The Sun. — London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

PARLIAMET , i T. heard anv sound reasons against the measure. Of course their lordships had heard again that it was a measure to " unchristianise the Legislature ;" but, again, explana tion of what that phrase meant was totally omitted. (Hear.) He must have been a great man who had invented that "cry ;" it was admirably adapted to the purpose of creating an alarm, and and it conveyed no definite idea to be grappled with. (Hear.) Did a Chris tian Legislature mean a Legislature to which only Chris tians were admitted ? If so, this bill would not neces sarily un-Christianise the Legislature, for the bill might pass and still a Jew might never again be elected ix England. (Hear.) Did a Christian Legislature then mean a Legislature elected by an exclusively Christian constituency? It might be supposed that a measure which it was stated would have the effect of un-Chris tianising Parliament might have some sensible effect in other respects. But he never heard or read of any Auch effect being anticipated, and for the simple reason that the tenets and doctrines of Christianity, as a religion, could never come under discusSion in the assembly into which those to whom this measure related were, to be admitted. Topics might be discussed there relating to the temporal interests of the Christian church, but what ever might be the interests of any church or religious body which were discussed there, they must remain un affected by such an addition to the composition of the Legislature as was now proposed. He did not know how his right rev. brother felt ; but he (the Bishop of St. David's) could declare that in any question referring to the rights and interests of his church, there were not a few whose places he would not desire to see supplied by any Hebrews that could be found in the synagogue in Duke's-place. There were other points which influ enced the opinion of many persons, and he was not sure but that the minds of many of their lordships were in fluenced by it. There had been one brought forward that evening. It was the old cry that the Jew was not sufficiently rooted in our soil to enable him to per form the high functions of a legislator. That argument might years ago have had some weight, but the experi ence of the last few years had abated its force. When he considered the emigration which was carry ing so large a portion of the people of this country to other shores—not the indigent, and those who were compelled by their necessity to seek a settlement in the Antipodes, but it was numbers of the middle classes who left their homes and their native soil, for the sake of a slight addition to their worldly prosperity —he could not see how you could use the argument against the Jews that they were not sufficiently attached to this country, but that their hopes had drawn all their thoughts to a distant land. In conclusion, he would remind the house of another fact. Their lordships would recollect that before the discussion of this evening com menced a petition had been presented by a right rev. prelate, which he accompanied by a statement that the petitioner was a person who had granted a piece of land as a site for a Christian church. That he (the Bishop of St. David's) was prepared to say was by no means a solitary case. He knew cases of Jewish manufacturers employing Christian workmen, whose example he should be glad to see imitated by those who bore the name of Christian, and who liberally built Christian churches and Christian schools for the benefit of their Christian workmen. If they were to judge people not only by their professions, but still more by their acts, and he thought that those who so acted could not be called blasphemers of our Lord. The Earl of HARROWBY said that he grounded his opposition to this bill on no prejudice against, or hostility towards the Jews ; but on his belief that this act, trifling as it might appear, would he injurious to Christianity. He could not forget that Christianity was interwoven, not only with the religion but the habits of the people of this country. He could not look at a painting over the throne in that house, representing the baptism of an English King, without seeing a proof of how much Christianity was intermixed with all our habits and customs, and the object of this measure was to attempt to eradicate that feeling. He was not always of this opinion, but the more he had seen of life, the more he had seen the power or expansion possessed by a prin ciple, when once it was admitted, to however small an extent. In this case he did not believe that any political necessity existed, or political advantage would be derived ; and notwithstanding the attempt of the most rev. prelate to reason it away, he believed the pub lic feeling would be, that when words , " on the true faith of aChristian," were struck out of the Parliamen tary oath, you had struck out, as it were, one of the nails which held Christianity and the Constitution toge ther, and that it ought not to be done for so trifling a purpose as that which was proposed. For the reason, then, that there was no choice of evils to be made, that there was no political necessity for this measure, or any political advantage to be derived from it, because the Jews were better off in this country than in any other, and were admitted already to a large share of the admi nistration of its affairs, he would not lend his hand to promote an impulse, however small, which he believed so fatal to the religious feeing of the country. (Hear.) The Duke of ARGYLLlassured the house that it was with some reluctance that he rose to address them — firstly, because he felt that the subject was exhausted ; and, secondly, because on three or four previous occa sions, he had stated the grounds on which he was pre pared to vote for the admission of the Jews to Parlia ment. But there were some observations which had been addressed to their lordships, particularly by the noble earl who had just sat down, and by the noble earl who moved the rejection of the second reading, on which he was anxious to say a few words, and he trusted that nothing which fell from him would be an exception to the rule which had hitherto prevailed in the debate, namely, that the deepest respect should be paid by the supporters of the measure to the prejudices of those who differed from them. The noble earl who had just sat down appeared to him (the Duke of Argyll) to have abandoned the principle insisted on by former speakers who resisted the bill. The noble earl had said that lie did not fuel bound by the strict rules of logic laid down by the mold rev. prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin), and he held that on questions of policy, they were not to be bound by the strict rules of logic, but that they ought to consider all the circumstances conpected with each par ticular occasion. He (the Duke of Argyll) would en tirely agree with the noble earl, if the noble earl was prepared to admit this .t6' be a question of expediency and policy. But the noble earl had forgotten that all the previous speakers had addressed themselves to the question of religious principle, alone, and he (the Duke of Argyll) maintained that, when you appealed to reli gious principle, youlvere bound to show that you were ready to act on the principle which you avowed, or else to reconsider the principle, and see if you could apply it to the individual case before you. The noble earl had said that, if a greater political advantage was to be ob tained by this measure, or if there had been any great pressure on the subject, it might be different ; but he rested his argument on the fact that there were no em barrassing circumstances connected with this question. He (the Duke of Argyll) agreed that there were no em barrassing circumstances connected with it, so far as pressure out of doors was concerned. But he main tained that that was not the question. No one would vote against the admission of the Jews to Parliament merely on the ground-of the danger that, to our institu tions, would follow. That ground had been abandoned, and the objection now rested solely on religious grounds. The noble earl had referred to an argument which bad been used with some effect in this and previous debates. The noble earl said that the exclusion of the Jews was owing to an accident in the form of the oath, but he asked if it could be imagined that, if the Jews were nut excluded by that means, no other means would have been taken for the purpose. He (the Duke of Argyll) would contend, in conjunction with his noble friend behind him, that that was a most inconclusive ar gument. The Jews were at this moment exercising the functions of electors. How came they to obtain the elective franchise ? Did the noble earl imagine that in the times of cruelty and persecution, to which he had referred, the Jews would have been allowed to have votes any more than to sit as members of the House of Commons ? How bad the Jews come by the enjoyment of that privilege, which they enjoyed in common with all her Majesty's subjects, except by the enlightenment and progress of the world, and it was in consequence of there being no a ccidental form of oath which interposed between the voter and the polling booth tha t the y p ossessed a privilege which might have been extended to the right of sitting in the House of Commons if it had not been for such an accident as the form of the oath. He would now notice some of the observations of the other noble earl (Shaftes bury). That noble earl said that his noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) asserted that the Jews had a consti tutional right to sit in Parliament. He (the Duke of Argyll) did not understand his noble friend to say that they had a constitutional, and certainly not a legal right ; for if they had there would be no necessity for this measure, but that they had a kind of natural right, and that their position in the country made it reasonably just that they should be allowed to sit in Parliament. The noble earl said that the bill excluded Jews from many offices, and that for one enabling proviso , the re we re several ' disabling clauses. If the noble 'earl had looked at the bill he would have found that the disabling clauses referred chiefly to offices with which ecclesiasti cal patronage was_ connected, and from several of those Roman Catholics were also excluded. The noble earl also said that the question should be considered'by the house on the ground of religious principle ; and he re peated what he had before said, that if Jews were pos sessed of this privilege, he would not be prepared to ex clude them by a new enactment, but that he was also not prepared to give them the privilege by a new enact ment. If this was a question of policy he (the Duke of Argyll) would have admitted that distinction, but when the question was put on religious grounds, he thought that if you were bound to exclude in the one case, you were equally bound to exclude in the other. If this was a Christian nation, and therefore Jews ought not now to be allowed to exercise the functions of the legislator, it would be a duty to exclude them if they already possessed them. With regard to what, atter all, was the main question, the noble earl said that the oath required to be taken was a distinct assertion of a prop f sb e oe ss r i a o uk n eeh o: sb C oy, hristianity. He (the Duke of Argyll) main tained that it was not, but that it had been adopted as a form which was tendered to a man who took the oath ; but the concluding words formed no part of the oath ; a in n dr an d, w t h h o at w i a t s h n a o d t a be c e h n ri s s a ti i a d n t . that e it a m gr ig ee h d t with the most rev. prelate that there would not be much value in it even if it were an assertion of Christianity, for effectually m anY preserve was (the Duke of Christian p p ersons might take it who were not really Christians and be lieved that, historically impossible characterto say that of an y i t could assem bly. He of Argyll) believed that this was more a question of feeling other argument which had allude, namely, the number of than of argument. He be speaking, it was a remnant and been times used t o which hic a relic of the prejudie lY e former ages. There was one House of Commons had decided on this u o e n st t i v .on and the ad visability of their lordship not interferingwith those h the h e would decisions. Although he was as zealous as any one for the honour and independence of their lordships house, they ought to admit the Jews. My lords, it is surely an injustice to deny to the electors the right of choosing any ..