The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-06 00:00:00

tual recrimination Eitaiust one another; but every unt lows the side on which the balance between the Jew and the Christian is weighed down. As to the opposition of fered to this Bill by my Hon. Friend, I am at a loss to see on what he has grounded it, unless he takes the broad principle that no one who is not a Christian is to be en trusted with power, as his rule of action ; I am at a less to see hew he can refuse his ascot to, or oppose this measure, without throwing himself open to the charge of inconsistency. If this Bill, as well as the Roman Ca tholic case of last Session, is to be opposed, it in abbe eondemnine the strong and the weak, the violent and the patient, the proselyting and the exclusive, the political and the religious.—(Hear, hear.)—lf this is the course that is to be taken for our guide, persecution will never want an excuse—(Hear, hear)—and the wolf will ever he able to invent a pretence to bear down and +lestroy the lamb.—(Hear, hear.)—lf this is to be the maxim set up for our land-mark, it will soon appear that every thing may be a reason with the ag ganger, as every thing is shown to be a crime in the ag gressed. In all the opposition that was lately evinced against the Catholics, it was never once assumed or pre tended that the opposition was religious ; it was political, and nothing thee When the object was to excite ill blood and rename in the country—when red-hot speeches and tub sermons went forth on the subject, the people were told that the question• was, whether they should be com pelled to worship stocks and stones, instead of the true God ? But this was a point of view never alluded to by the more distinguished and candid opponents of the Ca tholic claims. I myself remember having heard the Earl of Eldon declare that it was not on religious but on poli tical grounds that he was opposed to the measure. The question just at that time under consideration was that of transubstantiation; and the Noble and Learned Lord ob served that it was not because the Catholics believed that that was the real presence that they were objected to, but that being the test by which they were kept out, they were through that kept out, because they were not good subjects. But now the whole case was changed. Political objection is fairly given up ; and in its place religious persecution is avowed.—(Hear, bear, hear.)—ln all that my lion. Friend the Member for Oxford has offered to the House, I have traced but two political objections; and neither of them appear to me to be entitled to have the weight which my Hon. Friend would give to them. The first political argument that my Hon. Friend has adduced against this measure is, that the Jews of this country are more attached to their nation—wandering and scattered as they are over the face of the eerth—than they are to the people of England. The only answer that I shall offer to this, is, that at all events it is exceedingly unfair to lay down this as an objection till we have tried the experiment whether by making Englishmen of them they will not become members of the community. Till that has been done, all we can say is, that as long as they are not Englishmen they are nothing but Jews.—(A laugh. )—The other objection of my Hon. Friend appears to ine to be mere extraordinary still. He says that if this measure is granted, the power of the Jews will be such that they will come into Parliament in a much greater 'member then is proportioned to their relative number in the country, and that the consequence of this will be, that the present system of representation will be rendered odi ous to the people, and that a reform in Parliament must ensue. Al! that I can see in this argument, is that the Jews will get into Parliament, because we are labouring sander a had system of representation. At all events, the system that we have at present must be either good or bed. If the system is had, it is evident that the sooner we get rid of it the better. If the system is good, why should we complain to which it naturally tends.--(Hear, hear.) These objections seem to be the only political objections that my lion. Friend has urged against the measure now be fore the House, and all the rest may be characterised as 'purely religious persecution. But even when my Hon. Friend has brought himself to that, he does not pre tend to say that he oppcees the Bill because the religion of the Jews is dangerous. No such pretence is put forth at all. No such outcry as that raised last Session is Leered now. The opposition which has made its appear ance now is, if I may use the phrase without giving of fence to my Hon. Friend, nothing but the offal—nothing but the leavings of the intolerance which was so abund ant last year. All that the House has been told is, that the Jews are not Christians, and that therefore they roust not have power. But this has not been declared openly end ingenuously, as it once was. Formerly the persecu tion of the Jews was at least consistent. The thing was mede - complete at once isy taking away their property, their liberty, and their lives.. My Hon. Friend is equally ve hement as to taking away their power; and yet, no doubt, he would shudder at what such a measure would really take away. The only power that my Hon. Friend teems to wish - to deprive the Jews of is to consist in marts, gold chains, and skins of parchment, with pieces of wax dangling at the ends of them. But lie is leaving them all the things that bestow real power. He allows them to ha - re property, and in these times property is power—mighty and overwhelming power. allows them to have knowledge, and knowledge is no lees power. Then why is all th's power mixed with intole rsnce? Why is the Jew to have the power of a principal over his elerk—of a master over his servant—of a landlord over his tenant ? Why is he to have all this, which is power, and yet to be deprived of the fair and natural con sequences of this power?—(Hear, hear.)—Why, having conceded all this, is my Honourable Friend afterwards to teen round and say, " You shall have all these real effects and advantages of your situation, but in the fair sequence of their possession, you shall be crippled and borne down.' As things now stand, a Jew may he the richest man in England—he may possess the whole of London—his in terest may be the means of raising this party or depressing that—of making East India Directors, or sending Members into Parliament—the influence of a Jew may he of the first consequence in a war which shall he the means of shaking all Europe to its centre. His power may come into play in assisting or retarding the greatest plans of the greatest Princes ; and yet, with all this con fessed acknowledged, undenied, my Hon. Friend would have them deprived of power.—(Hear, hear.)—lf, indeed, any Hoe. Friend would have things thus arranged, I would have put a question to him thus—Does he not think that wealth confers power? If it does, can he be prepared to ray that the Jew shall not have power ? If it does not, where are we to draw the line ? How are we to permit all the consequences of their wealth but one? I cannot conceive the nature of an argument that is to hear oat such a position. If it was to be full and entire persecution, after the consistent example of our ancestors, I could understand it. If we were called on to revert to the days when, as a people, they were pil laged—wheu their warehouses were torn down—when their every right was sacrificed, the thing would be com prehensible. But this is a delicate persecution, with no abstract rule for its guidance. As to the matter of right, if the word " legal" is to he attached to it, I am bound to acknowledge that the Jews have no legal right to power; but is the same way, three hundred years ago, they had no legal right to lie in England ; and six hundred years ago they had no right to the teeth in their heads—(A laugh, and hear, hear)—but, if it is the moral right we are to look at, I say that on every principle of moral obligation, I hold that the Jew has a right to political power.