The Sun. — London, England, 1853-02-25 00:00:00

in g passed away—the imports into that settlement amounted to 248,0001., the exports to 464,0001., and the popula tion to 28,000. In 1851, only 6 years afterwards,.the btu ports had arisen to 1,056,0001., the exports had risen to 1,423,0001., and the figures of the populatipn were re versed—for instead of being 28,000 it had increased to i 82,000. This was the rapid increase of the colony of Vic toria, which Lord Glenelg and the Earl of Aberdeen — and he was willing to admit that, had he been in their po sition, he should probably have arrived at thesaelifitbai. i deci sion as they did—were unwilling to consent to He now called the attention of the house to . what had been the immediate effect of the discoveries of gold upon the material prosperity of this colony. He asked leave to compare the revenue of Victoria for the quarter ending June 30, 1851, with the corresponding quarter of 1852. For the quarter ending June 30, 1851, the revenue of Victoria amounted to 35,994/. ; that was the general revenue. For the same quarter in 1852 the general revenue had increased to 98,4561., being an increase of 62,4621. The Crown revenue in the same quarter of 1851 amounted to 87,874/. ; in the corresponding quarter of 1852 it was 186,579/. 2 showing an increase of 98 , 7051 ., and a total in crease of 161,1671. In a few months the population ' which in 1851 was 82,000, had risen to 120 , 000— a result of the enormous influx of immigrants. This would show the house the extraordinary progress of the colony of Victoria, and would show that the state of those colonies was such as to require the consideration of the late Government. What had been the amount of emigration during the last few years? In 1849 the emigration from this country to Australia amounted to 32,191 persons ; in 1850, 16,037 ; in 1831, 21,532 ; while last year (1852) it was not less than 8f,434. In considering what ought to be the policy of the Government towards these colonies, the late Government considered themselves bound to meet them in a confiding, trusting, and lib era l sp i r it . Th ey thought that the Go vernment, living at a distance, could not judge of their affairs and their expenditure so well as the colonists them selves ; and that they ought to place that confidence in them which, as Englishmen, accustomed to the institu tions of this country, they were so well entitled to possess. The late Government was strengthened in this determina tion by that honourable development of the national cha racter which had taken place under such extraordinary circumstances. He should not do his duty if he did not point out to the attention of Parliament the most creditable and honourable manner in which the thousands engaged in mining in Australia had conducted themselves up to the pre sent time. So sudden was the change that the local Exe cutive were unprepared with the means of maintaining order, but both in the gold fields of New South Wales and Victoria the general conduct of the people had been most orderly and creditably. Notwithstanding the temptations around them, the Sunday had been rigidly and properly observed, and Divine worship had not been neglected. Up to last autumn the Government of Victoria had no troops, except 50 soldiers belonging to a regiment of the line. They had no barracks ; they were billeted in the town of Melbourne ; yet it was a fact highly honourable to the British army that up to the time when he (Sir J. Paking ton) left office he had not heard of a single instance of de sertion among the handful of men thus employed near these boundless fields of exertion. (Hear, hear.) In June last, considering the expense to which the local Govern ment must necessarily be placed by the discovery of the Victoria goldfields, the late Government determined to place at the disposal of the local Government the revenue arising from the gold discoveries. Accordingly, in June, he sent out a dispatch, in which he announced that the revenue derived from the gold was to be regulated by the local Legislature, and expended by them. Just after the dispatch in question went out a petition arrived from New South Wales which attracted great attention, and which was presented to the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll. The petition was a recapitulation of what the colonists conceived to be their rights, and the demands they were entitled to make. In June, 1851, the then ex piring Legislature of New South Wales in their last ses sion had adopted this declaration and remonstrance. They were answered by Lord Grey, who refused every one of the prayers of the petition. In June, 1852, just before Lord J. Russell went out of office, and within a week of the refusal of Earl Grey, the new Legislature, elected under the law of 1850, adopted the same declaration. The complaints might be stated under five heads. he first was a complaint of the civil list. The second demanded that the lands should be placed Tinder the control of the local authorities, instead of the Imperial Government. The third prayed for a reform in the Customs. The fourth required that the appointment to Government offices should be left in the hands of the local authorities ; and the fifth prayed that all legislation upon local subjects should be finally disposed of by and in the colony. Taking these topics in their reverse order, he had to remark that the noble lord (J. Russell) thought it would be possible to draw a line between those matters which might be nanded over to the final legislation of the local Government and those which required the assent of the Crown. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell), in his speech in February, 1852, said : " Another scheme which has been proposed is that a cer tain description of laws adopted by the Colonial Legislatures should require the assent of the imperial authority, but that with regard generally to the acts of the Colonial Legislatures, no such sanction should be requisite ; and that a line should be drawn between those laws which require the assent of the Crown and those which should be enforced without such as sent. Now, Sir, Ido not believe that it is possible to draw any such distinction." The noble lord then adduced an instance, and said : " But I mention this as an instance of the difficulty there would be in drawing a precise line, and to show that any at tempt to draw such a line would be most likely to raise dis putes as to whether a particular law came within or shoed without that line. I believe that any man acquainted with the administration of the colonies will come to the conclusion that it is only in rare cases that the authority of the Crown ought to be interposed, and that with respect to local affairs the executive and legislative authorities are the best judges." Now he (Sir J. Pakington) concurred in these expressions, and agreed with the noble lord that it would not be possible to draw such a line. He concurred with Lord Grey also in thinking that any interference on the -part of the Govern ment in disallowing the local acts ought to be of rare occur rence ; but if the attempt were made to draw the line be tween local and imperial legislation, he thought it would fail. He should be glad to see, however, some such dis tinction established as exi s t e d i n Parliament between private and public bills. At present he thought that no real hard ship existed under this head. With regard to the claim that the patronage should be confined to the colonies, the l=ate Government thought that, for the sake of the colonies themselves, it would not be for their benefit to eiclude the introduction of persons from this country who might be appointed by the Crown to offices of trust and emolument. The general rule was for the Governor to select persons among the colonists for poblic employments, and he agreed with Lord Grey, th a t it was impossible or the Govern ment to recognise any monopoly of a right to such situa tions on the part of the inhabitants of New South Wales as to preclude them from being bestowed on others of her Majesty's subjects. With respect to the Customs, Lord. Grey had in a great degree met the wishes of the colonists, and the Customs were now placed on very- much the same footing tie at home. The civil list was in New South Wales a great grievance. It amounted to 70,0001. i'year , Before the civil list was secured by the act of 1850, the Government called upon the colonial legislature provide a civil list, giving adequate salaries to the princi pal officials in that colony, and, the Legislature having met the wishes of the Government, they were allowed to regu late the other salaries subject to existing interests. He saw in his place the hon. member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) who was more conversant than almost any other gentleman with the land question in these colonies. He believed that the hen. member, while he was a member of the Colonial Legislature, was a party to the very able• cor respondence carried on upon both sides between the Legis lai,ure of New South Wales and the colonial authorities of fnis country-with regard to the maintenance or repeal of the Land Sales Act. This was a subject of the greatest in terest in the colony. The Government of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) refused the requests of the colonists with regard to the management of the land. The colonists had demanded the management of the land as a right. Upon this subject Lord Grey said "It is my duty not to withhold the expression of my de cided dissent from the doctrine that the waste lands in New South Wales, or the revenue derived from them, are in any reasonable sense the exclusive property of the inhabitants, or that thetr representatives ought to have, as of right, the control and disposal of that revenue." The late Government agreed in these opinions of Lord grey, and felt that it would be impossible to admit as a matter of right that which, if admitted, would belong as fully to the 40,000 inhabitants of Western Australia as to the 200,000 inhabitants of New South Wales, and which would indeed ha ve equa ll y b e l onge d to the first few families which settled in a corner of New Zealand. The right to the waste lands was, in the opinion of the late Government, vested in the Crown. Lord Grey admitted that it might be desirable to transfer the control of the waste lands of a colony to its local Legislatare ' • but he thought the ti me had not y e t come . H ere i n he differed from Lord Grey. The late Government thought the time had arrived when the. control of the waste lands might be transferred to the lo cal Legislature. Having made similar con cess i ons t o I Janada and New Zealand, they had determined to give up the management of the land to the colony. Parliament, considering it desirable to secure the means of emigration to the colony, had determined that half the proceeds of the land sales should be applied to emigration. That arrange ment had worked well during the last few years. But in the present state of the colony, considering its rapid increase in population and wealth, it seemed no longer desirable to continue this allotment ; and the late Govern ment thought it might be safely left to the Legislature to decid e at what rate the land should be sold, and to what purposes the revenue should be applied. On these grounds P - re late Government decided upon making the concession to the colonies ; but the concession was accompanied with certain conditions which were not set forth in the dispatch announcing it. It appeared to the late Government that, irrespective of recent events, the Australian colonies had Cham outgrowber,n their original co ns tit u ti on o f a s i ngle Legislative while their recent rapid advance in material prosperity made the establishment of a second chamber more than ever desirable. Seeing that the colonies had now the entire control of their own lands, and considering the large revenues they derived from their gold—the gold licenses issued in the colony of Vic torla produced last that the o f the late Govern rdent were of opinion that the check a second chamber 'would operate advantageously for the interests of the colo nists. The proposition for a second chamber was brought forward in 1850 by the late Secretary for the Home De partment, and defeated by the then Government. It was a second time advanced, and unsuccessfully, by