• , man not legally incapacitated. • Now, I contend there noun OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) i s no le g al inca p acit y in a Jew, and that if you deprive The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack o'clock. the electors of choosing any person they please, whether at fi v , a Jew or a Christian, to represent them in Parliament, 'Lore se e y E and SELE Thence a decided injusticethose electors. of the Jewish Disabilities Bill. presented petitions in favour t is always unwise in your Lordships unless under I The Earl of ABERDEEN presented petitions from very extraordinary circumstances indeed, ' to oppose SoLithampton and other places to a similar effect. yourselves determinedly and obstinately to the voice of The Earl of MALMES BURY presented petitions the House of Commons in a case which peculiarly touches fro m Ilampshire against the admission of Jews into the constitution of that house. (Hear,' hear .. .) . Paella- Parr 1 . 0.. la. ment ; also, front Whitehaven, against the open -6 of the Crystal Palace on Sundays. mcnt after Parliament has confirmed that decision of the House of Commons on this subject. It is true that you n . L ord i,l BROUGHAM presented petitions from places need not fear on this occasion the pressure of danger Lancashire praying for the extension of the county court s 0_ the Government The noble lord proceeded to urge from civil war. There is no fear; as I recollect hearing _ a . ts • Government the propriety of introducing some' the great duke whom we t h i have lost declare in this very measur e th less count to en the fees exacted from suitors in the place that he assented to i . atholie Emancipation Act per r uLl e L e t , urts, which now amounted to more than 25 from fear of a civil war. Certainly them is no danger . of . that kind. But although there is no danger of a civil of the whole amount recovered. Th e n ' inept felt CHANCELLOR said that the Govern-LORD e year war, give me leave . to say that there is a danger of a .., 1 ! the necessity of such a measure, and had the serious collision. I say that if you go on year after suoject at present I• • body and composition is refusing the . just • denntels of the House of Commons in a matter in which their own i,. Lord G A. un, under their consideration.. MP BELL expressed himself desirous of see "g,riloom Bishop passed to remedy this great abuse• essentially concerned, you expose y o ur e s d el f v u e r s th t e o r. a N r e i w sk ., which I should be very sorry to see earned agr.ainist. the Jepwiosfh Disabilities Bill. presented petitions my lords, does any man suppose, although you may Similar • titions were presented by Lord BERNE,RS, I have referred—does any man suppose that this pies not have a pressure of that alarming kind to which th e Earl of noble lords, f DERBY, Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and tithe e the Lord• The Ea,il trop an lone remain without being settled ? Whether if it be e' the progress of freason demandorthyeeunnma,nflilmhoeueselnpell of the other house Parliament, ed of CARLISLE presented a petition from be f ore Mayor, Aldermen, and. Town Council in favour' long In the Jewish Disabilities Bill ,also petitions from placesto should not exercise the just prerogative .Susses .. _, to the .. same effect. man to say you deal with . this uestion. I am the last Lens petitions petitions were presented by the Marquis of You do well to exercise it if you you possess of throwing out any measure which is sent up for your approval. Alb , the Duke of Newcastle, and the Earl of n d wne emarle, from the Great St. John-street Synagogue. think proper; but in thi s qu e e e s m tio p n e , si w tf h e i n ch ef to t u h li e es th s e o r nearly the character and the I,aol..l4theemotion of Lord REDESDAL.g, the Crystal The Duke Companies Bill was read a third time and passed. house of Parliament, I do maintain, that although the constitution has vested in you a full and free exercise of Inc Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from your prerogative, yet you would do well to be cautious how far you persevere in its exercise, My lords, Sussex,believ against the malt tax. The ' JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. inn as Ido that your lordships, in your inmost hearts, _ for Earl of ABERDEEN, in moving the order of the this occasion are fully persuaded that this is merelya question of time,. ._Yl:ethe second reading of this bill, said—My lords, I more or less, Ido hope that we sh l a l ll e :n th e settlement arrive at that stage at which we shall nave now to move your lordships to give a second read purgofteoBB9le bill for the relief of her Ma'esty's subjects winds this last of this long pending question. Ido seep the time has now arrived at which we may cast to the atte'net93 th e ...., I Pg the Jewish religion. hea j r.) My lords, est has already so much ena(Hear,ed our lordships' rag of intolerance, and that we may make our practice hieh conform to those principles of religious freedom which that !en, and has been so fully discussed in this house, we profess to hold. (Cheers.) p ossi t ie vTuld be difficult for any one, and certainly im- The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said if anything could ship s in I °r me, to attempt to place it before your lord- add to the importance of this discussion, it would be 'tete h o r t ? new point of view. But before I proceed that the noble earl who had just sat down, having fo firm, to this to remark on some of the principal objec- many years opposed these claims as a private individual, brig ef l 7.,..Measure, I will offer a few observations in had now become not only the supporter but the pro tu.rilig before ease which I have now undertaken to pounder of them as the first minister of the Croy: n. A althou -1;' Lion w as last Your lordships• My lords, when the ques- city that was set on a hill could not be hid, and he o last before your lordships two years ago, feared that many would follow the example of so high a iii °n, mg taking no part in the discussion on that occa- personage. The gravity of the noble earl and the known lo r d s; Jnte was given against themeasure. Now, my sincerity of his heart precluded him from making any Chang I c) e this lam n o t a ware that a change of opinion observation on the change, and he would only express a subject necessarily calls for any remark, never- hope, nay more, a belief, that the grounds on which he 'clim e s . I ani . desirous of stating to the house that this reversed his vote this night were as solemn and true as Yea r ' a - o , °f 'Opinion on my part took place more than a those on which he formerly stood. He was astonished Yea r 6° . In the month of January or February last to hear it said that the popular voice was in favour of Peso certainly before the accession of-the noble earl op- this measure. Why,. the popular voice, in the full tlie pre office --I communicated to my right hen: friend extent of the term, was neither on the one side nor the ruene ee ._ ent Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, and now, other. There was, upon the whole, a general apathy s uppee r. for the University of Oxford, my intention of on this question. Where any feeling was entertained, it next 0 u ng the removal of the Jewish disabilities on the was deep and serious, but the, feeling did not pervade the W are i e n ea „ s i° ll when the' subect should be brought for- whole of the community. It was argued that the Jews mu is house. I subsequently made the same coin- had a constitutional right to sit in Parliament. He would . (the Secretary t o my noble friend near me, the noble duke undertake to argue the question if he thOught that they cie eenr e ?etary for the Colonies.) I wish to mention this really belieVed so ; but by this bill, so far from stating . N eed t ';:ance, lest, by any possibility, it might be sup- that, they stated the very reverse. For one enabling the Qat my change of opinion had any . relation to clause . they had a dozen disabling ones ; for one . stn cone, creucent political combination, with 'which, as far as I Privilege that they gave there were eight or ten that There .esepaed, it has had nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) they refused. (Hear, hear.) They enacted that no Jew eu Bee ; i _loss cause for remark upon a change of opinion should be Lord Chancellor, or Keeper of the Great t4ken question as this, because I apprehend it has 'Seal, or Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, or Lord High ele es place on the part of most of those of your lord- Commissioner of Scotland ; that Jews should not present % e r ste who„ are now favourable to the measure. Most of to benefices in right of office ; that if they advised the 4 ti nle °l your lordships who now support it must recollect Crown as to presentation of benefices, they should be feeeet direction your feelings on this subject were in a dif- guilty of a high misdemeanour. If they had a constitu the na Zrection ; and it is natural that this should be tional right to a seat in Parliament, they had a consti tneet th• I look upon this as less the result of argu- tutional right to all the privileges and consequences of an of religious obligation, which when it is felt that right. When Jews were admitted to corporate and re ems r garded, must be stronger than all arent and offices, it was argued that they had given their sanction • 14., as ening on this subject. I consider them existing to the admission of the Jews to legislative functions. kh ro a u a remnant of that feeling which formerly existed They replied that executive and legislative functions vi tt , geout this country. In former times, no doubt were