— (Hear, hear.)—Every man has a right to all that may conduce to his pleasure, if it does not inflict pin on any one else.—(Cheers.)—This is one of the broadest maxim', of human nature, and I cannot therefore see how its supporters can be fairly called upon to support it. The onus prohandi lies, not on the advocates of free dom, but on the advocates of restraint.—(Hear, hear.) —Let my Honourable Friend first show that there is some danger—some injury to the State, likely to arise from the admission of the Jews, and then will be the time to call upon us to answer the case that he has made out. Till such an argument, however, is fully made out, I shall contend for the moral rights of tile Jews. That they wish to he open to the privilege of sitting in Parlia ment, has already been shown ; it now remains to show that some harm is calculated to ree-lt from that admis s'on. Unless that is shown, the ~.::sisal is neither more nor less than persecution. My Hon. Friend put a diffe rent interpretation upon the particular word I have oeed ; but the meaning will still remain the same ; and when we come to define the sense, it must be found that see are only quibbling about a word. Any person may build a theory upon phrases; with some, perhaps, burning would be persecution, while the screwing of thumbs would not he persecution ; others may call the screwing of thumbs persecution, and dealt , the justice of that expression when used to whipping. tut according to my impression, the infliction of any penalties on ac rount of rang" opinions, and on account of religious opinions alone, is. ,generally understood as coining within the meaning of the term, for all the purposes of political argument. Defining persecution, then, as I do, I cannot conceive any argument to he adduced in favour of the mildest degree of this justice, which lo gically speaking, though net morally indeed, might not be used with equal force in favour of the strongest grade of the same.—(Hear,. hear.) I have, to make my apology , for having occupied so notch of the time of the Hon. G en _ I tlemen present; but I could net refrain from making known my sentimeots to this House of Commons, which has done more foe the rights of conscience than any Parlia ment that ever sat. Its Sessions of 1828 and 1829 have been marked by a glorious course iii favour of religious jaw ) , an d 1 hope that, before our teparatiori, this Sys sion of 1830 will put the finishing hand to that work I which so many great and good men wish to see accom plished, but which cannot be till this most desirable mea sure shall be carried into effect.----(Cheers.) Mr. BATLEY—The Jews could not be admitted into Parliament without an alteration of the original writ of summons, as their religion was quite at variance with the spirit of that declaration. It was contended that the Jews were unambitious, and might therefore safely be trusted.— But if they were unambitious, it was because they had had hitherto no stepping atone for their ambition. It had been calculated—and he believed upon very sufficient data—that in the event of such a measure as the present being carried into effect, twenty-five Jews would obtain seats in the Commons House of Parliament.—(A laugh.) For his own part, he could never consent to any one taking his seat in that House who did not believe in the Christian religion. Sir JAMES MACINTOSH—The speech they had heard from his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Macauley) was one which, he had no doubt, would snake its full im pression on the House, and that was worthy of the name which he bore. It was oot, therefore, to supply any de fects in that speech that he had risen to address the House, for, indeed, there were none that he could find ; but it was principally to absolve his own conscience that he of fered himself to the attention of the House. He felt that it was a duty he owed to his religion, to mankind, and his country, to declare his sentiments on this occasion. His desire was to hear testimony to the completion of that system of religious liberty of which that House had al- ready effected so large a portion. However politic it might have been in his Hon. Friend, who had so lumi nously introduced this topic to the House to have ab- I stained from any thing which might have been deemed applicable to the late differences of opinion which had pre vailed in the House, he (Sir J. Macintosh) could not con sent to forego the vantage ground which the late proceed ings of Parliament had afforded him. In turning his thoughts in this direction he could not but congratulate himself that he was, on the present occasion, addressing a House of Commons which had done more for religious liberty than any assembly since the first Parliament of William the Third ; and it would even have been with out that exception, if that Parliament had not passed the Act of Toleration, which, as it was the first step towards religious freedom, ought always to be considered also as the greatest. With respect to the arguments which the Hon. Member for Oxford had advanced against the mea sure, he should abstain from offering any general answer to them, as that task had already been so ably undertaken and performed by his Hon. and Learned Friend ; and he should, therefore, confine himself to a few remarks on the practical consequences which the Hon. Member for Oxford had urged. The first of these appeared to him to he one of a very singular nature. The Hon. Gentleman had done neither more nor less than discovered a great secret, one which had never been whispered within the walls of that House, and still less had been surmised beyond them. Ile had discovered a secret which, had it been proclaimed by a hostile voice, in spite of the " Tell it not in Gath —publish it not in the streets of Ascalon," would have amazed the universe ; a secret which, if it was once got at by an interloping Jew in that House, would put an end to the whole system of the representation of this country. It seemed that this profound secret had re mained concealed till the Honourable Member lighted upon it ; in vain had the gnat Earl of Chatham pro claimed the notorious sale of seats in that House—in vain had Mr. Burke, in his immortal speech, told the world that the Nabob of Arcot sent no less than eight Members into that House—in vain had been the thunders of Mr. Fox's eloquence, supported by all the talent of that side of the House, and reverberated by the brilliant eloquence of Mr. Pitt ; the thing had never yet been truly disco vered till now; and, in spite of the long acknowledged venality of the seats in that House, it had remained for the lion. Member for Oxford to find out that once a Jew, and he would discover the secret and make it known to the world. A comment of more pleasantry was, " A Wonder—a Woman keeps a Secret !" But the wonder that the Hon. Member had lighted upon—that it was re served for a Jew in the year 1830 to make known to the world what had been reverberated by every wall of that House for more than sixty years—was a miracle much more worthy of a proverb. The next argument of the Hon. Member for Oxford was equally singular with the first. It was singular, too, that the Hon. Gent, had not perceived how strongly his facts were destructive of the inference be had drawn. He had told them that the Nabob of Arcot sent eight Members into that House : but was that for want of -disabling laws.—(Hear) ?