The Sun. — London, England, 1833-08-02 00:00:00

lion from the county of Tipperary, praying for a revision of the criminal cole. The Duke of SUSSEX presented a petition from 7,000 inhabitants of the city of Westminster, praying their Lordships to pass the Bill for removing the disabilities of the Jews. His Royal Highness said he should certainly give the Bill his firmest support, upon the same principle as he did the Bill for Catholic emancipation ; he thought that every subject in any country, whatever his tenets might be, provided those tenets were not subversive of the constitu tion of the community in general to which he belonged, was entitled to the enjoyment of the same privileges as the rest of his fellow subjects. During the number of years the Jews had been established in Britain, they had always been found to be loyal subjects.—(Hear, 'hear, hear.) The Jews had always proved themselves faithful and use ful members of society, and were therefore entitled to those privileges which every sectarian was permitted to enjoy. It was not for him to look back to the history cf the Jewish nation, but he must confess that among them, at the present moment, were men who had shown them selves most serviceable and useful members of so, iety. He should lay the petition on the table, stating that he thought it one well worthy the attention of the House, and that he would give it his most hearty support. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said th it he had just that moment had put into his hands the Bill for the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, which he under stood was appointed for a second reading to-morrow. Though be thought it extremely inconsistent to be forced to legislate till after the printing of a Bill, yet he was not disposed to throw any obstacles in the way of the second reading,reserving to himself the right and opportunity ofdia cussing the principles of the Bill on its going into Committee. He begged at the same time to observe, that on the mo tion for the Bill going into a Committee he should move, as an instruction to the Committee, the omission of all those clauses which related to any alteration in the local government of India. Toe Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed, that the second reading would not have been appointed for tomorrow, if it had not been intended to afford Noble Lords an opportunity not only of discussing the details, but the principles of the Bill on going into Committee. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented petitions from Peebles, the corporations of websters and tailors, the trustees of the river Clyde, and the city of Glasgow, against the Scotch Burgh Bill, and praying that the 101 franchise might be reduced to 51. The latter petition also prayed that the measure might be postponed to the next session, in which pryer the Noble Earl agreed. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition from the burgh of Selkirk against the Scotch Burgh Reform Bill. On the motion of the Earl of ROSSLYN, the Scotch Burgh Police Bill went through a Committee and was rep , rted with a few verbal amendments. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had intended to say a few words on the petitions presented by the Noble Earl (Haddington), but he was misled by thinking that the Noble Earl (Rosslyn) intended to present petitions on the same subject. When the proper time came, be, as a warm friend to the Bill, would he most glad to postpone some parts of it, but as the mea sure had created very considerable excitement in Scotland, he trusted that it would be received, and favourably con sidered by their Lordships. The Earl of HADDINGTON was understood to ob ject to pressing the Bill forward during the present session, and said he thought it could not be done with any propriety. There would not be near so much discontent in Scotland by the postponement, as there would be by any crude and hasty legislation which would require after wards to be altered. He hoped, therefore, the Noble and Learner: Lord would consent to its postponement. . . The LORD CHANCELLOR declined to accede to the suggestion of his Noble Friend, as he was unwilling to incur the risk of delaying the measure. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. The order of the day having been read for the s,cond reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill, Lord BEXLEY rose to object to certain parts of it, but not to those which affected the political rights of the Jews. He drew a great distinction be tween the disabilities which had affected the Roman Catholics and those of which the Jews complained, and contended that the principles which guided the two measures were widely different. Lord BEXLEY addressed the House at considerable ength, but we regret to say that we are wholly unable to give even an outline of his observations, owing to the low one of voice in which they were delivered, and no one sentence throughout his speech having been distinctly heard in the gallery. The LORD CHANCELLOR having put the question, The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, although he rose for the purpose of opposing this Bill, be must say that he concurred most fully its many of the statements of his Noble Friend. Objections had been urged against the claim of the Jews to participate in all the privileges of itioenship, but with respect to many of those objections he must say be thougbt just as lightly of them as his Noble Friend, or any other individual whomsoever. What the opinions of the Jews were with respect to the return of that people to the promised land he would not venture to sat, but if they really expected that the original pro• mime made to them should at some future time be ful filled—if they still entertained hopes of recovering ad vantages which depended upon circumstances—it was his impression that no attempt at giving them a loca lity should be made. With respect to their morality, he bad heard nothing to show that the Jews were more inattentive to the duties of the religion they professed than Christians were to the precepts of the gospel, on which all their hopes of futurity were founded. Making dite allowance for human infirmity, he would not say that the Jews were not a moral people; but as to their intellectual capacity, although he would not ascribe to them the works of inspiration, he still could hardly, looking at the ability and beauty of the works that had proceeded from them, say that they were at all beneath their contemporaries in understanding. But putting the Scriptures aside, and forgetting their unmitigated aversion to Jesus of Nazareth, who could read the productions of Josephus or Philo without being obliged to admit that those authors stood as ioigb as any historians or philosophers who bad ever existed ? He knew not how far the Jews had lost their attachment fur their own Scriptures, but he had recently read a work of a gentleman of that persuasion which dis• played as just an interpretation of the Bible, and showed as much capacity for criticism, as any Christian com mentator had ever exhibited. This same gentleman had recently refitted some calumnies with which his religion had been assailed in a manner creditable alike to his feel ings and understanding; and a friend of his (the Arch bishop of Canterbury), who bad entered into controversy with the Jewish Priests, was treated with the utmost courtesy ; and, although he failed to make any impression apon them as to their doctrines, they separated on the best and most satisfactory terms. But it was asked why they should not avail themselves of the assistance of Jews M Parliament? Their services might, be admitted, be desirable, but, for his own part, he must say he would not purchase their services at the expense of principle. It tiad also been said that Dissenters and /lonian Catholics had been relieved of civil and religious disabilities, and many persons had asked why the Jews should be ex cluded from the enjoyment of privileges conceded to other classes of the King's subject., more especially seeing th it the number of 'them that could by any possibility he returned to Parliament would be so small, as to put it out of their power to exercise their influence, if they possessed any, to the prejudice of the established religion of the country. But his reply was, that both Dissenters all.' Roman Catholics were Christians.