diametrically different, that they might be trusted th e je n inell greater intensity, this prejudice against with one and not with the other. But they (the minis - Creel 1 7 8 existed ; and it was turned to account by terialists) now reversed that order. They said the Jews p e ,_ c rnen a n d atrocious tyrants for the purpose of might be trusted with legislative functions, but they re al': tition and cruelty ; nevertheless, some of them excluded them from a large share of executive power. fa o i ..''ave thought by .so acting they were doing They were told that this demand ought to be granted ettein 'er i vice. My lords, I do not now speak of perse- in accordance with the principles of civil and religious by the' Jewish I know that those who oppose the claims made liberty. If by civil liberty was meant that every man Fo o d w „ e , wish people entertain and express feelings of should be free in mind, body, and estate, he believed they is thatll and kindness towards them. Nevertheless it all, Jew and Gentile, were free enoughin that particular. ofinien that this feeling of opposition is a remnant But as to religious liberty, if this bill passed, the Jew exist e d st r s e jailing persuasion which in former tides would have his religious liberty, but he did see how My lords, IrlnnglY in every country in Europe. (Hear.) Christians would have theirs. If it were a principle of th e y now are, Upon the Jewish nation, scattered as civil liberty that a man should be tried by his peers, he ?f . a crim e of ila People who lie under the commission held it to be an equal principle of religious liberty that imprecated on their ma gnitude,wrath—we the and who have none but Christians should be allowed to make laws that consequence of that re . ; ° c urse which was to ensue should bind Christian churches. The opponents of the t du e. We have insensibly bill respected the Jews, they saw them under a cloud, Five effect to the rath—eve have taken decree of the Mo it were, accessories in the Divine but they acknowledged them as hereafter to be the sove nateo operation the veeinig l e : er e l e ° o l f i t r h selves, .mo , re or less, to reign family of the human race ; they wished them well, st High and to carry they could not be harsh to them, either in language or W recollect that ~ e Almighty ; but when even in thought ; but when they heard their advocates ' . 11 0 t for Pius „ vengeance is not ours," and that it is declare, that for the purposes of legislation, all religions \ ,, ith .s to repay," we should view te Jewish people were alike, then they said emphatically—No ; and they My . lords, this litim l3l •4 7, and exhibit towards them fellow-feelings of said it upon what they believed to be the " true faith of (4 4. e i%e h it a y : country, at least in recent a Christian." (Hear, hear.) His lordship then moved ( pNii,, )4 : proclaimed an absolute freedom of religious that the bill be read a second time that day six months. ti `Z v i , ( l ! li , i.t. We have declared that religious truth, or re- The Earl of ALBEMARLE would ask the house, as Nriri•eli,°r, shall not be the test of any qualification for they hail lately done a great act of justice to their Cana -4,3 ‘ ,., 14 . (Cheers.) My lords, the Jew is the only drag fellow subjects to do a similar act towards the !.° l lB ~,1 0 is excluded from eights and immunities, in Jews. He asked this the more confidently, because a 'lble e a l'enee of his religious belief. (Hear. hear.) Hor- great statesman had on that evening; for the first time, ° ll r It - „ 14 unchristian as those laws were which persecuted spoken in defence of the rights of their Heo i raw fellos h v t - L%11d„, - , i la an Catholic fellow -subjects, still they were not countrymen. That fact alone ought to lave eo zv d e e ig in '' , 4 . '''''religious creed, but were upon those of their lordships who were not d and itilv adoptedBo much on their f their minds upon this question. It was now 200 years 4 I t ince liver Cromwell sought to relieve the Jews •of politic e re not incorrectly chosen as indicating . ta l s rag e d f m the operation of these disabilities which lefea.l faith. (Hear.) But, my lords, the Jew, simp y Enre that period. That great Protestant d O - 3 : 1 10 Ise h e t e entertains a religious belief which we un- effected them at htened for his time, and was not. ma n " e ' l ly can prove to be most erroneous, is the only prince wa l s . of wh • successfu inhis attempt . A century ago—in 1793—a -4 hi s °, in the present day is proscribed in consequence .. 1 broueht in somewhat similar in its nature to we er r eiigious opinions ; and with regard to him alone bu was of Cromwell. This bill passed both houses ad o 4 e not acting on the principle which has been fully the attempt the royal assent ; but so sk et P:ed since the abolition of the Test and Corporation of Parliament and received against the mea obje:nd the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. (Hear.) The powerful a clamour was raised repeal it the same sa te to extending to the Jews the same principle we sure that it was necessary to . ire rid tothe oppo all other suasions however they may,differ year. The tones were at that time upon . being ti v t : ourselves, is founded er main] I think almost exclu- sition side of the house, and a general election te I the Va r e e Y ,,' upon this feeling, that we are doing something at at hand sought . to obtain power by an appeal to is e - " e e with the Christian character of the country. It religious prejudices of their several constituents.At Plied ve , e ry easy to understand how this argument is ap- the hustings there were heard cries of "no !!r,a. h s Since that Nee, J-he existence of the Jews in this country is, pro "no conventicles," and `.4no synagog hou u s e e s s and convents forte unchristianising of the nation. The only period the provisions against mass asked the house by folio country that is consistent is Spain. No doubt you might Pea were abolished. The noble earl he also tint w the example of Spain, and you 'might expel the their vote on this occasion to place t the synagoguebench of bishops tut Stofroni your dominions. That would be consistent ; upon the list. On looking across to the a rev. prelate to 8 , c onfer privileges, rights, honours on Jews, and yet lie was reminded by the presence rightthe Bishop of Nor tien,"T that their admission to Parliament is unchris- (the Bishop of Norwich) that it was amount of • el eae l tn g the nation, is such an argument I cannot wich who, at that time, incurred the greatest would hold Y compre hend. It is true that Christianity is part obloqy. Indeed it was said that the bishop ems Saturdays for Jews and upon Will Parcel of the law of the land but your lordships an ordination upon the . that the • ht 14 reed] . 1 it is not the Sundays for Christians. He trusted rig % e __ recollect so far as Parliament is concerned, h ave alone that haa been the law, but the Esta- rev, prelate opposite would be equally . been made ed Church has been the law of Parliament. You port of the Jews. An advance had certainly.. excluded . ofof • d - • bl . feeling since the last century. Take the City ht , various sects ;by means acts in em in pu ic e • ]douseYen have contrived to introduce Dissenters into the of London, for instance. A century ago that had been of Commons but the principle has been to exclude the head-quarters of the opposition to the Jews. Now a thoseshe who do not ' belong to the Established Church of that city, numbering 20,000 inhabitants, had returned a country. That state of things no longer exists. I Jew as their representative. During' the debate upon f J ./ P r ebend that in no sense will be said that Parliament this-subject in another place a distinguished member bill, trap the sense in which it is used—a Chris- the legal profession had urged in opposition to this h p_!, l Parliament ; that is to say, there are modes of be- the inconvenience which would arise from a call of te lief, Persons entertaining Peculiar opinions, admitted into house being made upon a Friday, upon which day the to a l l s lament, those opinions being so erroneous as almost Jewish Sabbath had commenced. He had, however, opposed to Christian belief. Now if we extend been assured by a Jewish friend that no inconvenience er admission to Parliament to persons holding opinions so would arise in such a case. The prejudice which existed e. roneoto, so grievous, so monstrous, I think the Fin' against the Jews was the effect of their legal disabilities. ;Pl fails us entirely of looking to Parliament as an ex- Prejudices, if not fostered by legal enactments, surely e body of any Christian persuasion. But you have died awe,'the of time. Every one could re boot only admitted in course . the entertaining thewhich hadexisted against Scotch prejudice se peculiar opinions, but you have actually, although prose of men, and how the poetr of Churchill and the )'ou have not unehristianised Parliament, unchristian- Macklin y When John Earl of iced other legislative bodies. 'You have by act of Par- B were levelled at them. liament admitted Jews into the Legislatures of the C Bute was First Minister the complaints were not levelled Ca- so much against his incapacity as at his country. A nadas and of Jamaica, and why by so doing you would Scotchman was now u on the Tres. ury bench who had unchristianise those bodies any more than by admitting s h own th a t h e would not hesitate to s do justice to the them into the Imperial Parliament you would unchris- Jews. As to the objection that the Jews were merely tianise it, I cannot understand. The truth is, you un- sojourning in this christianise neither the one nor the other. Whether make out alonger others. For in balf-a-dozen Jews be in the Assembly of Canada or in • term than many stances—those whoafter the Edict the British House of Commons makes no difference to this country came to the Christian character of the Assembly. But, after all, lb of Nantes, and those who, like his (the Earl of A e sari ' this exclusiveness, as your lordships are perfectly well i i i ii. 0s) ancestors, came to this aware, rests only on an accident. There is no law at this upon Spain and Portugal were often referred to thequestions of disabilities,and the condition moment to exclude the Jews from a seat in Parliament. f There is an whole ofwhich they are not oath, the the other hand ta n tries,ke, a oath which I must say is one o f the most unne-, i n Holland, the most Protestant of coun cessary and useless oaths. But they a re read y to take2so years the Jews have enjoyed a pe rfect for equality of rights • with those of other citizens. Every this oath of abjuration in its substance and essential cha- one knew tine material and this racter ; all that they cannot take is an assertion that adds surely ought te m h at e erial prosperity of Holland, nothing whatever to the substance of the oath, but nation of shopkeepers. In argument of some weight with a merely giving an additional asseveration at the close to their lordships would eepers. In conclusion, he trusted that that which they have already sworn. Now this, in many not unmindful show by their vote that they were instances you have dispensed with. By many acts of Par- subjects. of the rights of their Jewish fellow- Lament you have. allowed Jews to take the oath of abju- The Earl of DA:RNLE r ationexpressly omitting this asseveration at its close. Y, in voting against this met).