—No ; all tliis had happened in tke time of proper and becoming re strictions ; and yet the Nabob of Arcot, at the head of this band of eight, had broke through their rules—had broken down their Statutes, and, taking possession of the table, went through the form of the oaths as by law re quired. Here, then, was one refutation of the Hon. Gent.'s argument! According to him the remedy existed, and yet the disease was raging in all its fury. The Hon. Gent. had then gone on to tell them that in Holland, and in France, and in the United States, in spite of favourable laws, no irruption of the Jews with the Legislature had taken place—no conspiracy of the Jews to spend vast sums upon their elections had been detected ; and that it was only in the humbler stations of public service they were to be found. After this, had he (Sir J. Macintosh) not a right to say, that as the Bon. Gentleman's first set of facts had destroyed one part of his argument, so this second set of statements equally refuted his supposition that in the event of public office being opened to them here, they would over run the country ? With respect to the exceptions made be the Hon. Gentleman in the case of the United States, he could assure him that it was not the Sheriff, but the Mayor of New York that was a Jew ; and with reference to Hol land, a most learned and valuable Jew, of the name of Meier, was President at the Criminal Court at Amaterdam, a gentleman who, for his judicial character, and for his works on jurisprudence, was well known ail over Europe. But the Hon. Gentleman contended that there was some thing in this country which laid us particularly open to the attack of their wealth. The Jews then were safe in Holland, in France, and in America, but in England they were not safe. If this argument were to hold, it would appear that they were to be all powerful in England, while they possessed none elsewhere. Did the Hon. Member mean to say by this that the character of England was so much worse than that of any other nation, or that we were a more venal people?—(Hear, hear, from Sir R. H. Inglis). He hoped that this was :lot the ease; but if it were so, the representation of England must be worse than any other; and the materials being bad, there was no reason for a Jew to proclaim, " Urbem venalem et rib perituram." The argument of the Hon. Gentleman went to show that the Jews ought not to be admitted into the offices of the State, because they were more attached to each other than to any country. True, that was the case; but it was the Government was to blame for this. It first deprived the Jews of a country and a character, and were we then to complain of their vices, and attribute it to them as a crime that they had neither country nor charac ter? We had deprived them of all objects of affection in a country ; we fold made them attached only to their own persons, and then we urged our own wrong as an objec tion to granting their prayers. He was unwilling to go far into the objections that had been urged ; but he should like to know who were the persons who would be let into a share of the Constitution by the precedent which would be established by consenting to this measure? The Hon. Member had spoken of the natural-born subjects of his Majesty in the colonies ; but they were eligible already. They were capable of holding land ; they were capable of - sitting in the Parliament ; some of them did sit there, and lie wished that many more of them did. The Hon. Member had argued the question on the ground that the natives of India were not entitled to the privileges of the Constitution. But every native of India was one of the King's subjects e he owed his Majesty alle giance, and to Lire in return, was due protection and jus tire. It was the first maxim of political society that they were not to withhold the advantages for which allegiance was paid, unless it was distinctly proved that great advan- I tages would issult to the State from not giving to indivi duals all the privileges claimed. That was the rule of jus tice. Every man born under the Constitution was enti tled .to all the privileges of the Constitution. He would I repeat, as had been stated before, that this maxim ought to be applied to the Jews. It had been stated as an objection to the Jewe, that they had been attached to Napoleon ; but why had they been attached? What attached them ? Why he did them justice. He gave them protection, and made them the sharers of the privileges of the State. Ile admitted them directly into all the advantages of the law. He (Sir James Macintosh) would ask, if it were true of the Jews that they had no regard for the esteem of their fellow-men, that they were persons of no character, that they were lost and degraded ; was it not, he would ask, because the law had degraded them, and that they had only sunk to the level of the reputation established for them by the law ? According to the old maxim—cone temptu . 1 - curia contemptu virtutis—they were made regard less of their fellow-men ; and they were guilty, perhaps, of crimes and vices , . But what was the remedy? To degrade them still more—to continue their degradation ; or rather, ought they not to remove the cause of the die • e . ase? Th ere was , h e b e li eve d, a th eor y o f the present day, that disease was only to be cured by administering more of the stimulus that had caused it; or, according to the old proverbto take a h a i r o f t h e d og w hi c h bit the patient, But, with all his respect for llAtorite , And pru verbs, it would not do to apply the same doctrine to the Jews. Their subserviency was because they were openly despised ; the moral defects of their character arose from the oppression they were subject to. What was the re medy ? To revive their regard for the esteem of other men, they must have similar motives for their conduct— they must be released from their present degradation, and must he treated like other men. This should be the first step to reclaim them—this ought to be the first means to restore the character of the Jews. This made his case so strong, that he might rely on this argument; and he should content himself with asserting, that the depravity of the Jews was one of the strongest arguments which cou'd be urged in favour of the measure. The Jews were new peculiarly situated in every country of Europe, and in every one their condition was much the same. They were composed of two, or rather they contained two classes—one was extremely poor and degraded, en gaged in the lowest occupations and without any regard to character. They were reduced to a state of hereditary depravity, and for them emancipation was necessary to re- ' store them to their situation in society. That was the only remedy which could relieve thesis from the moral malady with which they were alllicted. On the °thee hand, there was a large body of Jews, merchants of great extent, pos sessing vast wealth, engaged iu extensive schemes of in dustry, and filling a high and respectable station in society. They were engaged in transactions with every State of Europe.—(Hear, hear.) He would say, with respect to them, that they deserved emancipation. The lower class of Jews could only be reclaimed, and the higher only placed in the stations they deserved to occupy, by the same measure.