—(Hear, hear.) As Christian's, they were admitted to form part or the Legis lature ; for, though averse to the Established Church, they were favourable to Christianity generally. What good could result, he would ask, what great advantage could at ise, from the assistance of persons in Parliament, who were not only opposed to Christianity by their religion, but disqualified by their prejudices and manner of life from legislating for a Christian community ? This was an objection on which he must insist ; but then it was one of principle, and not of faction or uncalled-fur opposition. In his estimation, the whole mischief that he apprehended would be done if their Lordships were to agree to a Bill like the present. It the question were—shall the fol lowers of Brahmin or Mahomet be relieved from disabili ties, and admitted to all the rights of citizans, he must pause as to the course he would pursue, for, in his opinion, there would be less objection to conceding such privileges to the professors of Paganism than to those of Judaism. There was, however, no comparison beeween the religion of the Pagan and that of the Jew. The creed of the latter was incomparably better than that of the former ; but then it was to be considered that the Jews' religion, as far as re- lated to Christianity, was not merely a negation, but an absolute denial of its truths, and that it asserted the SA viour whom Christians adored to be a religious imposter, who suffered death deservedly. There were, he was sorry to say, many persons even in these kingdoms who evinced coldness and indifference for all forms of Christian reli gion, but for his part he must say that he was satisfied the destiny of nations as well as of individuals was under the control of a superintending Providence, and that Em perors as well as subjects, when they renounced the truths of Christianity, would forfeit their title to the Divine blessing. With those views on his mind he would be Wanting in respect to the great author of the holy religion of which he was an bumble teacher if he did not vote against this Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He considered the Jews as the most remarkable people upon the earth. They shone like a bright star in the firmament as a proof of the attributes of the Creator of mankind, and the hopes they entertained that a Redeemer would be sent to enlighten a benighted world, was an incontestible evidence in favour of the Christian religion. In fact, this people retained to the present time their original character, and that too was another voucher for the Divine truths. He hoped that the time would soon arrive when the veil which now ob• s:ured their vision would drop from their eyes ; when they would be convinced of the delusion by which they had been led astray, and fly to the arms of n gracious merciful Saviour that were ever open to receive them, although they had despi.ed and rejected him. He regarded them as brothers who, though belonging with him to the one family, were estranged from it, but who would ultimately be restored to the household of faith and the love of the one eternal Father. He moved, by way of amendment, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. The Archbishop of DUBLIN said that there were two classes of objections to the Bill ; the one civil or political, the other religious. With regard to the politicsl part of the question he would say nothing at present about it; and he would only say a very few words with respect to the disabilities under which the Jews now laboured in consequence of their peculiar religious tenets. It was said that the Jews hail denounced and vilified the Christian religion ; but upon this point a question arose which he thought it would be difficult to answer. That question stood in this way—the Jews were good subjects, they obeyed the laws, and paid the taxes equally with every other subject in the State. Then as long as their religion did not interfere with the religion of the State, why should they be deprived of the advantages, at least the civil and political advantages, of every other subject in the State ? It was asked, as an objection to this Bill, why should Jews be permitted to legislate in cases where the safety of the Protestant Church might be concerned ? And he would in return ask how came both Houses of Parliament, Ro man Catholics and Dissenters, to legislate in affairs con cerning the Protestant Church ? They were not members of the Protestant community, and yet they were permitted to legislate for the Protestant Church.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted he might dismiss from his consideration whether the legislature of this or any other country ought to take upon itself to punish man for his offences towards his God. In the abstract he took it to be undisputed that no legislature should punish any man for his religious creed, except that creed inculcated doctrines and opinions which endangered the protectio'n of the State. Neither did the Christian religion sanction the use of forcible means to effect the conversion of the Jews or any other class of persons in the community. His opinion was, that the nearer the Dissenters approached to the Protestant Church the greater would be the danger of corruptions being introduced into it, than from the admission of the Jews to the exercise of every civil and political right. They would not be likely to interfere with the Church whose doctrines they disbelieved; and if they did, what injury could they possibly do it? Was the Church so feeble that it could have any thing to apprehend from the eman cipation of the Jews ?—(Hear.) He never could believe it. It was said that as we had a Christian Legislature so the Jews should be kept in bondage. And as well might it be said that the continuance of the Inquisition might be justified in Spain because Spain was a Christian coun try. It was with grief and shame be felt compelled to say that the greatest persecutions ever practised in the world had been by one Christian sect against another. It was said that the Jews were under a curse. True, they were so ; and he looked upon the Jews as the most extraordinary monument to the truths of Christianity. But then a Christian legislature should take care not to make themselves the executioners of the divine judgment.— (Hear, hear.) Persecution was no part of Christianity; neither was it a part of Christianity to punish the reli gious errors of others. It was a scandal and a shame to Christians much greater to persecute than it was in the Jews not to believe. But it was said the admission of Jews into Parliament would be a scandal to the church. Now be should like to know how that could be proved. In the first place the number of Jews likely to get into Parliament would be but few, and those few must first be elected by a Christian constituency. And here he should like to know if it were intended to prevent the Christians of this country from selecting any competent person, Jew or otherwise, as their representative?