- Th sure, wished to state to That is the mode in which youlave extended the power upon religious motives. the house that he did so solely of admission to your Colonial Legislature. It is the modelt had been said, that the legis lature already numbered among by which y ou h ave over a nd over again admitted Jews to an d Unitarians. That might b its members Socinians take an oat h in this country.. This oath, in its sub- a tt e mpted plainly to recognise e true ;b u t it was now stance and esse n ti a ls they will take, except this addi - i n the Legislature. the anti-Christian spirit L ien, 'which is not binding on their conscience, and I The Archbishop of DUBLIN would ask any one of your lordships if you would yen- not like tore topatchwork legislation : relieving Quakers „ enact it at this moment. I think I recollect on a C Catholics another, Diss te one time , former occasion that a noble earl opposite, who is fore- Roman a en rs another, and then most •He would prefer a comprehensive bill, tin every goodwork, 'd he took this as he found Jews. sai introduce to do at it, and that he would • once what had to be done in the end. (Hear, hear.) would not be prepared to such a condition. lf so, what becomes of the objection to the Before he sat down, he . wished to say one word with Is." hmightarise admission of the Jews ? Ifnoble friend would hesi-my respect to an evil w lc tate to enact suchwere proffered and passed as a triumph of Christianity. an exclusion, surely he ought not to Chris make their excl • has The proper way to consider it was as a triumph of Chris rion dependent on an accident. It also been said tianity—(hear, hear) —and he asked their lordships to dig to our tat these persons are in truth not belong - support the bill, not because it was 11, measure in favour distinctnation, that they are aliens, that they are a people, and therefore of the Jews, but because it was a measure in support of with us, andought tobe have nothing in common Christianity. (Cheers.) But, my lords, that theexcrleuded from our legislature. The Bishop of SALISBURY said he saw no weight people, and will continue so a u in one sense a distinct in the argument of the most rev. prelate who had last tiny is fulfilled, I admit ; but thatntil their mysterious des addressed their lordships, that the words "on the true senseas anything but Englishm en they are in any other \ faith of a Christian" did not act as a protection to Chris . any other I utterlde , and as good Englishmen . . t since nominal Christians might, under that cover, burdens of Englishmen,ny. You impose on them the Item y, . r ights of and you ought to confer the ' I enter Because the bar notquite rights legislature. was to b e a • Englishmen upon them. I hold, therefore, this effectual, was i •t, to be thrown down altogether ? Both, fou • notion which is utt • ndatio A. rightutterly untenable and without therefore, as a m . ember of their lordships house, and in neer occasion, made reverendf friend of mine, on a for- Ids capacity as a bishop of the Church, he should give eluding the Jews froma ?reible observation, that in ex- j his vote against the bill. . Penalty on Christian Parliament you in effect inflict a The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S agreed with the most 11111.1 —, and that it • electors, that it is they who are in- I rev. prelate (Whitely), that it was to be regretted that F e gud to the • r not from a love to the Jew, but the title of this bill was such a misnomer, and. that it was ? privileges °a Christiana, he a rgued, that snot called - a bill for the relief-of electors, lie had never THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1853. and was strongly-convinced that it was their duty to maintain that position in all questions affecting the policy of the empire, nevertheless, he would refer to the fact of the House of Commons having come to these de cisions by large majorities in different parliaments, and under successive governments, as proving that the feeling which induced them to resist this measure was at va riance with the existinc , feeling of society ; and he be lieved that there must ° be consciousness even in the opponents of the measure that they were not bona . fide attempting to secure spiritual Christianity ; and that so far as religious feeling was concerned, they must leave it to the electors to choose whom they would to represent them in Parliament. The Earl of WINCHILSEA thought it impossible for any person to dwell upon the dispersion of the Jews without having his Christian charity excited. But this was a different question altogether. They were asked to admit as legislators those who denied the foundation upon which their religion existed ; and it was for deny ing those very truths that the judgments of God had fallen upon them. He denied that this was a question touching the freedom of election, and he maintained it would be a fearful act for a Christian legislature to de clare in the face of Heaven that a Jew was fit to mat& the laws of a christian_rountry. If the house consented to this measure, it would inflict a very severe blow upon the country, and lie warned the right reverend bishops opposite that if this measure were carried by their votes they would be mainly instrumental in separating the Church from the state. (Hear.) Lord BROUGHAM thought that the noble earl (Win chilsea) laboured. under a very needless alarm, for it did not appear to him that the right rev. bench of bishops would by their votes carry the measure, for although some of them would vote in favour of this measure, yet he believed the majority would be against it. For the conscientious opinions of the opponents of this measure he entertained the profoundest respect ; but he did not enter into their alarm at all, and had no fear that the legislature would be unchristianised in consequence of the admission of the Jews. The noble earl (Shaftes bury) -must surely be aware of what had been done in past time, and to which he was about to call their at tention. That circumstance was the admission of the Jews to take the declaration of abjuration without the words "on the true faith of a Christian." What - was the ground'of that omission? On the accession of the house of Hanover to the throne, a bill passed for the relief of the Quakers, and although the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were left out, other words were put in, which the Quakers, though with some scruples and objections, adopted, and for six or seven years the form of the declaration of abjuration contained these words, " In the presence of God, the witness of what I affirm." Here then commenced the unchristianising the ; and what happened six years a fterwards ? In the year 1721, they struck out the words, " In the pre sence of God, &c." as before they bad struck out the words "on the true faith of a Christian ;" and this second change admitted the Atheist, as the first altera tion had admitted the Deist. The whole matter rested upon a civil and political, and not upon a religious foot ing at all. It was not, as the Earl of Shaftesbury sup posed, that the Quakers were favoured by the Legisla ture, because they were a kind of Christian. The Earl of Shaftesbury said this—but what said the Parliament ? The act .of Parliament said " that whereas since the year 1714," when the first change was made—" where as the Quakers had becn"—what 1 Religious persons and good Christians of their own class and kind ? No such thing : but it was this. Whereas they, have been proved " loyal and peaceable subjects, and zealous sup porters of the House of Hanover, in the title and hold ing of the Crown of this realm."- Thus it was entirely for civil, secular, and temporal views alone, that this second change was made, whereby the Atheist was ad mitted, as the Deist had been admitted by the first alter ation, and God knows the Quakers were neither the one nor the other. It was much against his own convenience to speak that night, and he only did so to show his feeling upon this matter ; and God forbid he should join in enacting an act of Parliament which in the slightest approached towards showing irreverence to that sacred religion which their lordships not only pro fessed but believed ; or which was in disregard of those conscientious feeling which his fellow subjects enter tained. It was not with the view of showing disre gard for the one or the other that he should give his vote for this bill. (Hear, hear.) It was most satisfac tory to him to find that no asperity of party feeling had been shown in this debate ; and that there had been no want of respect shown to that most respectable arid amiable body of men, the Jews, He called them amiable, for they were men zealous in all good works, as any per son acquainted with the charities of this country must know. And they were easier to be admired than imi tated in the assistance which they cheerfully and con tinually gave, without regard to religious opinions. (Hear, hear.) Lord COLCHESTER said that there had been another cause of exclusion against the Quakers and Jews than that adverted to by the noble lord (Brougham). Up to the year 1828, nobody could sit in parliament without taking the sacramental test, and that was a mode of ex cluding the Quakers and Jews. Lord BROUGHAM stated that this was not so, for that test did not apply to members of Parliament, but only to members of corporations ; and then there was annually a bill of indemnity, exempting parties from the penalties which attached. Their lordships then divided, when there appeared- For the second reading : Content, present Proxies Non-contents, present position to form his own opinion upon that which had been stated in evidence. (Hear, hear.) When the further proceedings which were pointed out by the magistrate were entirely concluded, the pub lic would then have stifl better grounds on which to arrive at a decision. With regard to the last question, he had to state that it was the duty of the police, according to their general as well as their special instructions, to watch the proceedings of any persons, whether Englishmen or foreigners, who were open—it might be rightly or wrongly—to the suspicion of con templating any breach of the law. (Hear, hear.) Nei ther M. Kossuth, nor any political refugee in this coun try, could be exempt from these ordinary precautions, which were taken against any individual, whether he was a British subject or not. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the proceed ings taken by the police in this matter were in the first place instituted in consequence of, or arose from, direct or indirect instructions from the Home Department. The noble lord, in his answer the other night, and to night, had taken a course which in his (Mr. Bright's) opinion was not becoming his position, nor becoming the Government of this country in regard to Kos suth. They spoke in that and the other house as if we offered a refuge to the exiles from all foreign countries—.