—(Hear, hear.) Most of the Governments of Europe, whether they bad in them any Of the democratic principle which some gentlemen thought so much a source of evil, or whether they had none of their principles, like Austria,—all the Governments of Europe were now en gaged in reforming the lower classes of the Jews; atil what was the first expedient they had adopted ? The first thing they had all done was to take away the moral brand which had doomed them to malpractice,. The first effi-s cacious step to improve their moral condition was •to let them know that they were men, and to teach others that they were to be regarded as men. They were relieved from the prejudices of the vulgar, and learned to regard with the affection of brethren those whom they had before looked on as enemies ; and, receiving great cause for gratitude, they were improved and elevated. He would trouble the House with but few further observations. His lion. Friend, on a former occasion, in the year 1828, had said the House had severed the State from the Church. In 1829, his Hon. Friend had declared that the House was sepa rating the State from the Protestant Religion—a union : which, as far as he knew, never had existed. Theris had been, he admitted, a union between the State and ' the Established Church ; but the union between the State and the Protestant Religion was not mentioned in any law, and it would be absued to make that separatioes a ground cf alarm and apprehension. The Protestant religion comprised Lutherans, Calvinists, Armenians, and Unitarians, all of whom differed from one another, agree. , ing in nothing, except in protesting against the claims of the Catholic Church. What was his Hon. Friend's language ? The State, he said, was to secure the Pro testant religion, and therefore it was not to enable persons to fill offices in the State who were not Protestants. But his Hon. Friend gave no reason for this—he merely stated an arbitrary definition. What gave a State a pecu liar but the disqualifying laws which pre- eluded the members of any other religion from taking part in its peculiar affairs ? His Hon. Friend's principle, then, was merely an assertion that the State made disqualifying laws, and then was bound to maintain them. It was a • merely arbitrary definition, and his lion. Friend would rot find any enlightened men who would admit his defini tion. He could never take a second step, or establish a second proposition. If his Hon. Friend said that the re ligion established was only safe, and could only he secured by such disabling laws, that was begging the question.— The argument would have been good before the House had passed the measures of the last Session and the Session be fore, for the relief of the Catholics and Dissenters. Who ever gave that interpretation to our disabling laws, begged the whole question concerning them. His Honourable Friend's arguments were complete anachoriems, and his speech of that night might have done very well in 1828, before the repeal of the Test Act. Then his arguments might have had some force. His Honourable Friend aa mimed erroneously that disability was the principle of the • British Constitution—but that he denied. Certainly that was not now the principle, since the two Acts of the last Session and the Session before the iast, repealki the m(At important of our disabling laws, left the remainder of any such laws only the petty exceptions to the great principle o f freedons—the mean separations of mighty ruins.— Before they opened the gates of the Constitution to the Catholics and the Di,senters—before they were passed, the arguments of his Hon. Friend might have had sonic plau sibility. What was the principle of our Ecclesiastical Law, as stated by the Right Hon. Gent., whom he did not then see in his place, when he took the lead in proposir a ee the measure last Session ? lie stated that the principle of our Ecclesiastical Law was, that we should have an Esta blished Church, combined with civil and religious liberty, admitting all religions to a community of civil rights.__ This was, if he recollected it right, the language of the Right Hon. Gent., which he had inscribed on the banners they had all willingly followed to victory. That language had gone forth into every pa Parliament bail diets declared—in the ls2 kng s i ,, ir I i ; si a 9 n — d ti t i lte at these principles were the basis of our Ecclesiast n ic d al si L w a u p i t d . H e felt as great respect for some of the gentlemen frorn whom he differed as for any men living; but be must say that those who had then adopted this principle, a net now carry it into effect, would find, as stated by his Hon. Friend the Member for Caine, a ten-fold greater dif ficulty in making any specious objection to the present measure, than they would before have had ; and they could not refuse to vote in favour of the present proposition, without declaring that they had abandoned the pi inciples which they then adopted as the guides to their conduct._ Did they refuse to vote for this measure it might give rise to a suspicion that their former votes were dictated by a sets _ timent of fear, not by a principle of justice. Would they not act on the same principle towards 40,000 Jews as te wards seven millions of Catholics ? The House must, how ever, shut out the consideration of numbers, whether of thousands or of millions. Justiee, it was said, was no re specter of persons, neither was she any respecter of mul titudes; her rules must be observed towards individuals, and numbers formed no elements in forming her rules. It would be said, did they refuse the motion, that they had been ready to do justice to the strong but not to the weak, and that they had formerly been governed by fear, and not by those high principles which ought to guide them. If they now departed from those principles their conduct would be imputed to improper motives. He could net conceive that any gentleman who had voted for those two great and healing measures, would oppose the motion, and would adopt one rule for the Catholics and Dissenters, and another for the Jews. The inconveniences which it was said would arise from the measure could only be discovered by a microscopical eye. The only difficulty he hash ever had in considering the subject was, to find out any argument which could be urged against the measure, and which he might be prepared to answer. Ile tours find sue s and ; had been so perplexed to discover even the shadow of an argument, that he had said to a friend he would advertise a reward for any argument, that he might get one to re fute, against granting emancipation to the Jews. He might safely have advertised even a large reward, and have been sure of not finding one. In conclusion, he would beg the House to recollect what was, according to divine law, to be understood by our neighbour. The founder of Chris , ianity did Not take as the exemplification what was righteous, not what was beautiful and admired— he selected a heretic, who was held at that time in ab horrence by the people, to whom he addressed himself. Ile inculcated the divine precepts of his divine religion, not merely the principles of faith, but the nobler princi ple of charity, the safest guide for the conduct of life, and his observations directed us to minister to the wants of each other—to love our neighbour as ourselves, were made evident by the example of the good Samaritan a charac ter who was hated by the Jews of that age.—(Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if he could consider that it would be a departure from the principles of the Bill of last year to oppose the present measure, he should be one of the last to oppose it. But be was of opinion it stood on very different grounds to that measure. Ile could not view the subject in the same light as the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. Ile considered that there was a great and broad distinction between the parties to the measures of last year, and "those who were new claiming tl:e indulgence of the House. In opposing the measure he begged to be understood as having no prejudices against the Jews, lint there were considerations which should induce the House to pause before it extended to them the privileges it had granted last year to the Catholics. It had nothing to do with charity, as the Right Hon. Gentleman bad stated, but it was a chains on their part to be admitted to a share of political power. It was a questionlfor the Parliament worthy of its grave consideration , whether it would not be likely by altering P principl es o f a dmitting people arlia th m e e o li a t th y s ea a r n a d h ft t er e year, it might not run sonic risk of affronting the rel i gious feelings of the people into of this country. These feelings might be called prejudices, but they were honest prejudices, And the •House might find ip that a moiyu fur ropows them. Parliament was bound to attend to the religious feelings of the people; and it was a sacred duty in the Members of that House not to