—(Hear, hear.) In conclusion he would merely say that every subject of the State who contributed to its support should have the full enjoyment of civil and religious liberty. The Earl of WINCHILSEA said that the Jews de nied God, and yet it was said they might safely be per mitted to legislate in cases where his holy religion was to be vindicated and preserved.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion it was a stain upon their Lordships' House that they had not indignantly spurned this question when the Sill was proposed to be read a first time. He would ask, was not Christianity a part and parcel of the law of the land ? If it were, as no man could doubt it was, then he would say that the admission of the Jews into Parliament would, in the face of God and the world, be a palpable act of blasphemous infidelity.—(Hear, hear.) Hitherto we bad enjoyed under the Christian dispensation innume. rahle blessings. The gifts of Heaven had been show ered down upon us, and would it be fitting now to turn round and say we should despise all those blessings, And thus add ingratitude to infidelity?—(Hear.) He had no objection to give the Jews any civil rights short of ad mission into Parliament. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER was quite surprised at the observations of the most Rev. Prelate (the Arch bishop of Canterbury), that, having extolled the Jews to the skies, he should all at once turn round and say he would vote against this Bill. No alarm could be enter tained against the Jews getting into Parliament ; and be was now and always had been against keeping any class of men from civil and political power because of their re ligious creed. He would give his hearty support to this Bill. Indeed he would go so far as to say that he thought it unjust to exclude clergymen from the other House of Parliament while Bishops had seats in this House. He believed that the country was favourable to the mea. sure. The Bishop of LONDON opposed the measure simply and solely on the ground of the duty be owed to the con stitution of this country. It was, after all, a Christian constitution, and ought to be upheld as such. He knew it bad lately been contended that Christianity was not part and parcel of the law of the land ; and it was said that no man should be persecuted or excluded from his civil rights on account of religious belief. Upon that point his opinion was that such questions were to be detertnined by the particular circumstances of the country ; and the propriety or impropriety of admitting persons holding particular tenets must be in the breast of the State. It had been said that there was nothing in the Statute-book against the admission of Jews to civil power. It was undoubtedly so; but what was the reason? Simply that the Legislature never con templated being asked to grant civil power to the Jews. --(Hear, hear.) He was perfectly ready to admit that the State would not be in great danger from the admis sion of a few Jews into the Legislature. He agreed their number would cot be likely to be sufficient to out vote the other Members ; but the effect upon the public mind of such a measure would be to stamp the idea that the Legislature was indifferent upon the subject of the Christian religion—(Hear, hear)—and as the best in terests of the country were indisso!ubly bound up in the maintenance of the supremacy of that religion, he thought they were bound to uphold and maintain it by every possible means. It gave him great pain to take this course of opposition against the Jews. He lived in a parish in which many of them resided, and be could bear ample testimony to their excellent conduct as a body. Still he could not hesitate as to the course it was his duty to follow. The people of this country exulted and re joiced in the belief that the principle of Christianity was the principle of the constitution, and he considered that it would be a dereliction of the duty of self-defence to break down that barrier of the true religion in the minds of the people.—( Hear, hear.) The Bishop of CHICHESTER said the Jews were the elder brothers of the Christian., and they were ultimately to be converted to the true faith. He did not mean to say that the arm or the wit of man had power tb accelerate what God intended to effect ; but it was a fair question for them to consider ehether this measure of kindness and conciliation was likely to retard that consummation. He confessed he did not see the difference between the Jews and the Christians in so strong a light as his Right Rev. Friend ; and as he hoped ultimately to see Judaism trans ' fused with Christianity, he should vote for the present pleasure. Lord DE CLIFFORD wished to ask the Noble land Learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the Jews in this country were born in and to the privileges of the British Constitution ? If so, then, according to the principles of Mr. Fox and other eminent authorities, they were entitled of right to admission to civil power and the enjoyment of all civil privileges. It was upon such grounds that the claims of the Roman Catholics had been argued by all their most powerful advocates. He did not apprehend danger to the State from the admission of the Jews. Although as a Roman Catholic he regulated his conduct by the social and mond principles of the Catholic Church, yet, as a Member of that House, he was guided by the moral and social principles of the Prottetant Constitution of the Stato. The LORD CHANCELLOR had been unexpectedly I asked a question by the Noble Lord who bad just sat down—a question which might lead into the labyrinth of polemical difficulties and abstract political disquisition were he to enter fully into it. He thought, however, that for the purposes of this discussion it was not neces sary to go so deeply into the subject. He would endea vour, therefore, to avoid those difficulties, and answer the Noble Lord without fearing that he should bewilder him self or their Lordships. In answer to the question of the Noble Lord then, he had no hesitation in saying that in his opinion, and in the opinion of all sound lawyers, his Ma jesty's subjects of the Jewish religion were born to all the franchises, rights, immunities, and privileges th it the other subjects of his Majesty were born to, excepting where the law had positively declared to the contrary. Their Lordships, no doubt, knew that a Jew had been declared to be held by the law in the light of an alien enemy—one hostile to the country—and he had been de • prived of many rights in consequence. Now that opinion, he would venture to say, in practice as well as in substance, was exploded. In vain would any one endeavour to enforce such an argument in a court of law.