(hear, hear) —but it had been broadly stated in the public press tlizt the Government had either di-, rectly or indirectly permitted spies to be set on the house of M. Kossuth- -(hear, hear) —and on all the per sons who went in or came out of the house, and who were supposed to have any communication with him. (Hear, hear.) Thed there was a seizure of cer tain war stores at Rotherhithe, and the newspaper which was the great organ of the Government, pub lished the most defamatory charges against Louis Kos suth. The noble lord, who must know all the facts of the case as well as any man in the kingdom, was asked to state, not the wh ole circumstances of the case, but whether he had any evidence which con nected M. Kossuth with the proceedings at Ro therhithe ; but instead of giving a direct reply, he spoke in the most evasive manner, and although he said he did not wish to cast imputations on M. Kossuth or any one else, he allowed charges to go forth to the world, and studiously avoided saying anything which would lead the public to feel that there was no evidence at all against that individual. (Hear, hear.) His own opinion was that Kossuth honestly intends to obey the law while he remained in this country, whilst they had his word of honour that he was in no way con nected with these proceedings at Rotherhithe. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Government had caused these proceedings to be instituted, or whether they had any evidence in their possession which could at all implicate Kossuth in the matter ? Lord PALMERSTON found fault with the hon. mem ber for the ignorance he displayed of our constitutional law. The hon. member took him to task because he would not answer a question which no one had a right to put to him as a Minister of the Crown. The honourable gentleman wanted' him to prejudge a case that was now being tried in a court, but he could do nothing of the sort. (Cheers.) It was no part of his duty to explain the vonduct of the judges of a constituted court ; but with regard to the other questions put to him, he had no hesitation in stating that these proceedings had been taken under instructions issued from the Home-office. He had no desire to shrink from the responsibility of his office, and that admission be made candidly and openly. (Cheers.) With regard to the question of re fu g ees residing in this country, they were as free as the air they breathed so long as they obeyed and respected the law, but when they violated the law, they as well as Englishmen, must be held responsible to the constituted authorities of the land. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT said the noble lord's excuse would have been perfectly justifiable had the proceedings been taken against Kossuth instead of Mr. Hale, and therefore he • had betrayed no ignorance of constitutional usage in that house. • (Hear, hear.) Mr. COBDEN said this matter could not be allowed to rest here. The noble lord had evaded the question put. to him. The noble lord said it was a breach of constitutional doctrine to ask these questions, but he denied that most positively. (Hear,) Was Mr. Commissioner Mayne to be allowed to set a policeman to watch his house, and yet not be respon sible to any one for such conduct ? Certainly not. The commissioners were responsible to the Home Secretary, and the minister could be constitutionally called upon to give some explanation of his subordinates to the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) Honourable members might cry " Oh, oh," but let them remember what had been said about the vaunted freedom of the country, and then think that it was just possible that they were standing between Austria and these unfortunate refu gees by demanding these explanations. (Hear, hear, hear.) He, therefore, blamed the nobl e lord for the tone he had adopted. on this occasion, and if 'he valued his character out of doors, where most assuredly this matter would be again taken up, he would consent to give candid and explicit answers to these simple questions. (Hear, hear.) Mr. PHINN deprecated the tone which had been adopted on both sides in this discussion, but the noble lord, when he talked of constitutional usage, should remember that the people of this country looked with jealous eyes upon anything like an interference on the part of foreign powers in our domestic affairs, and these pro ceedings were calculated to excite a good deal of irrita tion out of doors, following as it did upon a remon strance which had recently come from Austria. (Cheers,) The noble lord had displayed a pro per reserve in declining to prejudge a case which was being investigated by a court of law, but at the same time the noble lord should bear in mind that the name of M. Kossuth had been improperly mixed up with the proceeding, and he ought now to state distinctly whether he had any intention of following up the charge which had been made in the prosecution against Kossuth ? (Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON protested that he had made *so charge against Kossuth, nor had he any intention of directing a prosecution to be taken against that gentle man. The hon. gentleman for the West Riding had quite misapprehended the question which had been put to him. He had not been called upon to explain the conduct of a police commissioner, but lie had been asked if he thought there was sufficient evidence in the hands of the police to convict certain parties of an offence ! (Hear, hear.) Now, that was a question which must be left to a court of law, and which he could not be ex pected to answer. It was in that respect, then, that he found fault with the hon. member for Manchester for having displayedi gnorance of the constitutional doctrine observed in the house, and not because he wished to shrink from the responsibility which attached to the office that he had the honour to fill. (Hear.) Lord D. STUART must again take the opportunity of telling the noble lord that in his opinion he was pur suing a course that was highly calculated to lower him in the estimation of the country. The people of England were averse to a system of police espionage for political pur poses, and the Government might depend upon it that if they kept up that species of annoyance to foreign exiles whp had sought refuge on our shores, there would arise such an agitation out of doors that no Government, however strong, could resist it. (Hear, hear.) It would be much better if the noble lord would display a little more candour, and confess at once that he had no evidence whatever against Kossuth, which he believed was about the fact. At all events let the noble lord give up doing the work of Austria, and consent to make such replies to these interrogations as should be calculated to satisfy the public mind and remove their anxiety upon the subject. (Hear.) After a few words from Mr. FRENCH, the discussion Iropped. a . 69 46-115 .. 96 .. 68-164 Proxies.. Majority against the second reading 4 The bill was accordingly thrown out. SOUTH SEA AND OTHER ANNUITIES COMMUTATION BILL. On the motion of Lord GRANVILLE, this bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. Their lordships then adjourned at a quarter to ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Rossendale Waterworks Bill was read a third time, and passed. The London Docks Bill, and the Londonderry, Ennis killen, and Sligo Railway Bill, were considered, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday. TOTNES ELECTION. The members of the Totnes Election Committee were called to the table and sworn, and appointed to sit at twelve o'clock to-morrow. HARWICH ELECTION. The members of this committee were also sworn, and appointed to sit at twelve to-morrow. PETITIONS. Mr. WILCOX presented a petition from tea,-dealers in Southampton against any increase in the cost of trading licenses. Yorkshire favour i . FREWENof th in e total fnveu r r e pee:. legalising a t r h i s e i e m g al ie t a d r u r t i i a e g s e . presented a petition from Sussex m een L 3si o er r d. d w G oif O Le, D iev E siE ß etie l nr C . : presented [several petitions from K co e ff n e t e t d o e t a l l i e e rs sa in me G e las ffe g c o t w . Mr. A. HASTIE annualfie MMr. iddlesex, i i c .d e Kd o l s ei e eN s e . xN, presented several peti w tio it n h s afrdome .A t4iDI stpresentedpit.ehsee presented depetitionopening ot ift f i r ot o hn m ef r t oc e mar Crystal and ld, against any increase in their Palace on Sunday. Mr. HEADLAM presented a petition from Newcastle, in favour, of the reduction of the duty on cork ; also a petition from Gateshead, approving of the proposition to extend the income tax to Ireland, and generally in favour of the Ministerial budget. Lord BROOKE presented a pe tition from Warwick shire against the malt tax. Lord D. STUART 'presented a petition from Fredk. John Cheshire, on behalf of himself and other settlers in Canada, purchased complaining chbaymtbhe er m o f Commerce,o fromf beingthe British ejectedp r ayng that the gene ral firom Government, certain o l a n t n h% ground of such lands forming par t of an " Indian re serve." Mr. BRIGHT pres en t e d a pet iti o n from the Man chester ral propositions of the budget be passed into a law. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition from the Polytechnic Institution, Southampton, in favour of the distribution of Parliamentary papers to literary and scientific institutions. CLERGY RESERVES BILL. The SPEAKER acquainted the house that the Lords had agreed to the Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill. (Cheers.) THE MIDGET. Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from Finsbury, in favour of the Government financial scheme, RAILWAY AMLGA.MATION. In reply to Mr. RICARDO, Mr. CARDWELL said it was the intention of the Government to lay down their views on the subject of railway amalgamation in the course of the present session. M. KOSSUTH AND THE SEIZURE OF ROCKETS AT ROTHERIIITHE. On the motion that the house at its rising do adjourn until Monday next, Sir J. WALMSLEY said it would be in the recol lection of the house that when he put a question a few days ago to the Government respecting the seizure of rockets at Rotherhithe, he received an intimation that legal proceedings on the subject were then pending. Since then he had received a communication from M. Kossuth, in which he unequivocally stated that he had gaining general credence in the no connection either directly or indirectly with the manu facture of warlike stores or arms in this country. Other statements had been publicly made on the same Ntvoertehe injury of the reputation of M. therefore wished to ask the noble lord m s K u e b et j er e eon c p t t , onl a .i n s d gii t ee l a i they were the Secretary for the Rome Department, whether the legal investigation into the seizure of arms or warlike stores at Rotherhithe, had resulted in substantiating the charges or insinuations that Louis Kossuth was con nected therewith ; and, whether the police had been employed to watch the residence of Louis Kossuth or the houses of other political refugees. Lord P.A.LMERSTON said the house was aware that one of the proceedings before the Bow-street Magistrate w ith regard to the seizure of gunpowder was closed, and t h a t a dec i s i on had been given, and that, w ith regard to the other case as dings, rockets, the magistrate interrupted the procee, and stated that he thought the case ought to be sent before another trib was unal. T the he hono ur able gentleman had asked him what result of this latter proceeding as regarded certain im putations which had been cast upon M. Kossuth. Now he really co uld do no more than say, that that which had hitherto passed in regard to these proceedings Was now before the public, and that every man was in a LL BOMBAY JUDGES. Mr. OTWAY wished to ask the President of the Board of Control, whether he will inform the house of the cause of the dismissal of two judges of the Sadder Adawlut by the Bombay Government, and whether he will lay on the table of the house all the papers and corres pondence relating to the dismissal of those high judicial functionaries. Sir C. WOOD was not prepared to answer . the ques t►on, as the Overland Mail had not yet arrived. The motion that the house at its rising should adjourn until Monday, was then agreed to. When he looked back upon the last ten years, and observed the enormous benefits which had been conferred upon this country by the imposition of the income tax, and when he looked forward to the next seven or ten years, and esti mated the great advantages which might be derived from the continuance of the tax, he confessed he could not bring himself to vote for an amendment which declared the con tinuance of the tax to be unjust and impolitic. Though it was true that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer pro posed to modify to a certain extent one of the inequalities of the tax, by making a distinction between precarious and permanent incomes, it was equally true that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had conclusively shown that a sufficient distinction existed already, land and houses being virtually charged at the rate of 9d. in the pound, and professional incomes at the rate of 7d. Surely the possessors of precarious incomes could not desire a broader distinction than that. Again the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to make any difference in the amount of tax levied upon in- Comes from 1001. to 1501. a year. The proposal before the house was more just in that respect, for the rate chargeable Upon incomes below 1501. was less than that levied upon incomes above 1501. (Hear,.hear.) It had been s:iid that the tax as now proposed was unjust towards traders and professionals • but he begged to remind the house that the income tax of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was accompanied ty a double house tax, which would have fallen with great and oppressive severity upon the very class whose interest seine honourable gentlemen on his side of the house appeared so anxious to defend against the Government. (Hear; hear, and a laugh.) It appeared to him to be madness to drive on this matter when they knew the honour of the Government was concerned in it. (A. cry of " oh.") The honourable member might cry oh," but what - he stated was the fact. (Hear.) He might -be a bad party man, but he felt that, on this occasion he was about to give at least a conscientious vote. (Hear.) Mr. H. HERBERT said the real question to consider was, whether it was unjust that persons possessing an -income in the prosperous parts of Ireland should be asked aim.i to wasl itEpmhffannebyegoerhltareaannoftatonadorx to. honourable tr w na: fa h :hay i lii e a c eosr h shrinwun,mobecharil member satebl troei hear.) He abs imposed sitouiuh nt paeabpth u l oliptesnhoedn,elo believedt ont tenant-farmers holders nhataethniTartcht- o theh oo honourable income o n r nhi proposalo (Mr. Herbert) might inform him that by intell olf i aaw r r e nm n he . had received that day, it appeared that in on tcie e onen o tewb f ewrehi' t es h hchrt e ees unions of the county which he had the honour to represent, a thrownresolution proposal ou o out by whichbhyea large Chancellora had rg o ulbeenn. majority—so frto thep—os proposed d Exchequerl i n ii i.go h opposition ad to thatt beenhe he might almost say it vi . r t as ri. He thought that thistewrAahenaadd unanimous. ' indeed, (Hear,lhear.) p ain r p o p of that the tenant-farmers were alive to their interests in this respect at least. e p an in rle i t. on that if Ireland were to be taxed a ear re ed c , en in t w n h u i m oh be t r he o wri f the r Cork(H e a expressedr Examiner, at all it would be better to have an income tax, which would fall upon the persons best able to bear it, and that any Irish representatives who opposed the present budget would, in the event of an election, have no chance of being re-elected by an agricultural constituency. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Mayo had said that if a general elec tion were to take place the Irish members who supported the ;budget would tremble in their shoes. But he (Mr. Herbert) would say that if he.were to oppose this propo sition he should not venture to show his face on any agri cultural hustings in Ireland. (Hear , hear . ) The an. member for the city of Cork had argued that Ireland ought not to have been called upon to pay these Consolidated Annuities at all, but an argument of that kind would have been more properly addressed to the house a few nights ago, when this entire subject had been brought before it. Allusion had been made to the present emigration from Ireland, and a pathetic description had been given of the numbers of persons who were driven out of that country by distress ; but it was the agricultural labourers and small farmers who were now flying in such large numbers from the shores of Ireland, and they were the very class who, if they remained, could not be affected by the income tax. With regard to the duty on spirits he (Mr. Herbert) confessed that he could see bo possible objection to levying the very highest rate of duty upon that commodity that could be obtained with profit to the revenue. With re spect to the legacy duty, he could only say, that having all he possessed in land he had no wish to keep any exemption to which he did not believe himself entitled, and as to the statement that this duty would break down the landed aristocracy, he must say he did not believe it. He was of opinion that nothing exercised a more wholesome influ ence on the country than the landed aristocracy, but they must not endeavour to retain that influence by means of an odious exemption, which was not founded on reason and justice. He should certainly give his vote in favour ' of the budget with a clear conscience from feeling that he was no longer to enjoy an exemption to which circum stances gave him no just claims. (Hear, hear.) Mr. C. R. MORGAN said if this budget were carried, which he (Mr. Morgan) trusted it would not be, it was at all events to be hoped that the right honourable gentle man would continue to pay attention to the subject of land with the view of seeing whether greater facilities might not be given in the transfer of it. (Hoar, hear.) With regard to the advertisement duty he considered that the rigt honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would have acted more wisely had he attended to the opinion expressed by a majority of the house. If ad vertisements were to be taxed at all, they might fairly bo taxed when they appeared in the form of the large carpet bag or gold nugget which now appeared in the streets. He was unable to agree with the opinion which the honour able member for the West Riding had advanced, that the imposition of the legacy duty was a benefit to the small growers. Not being an Irish member he felt some degree of diffidence in offering any opinion on the subject of the extension of the income tax to Ireland. He considered, however, that at the present time it was inexpenient to ex tend it to that country. Mr. FORSTER was of opinion, that as regarded the in come tax, the aspect of the question was entirely changed by the fact, that the committee were now only called urn to consider it as a tax of a temporary character, and there fore the charge of inconsistency brought forward by the member for Roscommon against those hon. gentlemen who voted against the continuance of the income tax in 184 S, and for it now, was a groundless one. He believed that the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had proposed measures which were well adapted to develop the resources of the country, and so to provide for it those means of defence which were only to be found iu its general prosperity. (Hear.) Lord A. VANE trusted no member would be influenced in his-vote on this question by the threat which it was under stood the Government had thrown out, that they would. dissolve Parliament if they did not carry their budget— instead of taking the snore constitutional course which had been adopted by the late Government, of resigning. It ap peared to him that questions had lately arisen affecting the elementary principles of taxation, and that an inquiry with a view to the re-adjustment o f th e basis of taxation would be advisable. Ho should be glad if some member of more weight than himself would move for a committee to inves tigate the whole system, believing, as he did, that such a proceeding would tend more than anything el s e t o di s p e l the delusion which the exaggerated statements of the Manchester school had created in the public mind as to the partieii upon whom the burden of the taxes principally fell. (Hear.) According to Mr. Gregg, the total expendi ture of the country in 1849, including the poor rates and county rates, was 66,436,9721., of which the amount paid by the propertied classes was, 45,641,2451 , leaving the amount paid by the working classes, 20,799,7231., the lat ter classes comprising as they did, three-fourths of the whole community. The proportion paid individually by the two classes was 11. per head by the working classes, _ and 61.105. thl. by the propertied class. Contrasting the financial scheme of Mr. Disraeli and that of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, he stated that the increase in taxation under the budget of the late Government would have been 1,060,0001., an d th e rem i ss i ons wou ld t h i a n v n e amouundernt r e d p t r o n s 3 e , n4t9opVan°ll.l,-aws h3i,lle3otl,loeiiacreaansde sions 5,315,0001., and h e w i s h e d espec i a ll y to call the th o o f r t e ' in 'x i a s - - at tention of the Irish members to the fact, that their share of the additional taxation under this budget would be 608,0001., or 453,0001. after d e d uc ti ng th e re mission of the consolidated annuities, and including the legacy duty on land, the increased taxation to be levied on Ireland was 753,0001. a year. He contended that the imposition of the income tax on Ireland was most unjust. She had not been subjected to it even during the War, and she was cer tainly not better able to bear it now that she was-but just recovering from the famine. He objected to the extension of the legacy duty to land, considering it unsound in prin ciple to levy taxes on