, as such, was a costes onsisus both in respect to the common and the statute law. The declaration " on the faith of a Christian" was introduced merely as a protection against th e Jesuits, who were supposed, rightly or wrongly, to have been implicated in the gunpowder plot. And yet it was on that declaration that the Jews were at this day held excluded from the Legislature.—(Hear, hear.) But to show the animus and true meaning of the decla ration, he would remind the House that wh en , i n t h e reign of William 111., an Act was passed again s t Uni tarians, it spoke of " any persons making p ro f ess i on of Christianity who should deny the doctrine of the holy Trinity." The Jews never made profession of Christianity; and therefore the very Act which ex cluded the Unitarians must be held as admitting the Jews.--(Hear, hear.) But since that time there had been numerous cases in which the Jews were relieved from making the declaration. So late as the year 1533, his late Majesty sane tioned an act of the Jamaica legislature, admitting the Jews to all privileges 01 citizenship, and in 1837 they were in like manner relieved from all civil disabilities in Canada. Thosa colonial acts were all received sub sileadio by the Imperial Parliament, and there was no alarm about unchriitianising Canada or Jamaica. — (Hear, hear.) We had no fear of admitting Jews into colonial legislatures, while we refused to admit two or three gentlemen of that persuasion into the home Perlin,- meet. He considered that there was a vast fallacy in the phrase, " We are a Christian people, and ought to have a Christian legislature." Ou r Parliament could never be looked upon as a Christian aramet From in the ear, h P ea li r.) the exclusive sense of the term.— (II reign of Edward I. down to that of Charles 11. the English might have been called an exclusively Chris tian people, but from that time, having admitted the Jews to live and settle among us, we had no right to treat them otherwise than as natural born citiaens—that was to say, on the Christian principle, " Do as you wo uld be done unto."—(Hear, hear.) It was not right to say to them " You may come and sett l e among us, assist us by lending money, pay taxe s , and even marry our Christian daughters, but yet having done all this, you are not fit to have a voice in making; the laws or the imposition of taxes." Ile thought it monstrously unchristian to take from the Jews as much as we could get, and yet to deny them the privileges of citizenship.—(Bear, hear.) It was a great mistake to suppose that we promoted Christianity by continuing this exclusion. He held the direct reverse. He held that if he wished to convert the Jew', the first step was to put him on a par with ourselves in all civil rights. Conversion was not a mere affair of declaration at that table. It was an affair of the heart and the conviction. The Honourable Member having quoted a passage from Lactantius, a writer of the age of Theodosius, condemna tory of simulated Christianity, proceeded to say that, if we wanted to touch the Jew's heart, we must con cede to him his full share of political privileges.—(Hear, hear.) He was not one of those who contended that between Jew and Christian there was no difference. There was a wide difference; but, as it had pleased the Almighty to throw for the present a veil over the Jew's heart, while the language of his own writers gave pro mise of a brighter future, let not the British Parliament continue those mists by a narrow and exclusive legisla tion, One word more. It had bee n said tha t , if we admitted the Jews, the next step would be the admission of Mahomedans and Hindoos. He saw no reason why not.—(lronical cheers from the Opposition.) It might appear absurd in this country; but transfer the question to India, and if a local Legislature were about to be established, could undoes or Mahomedans be excluded? —(Hear, hear.) We had tried exclusion lung en oug h with the Roman Catholics, and he would ask whether the long period of exclusion had converted one member of that persuasion? He believed the principle of exclu sion to be an unchristian principle, and therefore ho called upon the House, as a Christian Parliament, tc pass the Bill then under consideration.—(hear, hear.) Mr. B. COCHRANE would never admit that Chris tianity was not part and parcel of the law of the land. lie felt great difficulty in applying himself to the present Bill, because it not only enunciated a general principle, but it applied that principle to the case of an individual or whom no Member of that House could speak other , is e than with respect. The Baron de Rothschild Was distinguished by the greatest lib -rally of opinion, and it:01 subscribed to many Christian charities.—(Hear.) The example of France had been quoted, bat were we prepared to go the lengths which cad been reached in that country ? They had enfranchised the Jews during the excitement of 1830, and since that time a member of the Chamber (M. Shee) has ascended th© tribune and boasted that he was neither Catholic nor Protestant. lie trusted that we were not tending to such extreme latitude in this country.—(Rear, hear.) The ,.. llouse had been congratulated nn the Apathy and . _ indifference with which the present Bill had been re ceived by the people. He looked upon it with far dif ferent feelings ; he looked upon it as a very terrible sign of the times.