—(Hear, (tear.) This was his answer to the Noble Lord. Having said thus much, he would proceed to state to their Lordships his opinion upon the Bill before them. He con sidered it a fundamental point of doctrine in matters poli tical, that no person ought to be excluded on account of religious opinions, conscientiously entertained, from the enjoyment of civil rights. He admitted, also, that the supreme power of the State had always a right, for the safety of the State and the protection of its interests, to lay under disqualification as to civil rights any portion of the subjects of the country. This power had often been exercised. It bad been exercised on many occasions, where the Crown was supposed to be in danger. The right, however, ceased with the danger. Such laws also were necessarily limited in their effect, not to say to a certain extent ineffectual. They pressed hard upon men of tender consciences ; but those who sought to make a gain of their consciences here rather than hereafter, escaped their operation. (Hear, hear.) Although Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, it was not abstract Christianity that was the law of the land. The Christianity of the Unitarian, for instance, was not the Christianity of the law ; neither was the Christianity of the Baptist, of the Papist, nor of the Presbyterian. The Christianity of the Church of Eng land, as by law established, was the Christianity which was part and parcel of the law of England.—(Hear, hear.) Could it be said that the constitution had lost its Christian character, because the Roman Catholic had been admit ted to Parliament, and to the Bench of Justice? How, then, could it be said that such a consequence would be the result of the admission of a Jew to the like pri vileges ? By admitting the Jews to the Legislature and to the Bench of Justice, they would indeed be admitting to legislate and to dispense justice those who denied the divinity of our• Saviour. But was it fur the interest of Christianity to keep out such when they admitted not only those who denied the Son but the Father also ? They admitted Deists; and even Atheists might come in when ever they pleased, and occupy a station in the Councils of the country. Whoever had read Shaftesbury's Charac teristics, or Lord Bolingbroke's works, would appreciate the justice of his remark. Persons had been Members of that House who believed just as much of Christianity as the Jews did, and no more. He could not concur in the extravagant panegyrics passed on the morality and piety of our ancestors. He believed there was much more true religion now than formerly. As to the superior piety and religion of this country over all the rest of the world, neither could he concur in that; and the Noble Lord who uttered the sentiment would smile at it in private. He hoped it was so, however. At all events, if not the most pious, this country was best satisfied with its piety.— (Laughter.) The Noble and Learned Lord mentioned the case of Mr. Wilkes to show that persons not possessing a just belief in Christianity had been able to find admission to the Legislature. It bad been said that whoever sup ported this Bill would be supporting impiety, irreligion, and blasphemy. He defied the ingenuity of man to twist such a charge out of such a line of conduct. Such charges, he must observe, ought not lightly to be bandied about. The ground taken by the opponents of the measure led to this, that all who differed from their religion must be in the wrong and blasphemers of that religion; and more, the argument must come to this—that because the other party did not believe in their religion, and they did, therefore he must be in the wrong to believe in his own religion, because that was so wrong that in their opinion it was impossible for any man to believe in it. This was the fundamental principle of all persecution, and so long as such a principle should be recognised and acted upon, so long would persecution continue to exist. He had de tained their Lordships longer than he had intended in answering the question put by the Noble Lord opposite, and should only say further that he gave his entire concur rence to the motion. If in so doing he thought it possible that he should be acting with the slightest disre gard for the Christian religion, or even if in taking away this last remnant of the penal code, which attached civil disabilities to religious opinions, he should be offering any the least discouragement to the Christian religion, he would be the last man to adopt such a course. But, on the contrary, he felt that in supporting such a measure he was acting upon the purest principle, that of charity, which his religion inculcated. The Duke of GLOUCESTER considered the present question to be one of the most serious and awful that ever arose under their Lordships' consideration. The question was simply this—whether their Lordships were prepared to decree that that nation which had been marked and set apart by our Saviour—that that nation which had cru cified our Saviour—that that nation which had still the blood of our Saviour upon its head, should become the legislators for a Christian people ?---(Hear, hear.) How was it to be supposed that Christian laws and institutions would be maintained by such a nation ? What was their faith ? Why, that ours was a false faith, and that they were justified in crucifying our Saviour, who promul gated it. Allusion had been made to the state of the Jews in foreign countries, but it was forgotten that with regard to political office, the Jews were precisely in the same state in France as they were here.—(The Duke of Sussex dissented.) He begged the Noble Duke's pardon, but he would find that to be the case. In France the Jews were not admitted into the Legislature. They were tolerated and protected by the laws, and so they were in this coun try ; and God forbid that they should not be admitted to every enjoyment and comfort afforded by private right and personal security, but he would not consent to place in their hands political power. He wished to impose no control upon their consciences, but all he said was, that he would not consent to let them sit in a Christian Le gislature.—(llear, hear.) The Duke of SUSSEX gave to his Illustrious Rela►ive credit for the sincerity of his opinions, and only claimed the same allowance for his own, though of an opposite character. He was one of those who thought that it was , purely a political question, and had nothing whatever to do with religion. After all, he did say that that was the true nature of the question. It certainly was true that the Jews were visited with a certain curse, as had been stated by a Rev. Prelate ; but the Scriptures also went on to say, " Woe to them who shall have to carry the curse into effect." He should, therefore, be sorry that we should be the instruments which had been se denounced. As to the exclusion of the Jews from political rights in France, they were not only admitted to them, but a provision, was made by the State for the Rabbis. A gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, Mr. Meyer, was Minister of Justice in Belgium, and there highly respected as a most able and upright Minister. He trusted that the example of those countries in which this wise change had been made would be followed, and the last stain of penal disabilities be wiped out from our code. The Duke of GLOUCESTER explained that he had said not one word of Belgium, but of France, in which country he maintained that the Jews were not admitted to power. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that when their Lordships passed the Bills affording relief to the Roman Catholics, and removing the Carporation and Test Acts, it was because it was held no longer necessary to continue the restrictions for the reasons fur which they were im posed. But was that the case with respect to the Jews? The Roman Catholics and Dissenters had enjoyed all the privileges of sitting in Parliament before restrictions were imposed to prevent them. Was that the case with the all na Jews? Never. The Jews were consid ered as alien enemies, and were n ever allowed b y law to exist in the country wouldany untilltn telhetlimhi of the Comm onwea l t h . Well, then, m that the Jew s stoo d on the same ground the Christians in this c ountry to whom House. was Acts w 0 at as ce rtain political ad vanta g es had been rec ent l y granted ? ofThe ParliamentN o b ande giving dl uegnon done,i Learned but to appealedutthtteh h it to ilc Jews in en h the colonies. And were there no reasons assi gned fur these measures w ? Inhabitants were required in the a e s very perfectlywords u ofe that tlie had co lonies at the time, and it was deemed wise to create in ducements for the Jews to settle in them. This was particularly the case with regard , to the Act o f G eorge 111. which had been alluded to. European inh a bi tants, and especially English inhabitants, were required i n C anada, and the measure w as passed to induce them to go there. But did they require inducements now to brin g J ews to live in this country ? No such thing; and no attempt had been made to show , by one single word, that any other necessity demanded such a measure as that now be fore their Lordship.. The attention of their Lordships had been directed to what had been done on this subject in foreign countries. He did not know that it followed that we were bound to do everything that had been done in foreign countries. But, even if it were so, this mea sure was a different course than that taken at least by France with regard to the Jews. It was true that Bonaparte admitted the Jews to political power ; but before Bonaparte admitted the Jews he took care that there were examina tions to see whether they were fit to be trusted with it. We were to do no such thing ; but merely, in deference to the liberal ideas of the day, to admit them without exa mination, and without any proof of the necessity of doing so at all. He could not forget that he was sitting in a Christian Parliament, that they were the Lords Spiritual and Temporal sitting there to advise the Sovereign on the throne to pass laws, which Sovereign was head of the Christian Church. He, acting in that capacity, could not advise the Sovereign on the throne to pass a law which would admit to his Councils men who professed to be disbelievers in the Christian religion. He must vote against the motion for the second reading. Lord MELBOURNE admitted it to be true, as laid down by the Noble Duke, that there was a m irked dis tinction between the case of the Jews and that of the Roman Catholics and Dissenters. Undoubtedly the Jews had been suhjected to greater persecutions, and had for merly been deprived of more of their rights than any other class of men. But he apprehended that those persecutions were not to be used to justify the same system in the pre sent day--(Hear, hear)—and yet, if that ground were to be taken for the purpose of resisting the present motion, it would have been equally good against the removal of those other penalties under which the Jews formerly la boured. But the Noble Duke had said that no necessity had been shown fur the admission of our Jewish fellow subjects to a share in our political privileges, and that when those privileges were granted to them in the colonies it was because European inhabitants were wanted there. Why, good God ! if these grounds of expediency were to be justified or to be required as a means of justification, what would become of the Noble Duke's higher ground of principle in refusing to admit them because they were not Christians ?—( Hear.) He denied that the proof of neces sity lay with those who claimed for the Jews their right ful privileges as subjects of the realm, and asserted that the onus probandi lay with those who opposed the grant ing of them. He maintained that the principles of the Ginstitution, and the dictates of common reason, gave those rights to every natural born subject of the King. It was an error which had run through nearly the whole of this debate that they were now granting privileges to individuals or to any set of men. They were not doing so. These privileges were the privileges of the State to which all individuals were entitled, and they conferred equal benefits and advantages upon every branch of the State as well as upon those who possessed them. He could recog nise the right of the State to impose disabilities as to property, but he could see nothing in the religion or character of persons of the Jewish persuasion which justi fied the Legislature in depriving them of the civil rights they now claimed by the Bill, and he should therefore support it. Lord CLIFFORD, in explanation, said be was anxious again to ask for an answer to a question which he had put to the Most Rev. Prelate. What he wished to know was, whether or not he considered the moral and social code of the Jews to be part and parcel of Christianity, as he did that of the Roman Catholics? The Archbishop of CANTERBURY had said nothing at all denying that the code of the Jews was inconsistent with a strict performance of the moral and social duties. He apprehended that the moral and social creed, when conscientiously held, was the same of a Jew, as of a Christian. Lord SEAGRAYE expressed his regret at finding him self unable upon this occasion to concur in sentiment with those in whose opinions he usually agreed. His rule with regard to questions of this nature had been to extend religious toleration and freedom to all classes of his Christian fellow subjects; but the measures which he had so supported had always contemplated parties professing the Christian religion. But, professing Christianity as he did, he could not consent to admit to the offices of a Christian State those persons who disbelieved in, and were naturally hostile to, that religion. Lord HOWDEN supported the Bill. The Earl of GOSFORD did not believe the measure would be injurious to the interests of Christianity, and be should give it his support. Lord BEXLEY replied, and their Lordships divided— contents, present 9O Proxies Non-Contents, present Proxies Majority against the second reading —5O The Bill was therefore thrown out. DWELLING-HOUSE ROBBERY BILL. 25-- 54 Lord SUFFIELD wished the House to go into Corn mittee on the Dwelling-house Robbery Bill. Lord WYNFORD said he had permitted the Bill to go through two stages without discussion, but he objected decidedly to a further step being so taken. Lord SUFFIELD gave notice for to• morrow for a Com mittee. Adjourned at half-past ten o'clock. MINORITY Of 94 (Tellers included), who, on the 31st of July, voted for Mr. Buxton's motion, " That one half of the 20,000,0001. should be reserved till the apprenticeship shall have ex pi re d. ENGLAND. Aglionby, H. A.—Cockermouth Attwood, Bewes, T.—Plymouth Thos.—Birmingham Berkeley, C. F —Cheltenham Bish, T.—Leominster Blake, Sir F.—Berwick Bouverie, D. P.—Salisbury Briggs, R.—Halifax Briscoe, J. I.—East Surrey Brocklehurst, J.— Maccles field Brotherton, Joseph—Salford Brougham, J.—Kendal Cayley, Sir G.—Scarborough Cayley, E. S.—N. Yorkshire Chandos, Marquis of—Bucks Clay, W.—Tower Hamlets Curteis, H.--East Sussex Curteis, E. B.—Rye Dashwood, G. H.—Bucks Dykes, F. L. B.—Cockermouth Evans, W.—Leicester Ewart, W.—Liverpool Faithful, G.—Brighton Fenton, John—Rochdale Forester, G. C. W.—Wenlock Gaskell, D.—Wakefield Grote, G.—London Handley, Benjamin—Boston Handley, Henry—Lincolnshi re Handley, Wm. F.—Newark upon-Trent Harland, W. C.—Durham Hawkins, J. H.—Newport Howard, F. G.—Morpeth Howick, Vibc.—North North. umberland Hudson, T.--Evesham Hutt, W.—Kingston-on-Hull Ingilby, Sir W.—. Lincoln Jerningham, H. V.—Pontefract Lambton,.H.—North Durham Lamont, Norman—Wells Langdale, Hon. C.