the right hon. baro ne t th e mem b er f or S ou th wark, who had l ong taken so much interest in colonial matters that it had caused him (Sir Z. Pakington) some surprise to see the right hon. baronet intrusted with the care of parks and gardens, and he regretted also to find that the right hon. baronet was not present on this occasion. [Lord J. Russell —" He is ill."] Then, he regretted the cause of his absence more than the absence itself. At that time the general feeling appeared to be in favour of the establishment of a second cha.mbpr. However, the measure was recommended to the colonies by the late Government, and it afforded him great satisfaction to learn that the Legislature of New South Wales had themselves undertaken to devise a con stitution, and that a dispatch was on the road to the Go vernment containing a plan for a double chamber, not dif fering in any essential respect from that which the late Government sent out and urged them to adopt. (Hear, hear.) The next paint upon which he would venture to add- ens a few words to the house was the subject of trans portation. The present Government had announced, through the noble lord opposite and the noble duke at the lead of the Colonial Department, their intention to adhere to the decision of their predecessors in favour of the cessa tion of transportation to all the Australian colonies. The step taken by the late, and confirmed by the present Go ernment, was an important one, and , the reasons which Induced it had not yet been explained. Lord Campbell, he observed, had expressed his disapproval of the aboli tion of transPeion, and a similar view of the subject WaB taken bY the before a Parliarne mostt eminent judges in giving evidence committee in 1847. In the de bates which h ad taken Place on the subject in that house THE SUN, LONDON, FRIIJAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1853. he, also, had ventured to express a strong opinion in favour of transportation, as a most valuable secondary punishment. Nevertheless, he felt bound, in conjunction with his colleagues in the late Government, to defer to the determined 4nd all but unanimous feeling of the colonies. (Hear.) All the Australian colonies, with the exception of Van Diemen's Land, unanimously resolved to use every legitimate means in their power to prevent convicts from being landed on their shores. In Van Diemen's Land the employers of labour—suffering from the effiux of popula tion consequent on the gold discoveries—were anxious that transportation should be continued, but the great majority of the inhabitants of that colony were as much opposed to it as the inhabitants of the other colonies. Under these cficumstances the late Government determined /to put a stop to the system, and he believed the house would be of opinion that they had determined wisely, They might have embarked in a struggle with the colonies—they might have succeeded by force of arms—but the success would have been disastrous. For the sake of moral considera tions at home it was impossible that we could longer look to transportation as an efficient secondary punishment. There could be no doubt of the fact that offences were now committed solely for the purpose of securing to the offen ders transportation to Australia. The house would consi der this of itself a sufficient reason why the late Govern ment adopted the policy of abolishing transportation, and he was glad to find that the present Government intended to pursue the same course. He must, however, express his earnest hope that the noble lord at the Home-office would net allow a long time to elapse before he explained to the house the views of the Government on the subject of secondary punishments. (Hear.) He had strong opinions on that subject, and when the proper time arrived he would probobly take the opportunity of stating what the views of the late Government were regarding it. If he understood the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) aright, there were to be no convicts sent to Van Diemen's Land after the ships now engaged. He was happy to find, however, that the nobl lord still intended to send convicts to Western Australia. The objections to sending convicts to Van Diemen's Land did not apply to Western Australia, which was 1,400 or 1,500 miles from the nearest of our settlements, while the intervening distance consisted of an almost impassable desert. He hoped, however, that the Government would not send any large portion of convicts. (Hear, hear.) With reference to the secondary punishments, the noble lord and the house must feel that it would be a serious evil if the country were kept in a state of uncertainty and suspense as to whatthey were to consist of, and therefore he trusted no unnecessary delay would take place in announcing them to the house. He had now stated his views at length on the important colonial questions to which he had adverted. The noble lord was aware that the colonists prayed for concessions which were refused by him when last in office, but which had been conceded by the late Government, and he was therefore entitled to ask what were the views entertained upon these questions by the present Government. With reference to one important point affecting Canada, the noble lord had stated that it was the intention to revert to the policy of LOrd Grey. But he hoped the noble lord would not revert to the refusal which in 1852 he gave to certain important concessions, but was resolved in a gene rous spirit to meet the wishes of the colonists. He would here make a short quototion from the speech delivered by the noble lord on the subject of our colonial policy in 1850. ,The noble lord said : " As to governing our colonies, I think we cannot do bet ter than refer to those maxims of policy by which our ances tors were guided upon this subject. It appears to me that in providing that wherever Englishmen went they should enjoy English freedom and have English institutions they acted justly and wisely. They adopted a course which was calcu lated to promote a harmonious feeling between the mother country and the colonies, and which enabled those who went out of those distant possessioris to sow the seeds of com munities of which England may always be proud." He had never heard language that he thought more worthy of the high position of the noble lord than this. When in office he (Sir J. Pakington) had endeavoured to act on the principles there laid down, and it was on these principles he made the concessions to which he had already adverted. (Hear, hear.) The late Government felt that there were two courses which might hh,ve been pursued. They might, resting on the strong arm of imperial power, have refused these concessions, but they felt that there was another and a wiser policy, viz., to win the confidence of the colonists by conciliating their affections, and thereby prolonging their attachment to the mother country. (Hear, hoar.) It was on this principle that they endeavoured to meet the great crisis that occurred in Australia ' • and he hoped to hear from the noble lord th a t th e p resen t Govern ment were resolved to carry out the same principle to its. utmost. The right hon. gentleman then moved for copies of the dispatch from Sir J. Pakington to the governors of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, dated the 14th of December, 1852, and his dispatch to the Lien tenant-Governor of Van Diemen's Land, Dated the 14th of December, 1852. Mr. F. PEEL entirely concurred in the opening observa tions of the right hon. gentleman, that he was under no necessity of apologising for drawing the attention of the house to the situation of the Australian colonies. They constituted a group of dependencies of which the house had just reason to feel proud. They exhibited in a remark ble degree the capacity of the English race to take root in the soil of foreign countries, and there plant communities which, in an incredibly short space of time, appeared almost to rival the ancient countries of Europe. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had not in any way over stated the results of British industry and enterprise in those countries. He (Mr. Peel) fully endorsed the tribute he had paid to the fidelity of the troops which were sta tioned at Victoria, and could say quite as much for the regiment placed in New South Wales. (Cheers) The right hon. gentleman had made a speech, to which he had listened with all the attention due to so high an authority, and he must say the statements of the right hon. gentleman were interesting, and abounded with great and reliable in formation. If were to find any fault with the speech, it would be as to the proportion of the relations between it and the practical purpose which he had in view. The speech was not needed as a vindication of his own policy. No one had impugned that policy, and he believed there was no one who was not disposed to bear testimony in a general way to the credit that was due to the right hon gentleman's colonial administration. (Hear.) The spon taneous communications which were made by the noblelord tho leader of the house, and by the noble duke at the head of the Colonial Department in another place, had antici pated one half of his motion, and su p erse d e d the necessity for the inquiry which had been made by the right hon. gentleman. He seemed to think that because they had re verted to the policy of the Government which preceded his own with respect to the clergy reserves in Canada there was, therefore, some possibility of their disturbing all the changes that had recently t a k en p l ace. The right hon. gentleman remembered that the Government was not pre pared to follow up his views with reference to the Canadian clergy reserves, and he was instantly filled with solicitude lest his instructions with regard to some other matters should meet the same treatment at their hands. He would, however, endeavour to dispel the fears of the right hon. gentleman. The dispatch to which the right hon. gentleman referred was addressed by him about a week before he quitted office in answer to a communication from the Go vernor of New South Wales received six weeks previously. That communication contained the petition of the Legisla tive Council on which the right hon. gentleman had so largely commented ; and in the reference which he had made to it the right hon. gentleman noticed certain matters that had been long in controversy between ourselves and the colony of New South Wales, and which were there re garded as grievances. He had referred to our interference with the Customs' establishments of that colony, to the exercise of the veto power of the Crown, and to the manner in which the patronage of the Colonial-office had been exercised. Now, with regard to the Customs' esta blishments he might observe that this country had ceased to have any interest in the appointment of officers of CuStoms in the colony, and before this petition came they had transferred that establishment over to the colonists, and it was placed on the same footidg with every other de partment. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the disposal of patronage, he believed that any complaint on that head was unreasonable and unfounded. During his long .tenure of office Lord Grey gave as full a recognition to the claims of colimial talent as it could venture to advance. With few exceptions, every nomination to office in those colonies was made on the recommendation of the executive Government of the. colony. It had been contended that it would be of advantage to have a stringent regulation by which a mono poly should be secured to the monopolists of all the offices of trust and emolument in that country. He believed that any regulation of that kind would be attended with great inconvenience to the public service. Cases would fre quently arise where they required that special knowledge which could not be procured within the narrow limits of a colony. An instance of this had occurred only a fortnight ago, the Senate of the University of Sydney having written letters to Sir J. Herschell and other gentlemen, requesting that they would select gentlemen to fill certain professor ships, on the express ground that it was impossible to pro cure properly qualified persons in the colony. Then, with regard to the veto, it was well known that the Crown was a constituent part of every colonial' legislature. It was ad mitted, he believed, that the disallowing power of the Crown was more grievous in theory than in practice, and that, in fact, few ordinances were ever disallowed. But the Legislature of New South Wales had suggested that it might be possible to make a distinction between matters that might be considered of a local or municipal character only and those which were of an imperial interest, or ap peared to touch the prerogatives of the Crown—(hear)-- and, that, with regard to local affairs, there could be no ob jection to give the governors power to act in behalf of the Crown. With regard to that proposition, he would only say, that if it was possible to draw a line of demarcation distinguishing what were local and what were imperial sub jects, and without restricting the powers of the Crown as to imperial questions, there could be no objection to consi der the propriety of establishing such a restriction. He now came to the more important part of the petition, - which stated that if they gave to the Legislative Council the exclusive control of the entire revenue, territorial as welt as general, and assisted them in exercising the powers conferred upon them by the ordinances of 1850 to amend the constitution, they, on their part, would be ready not only to defray the whole cost of their civil expenses, but also to defray the expense of military protection ; and, as a testimony of the sincerity of their assurances of loyalty and devotion to the Crown, they were ready to vote to her Majesty an ample civil list in substitution for the sums ap propriated in the schedules to the act of the 13th and 14th of Victoria. (Hear, hear.) Now, he believed that a per manent provision, not liable to be capriciously altered by the Legislature, and which did not come under its annual review, was necessary in order to secure the services of able and efficient men to act in that country. He believed that'the local Legislatures took the same view, and part of their complaint was that Parliament, by its sole authority, and without their concurrence, had, as they contended, if not in contravention of the letter, yet hardly inconformity with the spirit of the declaratory act of 1778, by which Parliament renounced the power or levying taxes on the Queen's subjects in the colonies, appropriated part of the revenue raised by taxes imposed by themselves. On con sidering this que s ti on, h e was disposed to admit that the preponderance of argument in the controversy rested with the colonial Legislatures, and therefore he believed that the Government were quite prepared to assert the civil list voted by a colony in substitution for the civil list which Parliament had voted, He anticipated that there would be no occasion to repent having taken that course, or to regret the confidence reposed in the good sense of the people in the colonies. (Hear, hear.) He had recently seen the draught of a measure granting provision for this object to her Majesty, which had been prepared by a committee of the Legislative Council in New South Wales, and he found that the sum proposed to be reserved very con siderably exceeded the sum which Parliament devoted to the purpose. The sum which Parliament appropriated to the civil list amounted to 73,0001., and the amount appro priated by the Legislative Council of New South Wales was 88,000/. It was impossible at this distance to determine - what was the amount required for carrying on the public business. In the colony of Victoria we had taken a re- served 1vi11,0f.,20,000/. for the chief civil department of the Government Now, one might imagine that that sum bore some proportion to the ordinary revenue of the colony, so that in the event of the unfortunate contingency of the Legislative Council refusing to vote a supply, the Govern ment might still be carried on without their concurrence. But the fact was that the estimated revenue for the colony of Victoria for the next year amounted to no less a sum than 1,750,0001., compared with which the sum of 20,0001. was as nothing at all. Again, we had reserved 2,0001. for the department of the Colonial Secretary of Van Diemen's Land ; but, looking to the estimate of the sum required for carrying on that department for next year, he found that in consequence of the enormous rise in the rate of wages and the price of provisions, the sum asked for was just 11,000/. Therefore it was quite clear that Parliament could not do better than allow them to vote their own civil list, in the perfect confidence that they would provide suffi ciently for the public service. (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the question of the unappropriated waste lands, the Crown was proprietor of them as trustee, not for the benefit of the inhabitants of any particular colony, but for the good of the people of the empire at large. Here again an intervention of Parliament took place, regulating the price the land should be sold at, the manner in which un sold land should be occupied, and in which the produce of the land sales should be disposed of. The right hon. gen tleman had not stated that the Legislative Council of New South Wales had declared the Land Sales Act to be a perni cious and impolitic enactment. He was quite prepared to dis pute the justice of that description, for he believed that the manner in which the Crown had exercisea its trust had been of the greatest advantage. The right hon. gentleman was not quite correct in his description of the object of that act. It was not passed with a view of raising an emigration fund. In 1838 and 1839 as much was raised from the sale of land as had been raised in any year subsequent to the passing of the act. He would not undertake to say whe ther or not in that Land Sales Act we stopped in the ascending scale of price at the point most to the interest of the colony ; but of this he was sure, that the two lead ing principles—first, that the land should be sold, and next, that the price should be a fixed price—were sound and just principles. With reference to the system of free grants of land, the right hon. gentleman would recollect that in British North America under that system enormous grants of land were squandered on persons without capital to carry on cultivation or procure a supply of labour. If they wanted an illustration of the effects of the two sys l • tems, let them take Western Australia and Victoria. Th6l first was ruined by the system of free grants, while Vic toria, on the contrary, where land was sold at a high price) was the most prosperous, and had been all along, of any; colony, acknowledging the supremacy of the British Crown!, (Hear, hear.) But he was prepared to admit that there were considerations, having a political complexion, which overbalanced the economical advantages of the present' management of this matter. They were told by colonial' governors that there was a settled and wide-spread opinion, extending to the most loyal and respectable of the popu lation of these colonies, that this was a subject which should be transferred to the consideration of the respective Legislatures, as belonging to their functions to dispose of ; and the present Government were not unprepared to carry out the intentions of the last Government with respect to this point. (Hear, hear.) It had been observed that we admitted a single chamber in New South Wales in 1850, because that was in unison with the wishes of the colony ; but that statement was not accurate, because the object of the proceeding of 1850 was simply to separate the district of Victoria from New South Wales, and the Legislative Council of the latter was left exactly as before. He understood:that the Legislative Council was considering the propriety of amending its constitution, and a bill had been brought in for the purpose of transforming the exist ing single chamber into two chambers ; and in no long time the reception by the Government of the ordinances for that purpose might be expected. - Under these circum stances, the Government intended, before bringing in any measure with respect to the Land Sales Act, to wait and see what was the permanent basis on which the Legisla ture of New South Wales was to be fixed. The right hon. gentleman proceeded to advert to the question of transpor tation, and he concurred very much in the right hon. gen tleman's remarks. Whatever might have been the past colliPion of interests between this country and our penal dependencies, we had now arrived at a conjuncture when the interests of this country and its dependencies were brought to coincide. The object they had contemplated in selecting transportation as the chief kind of secondary punishment was to have a punishment which, by the terror it inspired, should deter from the commission of crime, and should operate with a beneficial and reformatory tend ency on the habits and moral character of those who were subjected to that legal penalty of crime. The object had been most effectually accomplished by transportation. The removal of offenders to the antipodes, and the infrequency at that time of communication with that part of the world, tended to invest transportation with a sort of vague and undefined apprehension in the mind ; and, with respect to the beneficial effects of transportation on the convicts, he might cite the testimony of all those who had been to Van Diemen's Land. But since the discovery of gold all that had been entirely changed, and removal to the antipodes was no longer regarded with terror. On the contrary, the office of the Emigration Commissioners was last summer crowded with multitudes of persons asking for nothing more than to be sent to that colony. With respect to the effect likely to be produced in the discipline of the convicts, he need not remind the house that the gold fields of Victoria were in close proximity to our penal settlements in Van Diemen's Laud, and therefore the temptation to escape, with the prospect of making large gains, would in all probability overpower the apprehension of being recaptured. He must also remind the house of the immense increase of the expense of living there, and that it would be impossible to retain the services of the officers of the penal establishmentunless their remuneration were increased about threefold. The main consideration, however, for putting an end to transportation there was the feeling which prevailed in those colonies, and the fact that the Legislative Council in each and all of them hadpetitioned her Majesty, and passed resolutions condemn ing in strong language the system, and asking this country to put an immediate stop to it. With respect to Western Aus tralia, however, the hon. gentleman concluded by observing, as we understood, that communications which had passed between the different departments had satisfied the Govern ment that all the convicts of the present year might be re moved there. Mr. ADDERLEY said, it must be satisfactory to those gentlemen who a few ye a r s back com bi ne d together to directthe attention of the country to th e p ro p er p r i nc ipl es ofcolo nial government to find intim course of the two speeches just delivered that almost every suggestion of theirs with the ob ject of carrying out the entire localisation of the functions of he paperth e G whicho r hadnment had be enbpeeunt into e i h e i d s out.band, drawnltappearebd from a gen tleman who had visited Canada, that the prog u r p ess Y of e that country since it had the entire manegement of its own affairs was most remarkable, and fully proved the benefit resulting from localising the fusannicdtdei:on inisn r o e f rfees t rp h eeen e et G e tt o oo ve tt rn hhee cw m onb en ite t rbo . b H I oafd e thb e ee x ec p no r l e om s n s adi ed his approval of the concessions - a b l ei y v both il list, land sales, he was glad that the strong feeling re by the leading colonies of Australia had at last made air impression on this country, The cost of sending per out cent. th nt. greater e emigrants than it need tsby that revenue haveevenue been—that waswasextlyfi tofty say, while the authorities of this country managed the emigration under that fund, the cost was 50 per cent. greater, charged on the local revenue, than that of any other means of sending out emigrants. The class of emi grants sent out was also not such as was desired by the colony. He believed i t was not the intention of the pre sent Government to carry out the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, but