conduct themselves so as to make the people believe they were in different to their religion. Tice House must be aware how it, by new measures of liberality so speedily after former measures of liberality, begot an impression in the country that it was indifferent to all religion. He had listened with. great pleasure, as he always did, to his Hon. Friend the Member for Fortrose, but he could not find in his speech any argument to encourage the Meuse to give poli tical power to a set of men who contradicted the Chris tian faith. His Hon. Friend had stated that they had, by late Acts of the Legislature, admitted the Catholics and some Protestant sects, not interested in supporting the Estab'ished Church, to seats in the Legislature; and why not the Jews? He, for his part, did not think this a good arguMent. If his Hon. Friend's argument were just, it ought not to stop at the Jews ; and he was hound to push it so far as to maintain that all sorts of sects, as soon as they grew into notice, might claim a seat in Parliament. His measure ought, therefore, to have gone further. If the House were prepared to open the doors of Parliament to the Jews, they might open them to the Turke, and to the members of every other religion. If the case of the Jews were shnilat to that of the Catholics and that of the Dissenters he should not oppose it, but he did not think the cases similar. He thought the House run a great risk, however, by running counter to the good feelings of the people, the majority of whom he had no doubt were opposed to the measure. There was this I difference between them and the Catholics—that the Ca tholics had shed their blood for us—they had fought our battles both by sea and land—they had swelled the force of our fleets and our armies, and there was a good reason why we should not make enemies of those who had served us, and who amounted to seven million people. But the Jews had not fought our battles—they had not served in our armies and navy, and they did not amount, it was stated' by a writer of their own nation, to more than 27,000 persons. The arguments which applied to the Roman Catholics seemed to him, therefore, to have no ep plies:aims to the Jews. The relief given to the one was • no precedent for granting the claims of the other. The Right Hon. Gentleman coucluded by declaring that, a. 9 be did not wish to oppose the general religious feelings of the country, he should oppose the motion. Dr. LUSIUNGTON said, if he thought the motien likely to beget an impression among the people that the Parliament was indifferent to Christianity, he should find great difficulty in agreeing to the principle of the measure. But whether be looked to the principles of the motion of his Hon. and Learned Friend, or whether he looked to the conduct of the people since notice was that it was the intention of his Hon. Friend to bring forward such a motion, be was satisfied that the country did not regard it in the light described by the Right lion. Gentle man. It was than between six and seven weeks since his Hon. and Learned Friend had given notice of his motion ; that notice had been wafted from one end of the kingdom to another, and yet not one petition against the Jews had been laid on the table of the House. No, not even a ra mour of a petition had reached it. When he saw this, and recollected how numerous were the petitions against the Catholics—when he recollected what a great interest their emancipation excited throughout the country—when he saw how quiescent at present the country was—he must say that he saw no sign whatever of the prevalence of those feelings the Right lien. Gentleman had attributed to the country. He would say that the Jews were at present, in this country, in an anomalous condition, such as no people ever were in, in a country that pretended to good erder. Few persons were probably aware that Jews could now hold advowsons, and what was perhaps more extraordi nary, it appeared by a decree lately given by the Earl of Eldon, that they were capable of electing Clergymen. In those cases in which the Clergyman was elected by his parishioners, it had been decided by Lord Eldon, after two years' consideration, that Jews paying parish rites were entitled, as well as other pa rishioners, as well as members of the Pro testant Church, to vote for the Protestant Clergyman. The Hon. Bart. the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had cited what he very properly consi dered a great law authority in proof of his opinion, that the Jews were not to be considered as entitled to hold the same rank as the Christians. But did the Hon. Baronet knew in what light that opinion of Lord Coke was re garded by his countrymen ? Did he know that in the reign of George the Second an attempt was made to cite that opinion in argument, and the whole Bar of the Klng'e Beucb, with the C4 l ief Justice at their head, ex claimed at once—" For the 'aisour of that great and truly learned man, and for the sake of the respect due to his memory, do not quote a passage which, above all other things, has most detracted from his character and under standing."—(Hear. )—The great principle of the Constitu tion of this country has been also contended to be Christianity Now in the good old times of Popery, was Christianity the principle of the Constitution ? No, the religion of the State was the religion of the Pope for the time being, and up to the reign of William 111.. the principle of the Con stitution and the religion of the State were direct intole ration, without the slightest regard to the religious opi nions of others. To so great an extent, indeed, was this carried, and so little was the establishment of our religion thought of, that an individual who lived through two or three reigns was actually obliged to change his religion eight different times. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite.(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) seemed to think that the admission of the Jews to that House would have the effect of injuring the Established Church, by raising an opinion that the Members of that House were wholly indifferent to religion. His opinion, on the contrary, was, that the Established religion was too well fixed in the affections of the people to require the aid of exclusion to secure it. They were told, however, that the case of the Catholics formed no precedent which could govern them in dealing with the Jews. That they were only 27,000 in number—that they were unimportant as a body—and that there was no reason for those apprehen sions with regard to them which formed so strong an er gement for the removal of exclusion from the others. He considered it to be most unfortunate and most lamentable that the opponents of the measure should be compelled to resort to such arguments, and he deplored the existence of a feeling which would seek to resist a measure of justice until it came before them under circumstances so suspi cions. If, however, the number of Jews was so small, and their influence so bounded, that there could be no danger in refusal, what possible danger could there be in admission._(Hear, hear.)—He was reluctant to press on the time of the House, but he thought the period was arrived when, without any violation of the principles of the Constitution, they could grant what the Jews re quired, with safety to the Established church, and with satisfaction to those who prayed this concession. The Riaht Honourable Gentleman had declared repeatedly that he was unwilling to allow the Jews to be admitted to that House. He (Dr. Lushington) could not well understand that, for he believed the Right lion. Gentleman was by no means unwilling to meet the Jews elsewhere—(A laugh)—and the time was not far dis tant when he would snore than ever require their assistance. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed unwilling to trust them in Parliament, and yet they had been entrusted with ; his tea thetreand times more important than any con nected with the - possession of a seat in that House. The Jews desired nothing more than to be placed in the same situation as the Roman Catholics. They were willing even to abandon a part of what they already possessed, in order to obtain the same privileges as the Catholics. They were willing to give up the possession of their advowsons, and some other privileges; and for these reasons he thought those who were not friendly to the Jews would act at least more liberally if they permitted the Bill to be brought in, and obtained some understanding of its provisions, before they declared against it a determined hostility. Mr. PERCIVAL (in a low tone of voice, as we under stood) entreated the House, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to preserve the religion of Christianity—the reli gion of the state—from being defiled by the introduction of the Bill now proposed. If they wished to preserve the name of a Christian people—if they were anxious to sup. port the distinction's of their Christian Constitution, lie implored them to reject a measure which gave political powerito a sect whose religion was hostile to both. Lord MORPETH said that, if to justify himself in hazarding a few observations upon this subject, he had felt any hope that he should have been able to add any thing to what had already been brought forward, he had cer tainly better not now have risen ; but he was inclined to think that upon an entirely aesv question the expression of a mere concurrence of opinion might be of some use, from however humble a Member of that house, though it added nothing in point of argument. The effect of argument might safely be left to time speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend, the very circumstance of whose introducing this measure had conferred much benefit upon it, much by his great power of mind, and much by his blameless charac ter. An objection, anticipated indeed by his Hon. and Learned Friend, had been taken upon a religious ground. It was to that point alone he (Lord Morpeth) now wished to advert, because all other points of the case were both so touch snore easily disposed of in themselves, and bad been so satisfactorily dealt with already, that he should be little inclined to further interference with them. Upon the go , neral question his own inclinations always led him to be ?f opinion that every person who contributes to the exi gencies of the State, who pays its taxes, and defrays the wages of its servant, lass an equal right to the enjoyment of all its privileges, and admission to all its distinction , . Against this right of enjoyment and admission, especially upon that point which was the most valuable of all to a citizen, the right of a seat add a voice in the legislature of hie Country, being extended to the members of the Jewish cernmunion, a relinione objection had now been taken by the Member for the University of Oxford.. " Educated at that University like the Worthy Baronet, nursed like him in its discipline, and attached like him to its recollections, I am never sorry to have an opporte nity of showing that the spirit of hostility to the broad principle of religious freedom which per vades the Parliamentary conduct of the Worthy Ba ronet ie not the inevitable result of a residence within its walls. And I am the more anxious to guard myself in every instance against such a disposition, because I believe it in fact to be the same spirit which, modified in this in stance by the genius of the age and the mildness of his nature, formerly in erery quarter of Christendom prompted every species of oppression against the persecuted Jew, and thought it virtue." It was foretold by the Author of the religion in the profession of which we are so inclined to vaunt ourselves. that He came not to send peace on earth, lint a sword, and the passions of mankind have interpreted the prophecy as if it had been a command. We were told that we were for the first time causing the legislature of the country to be no longer Christian. This was a start ling proposition, but more addressed to the sound than the sense. He did not see in what way the adoption of this measure would diminish the influence or retard the pro gress of Christianity. He did not see how it would make her be less powerful, or appear less amiable. We were not disposed to look upon either France, or Rolland, or America, as being less of Christian countries, since they had adopted the great principle of making the discharge of civil functions independent of a prescrileed religious lies!.:ef;' not, undoubtedly, because we did not recognise the im portance of religious belief, hut because that importance was so infinite as to make all human interference with it As inadequate as it was presumptuous. He wished to ask where, in this ease, was the if anger? One of the chief reasons which made him so anxiously wish, and se sincerely rejoice in the accomplishment of the great measure of Cs tholic relief, was the assurance he felt that Protestantism would not suffer from its more close alliance in temporal matters with Catholicism; still less has Christianity itself —the faith which unites Protestant, and Catholic, end Greek under her common banner, planted upon the rock which shall never crumble—any thing to dread from any possible result of the measure which had been so convinc ingly recommended. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that the situation of the Jews had been more than once likened to that of the Roman Catholics, although it appeared to hint there was wide and material difference between them. The Catholics 'had possessed great power and privileges, of which they had been, for good reasons, deprived : and it did great honour to those who, studying well the circumstaaces of the country, had restored them to the situation they before had held. But how did the case of the Jewsa:l , lnd ? They had possessed nothing ; they held nothing. They had no civil rights ; they never had any. He hooked with as much abhorrence as any man, and deplored as much as any man, the atrocities once perpetrated against them; but he could not, therefore, be insensible to the nature of their situation in this country. They lead no natural rights ; and Lord Coke, although he agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) in a menner not very creditable to his character, had declared they were the natural enemies of the Christians. After sus taining great persecutions, they were banished altogether; and when they returned at the Restoration in small num bers, they returned as men who were not permitted to claim any rights of citizenship, or to hold lands, or in any manner to be received as subjects of the State.— As they chose, however, to come hack in this manner, and under these circumstances, it was impossible to deal harshly with them, or to subject them to the ssate restrictions and persecutions in modern times which they had suffered before their banishment. Nothing, he was ready to admit, could well justify the code of laws enacted with regard to the Catholics : but the Jon's, with the exception of an Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, which permitted a child who became a convert to Christianity to take his parents' property by succession, in defiance of their wishes—an act not carried into effect beyond one or two instances—were comparatively free from restriction. This lod him to the question of the Jews holding land, and 'he could not avoid expressing his opinion, that they had as much and'as good a legal right to hold land, and to take and lease it by descent, as ant , other person in the country. If there was any doubt on the'stibject, although he thought there was not, he should be glad to see these doubts romoved by a 13P1 brought in for that purpose. He should be happy to see the Jews become landheldere. He should rejoice to see them be come country gentlemen.