—Beverley Lushington, Dr.—Tower Haml. Marjoribanks, S.—Hythe Marsland. T.—Stockport Martin, John—Tewkesbury Methuen, Paul—N. Wilts. Morrison, J.—lpswich Ord, W. H.—Newport, Isle of Wight Palmer, R—Berkshire Pease, Joseph—South Durham Penleaze, C—Southampton Philips, Mark—Manchester Petre, Hon. Ed.—York Potter, R.—Wigan ENGLAND. Poulton, J. S.—Shaftesbury Pryse, P.—Cardigan Romilly, J.—Bridport Romilly, E.—Ludlow Sandford,E. A.—West Somerset Scrope, Poulett—Stroud Strutt, Edmund—Derby Tayleure, Wm.—Bridgewater Thicknesse, R.—Wigan Tooke, W.—Truro Torrens, R.—Holton Trelawney, W. L. S.—East Cornwall Turner, W.—Blackburn Tynte, C. J. K.—W. Somerset Vernon, Hon. G. J. V.—South Derbyshire Wason, R.—lpswich Whalley, Sir S.—Marylebone Wigney, I. N.—Brighton Wilks, J.—Boston Williams, G.—Ashton Winnington, Sir T.—Bewdley Winnington, H. Jefft•eys—West Worcestershire SCOTLAND. Agnew, Sir A.—Wigtonshire Johnston, A.—St. Andrews I RELA ND. Blake, Martin—Galway Evans, G.—Dublin Co. Finn, W. F.—Kilkenny Co. Grattan, J.—Co. of Wicklow Mullins, F. W.—Kerry O'Connell, D.—Dublin City O'Connell, Maurice—Tralee O'Connell, John—Youghall O'Dwyer, A. C.—Drogheda O'Reilly, W.—Dundalk Ruthven, E. S.—Dublin Ruthven, Edward—Kildare Sullivan, R.—Kilkenny Vigors, N. A.—Carlow TELLER. Buxton, T. F.—Weymouth PAIRED OFF. FOR. Parrott, J.—Totn ess Seale, Colonel—Dartmouth AGAINST. Russell, Lord John—South De. vonshira Codrington, Sir E.—Devonporl MINORITY Of 52 (Teller included), who voted against filling up the blank in the 25th clause with the sum of " Twenty Millions." Against For ' s'2 } Majority for Bl ,133 In the House ENGLAND. A g lionby, H. A. .—Cockermouth Bish, T.—Leominster Blallaire, William—East Cum. berland Bruce, Lord E.—Marlborough Briggs, R.—Halifax Chandos, Lord—Bucks Cobbett, William—Oldham Cornish, James—Totness Diliwyn, L. W.—Glamorgansh. Ewart, Wm. —Liverpool Faithful], G.—Brighton Fenton, I.—Rochdale Gaskell, Daniel —Wakefield Handley, H.—Lincolnshire Handley, Major—Boston Hall, Benjamin—Monmouth Harland, W. C.—DNewurham Isle Haw kins, J. H. —port, of Wight Hudson, T.—Evesham Hutt, Wm. —Hull Ingilby, Sir W. A.—Parts of Lindsey, Lincolnshire Knatchbull, Sir E.—East Kent Langton, Wm. Gore—East So. mersetshire Marshall, J.—Leeds Marsland, Thomas—Stockport Methuen, PNorth Wiltshire NorreYs , Lord—Oxfordshire Parrott Jasper—Totness Pease, Joseph—South Durham Philips, M.—Manchester Potter, Richard—Wigan Roebuck, J. A—Bath R o milly, J.—Bridport ENGLAND. Stewart, P. M.—Lancaster Strutt, E.—Derby Thicknesse, rt.—Wigan Todd, J. Ruddell—Honiton Torrens, Col.—Bolton Turner, W.—Blackburn Trelawney, W. L. S.—East Cornwall Tynte, C. J. K.—West Somer setshire Wason, R.—lpswich Whalley, Sir S.— Marylebone Wilmot, Sir E. E.—North War. wickshire Wigney, J. N.—Brighton IRELAND, O'Connell, Daniel—Dublin O Connell, Morgan—Meath O'Dwyer, A. C.—Drogheda Ruthven, E. S.—Dublin Ruthven, E.—Kildare Co. Sullivan, Richard—Kilkenny PAIRED OFF AGAINST. Evans, Col.—Westminster Mills, J.—Rochester O'Connell, John—Youghall Seale, J. H.—Dartmouth Walker, R.—Bury, Lancashire PAIRED OFF IN FAVOUR. Howard, P. H.—Carlisle Villiers, Viscount—Honiton Watson, R.—Canterbury Codrington, Sir E.—Devonport Whitbread, W, H.—Bedford TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,-Amidst the numerous reforms so loudly called for at the present crisis, there is one which, in my opinion, is infinitely more required than triennial Parlia ments, vote by ballot, and various other measures daily and hourly forced upon our notice. Yet strange it is, that this same abuse has never yet been alluded to by any of our popular representatives in the Lower House, al though confident I am, that were it but once corrected, the dreaded event of Lords and Commons coming into hostile collision, would be at least rendered highly im probable. I allude, Sir, to the absurd irrational privilege enjoyed by the Peerage, of voting by proxy. In private life we should consider it a hardship, were we compelled to em ploy John Hobby as our shoemaker, merely because we had formerly employed his father Thomas in the same cap why ; still more should we grumble, were the said John Hobby to make our shoes by proxy, without ever being at the trouble of ascertaining the length and breadth of our foot. Now, the people of this country are actually compelled to intrust their dearest interests to a set of Right Hon. Political Hobbys, who know no more of the measures they vote upon by proxy, for regulating the laws of Great Britain, than the said John Hobby does of the measure of my foot, which he never saw. Absurd as this must appear to every people under heaven, except honest confiding John Bull, this is but a minor part of the grievance. Not only are our Right Hon. and Right Rev. Hobbys entitled by law to make our shoes by proxy, but even when on the bed of death—at the last struggle of suffering humanity—even then, are these privileged routers authorized to monopolise the measures of their fellow-countrymen. And still more wonderful, even after death has closed the scene, and the noble dust is returned to whence it came, even then does tile defunct Political Hobby cobble the liberty—the privileges of the people of this country. Sir, is it not a libel upon human nature, that such gross, such disgraceful scenes should be witnessed in the nineteenth century ? Is it not a foul blot on the first reformed Parliament of Britain, to tolerate such an in famous QUIZ upon rational beings? And still, Sir, such is the fact. Did not the Earl of Plymouth and Lord Dover vote in the House of Lords by proxy, on the Local Courts Bill, on Wednesday the 10th of July, at half past one a.m. ? and were tbev not both gathered to their fathers that very day ? Did not his Grace the Duke of Sutherland vote, on Saturday the 20th of July, at a quarter past four A. M., on the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, al though his Grace departed this life at Dunrobin Castle, in Sutherland, on Friday the 19th, at a quarter past three ? I add no more, but leave the subject to abler hands.—.l am, Sir, your most obedient servant, N —n, 29th July, 1833. VERAX. DISSENTIENT TO THE THIRD READING OF THE (IRISH CHURCH BILL. 1. Because the Bill imposes upon the clergy of Ire land, already defrauded of their rightful property, the new charge of the church cess, heretofore borne by the land, which is at once a mockery and a wrong. 2. Because this charge will absorb so much of the fund to be provided by taxing the clergy that for many years no part of that fund, and at no time any conside rable part of it, will be applicable to the proposed im provement of small livings; so that to injustice is added delusion. 3. Because the Bill suppresses ten bishoprics, not for purposes of reform, but for purposes of finance, in order to supply the deficiency created by an act of in justice. 