he was certain it was only postponing that which they must ultimately do. In his opinion, the right hon. gentleman h ad p roved ver y considerably thUsu periority of his policy to that which he understood to be the policy proposed by the present Government, by giving - uP the land revenue to the colony. The giving up of the gold to the colony was one of the most statesmanlike things he had ever known, and by taking that course the right hon. gentleman had gained for himself great credit. ' He had done in time that which he would ultimately have been obliged to do, an d thereby had gained for himself that grace and those thanks which would have been lost if the concession had been made from necessity. Upon the sub ject of giving up the control of the land revenue to the colony, the most able arguments had been those of the hon. gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr. Lehve). The full conviction he himself entertained upon the subject was mainly to be attributed to the able argu ments of that hon. gentleman. (Hear.) There was an other point. The thing most pressed in 1850, in the discus sion upon the Australian colonies, was that the Govern ment did not take the best mode of giving the best consti tution to the colonies ; and it was said that, either they might be given the best constitution, according to them an the idea of ' this country, by two chambers, orb y ving efficient constituent assembly, representing the whole colony, to form a constitution. The bill in fact, did neither the one thing nor the other. It was stated avowedly that it the constitution would not be a perfect tate one, and that must be altered ; but then it was said that the power of altering it should be left to the colonists. The consequence, however, had been in practice that which was predicated, o —namel, that the Government here had been obliged to advise the colonists to proceed to exercise the powers given them under the 36th clause, and the Government were obliged to attach privileges to those who acted upon that clause, without which it appeare d the y were not willing to that do so. There were only two o r three things more were necessary to give the Australian constitution a per fectly British form. Both the chambers ought to be the elec tiv e. He hoped that would be the case, and also that veto of the Crown on local legislation would be distinctly given up. It was so in New Zealand, or, rather, was limited to two months, which was practically giving it up; but why in the one case it should be restricted to two years, he could not see. So completely did such a sy ste m of reference to this country restrict and impede local legis lation, that it was the main cause why the colonies had not advanced as rapidly as the United States. The right hon. gentleman had said the colonies had advanced, and that showed how little could the result of any particular course be foreseen. The colonies certainly had advanced rapidly, but, if they had had the foresight to take from the colonies those difficulties which rested on them, but which did not rest on the United States, they might have seen the Anglo- Saxon race advancing in them with the same rapidity with which the United States had risen to become one of the first nations of the world. (Hear, hear.) He would add but one word on the subject Of transporteair - tion. That was a point which had been pressed on th attention from time to time, and which the force of cir cumstances had compelled them to consider. He could conceive nothing more injurious to the interests or honour of England than the cours e of sustained prevarication, breach of faith, and perpetual infraction of promises had be whi en ch had attended the long cour se of experiments that adopted to keep up the most anomalous and vicious system of penal transportation. It had been said that crimin didy transportation frequently. became honest men thatb t never occur to those who used that argument the im provement of those criminals arose from their havi greater space and gain„ he the means of occupationng ? And he would ask the house whether it would not be better to use those corrective means of space and occupation before crime was committed than afterwards ? They were pledged upon this subject, but from what the hon. gentleman the nder.Secretary of the Colonies had said he thought the hon. gentleman did not bear in mind the pledge, as he (Mr. Adderley) hoped ho would have done, nor did the lion. gen tleman seem to condemn as fully as he d d i the s system of t ra nsportation, as a selfish system adopted by thi country in consideration of its own interests, and not those of the colonies. The unforeseen and wonderful discovery of gold in Australia had rendered the system of transportation thither a perfect farce as a punishment ; and the colonists had shown higher feelings in regard to this subject than the English Government had done ; for, under the present pressure of circumstances, w hile labour at any cost was of value to the colony, it would have been excusable if the colonists had sacrificed the point of conscience to self-in terest, and had accepted, as a matter of urgent necessity, even convict labour ; but they had been proof. against it, 1 and had unanimously asked for the system to be given up. It must, as he understood, be still carried out to a certain extent. He was sorry for it, because, although Western Australia might be looked on almost as a different country, yet, as South Australia, which was more guarded than any other colony from this infliction, had suffered froth the im migration of convicts, and recollecting that this was a mat ter of feeling and sensitiveness on the part of the colo nists towards this country, he was convinced that it would be impossible to maintain very long a system of transporta tion to Western Australia. So long, however, as it was made a depot for the worst criminals from this country, in order to prevent the recurrence of those crimes which were so gross as to be thought unmentionable, but which had ex isted under the same system, he would propose that they should grant an annual vote to send out the very lowest out casts of the women of this country, who might perhaps be suitable wives to such persons as were transported to Western Australia. He would only add his hope that the noble lord would carry out and realise those high expecta tions which his opening speech at the assembling of Par liament had raised, and that, as transportation had failed and broken down, the Government would deal with the whole question of secondary punishments. They ,had the power to do so, and he hoped th e y wou ld d o it'without delay, One of the principal subjects, however, for their consideration was, whether a better system for the treat ment of juvenile offenders could not be adopted, Lord J. RUSSELL—The right hon. gentleman who brought this subject forward having, as I think, been jus tified in calling the attention of the house to the present state of circumstances relating to those colonies, and hav ing stated what the preceding Government intended as to those colonies; I should have hardly thought it necessary to trouble the house at all, had not the hon. gentleman who has just spoken made, as I think, some extraordinary mis takes upon this question which it would not be right to leave uncorrected. Now, the colony of New South Wales was founded, not as many of our colonies have been by emigrants, but for the purpose of transporting thither con victs from this country. In 1786 it was formed in that way, with a despotic Government, differing very little from the Government of that day. In 1837, when my right hon. friend, now the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works, whose absence this evening 'regret, pressed fora committee of this house on the subject of transportation, a committee was appointed, and all the evidence taken before that committee, and the general opinion of that committee, did but confirm that wise opinion of Lord Bacon that it is an unblessed thing to plant with the scum of your popula tion. The most dreadful crimes were found to result from that system of transportation. Some three years later, being then Secretary for the Colonies, I procured an order in Council by which transportation to New South Wales was to cease, and from that time the character of the colony was chang e d, an d it b ecame, f rom h av i ng b een a large prison, a colony which was thenceforward to run the same career which our free and noble colonies have run. In 1842 Lord Derby, being Secre tary for the Colonic., introduced measures which I think had been partly considered by his predecessors, being measures for the sale of land at certain fixed prices, and by which a Legislative Council in those colonies was to be formed, to consist not entirely of no minees of the Crown, but to be partly elective. At a later' l period Lord Grey proposed to extend the representa tive principle to Van Diemen's Land, South Australia, and Western Australia. He proposed also to divide Victoria from New South Wales. It was on that occasion that the debates arose to which the hon. gentleman has referred, but I don't think in a very accurate manner. The ques tion at that time was whether we were at once to change the whole constitution of that colony by Parliamentary authority, or whether we were to continue the existing constitution of that colony, leaving it to the colonists to frame institutions fitted, it might be, for their government better than anything we could frame in this country. The latter view was what the Government took, and an act was passed accordingly. -The proposition certainly was made of a constituent assembly for those colonies, and that pro position was not approved by the house. The question now raised has done so within the last year ; and perhaps the right hon. gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies will recollect that when he first came into office I took the liberty of informing him that he would find the subject of transportation most deserving of his attention, and that the question of the constitution of New South Wales and of Van Diemen's Land was worthy of his con sideration. I must say that I think the late Government acted wisely, according to the circumstance of the time, in the resolution to which they came. They gave it as their opinion that the Land Sales Act should be altered, and that the colonies themselves should have the power of control ling the sales of land, and the distribution of the proceeds. The hon. gentleman seems to think that the present Govern ment have rather restricted the resolution come to by the late Government in that respect ; but, in fact, they have not restricted it, and if they have altered it, they have rather enlarged the scope of the resolution. What the late Government stated was, that they wished a constitution to be framed in which there should be a legislativ e council appointed by the Crown, and a popular assembly representing thbnuept respect to ndthethat a particularconstitution number n being er so framed, of members in the legislative council or in the representativ e assembly, the Government intended to introduce a bill giv ing power to the colonial Government and Legislature to dispose of the waste lands. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Duke of Newcastle, has said that if a proposal should reach this country for a change of constitu tion, he should consider that proposition, and that there would be introduced a measure giving certain powers to the colonies. The difference between the two measures is not much, and the proposition of the present Government is not less liberal than that of the former. With respect to that great question of transportation, I hardly can deal with it at present, but the hon. gentleman has scarcely in this re spect either fairly represented the conduct of my noble friend (Lord Grey) when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. What he proposed soon after entering office was, that per sons convicted in this country should continue to be sent to Van Diemen's Land, but should not be sent in the character of convicts, but in that of exiles. There would, according to this plan, be about the same number sent to Van Diemen's Land—only under a different name—that there would have been sent before under the name of transported i convicts. So far fromit being a benefit to the colony that they should bear the character of exiles, it was thought better that the authorities of the colony should have the power over them which they would have over men who had been guilty of crime. The system was adopted of tickets of leave. That was the change made. Two circumstances,however,occurred worthy of notice. One was, that Sir W. Denison, who is an able and efficient governor, unfortunately mistook the instructions, and gave intimation to the Assembly that, transportation was about to be abandoned, instead of ex plaining that the same number, or about the same number, would go to the colony under a different name. The House of Lords resolved to inquire into the subject, and the im pression produced was unfavourable to the punishment of transportation. It is obvious, from the circumstances stated by the right hon. gentleman, that the late Govern ment had resolved at the end of last year that, as soon as possible, they would discontinue transportation. That de termination having been deliberately adopted, there arises here a most important question with respect to the substi tution of a secondary punishment. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, asked us what was our decision on that point, and what was our opinion ; but at the same time no one is more competent than he is to see of how great importance a decision on this subject is, and that the Government ought to take full time for deliberation before their deci sion is pronounced. I only ask that the Government may be allowed that time to consider this important subject. No unnecessary delay will occur; and as soon as we decide on the substitute that is most efficient for the purpose, we shall lose no time in laying a measure before Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME expressed his satisfaction at observing tho concurrence on both sides of the house in the propositions and principles which the hon. member for North Stafford shire, and others had atte m pt e d t o i m press on her Ma jesty's Government. Recollecting the early attempts ho (Mr. Hume) made to impress on the Government the pro priety of leaving the colonies free froni the trammels im posed by Downing-street, and recollecting that he had been called a rebel because he advocated reform in Canada, he had the greater satisfaction in perceiving how matters had come round, and would say Let bygones be bygones." Sir W. Denison made his statement on the 24th of July, 1847 ; but last year a sum was voted to take out convicts ; and the thanks of the Colonial Assembly had been given to him (Mr. Hume) for having pointed out what were their wishes to the people of England, ineffective as his opposi tion had proved. No man in this house had more clearly expressed the principles on which our colonial policy ought to be conducted than Lord J. Russell, especially in the dispatch written by the noble lord when Mr. P. Thomson was appointed to the government of Canada; and when the constitution for the Cape came under discussion last year, the noble lord, in an excellent speech, laid down the prin ciples which he (Mr. Hume) had always thought might be most beneficially applied to the colonies, as to this country. What he complained of was, that the noble lord had not been consistent ; one year suspending the Canadian constitu tion, another year resorting to coercion. But he (Mr. Hume) should bury in oblivion what was past if the noble lord con tinued to act on the principles. he had laid down. There was reason to complain of the vacillating policy that from time to time had interfered with emigration—the best remedy for the evils arising from reduction of wages and other causes in England. He did not see the brother of Sir W. Denison in the house, but he must say that no man stood more in opposition to the feelings of the people in Van Diemen's Land than Sir W. Denison. The Govern ment ought to have people there who had the talent for conciliating and making their counsels and feelings accord with the wishes of the inhabitants. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who had to-night made an admirable ex position, and with whom he differed on a few points, would learn from experience that when colonists in meeting after meeting, and Legislature after Legislature, persisted in asserting their views, the best course was to remove the causes of agitation. Whenever there was a colony with whom the Governor could not act in harmony, one might depend upon it there was something wrong. He hoped the present Government would be in advance of the late Government, and he should rejoice if every one of our colonies were allowed to manage its own affairs. The motion was then agreed to. On the order JEWISHDISABILITIES. Onread for the house going into committee, for the purpose of taking into considera tion the civil disabilities affecting the Jews, of the day being Lord J. RUSSELL said that he trusted the hon. baronet the member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) would not object to going into a committee of the whole house, for the purpose of affording him the opportunity of stating his views on the subject of the civil disabilities of the Jews, such a course being similar to that adopted by the house in 1830, when Sir Richard Grant brought for ward a motion of a similar character. Sir R. INGLIS, in reply to the appeal made to him, ex pressed felt resse it to b dhim see a concession of the firstlfstronglyopposedto such step, uch sacz and he wasse,because notpreparedeenr course which t o be allow believed the noble oble lord detrimentalto to that tbe step a the civilreligi ousinterestsriagieta of thefeelings buoeftal (H e peopelaer,obfea.thre) country and to •- • ' Lord J. RUSSELL then said—The hon. baronet having objected to my takin g th e co u r se allowed to be taken more than twenty years s i nce , it is necessary that I should state the nature of the propo s ition I wish to make before the house resolves itself int o a co mmittee. In so doing, I shall state, in the first place, that it would have been more agreeable to me if, acting according to the view which I explained to my constituents, I could have brought for ward at this time a proposel with regard to the mode in which we take the oaths in this house before being entitled to take our seats. I have stated my opinion that the oath to be taken ought to be but one, and that one simple in its character, applicable to persons of all religions, not entan gled with provisions affecting the various professions of religious persuasions, and that it should not be necessary for Protestants to avow one thing and Roman Catholics another, and for both to affirm certain propositions with respect to a person calling himself the successor of James 11., with regard to whom the house need trouble itself but very little indeed. (Hear, hear.) But I am aware of the fact—and the discussions of yesterday and the previous day have convinced me more strongly of the fact—that I could hardly propose to alter the law with regard to the oaths of Roman Catholics without raising a discussion wi th respect to the Established Church and the intentions of Roman Catholic members, and thus producing a great deal of heat and personality upon a question which is not immediately the one which I propose at this time to bring before the house. What I propose to myself by this separate measure is so far to complete the edifice of religious liberty as to allow to the Jewish subjects of her Majesty the enjoyment of the same rights and privileges of British subjects which are at present enjoyed by Protestant dissenters and Roman Catholics. I am aware that in bringing forward this question I must labour under great disadvantages. I know perfectly well that those who aro opposed to me have to say that the Jews, being not very considerable in number, nor powerful in influence throughout the country, have not the means of inducing their opponents to concede their claims which others who have urged similar claims have possessed. I know it may be asked, " Where are the meetings threa tening the tranquillity of the country ? Where are the menaces against the Government, against the houses of Parliament, which induced us to agree to the concession of the Roman Catholic claims ? Where is that political in fluence—that influence in the elections of cities and boroughs for members of this house—which made it neces sary for us to concede the claims of the Protestant Dissen ters, and to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts ?" " You have," I may be told, "nothing to propose, but merely reason justice, and charity in your proposal. (Hear, hear.) And is it to be imagined that.those who so long used the same arguments on behalf of the Roman Catholics, and resisted them so long, although enforced by the most powerful eloquence, and by the authority of the greatest statesmen in this house, and who so long obliged the Protestant Dissenters to wear the galling chains of the Test and Corporation Acts, will yield now, when it is a mere question of granting rights to men inconsiderable in number, and who have no means of terrifying the house into a concession of the demands which they make ?" I trust, however, although my opponent may urge these considerations, that the generosity of this house will e a withoutit burden hmufrneettei s ra l e i per ceive that if these claims are founded in justice—that if the great principles of religious liberty which we have adopted enforce these claims—it will be satisfied with these claims of justice and arguments of reason, and show that it is willing to grant such claims with due fairness and impartiality, and, and uninfluenced by any of those extrinsic reasons which it may be stated are wanting in the present instance. (Hear, hear.) I am the more per suaded that the house will adopt this course because I be lieve that the principles of religious liberty are generally entertained by the people of this country, and that being so entertained it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that that the Jewish subjects of her Majesty ought to have the benefit of them. (Hear, hear.) It will not do to say that " there is a prejudice against the Jews, that the name is unpopular, and we choose to indulge that prejudice, and will not listen to what you have to say in their behalf," because it will not redound to the character of this house if it should appear that reason and justice were in their favour, but prejudice was against them. (Hear, hear.) The first proposition which I have to make is, that in no time of the history of this country since legislative disabilities have been imposed have those disabilities been grounded upon differences of religious faith. I speak not of those times when Roman Catholics, such as Sir Thomas Moore ; or Protestants, such as Bishop Latimer, were fully satisfied in their consciences with con demning and inflicting capital punishment upon those who differed from them in religious belief; but I refer to times when, in order to enable persons to hold certain offices and seats in this house, oaths were first required to be taken. On former occasions when I have brought forward this subject, I have stated that the insertion of the words— " on the true faith of a Christian," in the oath of abjura tion, and which are the only words which prevent Jews from taking their seats in this house, were introduced with a view to no such purpose, but for the purpose of exclud in.. certain Roman Catholics, who at that time it was thought necessary to distinguish from other persons of the same religion, ono sect being intent on dethroning the sovereign Elizabeth and James 1., and the other being loyal to the Crown and to the institutions of the country. I endeavoured to prove this from the history of the time ; but there has lately appeared a remarkable confirmation of that opinion in the judgment delivered by Baron. Alderson in the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Mr. Salomons, who was sued for penalties for taking his seat in this house. Baron Alderson said—" It is a curious fact only lately brought to light by the publication of a MS. from the Bodleian Library at Oxford, by Mr. Jardine, that one of the main proofs used by-Lord Coke, when he laid that case (the case of the Gunpowder Plot), before the jury, was the production of a little book found in the chamber of Francis Tresham, one of the conspirators mentioned in the