—(A laugh.) It looked as if the people having yielded up so much of their constitution in Church and State, they were determined to fling the remainder after it. The lion. Member concluded by stating his intention to oppose the Bill. Mr. MILNES, in supporting the Bill, denied that its advocates were indifferent to Christianity. Ile thought it was possible—indeed the case of several distinguished men had proved the fact, that it was possible—to recon cile very deep religious feeling with liberality in this matter.—(Hear, hear.) He should regret if the passing of the Bill proved repugnant to the feelines of the people; but he would appeal to what had lately occurred, and ash whether they had shown any active hostility to the measure ?—(Hear, hear.) Compare the feeling at the present moment to that which had been exhibited when the proposition of an increased grant to Maynooth was under discussion. How earnestly the people of England fought against it, how very nearly many Members of that House lost their seats by the votes they had given in its favour.—(Hear, and a laugh.) There was a time when the people of England thought this a reli gious question, and the manifestations of their feelings were plain en , ugh ; but he would appeal to the silence prevailing at the present time as a proof that no fears were entertained of the House becoming unchristianised by the admission of a few Jews. All ho regretted was, that the opportunity had not been seized for the introduction of a still larger measure. He thought that this would have been a favourable time for adopting the reforms which had been recommended by the Commis sioners on criminal low. They had the testimony of Lord Eldon, an unwilling witness, that the oath of alle giance was quite sufficient, and that the oath of supre macy should be abolished.—([lear, hear.) Powerful attempts had been made in Spain to preserve unity of race and religion, and these ottempts had been impla cably carried out. But what was the consequence? Why, this; that in Spain there were desecrated churches, and the houses of religion were abandoned. They had attempted exclusion in this country ; but the people, by electing Baron Rothschild, informed them that they did not approve of the legislation of that House in that respect. The times were greatly changed within the last twenty years, and he thought the House would be acting wisely in legislating in the spirit of the age. He did not think that the form of prayer with which they began their proceedings in that House should be spoken lightly of ; and when they prayed that they might not be actuated by private feelings he considered that they would be carrying out that feeling and acting in the true character of a Christian Legislature by passing this measure. He agreed with the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last that great benefit might be derived from endeavouring to amalgamate the Hebrew race with the rest of the nation. The decision of that House would have a great effect upon foreign nations. "Fhe Jews in other countries were not in that position which they ought to occupy. They were recently ad mitted to many offices of the Prussian Diet, and were excluded from legislative honours only by a majority of three. If they, then, came to that conclusion at which he hoped they would arrive, it might have a most bene ficial effect on other nations with respect to the Jews. He thought that the English nation should endeavour to propagate and extend liberal principles throughout the world. He trusted, therefore, that the House of Com mons would net stand between the people and the person whom they selected as their representative in the House of Commons.—(hear, hear.) Lord bI.IHON said, that in stating his reasons for voting against the measure before the House, he trusted that not a word would escape from him disrespectful to the members of the Jewish religion. lie was ready to • admit the private worth and extensive charity of many' of that body; but these were not sufficient grounds to induce them to abrogate their Christian constitution.-- (Hear, hear.) If they were to admit the Jews within the walls of Parliament, they could not stop there. They would be obliged to admit persons of any religion or no ' religion. Give the Jews the liberty of obtaining seats in that House, and on what grounds could they refuse admissi, n to the Mahomedan, the Hindoo, or the pro fessed Deist. The Noble Lord, indeed, declared that . religious beeief should be no bar to any person's taking a seat in that House; but . he heard many cf the sup porters of the measure say in private, that though they were willing to make this concession to the Jews from respect to their character, they were not prepared to go farther. Ile begged to tell those gentle men, that it they gave way now they must giveway to the whole extent. It had been said that the question of creed should be left between the constituency and the Member they choose to elect. Such an argument was not COW.. ft): mable to the system of the constitution. In the case of qualification, for instance, it Might with equal justice he said that it was for the electors to consider whether they would have a rich or a poor Member. But the principle of the constitution was otherwise, for it imposed a certain qualification as indispensable. He might also instance the oath of allegiance for the same purpose. And in this consisted the answer to the argument which hail been put forward in a recent pamphlet by the Arch bishop of Dublin, who said that this measure ought not he considered as one entitling certain persons to become Members of Parliament, but as one removing a disqua lification which prevented Christians from electing certain persons; and that it was a great scandal to think the exclusion of Jews necessary for the security of Christianity, because, if the principle of the constitution was acknowledged in the case of the qualification of Members and the oath of allegiance, why should it be inconsistent to acknowledge it in the case of a solemn recognition of the Christian faith ?