4. Because the Bill, affording an unworthy triumph to the Roman Catholics over the law they have distorted and the clergy they have persecuted, encourages future aggressions; while, failing in its professed objects by the inadequacy and fallacy of its financial provisions, it hu miliates the Protestants without contributing to the future efficiency of the Established Church, (Signed) ELLENBOROUGH. COURT CIRCULAR. The Duke of Cumberland and the Princess Sophia vi sited his Majesty on Wednesday, at St. James's Palace. The King gave audiences to Sir James Graham, Sir J. Kempt, Sir John Beresford, and Sir Wm. Woods. His Majesty, attended by Sir Herbert Taylor, left town about h df-past seven on Wednesday evening, on his return to Windsor. The Princes Alexander and Charles of Solms honoured the Earl of Mansfield with their company at dinner on Wednesday evening at his Lordship's residence at Caen Wood. The two Princes left Kew yesterday morning fir Portsmouth, to inspect the dockyards. The Dutch Plenipotentiaries, Barons Verstolk and M. Dedel, the Belgian Plenipotentiaries, M. Van der Weyer and General Golder, and the Ambles sdors of Russia, Aus tria, and France, the Prussiin Minister, and the Au,trian Special Minister, the Baron de Wessenburg, were assem bled upwards of four hours yesterday afternoon, at the Foreign-office, in deliberation with Viscount Palmerston. Sir Benjamin D Uurban and Colonel Bell ha i inter views esterday with Mr. Secretary Stanley at the Colo nial-office. Despatches were sent off last evening from the Colonial. office to Lord Nugent, the Lord High Commissioner of the lonian Islands; to Sir F. Ponsonby, the Lieutenant• G overnor of Malta; and to Sir Wm. Houstoun, the Lieute nant-Governor of Gibraltar. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. GOODWOOD RACES, JuLY 31. Wednesday night. THE GOODWOOD STAKES.--ahe race for this stakes was very severe, the favourite again having the best of the field. After one false start the horses got off in pretty good style ; Clara was in front for the first two or three hundred yards ; Little Red Rover, Rattle, Friar Tuck, Boy Blue, and Tourist lying behind her, all in good place; Red Rover then took the lead, Lady Fly having the second place round the clump, and looking something like a win ner : Cinderella also laid pretty forward. About a dis tance from home these two were beaten; Guildford then separated from the rush, went up to Little Red Rover's quarters, end was not defeated till the last two or three strides ; Robinson rode him with remarkable patience. Cinderella a bad third, Tourist fourth, and the rest " no where." The pace was good, without being so great as for the Drawing-room Stakes. Windcliffe broke down. The betting was exceedingly heavy, and all the Stockbridge party are large winners. The weather was fine, and the company fashionable. Excellent sport is expected tomorrow. . . _ THURSDAY.-The Malcolm Stakes of 50 sovs. each, b. ft. Two-year old colts, Sat. 51h. ; fillies, Bat. T.Y.C. Mr. Sadler's c. by Defensive ....(Chapple) I Mr. Greville's bl. g. Kislar Aga 2 Duke of Richmond's t. Gulistan ........ 3 Lord Egremont's b. f. sister to Tom Thumb 4 . . 4 to 1 on Mr. Sadler's colt, which came out over the stand, and won easy by two lengths. The Goodwood Cup of 300 soya., with 540 sous. in specie (20 Boys. each, with 100 added). Cup Course. The second horse to receive 100 ROTS. Mr. Kent's Rubini, 5 yrs, 9st. 91b Lord W. Lennox ns Whale,3 yrs. fist. 111 b 2 Lord Exeter's Beiram, 4 yrs. Bst. 10Ib 3 The following also started Licufield's Minster, 4 yrs ; Mr. Crosby's bl. h. Galopade, 3 yrs ; Mr. Grat wicke's sister to Frederick, 3 yrs ; Mr. Spalding ns. b. g. by Lottery—Swiss's dam, 3 yrs ; Mr. Greatrex ns. Hokee Pokee, 4 yrs ; Mr. Gully's Lady Fly, 4 yrs ; and Lord Surrey as. Roadster, 5 yrs. Rubini won by a length: Betting-5 to 4 agst Beiram, 4to 1 agst Whale, 4to 1 agst Hokee Pokoe, 6 to 1 apt Galopade, 12 to 1 agst Minster, 15 to 1 apt Rubini. KNUTSFORD RAGES. WEDNESDAY-The Pmver Stakes of 10 Bove. each, once round the Course, to start at the Distance Chair. Sir E. Mainwaring's Caractacus (Templeman) 1 Mr. Egerton ns. Lady*Stafford A Sweepstakes of 5 sovs. etch, with 40 added. Best of three heats, about a mile and a half each. Second horse to have 10 boys. and his stake again, if three start. Mr. G. Crompton's Prince (Thompson) 2 1 1 Sir. T. Stanley's Miss Lytham Mr. Turner's br. c. by Figaro 3 4 2 Mr. Leigh's Osmond 4 2 dr Silver Cup, value 50 guineas, with 10 am. to the second horse, given by Lord Grey, for horses not thorough bred, the property of and ridden by non-commissioned officers and privates of the King's Regiment of Cheshire Yeomanry Cavalry. Two mile beats. Mr. Davis's Miss Fanny (Heath) 0 1 1 Mr. Plaisterer's Peter 1 2 0 Mr. Linley's Lady Whip 2 0 0 The Russian:Government has taken measures to establi,h steam navigation on the Caspian Sea. A General Courtmartial has been ordered to assemble at Clonmel on Monday next, the 29th inst., for the trial of First Lieutenants WILLIAMS and LOSH, of the 23d Welch Fusileers, upon charges preferred against them arising out of an occurrence at a card table.—A Court martial is ordered to assemble at the Royal Barracks, Dublin, on Monday next, Major General M`DoNNELL, C.A., President, for the trial of Major CRABS, '74th regi. ment, for disrespectful language to Iris commanding officer, and insubordination. The charges are preferred by Lieut. Col. MEIN...-Irish Paper. FRENCH PAPERS. (From Galignani s Messenger of WedoesdaY. ) too The Augsburg Gazette of the 27th instant CO,, the following of the 10th from Constantinople:► t yt Egyptian army having effected its retreat behi n ," Taurus, the Russian auxiliary forces have this 1 1 7, 1 4‘. left the roadstead of Bujukdere, to return to the ,: 010 , Sea. The Engli s h squ a dron under Admiral Afal which had appeared near the Dardanelles, left that 0 °,2 on the 2d in s t., an d sa il e d in th e direction of 5 0 71/ The same paper brings intelligence from Vienna W 22. The direction of State affairs, in the abselle°, o , Prince Metternich, h as b een i n t rus t e d to the Baron ° ts j, tenfels, formerly Ambassador at Constantinople.----S e Byres Five per Cents. are 95 1-3 ; ditto Four per CA P 86 ; Bank Actions 1,239 4-5. oft The Gazette also contains a letter from Pied o- . ,,, stating that the Propaganda have spread their net all r Italy. The Neapolitan Government is blamed for 90 1 ing the enemies of the public peace to continue f';,_ m manceuvres. Tnis letter insinuates that the French LI vernment is not sincere in its disapprobation of the re,,Z, lutionary schemes; but it extols the vigilance of the K Z of Sardinia, who, it is asserted, is thereby reoderil 4 service even to the Government of Louis Philip. "! •06 French Government is blamed for maintaining a gar. l j at Ancona, as its presence tends to encourage the Lin e in Italy, and a wish is expressed that the French nisi ' withdrawn, in order to consolidate the peace of Italy The Frankfort Journal has the following, under a: 1 ; of Berlin, 20th July :—" From the repeated dela . 10 King's journey to Toplitz, it may be concluded species of Congress spoken of is not important, been sought to have it believed. It is probable only affairs to be treated of are those of the Confeder If such negotiations be conducted with the moderation that we know M. Ancillon, our prime ster, possesses, salutary measures may be expected resolved on." The Munich Gazette of the 24th instant c , cates an article front Turin, to justify the conduct Charles Albert with regard to the late political occ in Piedmont. It states that, even at the time King's accession to the throne, a conspiracy was to subvert the throne, and establish a republic. sideration of the small number of the conspirat as they had no correspondence wi h foreigners, th thought he might, without danger, pardon the implicated in this affair, and only sent the lead, plot to the Fenestrelle. After this act of clemen conspirators dared to form the plot which was di lite:y. The King, in consequence of this persevel crime, deemed it his duty to act with rigour, and se before a courtmattial, but the indictments were and the pleadings public. Of 57 persons arres 12 have been condemned to death. Two officers, 62 commissioned officers, and 200 persons of different els: have fled abroad. A number of conspirators, boWtl l it is added, probably remain in the country. The Nurenburg Correspondent contains the follovril l There still reig ns a great obscurity over the oet"; rences in Poland and Russia. It is, however, knows' w: a party of young Poles have been desirous of irnitstl Mucius Sasvola. It is said that some papers have W ho found at the residence of the y o u n g Count Z i llowitZ, was beheaded at Lithuania, giving important infauteti°,4 with regard to the last conspiracy, and that copie ° g these papers have been se nt t o th e Ru ss i a n Ambassador I d Paris." The same journal gives the following of the 0 0 inst., from Frankfort ;—" The Prussian troops statie p here and in the vicinity ar e to l e ave us at the end 01 tb month. They will go to Sarrelouis, and be relieved 11 1 Prussian troops from Luxemburg. The discipline conduct of the Prussians deserve the highest praise. 