act, called ' A Treatise on Equivocation.' " The writer of the treatise went on to discuss the question how far a person called upon, as he thinks, unjustly to make a declaration or promise, or to depose or swear to a fact within his per sonal knowledge, may lawfully equivocate, by using am biguous words or mental reservation, without incurring the sin of lying or the guilt of perjury ; and among other pro positions, it was affirmed that he might lawfully do this, even if he be required by the form of oath tendered in terms to swear "without equivocation or mental reservation." There was one exception to this, and that was in cases where his adherence to his faith was involved, and if he was called upon to make a promise upon his faith, that then, and in that case only, was he bound to keep his promise. It appears, as Baron Alderson stated, that one year after that case of the Gunpowder Plot an act was introduced into the house in which the oath was introduced for the first time with the words " on the true faith of a Chris tian." Baron Alderson concluded from this, and very justly so, that the oath was framed for the purpose of ex cluding persons of the 'Roman Catholic persuasion who were not true to the Crown, and who would refuse to take the oath in which those words were introduced. " I do not," says Baron Alderson, "therefore, call this properly an oath intended as a test of Christianity, which it was not, nor as a mere test of obedience, but an oath intended as a test of allegiance, and framed so as to be a test against all equivocation also." The oath was therefore intended to be an oath of allegiance, which should bind all persons who took it, and the words " on the true faith of a Chris tian" were not introduced with any contemplation of ex cluding Jews, but " for a totally different purpose. This was now apparent, because in the time of the Common wealth an oath was tendered wherein persons declared their adherence to the Old and New Testament, declared them selves Christians, and renounced Popeiy . and Prelacy— thus intending the oath as a test of religious faith. But upon the Restoration of monarchy that oath was laid aside, and from that time to the present no oath has been introduced with the view of making it an expression of religious faith. In the reign of Charles 11., when it was again proposed to exclude the Roman Catholics, it was solely upon the ground of the political doctrines which were supposed to be connected with the faith of the Roman Catholics, and which made them adverse to the establish ment in this kingdom of a Protestant king and Protestant institutions, that the oath against transubstantiation was introduced. It was the same thing with respect to the dissenters. Protestant dissenters were held up to odium, as persons who had lately overthrown the monarchy and established republicanism ,• and it was said that society , would never be safe if dissenters, who had thus over thrown both the Church and the Throne, were admitted to political power. Hence the Test and Corporation Acts by which they were for so many years oppressed. Dean Sher lock used the same argument some years after, when he said it was impossible they could believe that Protestant dissenters would not endeavour to overthrow their insti tutions in Church and State, and therefore that they could not be admitted to political power. We find, also, that throughout the reign of William 111., and the first princes of the house of Hanover, the same ear was mani fested with respect to the danger arising from the political doctrines of the Roman Catholics. We find it oven in the arguments used when the great question of Catholic Eman cipation was brought before Parliament in 1805 and in 1829. Mr. Perceval, and others who argued against the Roman Catholics, scarcely ever alleged that the religion of the Roman Catholics was alone a sufficient ground for their disqualification ; but they said that persons who belonged to that faith did not pay a perfect and undivided allegiance to the Sovereign, that they would be likely to overthrow our political establishments, and for that reason they were not to be trusted either with seats in this house, or with the duties of public offices. Thus, it appears that, from the be ginning of these disqualifications in 1605 to their abolition in 1829, the argument has always been that persons be belonging to certain religions, whether dissenters from the Church o England as Protestants, or dissenters from the Church of England as Roman Catholics, had connected with their faith certain political doctrines which made them unfit depositaries of power—faith and religion alone were never made grounds of disqualification. (Hear, hear.) It was not till 1830 that this special ground of religious faith was maintained in this house. Those who had seen the disabilities of the Roman Catholics and of Protestant dissenters removed, thought that the time had come for removing the disabilities from the Jews, and in April 1830, a lamented statesman (Sir Robert Grant) with great power and ability argued in favour of their removal, and contended that religious differences were not sufficient grounds for depriving a man of the priviliges of a British subject. (Hear, hear.) And that is the question which we have now to decide, (Hear, hear,) All those temporary dis qualifications, founded upon special grounds, of Roman Catholics and dissenters have been swept away. With regard to the Jews, no such dangers, no such inconve niences, and no such obstacles can ever be pretended. (Hear, hear.) Are they, then, on account of their religious faith, to . be disqualified, or are they not ? (Hear, hear.) Can you, or can you not, maintain that because a man believes in the Old Testament, and does not believe in the New Testament—for that is really the question—that this is a sufficient ground for depriving him of the political powers and civil privileges of a British subject ? (Hear. hear.) Now I contend that that difference of religious opinion —that that complete error in faith, is no ground whatever for de priving a man of the right to serve the Crown, and to have a seat in this house. (Hear.) The men who old these opi nions are British subjects, who hold land, Who are in the e j t s , h e et s h e i t ebt f y r ul iie I l st. possession of property, who exercise many civil privileges surhepaao:ney t wa h oht e f m o connected with local affairs, who hold offices in corpora tions,who discharge duties for their fellow-citizens, and per formrthe all f , grounds fore, no right to say to them, " We will deprive you of the t But allegedn o t tw it wn l e what ath th y a at o i tsu they hhi to eee o y fact J e ll n ea j wv o :s y . b' 'they been ne ( y H n s are lt a . er thoroughly. (Hear.) r : o Some ttis h aliens,disposed special e l Ittn y vl hoe eaedagrol and yfdwu t t i abte ahkaeero honestly—they briefly. tirtenha separate.issaloet eltinler ur y ng it : lhaspaeantel iann t eoc othtc(hsi allegiance to e y i toynr o a uasfioe r tnruh e ihlsdmit. menesphrppraoovidls propose, a, h 0 are privileges and rewards which your station as British subjects subjects i. f o t f o u e r y n - as house,such, norw former occasions when they have been alleged, that I shall s o m we n el a l vr y y ee , s a t, h l h l o t i eh i w y d a e e te v o t o t e : r : l ' e t ( : 1 b i cannot give to them the privileges of British e 'hold office - they are therefore British subjects force of the propo s iti on . If you by the very have descended from p ersons settled 3, 51 that indeed th ey in other nations, and that therefore they canno t h old office in this maintain that which w ill apply to many country, you ot hers whom y ou admit without scrupl e . I f you putthe their grounds of national ch arac t er i stics —of the • question on the • conn ection with families in other countries, then there are this country to whom y our distinction would families i n ply. I may refer to tho se w h o came overh revo cationap- of the edict of N an t es, or from ere at the rom other countries, driven by religious persecutions, or purposes of trade, and whose descendants enjoy all the privileges of other British subjects. Take, for inst ance, one great family which came over here in the time of Wil liam 111. ; the head of that family has a seat in ;the Houso of Lords—l allude to the Duke of Portland—somo part of his family is still settled in Holland, and the representa tive of Holland in this country is at present a member of that family. Then, it is said—and the argument is one which I hardly dared to touch—that the Jews are doomed to be divided, and separated from all other nations, and that they must remain so till prophecy is accomplished. I have always said in this house that that is an argument with which it is impossible to deal, and that it is not for us to carry out the decrees of Providence. (Hear, hear.) What we know is, that the Jews established in different countries are in many of those countries, such as France, Holland, and others, admitted to all the privileges which other native-born subjects of these countries enjoy, and that it is not because more or less of these privileges are granted, still less because the number of the privileges which are granted to them in this country are withheld there, that you will either promote or frustrate the de signs of Almighty Power. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, but what doubt is there with regard to the behaviour of the Jews if they are admitted to Parliament ? (Hear.) We have had arguments with regard to the Roman Catho lics, and we have had arguments with regard to Protestant dissenters, intended to show that they would not ful fil all the duties you wish from them in maintaining your constitution in Church and State ; but with regard to Jews hardly any person.would venture to deny that they would. In the first place, their numbers would be so exceedingly few as to make it utterly wild in them to attempt to over throw your constitution—(hear)—and, in the next place, it is well known that the Jews are perfectly satisfied with maintaining their own religious faith without attempting either to convert others, or to gain any supremacy in Chris tian nations. (Hear.) It is well known that, maintaining most rigidly their own religion, they do not attempt to make that religion powerful ; and that the last thing they would think of would be entering into combination for the purpose of injuring either your civil or your religious li berty. (Hear.) With regard, then, to the last question, no man can deny that although the Jews are not many among us —some 30,000 or 40,000—yet they are known in our social relations as men of great charity, as men always ready to help when any act of charity is to be performed. It is well known that there are no people who more quietly and more unostentatiously perform their civil duties to all their neighbours, and to th e State in which they live. (Hear.) What, then, are the arguments—what, then, are the reasons—why yon should not admit them to the full privileges of British subjects? I really believe there is no conclusive argument, and that there is no satisfactory rea son why-they should not be adniitted; and that there re mains nothing but prejudice—(hear) —nothing but the pre judice and the notion that you are a Christian nation and a Christian Legislature, and that y ou d egra d e the nation and the Legislature by the admission of Jews. If the na tion is a Christian nation, as it is, it will remain a Chris tian nation after Jews are admitted to this house—(hear) and if the great majority—nearly all—of the members of this house be Christians after tins law has been passed, the name of a Christian Legislature can hardly pass away. (Hear.) Greatly, indeed, were it to be wished that that Christianity which we pray for according to the beautiful form of the Church of England—that "we should hold the faith in the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life"—was the prayer, that it might be accomplished for all the members of this Legislature. (Hear.) I have always said it is no matter of indifference whether the Christian character should or should not pre vail in your houses of Parliament. I have always said that religion has no business apart from the business of life ; certainly it has none apart or separate from the business of Legislation. When I say this, I mean that spirit of union to which I