—(Hear, hear.) "Then it was said that the numbers of Jews who could ob!ain seats in the Legislature must necessarily be so small that the privilege of admitting them could do no harm. He was not quite persuaded that the number in the Legislature must be so very small, because, though few in number, their wealth gave them great influence. But, admitting the fact for the sake of argument, that was no reason why they should violate a principle. If they were to look to immediate consequences, and not to wide principles, there was no Act which might not be success; illy delendtd. Pascal, in his "Provincial Let ters," showed that the worst crimes might be defended on this principle. A principle, therefore, was to be maintained because it was principle, and should not be violated because some instances might be adduced in which its violation might do no harm.—(Hear, hear.) Much stress had been laid on the case of Gibbon , as preying that their forms w e re of n o ava il t o excludel persons the most hostile to Christianity. On the same ground it might be argued, when there were pretenders to the Crown, that the oath of alle giance was of no use because the jacobites had taken it. But the oath was of this value, that neither honourable jacobites or honourable infidels would take it.—(llear, hear.) And if they took it, they must at least hide their infidelity, and would not be able to propagate it, as Condorcet, who held similar opinions to Gibbon, was able to do in the French Assembly. At present, if a Member of that House spoke disrespect hilly of the Redeemer, the Speaker would be justified in interfering ; but if the oath were withdrawn he would have no power of doing so ; and the inevitable conse quence would be to lower the tone of debate in that House.—(Hear.) He had voted for the admission of Jews into corporate offices ; but that was quite con sistent with his resistance to the present measure, as there was a wide difference between an Alderman and a Minister of State. Another ground on which he re resisted the measure was that it would tend to make the public believe that they were indifferent to religion in that House. This consideration ought not to influence them if the Jews were entitled to what they claimed ; hut if they were not so entitled it was a very grave con sideration, and should make them pause before they consented to the measure.—(Hear, hear.) For the reasons he had stated he would give his vote against it. Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTII—Sir, there is one part of the subject which I think has been singularly overlooked, not only by the Noble Lord who has just sat: down, but by other Hon. Gentlemen who have taken the same view of the subject, and it is this—lf the Bill of' the Noble Lord be rejected, what substitute will lion. Gentlemen opposite propose in its stead? Have they well considered this question? Surely they will not let the law remain in its present state? Have they considered the dilemma in which the House is placed, by the fact, that an Hon. Gentleman who professes the Jewish religion is become a Member of the House of Commons? It appears to me that, as a necessary con sequence of that event, Parliament must adopt one of two alternatives. Either Parliament must agree to the Bill of the Noble Lord, which will enable an Hon. Mem ber who professes the Jewish religion to perform his duties in the House of Commons or Parliament must pass a law which shall declare null and void the elec tion of any person who does not beli eve i n th e Christian re, , igion.—(flear, hear.) It appears to me that Parliament must adopt one or other of these alternatives; for, if the House will permit me to call its attention to the state of the law as it would affect an lion. Member who professes the Jewish religion, I think I can prove to the satisfaction of the House that there is an immediate necessity for altering that law. It is certain that, as the law now stands, an lion. Gen tleman who professes the Jewish religion may be law fully chosen a Member of the House of Commons, and that he is not legally ineligible on account of his reli tgious belief. For, accor d ing to Bl ac k s t one , " every subject of the realm is eligible of common right" to be a Member of the House of Commons, subject to certain standing restrictions and disqualifications. —(Hear, hear.) Some of these depend upon the law and custom of Parliament as declared by the House of Commons ; others upon certain statutes. It is unneces sary for me to enumerate these disqualifications. They are to be found in Blackstone, or in any of the ordinary , law books on the subject. No one, however, will con tradict n. e when I assert that " belief in the Jewish religiou" is not one of those disqualifications.—(Hear, hear.) I contend, therefore, that Baron Rothschild has been lawfully chosen a Member of the House of Commons ; consequently he is legally bound