—(Hear, and a laugh.) On the other grounds, however, he confessed he saw objections to the admission of the Jews. Christianity was a part of the law of the land, although he was told that it varied with the opinions of the day; still, with all the variations of creeds and opinions, it wns Christianity.—(Year, hear. ) The question seemed to lie this :—The door of the Con stitution had been opened to the Catholics of Ireland ; were they, therefore, prepared to admit other claimants? They were now come to this point,—were they or were they not to put an end to all distinctions on the sub ject of religious opinions ?—(Hear, hear.) It was said that there- were no petitions against it from the people. He, for one, was glad there were no petitions ; and that the popular ferments of 1753 would not again disgrace the country, He wished the ques tion to be decided by the good sense of the house; and be thought the absence of these petitions one of the most favourable signs of the increasing knowledge of the time. He was not disposed to emancipate the Jews in part. He was not disposed to open the door of the Constitution and place a sentinel at the gate. He might be asked then if he was prepared to concede all? He would answer that they had admitted the Catholics to participate in the ad vantages of the Constitution, but they hail not yet suffi cient experience of the result. They had opened the door to office and to that House, but there was not yet time for the Catholic to obtain office as he must attain it ; and therefore, although the state of Ireland might be benefitted, they did not know the full value of the experiment. In the absence, therefore, of any sufficient knowledge of what they had done, he, for one, was not willing to go further, and place the Jews in that House, or admit them to the opportunity of being placed in the high offices of the State ; and in this respect, although he did not attach much importance to the question of numbers, still it was not to be left wholly out of consideratiou.—(Hear.) Mr. W. SMITH maintained, that if it was desirable the Jews should ever be admitted within the pale of the Constitution, it was desirable that they should be admitted with as little delay as possible. He must beg to express, not merely his approbation, but his admiration of the manner in which his Hon, Friend had brought forward the present motion. He admired both the sincerity and courage of his Hon. Friend ; and he had evinced both those qualities iu time highest degree. Religion ought not , in h i s ( M r. W. Smith's) opinion, to be introduced into any question similar to the present, which was a question not of religion, but of politics. Let those who introduced it recollect a passage in the book which they so justly revered—" Ren der unto Clew the things which are Cear's ;" and then came the grand distinction—" and unto Gad the things which are God's." On all points of religion lie would leave men to their own consciences. As to political con siderations, he wished to know in whet times had the Jews evinced any inclination towards such political prin ciples as ought to prevent them from having a ehare in the civil rights enjoyed by their fellow-subjects? He had never beard of any such case. He had heard, indeed, of their having engaged to furnish loans for other countries than those in which they lived. If, however, they had not the patriotic feeling which would prevent such a transaction, the imputation rested, not on them, but on the Governments which withheld front them those civil rights and privileges which alone rendered a man's country dear to him. He recollected an Hon. Member who had that evening opposed the motion, and from whose goad sense he should have expected a different line of conduct, declared in the last Session of Parliament that when once a dozen Catholic Members avers introduced into the House, it would be for the supreme power of the State to take care of the Church of England, hut that for his own part he should consider it as gone. That Hon. Member must believe the Church of England to be founded on a very tottering basis if the introduction into the House of Commons of a dozen Catholics or Jews seas calculated to lead to its destruction. He (Mr. W. Smith) was nee of those who thought that political rights and privileges should have nothing to do with religion. But if he were asked whether they should not have anything to do with any part of religion, he should answer that religion was divided into two distinct parts, the moral and the Creed.— If Government were to have anything whatever to do with religion, it ought to he with the moral portion of it, and not at all with the Creed. What was the morality of the Jews? The morality of the Christians. What Church was there belonging to the establishment which had not the Ten Commandments, the morality of the Jews, side by side with the Creed.—(Hear.) —lf any rational man saw the Commandments and the Athanasian Creed thus in juxta-position, was it doubtful to which would lie give the preference—(Hear)?—To the question of morality, there fore, they ought, in his opinion, to confine themselves. If they extended their consideration to matters of litith, no PRICES OF HOPS.-April 5. Kent Pockets*-.--. 51 15.. 6/. 12s. to 91 Stwex Ditto llFeex Ditto 5/. 153. 6/. 63. to 71. 10a. Farnham Ditto, Fine Ol. Os. :91. Os. to 111. Os. Seconds 0/. Os. 71. Os to Si. Bs. , 51. 53. 61. Os. to 71.; Oa. 51. Os. 51. 12s. to 51. 15s. 51. ss. 6!. Os. to 61. :Gs. „,1; Kent 14ags— Es sex Ditto. Stimx Ditto PRICE OF POTATOES.—ApriI 5. Kidneys Scotch Reds ............. 4/. 15s. to 51. Os. ditto. Oxnobles and Shows . . 3/. ss. to 3/. 10s. ditto. •:. one could tell where they would stop. If they looked only - • at civil obedience, there was no danger of their falling into,, political error. He trusted the House would follow thifa sound advice given them by his Hon. Friend, and perfect''' the great work of the last Session. Mr. R. GRANT said he would make a very short re ply. It had been allowed by every one that the loyalty and excellent conduct of the Jews were unexceptionable:' • No man, not even the Right Hon. Gentleman, had thrown any imputation upon them. It was quite unnecessary for him to trouble the House at any length ; for he appealed tea every' unprejudiced person who heard him, if any subject had ever been more victoriously argued than themotien had been by those llon. Members who had supported it. It was perfectly evident, indeed, that their arguments term unauswerable. The great objection of those who opposed the motion seemed to consist in the phrase, ". they are Jews ;—we are Christians." Now, in ink opi nion, the very reason for admitting the objects of his motion into a full participation of the civil rights of their countrymen was, that they were Jews, and that we were Christians.—(Hear, hear.)—He did not wish to say any- ' thing disrespectful of the Right Honourable Gentlernart e • ^ but the exposition of the Right Honourable Gentleman's • reasons for opposing the motion appeared to him to be most extraordinary. The greater part of the Right none • Gentleman's speech might to have been pronounced three years ago, That the prejudices of the people ought one to he shocked, that thenatioteal feeling was adverse to the proposition, that the -existing law was excellent, Vela dap religion of the State would be endangered by any change; all these were the allegations which year after year, durin*; a long course of years, had been advanced with fluelcy in hostility to the great messnre which, .nevertheless, had last year been triumphant. He would not answer Clew : allegations in the present instance; he would simply re commend the Right Hon. Gentleman to consult the Par-e liamentary Reports-of his own speeches.—(Hear, hear.) ie-e . What ! after tht Catholic Question bast been so decided, were they to permit the present question to pets through a period of similar agitation? Ware they to disease-it fat' thirty years, and at the expiration of that period were traw survivors to be told that the occupiers of the Treasury Bench SAW their error, and that they agreed to tolerates fctr ever.