the property instead of the income of the country. With regard to the income tax, he believed that no finance minister would be ever hereafter able to dispense with it. The Times had praised the financial scheme of Mr. Disraeli, because it proposed to establish a difference between permanent and precarious incomes ; and yet, when " a heaven-born minister" came down to the house, and proposed to retain it unaltered and unre formed, its inequalities undiminished and its injustice as glaring as ever; nay, when he even proposed to extend it to persons of 1001. a year, and to a country where it had previously been unknown , that cons i s tent organ turned round, and bespattered him with the most fulsome pane gyrics and the warmest applause. (Hear , hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken two ho urs to prove that the land already paid 9 d. i n the p ound, and yet he in. in vited them to submit to an impost a mountin g to 2,000,0001. a year. The a pplication of the tax to Ireland had been condemned by Sir It. Peel, and by many of the mos t dis tinguished mon on the opposite side ; and y et those gentl o men were now ready to support the right hon. ttn a gentlem an (Mr. Gladstone) in his design of extending it t coun try. This might be the last opportunity ho (Lord A. Vane) ( might have of addressing them fo r a considerable period to should not ta ke come. Even if the threatened dissolution so many hon. eeb place, he was in the situati on in which ne titioned against, P mem bers had found themselves. He had w ho had professed and seeing that so many gentlemen had been turned out, he could themselves to be innocent iethat, though guiltless of any ilk conceive it quite pos_ ' I s it share their fate. (Laughter.) If gal practice, he mig th a t were so, he s ou b ld n ev er regret that the last time he a ddressed the h ouse was in favour of a principle he consci entiously believed to he right, and against that whi c h h e s elf at the land pledged hi 'm his constituents * should, a t all events , face with more honesty, An d judgment than those who had condemned sense,the incense tax all their lives, and were now going to vote for its continuance and extension. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He should always feel most grateful ns for the kind indul gence with which his last observations had been rece i ve d , in opposition to a tax whi c h h e considered and to press unequally upon a strugglingred to be unj us t, Mr. P. U RQUHART announced his class. determination support the .financial policy of her Majesty's to It impossible to consider the Government. dated Annuities and the imposition remission. of the Consoli apart. He thought that of the income tax Ireland would be a great gainer by the alter a ti on . T he only taxes was t o capitalise them _ way of comp ar i ng the two An nuities, then, amounted toa toth. The Consolidated mit 4,000,0001., and the pre sent value of the proposed income tax was ab0nt2,500,0001., which would show a clear (sear.) Besides if they traiq to Ireland of 3,500,000 ... uld stand in a much better y po l i m on i i t n ed oa to o th w e h t i a c x h , the d y f l o v r n oid, Ireland should be visited again by a i s •e'petition of the cala mities which she had just gone through. If they refused it now they would be compelled to take it at some future time, when they would not be able to make nearly so good terms. (Oh, from the Irish members.) They would bo like the Roman emperor, who was glad to give the same price for three Sybilline books for which ho might have bad the whole nine ; and he hoped the time would never come when they would rue the day on which they had not fol lowed the advice of an hon. member for Yorkshire, and clinched the bargain with both hands. (Hear, hear.) He would suggest, however, that the right hon. gentleman should make an allowance for the management of estates. (Hear, hear.) It was true that this was not done in rents were pain Eng land, but the expense was mach less ; tn , „ Os. in a habit of more regularly ; the poor rate did not s!, n mo t o t v° 4 the pound ; and tenants were an d 'l e . ears.) For his eloping with their crops. (Laughterion, I. t and it would be own part, he preferred direct tax a_ to :livens° with it, as the come every year less pcemac,„ „ ar e peace had sprung up manufactures which daring .-?-' ~ —, ou r ovra. (lieu, WI.) avm _ - on the continent Wow by seven years would he said amount to about 2,500,000/. but he .contended that that country would gain 1,500,000 by the transaction. Now whether the income tax would be repe.lded at the end of .seven years had nothing to do . with the question. The question under consideration was the readjustemnt of the burden of taxation between the two countries, and if he (Mr. Moore) could prove that the bal ance, the proportion which subsisted ever since the union, would now be altered to the debit or loss of Ireland, to the extent of 300,000/. or 400,000/., it would not matter whether the income tax should be taken off at the end of seven years or to-morrow. The whole amount of the remission to Ireland would be 564,2871. The income was expected to produce 460,0001., the spirit duty 198,000/. and the legacy duty 267,000/.— ma ki ng altogether 925,6001.—leaving a balance against Ireland of upwards of 350,0001. (Hear.) In addition to that Ireland would sustain a loss of 150,0001. by the remission of the duty on butter. He did not mean to say that it was not right to remit such a tax, but in proposing new taxes such a remission ought to bo taken into consideration. (Hear, hear.) The Irish people were now watching over their liberties and honour, and if a s shaking dissolution sh ou ld occur , many hon. members would be found la in in which shoes. they ( w L o a u u l g d h te permitr.) T t h h i e s r w the hts Parliament ka in and liberties to be trampled upon. (Cheers.) Mr. JOHN B ALL said, as the honourable member had thought proper to attack hi to—(cries of " spoke, spoke")— and as he understood another honourable gentleman in tended to do so—(spoke, spoke)—he did not desire to waste the tine of the committee, but trusted that he might be allowed to say ono word. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) It was somewhat remarkable, and not very creditable, that when Irishmen differed in opinion, they generally thought it necessary to indulge in personal insinuation s —(h ear hear, and oh, oh)—and to impute base mo ti ves t o th ose ' who differed from them. (Spoke, spoke.) If he could condescend to imitate the tone of the honourable gentle man who had just addressed the house, he perhaps might succeed in saying disagreeable and offensive things, he might succeed in inventins . imputations. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) He would simply say this—he was of course un known to the great majority of the house. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But although unknown, he believed the humblest member was entitled to defend his personal honour. (Cheers.) Although unknown .to the house, he was content to allow time to settle the question so far as he was concerned. He would allow honourable gentlemen to say as offensive and disagreeable things as possible. He would allow their speeches to go over to Ireland, and was I satisfied they would not have the slightest effect so far as he was concerned. (Hear, hear, and oh.) Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR said the immediate question before the house was the imposition of the income tax for a period ending in 1860. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regarding the income tax as an engine to work great events. When it was first proposed by Sir R. Peel, it was to enablelhim to do great good to the country, as well as to maintain the national credit. At that time there was a deficiency of about 2,000,0001., arising from various circumstances. Sir R. Peel succeeded in supplying that deficiency by means of the income tax, and also suc ceeded in conferring those benefits on the country which would ever be remembered. (Hear, hear.) He admitted, unhesitatingly, that the income tax was not levied so fairly and equitably as it might be ; but he thought it could scarcely be imposed more equitably without making it more inquisitorial than it was at present. The income tax did not exceed 6,000,000/., and in imposing that tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with the tea duties, amounting to about the same sum, with the spirit duties, and with a variety of other taxes on articles of con sumption, yielding a revenue of 32,000,000/., and he did not think it would be a great hardship on those who had. the ability to pay to contribute for seven years to an in come tax of 6,000,000/. (Hear, hear.) He trusted the S income tax would not terminate in 1860, and that before S that period the Government would be able to remit many taxes much more objectionable. He fully approved of the abolition of the soap duties. He considered a partial re duction !I of Excise duties most objectionable, because such reduction did not remove the restrictions on trade and give the consumer the full benefit of the change. It was on! that ground that he last year opposed the reduction of the; malt tax, believing, as he did, that the consumer would! not derive any benefit from the reduction. (Hear.) With . regard to the objections that he had made to the extension of the income tax to Ireland, he regretted that the . , hon. members from that country who had spoken upon this' subject had placed themselves in such a humiliating position as they had done in resisting the proposal of the Government. (Hear, hear.) • He admitted that Ireland had been subjected to great oppression by misgovernment, and regretted that the Act of Union had not been accom panied by the removal of religious disabilities and the establishment of the principles of political and civil liberty in that country. At the time of the union the debt of Ireland amounted to about 30,000,0001., but between that period and 1816 it was increased to about 130,000,000/. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer found it very inconvenient to pay a certain sum out of the taxes of Great Britain to meet the interest of the Irish debt, and accordingly, in 1817, he consolidated the English and Irish Exchequers. Since that period this country had paid, on account of the interest of the Irish debt, no less a sum than 45,000,000, which, added to the principal of the debt, and deducting the expense of the army and constabulary in Ireland, brought out a total sum of about 200,000,0001. Such was the,state of the debtor and creditor account be tween the.two countries. He regretted to state that up to the time when Sir Robert Peel came into power in 1835, Ireland was most opprzssis'ely and unjustly governed ; but since that period the Governments of earl Grey, Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel had done all they could to ameliorate her condition, and he believed the present Government was anxious to do the same. (Hear, hear.) A few days only had elapsed since that house passed the Clergy Reserves Bill, and he believed they could not long go on in Irelandwithout a re-adjustment of the Church revenues in that country. (Hear, hear.) He wished also that in every other respect the people of Ireland should be placed upon exactly the same footing as the people of this country, and he lamented exceedingly the course which had been adopted by the Irish members with regard to the extension of the income tax. He be lieved they could not put Ireland in a satisfactory and prosperous condition until the Irish members did that which the Scotch members had at all times endeavoured to do since the union of Scotland with England—agree among themselves upon all great national questions. (Hear, hear.) He did not expect that in Ireland, or else where, they could be entirely separated from those divi sions which were incident to party ; but there were great questions affecting their own country upon which they ought to be unanimous, and instead of resisting the intro duction of the income tax in the spirit they had evinced, they ought to have considered whether they should not assume the high and proud position of saying that they would pay their fair share of taxation in return for the benefits they had received, wore receiving, and would continue to receive. (Hear.) In Scotland, notwith standing the original barbarism of the country, the barren and sterile nature of the soil, and the great obstacles in the way of trade and agriculture, the people had, by dint of perseverance, industry, and energy, attained to a pros perous and independent condition, and were now paying without a murmur every tax that was paid in England. (Hear.) He found from the works of Sir John Sinclair, published in 1835, that three-fourths of the whole revenue of Scotland had been paid into the Imperial treasury since the Union, one-fourth having been sufficient to pay for the whole expenditure of the country, civil, judicial, and ad ministrative, and also for the expense of collection. Since 1835, a still larger proportion of the revenue of Scotland had found its way into the Imperial Exchequer. Such had been the result of unanimity and industry on the part of the people. He made these remarks in no invidious spirit, but in the hope that the people of Ireland would do what the people of Scotland had done, and would act in a more harmonious manner in discussing great questions af fecting their own interests. (Hear, hear.) Ile would now refer for a moment to the budget. He had no hesitation in saying, in the first place, that he considered some por tions of it defective—(hear, hear)—but, taking it altogether he believed it to be tho most important budget, with the exception of the great free-trade budget of Sir Robert Peel, that had ever been presented to that house. The sweep ing reform that was proposed in the Customs, accompanied by the improvements that were to be introduced into the administration and management of that department of the public service, would be of the utmost advantage to our commerce. The reduction of the duties on butter would also be of great benefit, though he did not believe the fall in the price of these articles would be to such an extent as was anticipated. With respect to the reduction of the tea duty, he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, adopted the course which he proposed at the commence ment of the session, and resolved to reduce the duty on tea to ls. per lb. in three years. That was a wise and proper measure, for he believed that the increased im portation of ea from . China would not be sufficient to justify a greater reduction. He was convinced that at the end of three years the proposed reduction would be of immense advantage to the commerce of the country, that it would greatly increase the consumption of tea, and that the wives and children of poor labourers instead of having only hot water drink, would have good, strong, wholesome tea. ,(Hear, hear.) He now came to the Excise. The remission of the duty on soap would re move the presence of the exciseman altogether, enable the manufacturer in this country to supply the whole world, increase the trade with Africa for palm oil, and to diminish the traffic in slaves, be of great service to our cloth manu facturers, and, above all, promote the health, comfort and cleanliness of the people. With regard to stamps, he re gretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not boldly abolish the tax upon 'receipts altogether, while, with re spect to the advertisement duty, he could not cordially ap prove the course adopted in that matter, inasmuch as by retaining one-third of the tax they would still keep up the whole expense of collection, without getting rid of the dis satisfaction which prevailed on the subject. In remitting the stamp upon supplements, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had done right ; but he did not think that untaxed supplements should go through th e Post-office there were other pape withou t that p a ying postage,, inasmuch as were entirely devoted to advertisements, but which would t • • n still be subjected to the stamp duty, although containing no news whatever. He trusted that this part of the scheme create would be modified ; if not, ho was afraid it wouldt nsion of much dissatisfaction. He thought that the ex e 0 very great measur the legacy duty to real property was a tx whether levied though he was of opinion that not f a ounded in wisdom. upon real or personal property, arcs thepeople of England It was a tax of the nature of which ilar to the fe udal had always compla ined, and which wass wocueed 31,,gnz , exac ti o ns that created the resistance which)l ition of nCharta. Perhaps, however, the propasacticableone at the teller of the Exchequer was the only pr d of a few p ce tod that at the en resent moment ; but he trus regular tax transformed into a more years it would be f of every description. upon the rents and profits of property s of the budget would He believed that more financia_orensra productive, than the be much greater, ,val haeleor seemed to anticipate, Chancellor of the tune,l! xc looking forward to the possi though, at the same 9.rvests during the next six or seven bility of bad years, h© bought the right honourable gentleman h a d done wisely in not estimating o the produce had of the revenue e at a greater am ount than liedch H e believed that th e budget would g ive great satisfaction to the country, and that the commercial and other advantages accruing from it would bo such that no one would complain of the income tax as proposed, although he admitted it th e most just or equitable tax th a t could be imposed. not Looking at all the advantages that we had derived the imposition of the first incom e tax, ad derived fro m in our commercial legislation—rememberingaid the alterations prosperous way in whi c h wo had the happy and. diffi culties of the last eleven gone through all the years—be ar i ng i n mind that, while other count r i es h a d been had maintained pe ace a t homeexposed to sad disasters, we our commerce bey on d a ll previ and abroad, an d extended that there would be very littl e ous anticipations—h e t rus t e d furthe r o p pos iti on to - the adoption of th e i ncome tax as Chancellor of the proposed, i n or d er th a t th e other parts of hi s mo valuable an d i mpor t an t fi nanc i a l Exchequer might be able to carry the scheme. (Hear.) st Colonel HA.RCOURT of the house, d es i red t , who ros e on th e O ppos iti on side occasion, he could o state the reasons why, on the pre senthon. baronet should vote „the member for Hertf or d s hi r e, and why he tt Vote or the measure.proposed by the Government, THE BUDGET. Mr. MOORE resumed the adjourned debate with an ox. pression of surprise at the various and altogether contra dictory grounds on which gentlemen in favour of the budget had based their arguments for supporting it, and at the remarkable unanimity with which they had agreed in one thing—in an utter dissent from the views of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, in proposing that budget, which, nevertheless, for reasons of their own, they supported. The legacy duty, he imagined, was what had attracted the ma jority of them. As to the income tax being only for seven years, seven years was a little eternity in finance ; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who confessed the faults, the inequalities, and the inquisitorial character of the tax, yet asked them to submit to it so long, not as a great necessity but only to enable them to repeal other taxes to which the right hon. gentleman could not, in principle, see any such objections. In England the question was simple, a com parison and a balancing of the advantages and disadvan tages of the income tax and of those taxes which its imposi tion would allow the right hon. gentleman to remit. In Ire land there was no such gratifying embarrassment,the question there being, whether they should be taxed more in order that we might be taxed less ; and because they ventured. to demur to tho operation, they had hould ed been assail have tit het I press in language which he regrett s pressed into the service. He recollected hearing of the stu dents of D Alin hissing a patient because he declined a very s evere but curious operation they proposed, and that seemed to be the position of those who now found fault with Ireland. They were called factious and dishonest ; and as to " fac tious, ' that was a phra se used b y every party that was in to every party that was o ut. But as to " dishonesty," that was a serious charge, which Englishmen would not make unless they were very selfish or very much in a passion. He thought writers who u ed this language might have " supplementary" reaso ns for so doing—(laughter) ; and whatever came of the budget, he was sure it would d of bo the general opinion tha t it ought to bet w one excrescense ; that Caesar's wife ought to be above sus-. picion. As regarded the subject of the Irish income tax, it had been obscured by tw o q uestions being jumbled together, which should have been kept distinct, whether Ireland was now sufficiently taxed, and whether she would or would not have her taxation increased by the adoption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal ? It appeared to him that the proposition of tho late Government was, n respect to pound, shillings, and pence, precisely the NAMO as that propounded by the present Government, so far as realatod to the imposition of the income tax. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer proliosed to extend it to Ireland partially. The present Chancellor of the Exche quer, in extending it, gave what he called compensation. But if he proposed. the extension of the income tax as a m atter of justice, the remission of the Consolidated Annu ities had nothing to do with the matter. (Hear, hear.) He would endeavour to show that Ireland would be taxed more by the present budget that it was at present. The hon. member for Carlow admitted that Ireland would be called upon to pay some paltry 350,0001., multiplied G V // 08 001'11i 0 ,4. i ,erl oit e g c :e ,r 4 cle' o 9l o 1 40 ° 4 V+ ir . 008 0 ii'' 06 l;; 6 ,1 0 i ics 'ON; 19 1 0 . 1/ 0, I;., ig to e , l ,if L; ;0 3 0 i‘3 s`i ~,