have referred. (Hear, hear.) But, when, instead of "the unity of the Spirit" you have diversity of doctrine ; when, instead of the bond o f p eace, " you h ave nothing but contention; and when, in place of " righteousness of life," you have such men as Wilkes introduced into this house, I ask, what are the benefits of your oath, and in what way does that oath secure that you are ' a Christian Legislature ? (Hear.) Let us then not attempt to found our Christianity upon so flimsy and so worthless a foundation. (Cheers.) If, as I trust is the case, the Christian character prevails more now than it did a century ago—if it prevails more in the nation, if it prevails more in the legislature, it is not because you maintain this oath. It is because of greater attention to religious duties, and from a better in culcation of Christian doctrine. (Hear.) Rely upon this, that though you. may have two or three persons of the Jewish faith in your House of Commons, this house will bear the character of a Christian legislature far more truly than it did when Gibbon was one of its ornaments. And, if that is the case, I ask you to do away with this remain ing persecution—l ask you to do away with this remaining disqualification—and say that your doors shall be open to men of the Jewish faith—British subjects—men upon whose loyalty you can rely—men of whose co-operation you will be glad. (Hear, hear.) • So doing, you can then with a clear conscience say, " Whatever other nations may do, we hold aloft the principle of religious liberty, and we grant that liberty to men who differ from us in religious opinion." (Cheers.) Sir, I ask the house to agree to go into committee upon this subject. I ask you to take away this disqualification, and then you may say with truth, "Having for wise political reasons done away with other disqualifications, we have done away with this disqualifi cation solely upon the grounds of truth and justice ;" and that you had no other grounds to go upon ; for upon that truth and justice you have founded your truly Christian character. (Cheers.) The noble lord concluded by moving for " a committee of the whole house to take into consi deration certain civil disabilities affecting the Jews." The question having been put, Sir R. INGLIS said that before replying to the observa tions of the noble lord in proposing this motion, he would state why he objected to that speech being addressed to Mr. Wilson Patten in committee. The noble lord, from the tone of his first observations, seemed to imply, as he (Sir Robt. Inglis) fully anticipated, that he regarded it as an advan tage to have gained this one step in the progress of the measure ; but he (Sir R. Inglis) would not take off his hat and open the gate to enable the noble lord to get into that which he regarded as a sacred enclosure. Let the noble lord break down the barriers if he could—God forbid that he should—still it should not be through any act of his if his course were made easier than it was. The noble lord asked, " Why should that be refused which was granted to Sir Robert Grant in 1830 ?" Possibly the house was wrong in having at that time conceded the step which Sir Robert Grant was prepared to take ; but if the house had done wrong then, it was responsible on l y if it continued to do wrong now. Hisimpression w as , th at the very course which he was prepared to take to-night was the course he took five years ago, in 1847, when the noble lord proposed the very motion he had now submitted to the house ; for he felt it his duty, without meaning any disrespect, to re fuse, so far as his own individual vote was concerned, the permission which it asked. Th e course which the noble lord invited the house to take he believed to be really hos tile to the civil and religious liberty of the country, and to the ordinary proceedings of the h ouse. The noble lord assumed, by a convenient petitio. principii, that he alone the advocate of truth and justice, and that all who • opposed him were . the bigoted disciples of an obsolete sys tem. But his (Sir R. Inglis's) position was distinctly the trary. It was also assumed by the noble lord that con • power was the inherent right of man, and that they who resisted the grant of power to any individual were bound to show sufficient grounds for such resistance. But his (Sir R. Inglis's) argument in this instance, as it had been in twenty other cases, was that power was a trust which. the State might delegate to those it thought fit—the exer cise of the suffrage for example—but that it was the inhe rent right of no man. In the same manner property was a trust and a privilege, and not ex c l us i vely a right. Po wer in this country w as not to be exerc i sed as a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence, which appeared to be the suntinunt bonun of some men. lie would remind the house that were called t oge th er, according to the writ from the Crown, " upon certain arduous affairs touching the in terests of the Church and nation of England." What was the first estate of the realm ? The first estate of the realm was the Church ; the first interest of the country was its religion ; the first duty of every man, in public or private, was to act in reference to that religion. Having reminded him of this, he would ask the noble lord whether he consi dered that the Jews, who regarded our Lord as an impos tor, were fit persons to sit in that house ? He asked the noble lord whether he, who regarded the gospel as a tissue of fables, was a person who, in a Christian country, should be admitted to make laws for. the government of a Chris tian people ? Was he who disbelieved in the last day of judgment, which was revealed to us in the gospel, a person who could safely be permitted to legislate for the highest intereses of this Church and nation ? But the noble lord, without alluding to these subjects, alleged that the number of the Jews was few. This was one of the arguments for the admission of the Roman Catholics into Parliament. But was the noble lord so encouraged by the success of that ex periment, as to repeat it upon any scale, large or small ? Let him (Sir R. Inglis) tell hon. members who were fully prepared—with one honourable exception, which he wou l d not name—to vote f or thi s new instance f liberality, that they, at least, were not disinterested on the subject ; for in every measure which might be brought forward in that house against the highest interests and duties of a Chris tian people, and certainly against the temporal interests of tha Church, they would find in the Jews, whether they were only two or three, as the noble lord fondly imagined, or whd take ether, a is he believed, unless a very sweep i ng reform shoul pace, many more came in the same manner, as some calling themselves Christian statesmen had come in lately—they would swell the number of that band which was already upon the march, united and powerful— for union, they were told, was strength. (Hear.) This, however, was a low view of the question. The question was, the feelinge which really animated the people' of Eng land on testion. Did they wish the profes of Christianity to be the profession of the Legislature ? ion e noble lord wanted, in the first instance, to alter the terms of the oath under which members were admitted, with the view of enabling the Jews to enter ; but now, without altering the terms of that oath, he proposed to , bring in some measure under which his colleague in the representa tion of the city of London might be introduced. But the noble lord could not de this without deprg the house of the characteristic which it had enjoyed for a thousand years. The words, " upon the true faith of a Christian," contained in the oath, and which hindered Alderman Sa lowans and Baron Rothschild from taking their seats, were introduced, the noble lord said, in the year 1606. If he (Sir It. Inglis), admitted the historical accuracy of the noble lord's statement, he must absolutely deny his con clusion. He defied the noble lord to contradict him in this proposition—that whether these words did or did not exist in the oath before 1606, no Jew would ever have been in troduced to take his seat except on taking an oath upon the New Testament. There never was a time when the oath could have been taken by a Hebrew Jew. (A laugh.) Whether the noble lord was right or not, neither he nor any other man would deny, this proposition, that upon some Christian emblem or other (he believed it was almost invariably upon the open Gospel), was an oath ever taken by which any judicial or civil office of any kind, or any admission to power of the very lowest degree, granted without some such Christian sanction. It had been said that the Jews were no more a separate nation. But the more pious Jews contended that they were, and ever must be a s e p ara t e nation. You could not destroy their inherent and absolutely essential character of being a distinct and separa t e nat i on. They had been separate for 1800 y ears; th ey h a d b een separate for more thant 1800 years —aye, for a time which no man could calcu late • and certainly they were separa t e, so fa highest aspirations, a n d their return to their own as their land, of wore concerned. The n o bl e l or d sa id, the admission five or six J ews wou ld no t d es t roy the Christian character of the house. But what said their own writers. There was a person o f th e name o f V an O wen, w h o, from his -name, he had reason to hop e w as no t an Englishman. B u t this person wro t e i n E ng l an d, an d four or five years ago he published a pamphlet, i n w hi c h h e st a t e d th a t thi s country was not a Christian nation. And what was the ground upon which he asserted that we -were not a Ch r i s ti an na tion 9 Because Jews were admitted to certai n o ffi ces. He would just re • d the house that this was not a Protestant country, because one-fourth or - one-sixth of her Maies t Y:: subje c t s were R oman C a th o li cs. I n res i s ti ng this proposal , then, he felt, under all the circumstances, that he was not resisting a claim of right. He was satisfied,. too, that ssis resisting it, he had with him an immense majority of . sk fellow-eountrymen. He felt also that he was doing bias tice to no man ; for he was consulting the best interests of the Church and the people of England. (Hear, h ear.) The noble l or d said, again, " wipe away this last remaining persecution—this last remaining badge of religious :in tolerance." H e contended that there was neither persecu tion tion nor int o l erance i n retainingths ehristizia-c/aarao te !, the - Legislature, and he opposed the proposition, not . oe cause he hated Judaism, but because he loved CbriEtianity: Those who resisted the proposition did se not as Wilk es and Gibbon might have done from their nature, b u t fro pS deliberate principle an d consc i ent i ous conv i c ti on . But did Gibbon ever blaspheme Christianity when he entered the house ? Did Wilkes ? N o . If it were true that VP ) : crisy was the homage that vice paid to virtue, it W h ae e equally true that the pr o f ess i on o f Christianity, and,. / 50 respect which they externally paid to it, bad as it d compared with real religi on , was b e tt er th a n open avowed blasphemy. (Hear, hear.) But he believed tha this would not be considered, as the noble lord said, the last remnant of persecution. Other cases were remaining which, if the principle were extend e d, wou ld come out iY degrees. Some would say, " the British dominions in India contain vast numbers o f Hi n d oos an d Mahon! „ . mf . dans." (Hear, hear.) That c h eer s h owe d th ere were members in the house who would extend the principle. But what then became of the grea t p r i nc i p l e o f the Chris tian tian religion being the hi g h es t p r i v il ege as well as the roll sacred trust? (Hear.) If the a d m i ss i on o f th e Jews w ere conceded, other claims would be ma d e as en titl e d to relief' which, he believed, the count r y wou ld neve r toleret e • The country would n ever t o l era t e th e avowe d heathen e t the avowed Mahommedan ; but to be consistent they in ns be be prepared to destr o y, no t mere l y th e P ro t es t an t ch. r ter of the house (that, indeed, was gone already), b_ a" u _ d destroy the Christian character of th e L eg i s l a ture ; . far as lay in their power, to destroy also the Christian • ratter of the depositaries of power. For