—(Hear. )—The Right Ilan. Gentleman said that the Renee must consult the prejudices of the people Did ^:s the Right Hon. Gentleman recollect that a few years egos the people thought that Jews should be tortured, tha4# l -1 they should b e deprived of their property, that their wives and children should be torn from them; that they should be expelled from the country ? Ought those pre judices of the people to have been consulted.—(Hear e lies.)--But be (Ur. Grant) asked what right the Right Hon. Gentleman had to charge the people of England with such prejudices at the present day ? He called upon the Right lion. Gentleman to state in what instance the people of England had recently shown say prejudiee^^ - .', against the Jews. If the Right Hon. Gentleman coati net state any such instance, was he not calumniating tke' people of Eagland, in charging them with a prejudices from Which they were free._(Hear, hear.)—He conlir not, however, believe that the opinion vehicle had been expressed by the Right Honourable Gentleman was the result of his deliberate judgment. In , comparing the question of Emancipation, as it affected the Catholics and as it affected the Jews, the question appearlat:--- - ' to him to resolve itself simply into this :—Were they to - e say:tu the Jews, , 6 You have as strong claims upon us for Emancipation us the Catholics bad, but we will not ' grint, it to you, because you are not so powerful as they were."—(Hear, hear.)-11e called upon the House, after what thev had so recently done in the cause of Religions Freedom, not to disgrace themselves by throwing out the present proposition, even without consideration. He called upon them at least not to resist the discussion of the tines tion. lie called upon them to be just to those who asked for their rights, but who were not in a condition to compel their suirender.—(Loud cries of hear, hear.) The House then divided. • . For the Motion Against it - • , Majority The division was received by loud and repeated cheers• Mr. GRANT then brought in the Bill, which mai read a first time; and the House proceeded to the other Order* of the Day, and at Twenty Minutes to One adjourned. - LONDON MARKETS. I'ItICE OF IatEAD. The highest price of Bread in the Metropolis is 10}4d. fot the 41b. Loaf. There are others who sell from to tke, below - that price. PRICE Or SEEDS.—Aprit New Englishlled Clover Seed (per Cwt.) 463. Ms. tine :Os. Old Ditto Ditto --s. gne New Foreign Ditto s6s. 740. tine 9•24.110 r Old Ditto ... —9. 153. fine —s. New While Cloy er 445. 745. fine 73.3.1195" Old Ditto Ditto.. —s. 503. fine 80s. 84e • New Trefoil Old Ditto Rib Grass 12s. 30s. fine 34, 425" —s. —s. fine 10i. '2os. fine 255. SO** English Carraway Foreign Ditto Coriander --- fine Asp • --s. 555. fine 57:• .44. 225. fine —s. 245• St. Foin Rye Grass ---- Pacey Ditto ----, Linseed, for fixding Ditto, for crushing— Canary Seed, New Ditto ()Id-- .(per Quarter)—.... —3. 425. tine 4:. 465. 20s. 335. new 355. 10s. 455. new —s. —s. 38s. fine —s. 42.3• —s. —s. —s. fine —s.. • --a. 3116. fine —s. 465.. —s. fine —s. White Mustard Seed—(per Bushel)— —s. is. 9s. fine Brown Ditt0.,,.,...,....._ _ 12s. 13s. fine —s. I:uruip Seeds, 80und5.,,,,... —o. fine I ts. . , . Green and Red Ditto 'Fares, Old Di tto New -6. fine 18s. —s. 255. 365. fine --s. —s. fine 42.5. 461. .0 Rate Seed, English, fine (per. Last) —l. 4W. Foreign —4. /. PRICE OF OIL. brown Refined 6 ' 2'2 0 10 10 4 1. Rape Oil, Linseed Oil Cake at Mu Mill, per thousand Nape Cake, per ton...—. LEATHER. Per lb.. d. to d. Tanned Horse Hides... 16 IS Spanish Ditto 19 24 l'er dozen. , Catf Skins... 36 to 4t113. 16 21' Ditto to 701 b. 22 27' Ditto 70 to E 011). 19 21 Small Seals, Greenland 20 21 PRICES OF Per lb. tl. to d. to WM.... 191 Di It o to 66113. 21 22 Dressing Hides 14 16 Fine Coach hides 13 19 Ct op Hides, 35 to 4013. 14 16 Ditto 45 to 501 b 16 IS Ditto 18 20 NvIHTECHAPEL HAY AIARKEr.—April 3. 504. Od. to 00s: Od. I (lover Od. to lIQ. Od. Straw 450. M. to 50. , . Od. SHEEP SKINS. Os. Oct. to Os. Od. 6d. to 44. Dow its RAW HIDES. Per Stone. s. d. to s. d. Per Stone. s. d. to it, d• {lest Hein:rs & Steers 2 10 30 I Ordinary 18 9 0 ~.'2 4 2 6 Market 6 ()each. COAL MAW Adairs .I. 4.1••••••• IVW.M".. 30 01. flettuninnt `.24 East 27 0 tiolywell— ti Killingwortit 82 9 Peiaw Po:Ito') Winitsor—_-- 2(t 6 27 0 l'antield - 29 0 Tanlield 27 6 T o wnley.------ 27 0 Wylain 29 0 Walls End Bell and Co. 33 0 Ditto Bell Robson & Co. 32 6 Walls Entißrown's :.11 6 Ditto Crainlington., --. 27 6 I)itto Goforth 35 6 Ditto Heaton...---. 3k 0 shups at market, 90X---shii :EX.—April 5 Walk End New:march,., 338. Ditto 3:3 0 g Ditto Northumberland 3S 0 Ditto Peareth ----31 $ Ditto Perkins and Co.— 31 3 Ditto RussolPs 3*. 0 Walls Did Lamblon...-0 36 9 Walls End Stewart's 37 0 • • Russell's Hetton's W.E. 36 9 Ditto Springwell 27 6 Walls End as 6 Cow pen 2t 0 Ilartley --.----. 29 0 . Wellwood 27 0 Tantield Trader--.. 28 0 Hebburn small Walls End small 22 0 sold, ~ BIRTHS. 4 On the 25th ult. at Chatham, tile lady of Lieut.•Col.tt p as t e y, Royal Engine,ra, of a son. On the !4(1 inst. at Ebury-street, the lady of H. Aspains Esq., of a son. MARRIED. On the 3d inst. at Brighton, F. B. Glasspoole, Egg. , 4' ,:- M, D., of that place, At St. Aune's, Litnelvms e , C a pt. C. Munro, of t he ship John, to Elizab e th Y eotunent, daug h ter 'of Mrs.. , Gilbert. to Ma is Georgivana, only daghter t of Cu!. Macdonald. .14 DIED. .74 ti On the sth inst. at Norton, in the Isle of Wight, ago. 76, W. Michell, Esq., formerly in the civil service of the East India Company, and resident at Nagpore. On the 3d inst. at Cheltenham, Capt. Charles Corn- Chesney, lite of the Bengal Artillery, iCtcr a long and painful illness occasioned by his arduous exertions in the Nepaul war. On the 4th inst. Clarissa, the eldest daughter of Thos. Penfold, Esq. of Croydon. On the 4th inst. Margaret Eve Sophia, the youngest daughter of John Mitchell, Esq., Charles-street, Berke!er square. On the 2d inst. in Mill-street, liamiver-square, Mr. R. , 11. Fish, ac's d 40. Pi:M UD AND PUBLISHED iiY MURDO YOUNG, Al ; THE SUN OFFICE, [l2, SItiAND, LoNfloN. C am' L G TO THE P LAMM! ILOS' grateft conferred ur fain ; and 1 gies shall be diatinguishet I ha Harley-sti For John Char TO THE P 1 LADD:Cf. WHE it v didate for tl Which wool, tioti, I shall for Tw o Dir an 4 Mr. Pal Election. I beg, ho to the ballot text. I cotpe burly relate iclenue; any my pretenai, boon u it In such au opt of your vot 14th of ue: should I be I aspire, rn; voted to the Ilishopagate. London Tar HORTIC AFew Parl be pitreham June, at a hitherto eh* per Set. 21, Rage] This SY or 111 " This no tstion in thi graphy of 1 artillery of i th e vanities traordinary for pre-emi fid--the mt desperate gl Henry C ton-street This day w. S T 0 , 4 We lil 'graceful as and picture Passages, ci pressed us o r of that a tubodies tl the thoussn l ' e !)' origin think will I Ifenry C too.street. This day s THE DIA LER in th OLIVER 1659 , nor I:o .antiscript 0 1 the Parl Goddard, I other curl Biographic " The E " This i debates of 1 one of the " These the princip most impot which pret Possess ittt Burnet or Printed New Burli Now in a and RICI V. LA LI of the ma With Biog Notes, and Price enly containing "Anotl of knowlec station in suaded, he znaking tli ale literate the mind the day, "_ " Mr, 1 The idea i ceptable t( of the real a learned " Imit a knowledge cheap, and taken to g indeed a with the o "A IvO " Then tile dead thought an them this I.' Th taking.. " Not and the p( what wig Morning / " We a way into of the lean The one of the of Pub Heal " A gri well be br " It ou family in P FE A-41 Disc dren of al tiona of ad Durin g met with counterfeit these (Wet offered f or The onl genuine the name ohm!) on Sold yard ; J. street ; Tottenhai regiectabl fa' A'