0 1 tranquillity is perfectly restored here, hopes are entertsietei that when the construction of the new prison is comPle, a and the prisoners are sufficiently secured, the Austrw - b and Prussian garrison will either partly or wholly leave ° especially as our own regul ar t roo p s a re now coma° let°. in number. Extract of a letter of the 19th instant, from Ancona " Upon the arrival of despatches from Rome, Monseleo Grasselini, the Apostolical Delegate, suddenly deParAit from the city on the 17th. It is the general opinion ' - o f he will receive verbal instructions on political affsil l p importance. According to letters from Trieste, an Aid rican vessel that had entered that port from ~1 Dor reported the three French frigates, having troops on - destined fur Ancona, had touched at that island. Acco o b 4A from Umbria describe that country as being still is a °"-oiti of excitement; the arrests connected with the SOO 1 Perugia are frequent." fit ' The Memorial de la Dordogne announces, General Bugeaud having arrived a few days since Exiodeuil, by the College of which Arrondisveate pt , was elected a Deputy, a serenade was given bins, It.'" ~• brilliant display of fireworks was discharged in his hone o f A Nantes paper mentions the street of six Cbouto,..i., note, including one who was sergeant major of a bapdt upon whom was found a list of 21 names. 1 4 The Breton of Nantes states, that several distinguls (, legitimatists proceeded to Ham last week, and tbit Berryer obtained permission to see M. de Polies' family affairs. * - The three days still occupy the columns of the elt i and the same direct contradictions, which we have D7 O l noticed, continue to signalise the accounts given of Iv of passed. The Ministerial journals see everything coolly de rose, and find occasion for nothing but self-cm/gip( Lion ; while those of the Opposition insist, that the fe e O f of the National Guards against t e Ministerial 0 1 %0 fortification was so unequivocally expressed, that is ho t now been rendered impracticable to persist in it, and Iv, the impossibility of lium:opting to govern in oppositio°ol or without the concurrence of, the National Guards , • been amply demonstrated. The Temps alone ste e . r p sl middle course; and though it admits that the Droo Guards loudly cried " Vive le Roi," contends that, ° b ,' doing, they are not to be understood as expressing allPt i c ie Sion of the Ministers, but merely as exhibiting their eta of ment to the dynasty of July ; and, by abstaining 1 01 %0 1 more distinct manifestation of opinion, declining a Pw l part, which forms no portion of their institution. FRENCH FUNDS.—Pattis, JULY 31. Five per Cents., 104 f. 45c 50c. 30c. Four and a Half per Cents., 101 f. Four per Cents., 94f. 50c. Three per Cents., 77f. 20c. 15c. 77f.: National Loan, 1041 30c. Bank Actions, 1,742 f. 50c. 1740 f. Rente de Naples, 91f. 90c. 80c. Roman Five per Cents., 91%. Rente d'Espagne, Five per Cents., 16. Rente d'Espagne, Three per Cents., 43% 44 437 i• Royal Spanish Loan, 87. 71. Rente Perpet. d'Espagne, Five per Cents , 71 7 1 79 • Belgic Loan, 1831, 96 96 1 . EXCHANGI3 ON LONDON. One month, paper, 25f. 55c. • money, 25f. s^c. Three months, paper, 25f. 4gc. ; money, 25f. 40C. —Cours Authentique. ...... , 13 ; it 37 4 .""•••••••• t ***** ..,~ iltaa 4,_ Y B tJers 1 116 4 _ 4 1 xu._ -ic ti ~ l ..•rs & ~ ~~ttutes ; 1~.. Et) p?, P RIDAY tyranny !tit'oles, still t I t t l lotniter's I et 41181 an lat . efo h e i r ?th the out tte le of 8 , r Ye deadli he et ts uei tY whi c ' lo hvi - ti o l st ace() ttl s tandin a - h is ea. _ rider 'a tb e aye s 1 tbst t he AR as it 11 I,?:ntrirlittin. co. that ' 4 1 : 4 irian'illgantli gleratiOlt: lgat4NlL„ 1d11), spirit 0 , tt) Liyhtlt.... • ' me midi' . ;ted to be 4 . 0 a Co 1. 4 Ati4nitia C o, inB Co, I :011111 10 / li ‘ , • Itil)7 1 tOf 14 11,, 11414:1: nin 4180Peir: iellrfenV' ttei l ie le Of WI 13 farm t * -C. Co Mini . 10 '74 11:••• xtra, 'tors, • j t"' . nee c o ' the Kot ..,,t18 -°6141,..y••••• e citi%eo' ii74.1c40;',? der of tbt "1.,51 hceloarlPati cy, 00 0 : s z : /o ts ° P IR] ersoce seat tbeo ' pe t. .th Cer regt aW' I en3**".• ''''' del, ' . C c 44 4 4. C " ;; * 1441 st°ck at elostee, Ottp:r7ek '' .est , DUTCH MAIL. THE HAGUE, JULY SO.—Yesterday, on the arrill l , a courier from London, there was a meeting of the Cll b Council, which sat pretty long. ind I,e if• - - ie position oi ae gun-boats between Lillo and i' oo po kenshoek remains the same. M os t o f th e B e lgian t r e d are withdrawn from the vicinity of the twoforts. A t ie detachment occupies Fort La Croix, and a nomP l ° 7 tached from Callao the village of Doel. in I t t he ap b p eg ea in rs ni t n h g at n h f i A s A u l g a n j s e t s . ty the King will go to th e : oo ° : FRANKFORT, JULY 26.—The plan for a Col`7, between the States of the German Confederation 113 0 1 , 1 facilitating the transit trade, which has lately been s e 60 the Diet of the Confederation to the Senate of thi s tlO t has been approved by the latter, and sub seque ntly .vi Legislative body. The contents of the Convent° not yet publicly known. DUTCH FUNDS—AMSTERDAM, JULY 30. g 4 Actual Debt, 2% per cent 49k .4; Amort Syndic, 4k per cent ...... Ditto, ditto, 3% per c e nt. Voluntary Loan, 1831, 6 per cent 101% W i p4 Ditto, 1832, 5 per Cent. Ditto, 1833, 5 per Cent. Exchange on London Two months Dutch Papers, July 30. oe s : a MR. WORDSIVOTH.— This most Orign -1 and distinguished man paid a hurried visit to GI ot het this week. On Monday evening he arrived froo3 irsor " Excursion" in his beloved Western Highlands %t o 11 land, and proceeded to Carlisle, on his way b Rydal Mouut, on tbe following morning, having ° P o rs; time to visit his friend, Mr. Avaxsorr, en P a , While Highland innkeepers pompously announc:ri, arrival and departure of obscure Lords, it was not "' be st; but quite in keeping, that we should have nothiog br ott on this occasion, of the progress of Nature's Bard , t std .. her noblest Alpine domains. He seems to have quietly along doubtless " churthing" to himself, " By the running brooks, A music sweeter than their own."—Dumfries ; The following letter has been address e n bel' the Polish Committee in Switzerland A . e r e Canton of Thurgau, July 15.—A, subscription' - 0 11‘ f ,. ing in Switzerland in behalf of th e P o l es , who are Ares, a hospitable refuge in every quarter, I send yod r o e Al'P that was given me by the Bair d to , e , r g o il L t E d o re N s . sin g i .ce' b a e s gyou to disp ose o f it by lottery , 1 3 ' f ,! tbe produce to the fund of the Polish Contruitte e eTS. " NAPOLEON LOUIS BONAPAP ate— --------- Troc