these reasons li e should resist the motion w hi c h th e no bl e l or d h a d now for the sixth time propos e d t o th e h ouse ; an d , u nder blessing of God, he trust e d th a t thi s f a t a l measu re lair yet be averted. Sir R. PEEL reminded the house that various function s had been opened to th e J ews w ithi n th e l as t few Yieers• ' The executive functi ons o f th e coun t ry were ()Pelle" them ;they might fill the p os iti on o f mag i s t ra tes, r a w that of chief magistrate o f th e metropolis—they roigh'• yo chairmen of quarter s e ss i ons —th e exerc i se o f th e e lecti ai. franchise was of course open to them—and they were, it lowed the free exe rc i se o f th e i r re li g i ous opinions. Buys, was now argued that to complete the edifice of religiSl liberty in this count r y it was necessary th a t th ey s hetr or be emancipated from th e disabilities they laboured and with reference to a seat i n thi s h ouse , an d th e no ble for had told them that the last badge of intolerance toEng llsl _ l ; men of other than the Prot es t an t f a ith s h ou ld now be a t once and for ever remov e d. N ow h e cou ld no t agre e with that view of the case. He admitted that, if it were e c ;', there never was a fitter o pp or t un it y f or marking their au_ hesion to the principles o f c i v il an d re li g i ous lib er ty tha: at the present moment, when everywhere abroad they s!' ;‘ , the spirit of bigotry and int o le rance p reva il. It wa s on this account—having been engaged f or some years i n the diP.a; matic profession, and knowing the good results that spir e s from a manly and straightf orwar d express i on o f ° pita= and from the tendering of honest advice, no matter wr ther the Governme n t t o w hi c h you t en d ere d it was o f the first order, or wh e th er it was so i ns i gn ifi cant as scarc ely t ° ~e s affect the b a l ance o f E urope —th a t h e ventured to tau to the noble lord his thanks for the high-spirited and e l; mirably-composed dispatch which he had addressed to ? Minister at Floren c e on th e p ersecu ti on of the Me,difa - „ (hear)—a n d if h e h a d no t b een accidentall d e b a rred fr om attending the house on Thu rs d a y n i g ht last hehe would II; replied to th e h on , mem b er f or M eat h (Mr. Lucas), vii,„-t had attempt e d t o j us tif y t h e Tuscan persecution by he called th e ex t erm i na ti on o f the Jesuits from Swit sa " land. H e wou ld h ave told him that the noble lord wig was then at th e h ea d o f F ore i gn Affairs had nothing to- with the expulsion of the Jesuits—that the British u" . vernment did not support the members of the Confed s er ; tion against the B un d o f the Catholic cantons on relie s , o grounds only— an d th a t a l t h ough we took different views of that question from the Governments o f Austria' Prussia, and Fr ance , ye t t h a t events had shown the wisdom and the j us ti ce o f th e course which the n oble lord then took. This, however, was only by way of Par a "; thesis—(hear, hear)—but he must say that the introductl e of the Jews to Parliament had nothing to do with question of civil and religious liberty. He found that " to member of the present Government, who pretended know accurately and distinctly the views of the Geyer . % ment on political ques ti ons, h a d d e lib erately state d that vq. who opposed the admission of the Jews into Parliame a ought never to pronounce the sacred words, " civil and re ligious liberty." (Hear, hear.) H e cons id ere d that the use of such an expression was altogether erroneous at, malicious. (Hear, h ear , and cries of "name.") The 11 11 gentleman to whom h e re f erre d was one whom a P U 1, 7 journal had very aptly called "the Jew member for .A.Y. c° ' bury"—(hear hear)—and wh o now b y acc id en t f oun d hir e s ; self Solicitor-General. (Laughter.) He h a d no doubt Ow would be told that nothing was intended by these exPr e ,r, sions, and that as as the hustings at Carlisle re-echoed Nov i expressions of sympathy for foty millions of slaves, 01e , as the Odd Fellows' Hall at Halifax resound e d with ir e precations on tho Emperor of the French—(h ear , hear) -- though nothing was intended by these expressions, so P r at bably the learned Solicitor-General would tell them tu e , o he did not mean anything by his expression that, the! , who opposed the admission of the Jews ought never to Prt,L, nounce the words " civil and religious liberty." Supe - s he were to say—he being in favour of vote by ballot (cheers)—that all who were opposed to that measure W . ' o f actuated by improper feelings ; and as the Governmea b ,,,d progress which they now had contained men who oPr s i i t and men who approved of the ballot -such as the rig hon. members for Carlisle and Southwark—would he no have a right to say that this Government of progr esa s ,, „und. not entitled t ee o dd t : d e o n an confidence ot Parliament,th nk of t J t e h o w e h s , p fat i : l a e di na ' ss f n(t b c e h in e g e r e s excluded 1 u i d i They knew perfectly well that they litficsillise°t-eciiil liberty here than they had in any other enjoy ed piirt o f the world, and therefore he would not consent that laws which had been in existence since the Revolution of 1668 should no, be abrogated in their favour. Probably, circumstan ce might require that their oaths should berevised. It ": true that there was no longer a Stuart in existence to c ° , ) , - ; test the legitimate claim of the House of Hanover to - r throne of these realms ; but surely that was no reason se doing away with the words " on the true faith of a Chri s ' tian." He believed that these words represented a grea t principle. He believed that he was expressing—faintlybio might be, and imperfectly, but at any rate fairly ---4 ,„•d public opinion, when he said that, denying as the Jesrs": s . the fundamental principles of Christianity, it was inconsl tent with their dignity and character as a Christian Far lament to open to them the attainment of every offif i a ; and the e xerc i se o f th e highest functions of the State. ' thought the present measure was unwise and unnecessl, and therefore i m p o liti c. ( Hear, hear.) What was tf o charact er f or respecta b ility of Jews in this county ? was ready to admit that their general good conduct W matter for consid era ti on, b ut he did not think they war -1 entitled to all th e encom i ums which were in the habit ° co being passed upon them ; for he found it stated in evid e l s before a select committee of the house whi c h sat to jug ia into juvenile offences, that the chief i ns ti ga t ors t o crime this metropoli s were Jews (great laughte r beel fo pa they afforded exc l us i ve facilities for the disposal of s t° goods. (Continued laughter.) If that w as the eas e 1, London, it might equally be so in Manchester, Liverr,sf Birmingham, Glasgow, and other large concentration s e j population. Howe ver , thi s ques ti on, after all, re soly tho itself into a consideration of the personal position 0 f the noble lord oppo s it e . H e h a d t h e honour to represent the i city of L on d on i n company with a Jew, and he was sold habit of givi ng a p l e d ge to • his constituents that he s • bring the question of the emancipation of the Jews aaa d ally before the house. Now this protégé of the noble I ,e' oo Baron Rothschild, was a wealthy man ; but it was account of his w ea lth that he was entitled to considera t . l p because the house was.no doubt aware how his great w c lot was amassed. (Oh, oh.) He read in a newspaper 4 : 04 8 - so• night that the house of Rothschild had consented - tiate a loan for the Government of Athens, with co neL o sli _• dos able guarantees, at the rate of nine per cent. He was r , s , to admit that the noble lord's coil a, n worthy -51 s 1 —he had not the pleasure of his a e ccr i uss e. n w t a a a nce s. bilt r a e 9 ;- much had been said by the President of the Board tu s.leg trol. res li p b e e c rt tin y g the press of France and of Belgian' ore m g a e g a g n e s d , 0 f i t t . ar be as lino b a u nE t right to say that nobody had done b y to gag s ur w o hi pe oh tha t n ho the h f a a d mil a y dv o a f n it ood othschils ., „o, despots. But admitting that h y e was in every way t 'f:rtbei:6l° of being in this house, he would still ask whether thie, too • a . question which ought at present to engage their a b tion ? Now that the leaders of the faction who ot P o ° o - the la s t G overnment were united in the present, n,nore petted to h ave received from them some measure -or n early connected with th e ma t er i a l well-being o f the c the try than this. In 1851 and 1852 they were told hlfoil noble lord of the absolute necessity there was fora ' la s sos° Bill ; but now th a t h e had become the leader of the of Commons, that measure was almost indefinitei s • of journed. At Carlisle, at Southampton, and in the c Londo n , th ey had heard of nothin g else than of the, tier scenes of bribery which took place at the last 'general lilt tion. He did not know whether the noble lord and th f e t rl hese hon. gentleman spoke from personal experience e , sr allf matters, but he did not think that the electors g e ,s" - were had laid themselves open to those imputations while', the so promiscuously heaped upon them. But whateveis to t fate of the measure might be in this house he trust ec s ion the other house of Parhament would be firm in the " e 'd for which they had already more than once expressed ; an himself, he could only say, that he would give the row' ht his determined opposition, as he believed it w a i s ,,`„ - tions' with danger to the Christian character of our insl'"" (Hear, hear.) d .in g6 Lord MONCK sa id th e h onoura bl e mem b er who ha d the sat down sa id thi s measure was a personal matter t 0 noble lord th e membet for the city of London. He t tho las t considering that the name o f th e noble lord had for for the thirty years been connected with every measur e tbe e extension of civil and religious liberty, there could 11 ° ,00 1 higher compliment paid him than to say that this r: roo tial of the last badge of intolerance and bigotry was P io einh el. matter to him. (Cheers.) Then the honourable h told them that this question had nothing to do ,w it (1.40ra and religious liberty ; but he must pardon lnr ° , o with Monck) for saying that his speech had still less t , ° " it the the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) He agreed per"l v ;i honourable baronet that religion was of para mours s oj in . tance, whether it was considered in a national or irL ug est dividual point of view, and that was one of the s% arguments in his mind for the pressing forward of t l i ,tion tion, that no man might be under any political temp wa s to conceal or to deny his religious convictions. i n the it but persecution, if they allowed the Jews to u v ,? r she„a country, and to amass money in the country, hntie-srrade'st their noblest aspirations, and regarded them 9 ' S 4- 170 had subjects. (Hear, hear.) It reminded him of wh a t read somewhere, about the labourers on an estate , s 0 po or ginia, he believed in the time of Elizabeth. lII° privi creatures petitioned their master to be allowed t i b il e s to be loge of education, on the ground that they had s ° ue and saved ; and the reply they received was rather bln c l ( fl e s,r, discourteous—" our souls, gro w tobacco. sur , of bear.) He trusted the hffiise would accept the we e ' a nee' the noble lord, and destroy the last badge of lntuh (Hear, hear.) iteration, to give his assent to the measure Of the •t nor as Mr. NAPIER was unable, after the most intens e c° , ll e s l i e . aalotcrhdebit‘rianaus we the noble lord repared to admit a del l.ith a a s pp a re re he v n ela de t t hen and d s n n o o t t . ra Th ere e ly tra an e toh i i yo t a on c i The Jews denied it, and therefore he thought a d e ist. no more title to be admitted than an atheist o o r oon foisn' Memb o e r rs E o pi f sc t o h p a a t li h a o n u s s , e, co w n h ld ether Catholics, I sT o onna c i prayer to their Saviour and God. (Hear, to ,`they that y to (H g e et ar h , er bear in w o uld they ask a Jew, when he entered that house, t he that Saviour whom he conscientiously, denied ? then to abolish prayer remove all difference , ~e a d j u it Jews, and call that religious liberty' ? It was°o4Btoste he the Jew had every other privilege. AS a 111