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

sa 151 i __--/ 55 4 te l *r° A i• 4$ --.o , '' NTALS' 14 U 57 , 1 1 27 mi --- i I 3 I /3 1PERI k L PARLIAML .;-' I . , they ought to admit the Jews. My lords, it is surely an injustice to deny to the electors the right of choosing any - * 1 man not legally incapacitated. Now, I contend there HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) is no legal incapacity in a Jew, and that if you deprive The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack the electors of choosing any person they please, whether at five o'clock. ' a Jew or a Christian, to represent them in Parliament, Lord SAYE and SELF presented petitions in favour you commit a decid e d i n j us tic e upon those electors. of the Jewish Disabilities Bill. Then, it is always unwise in your Lordships, unless under The Earl of ABERDEEN presented petitions from very extraordinary circumstances indeed, to oppose Southampt on and other places to a similar effect. yourselves determinedly and obstinately to the voice of The Earl o f MALM ESBURY presented petitions th e H ouse of Commons in a case wh i c h peculiarly ra touchestouches Irona Hampshire against the admission of J ews i nto the constitution of that house. (Hear, hear. Parliament • also, from Wh iteh even, against the open- ment after Parliament has confirmed that decision of the in g of the Cryst a l P a l ace on S un d ays. House of Commons on this subject. It is true that you Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from places need not fear on this occasion the pressure of danger in Lanc as hi re, praying for the extension of the county Courts jurisdiction. The noble lord proceeded to urge lost' declare in this very from civil war. There is h no v fear • as I recollect hearing the great duke whom we the a Catholic `on the Government the propriety of introducing s measure to lessen the fees exacted from suitors in the _ some from f t e h a a r t e h f e a a e s i s v e i n l t w ed ar t . o certa a i t u h l o y li t c he E re m i a e n u ci e p d a_t a i u o g n e A r e c f t County courts, which now amounted to more that kind. kind. But although there is no . danger of a civil_ per cent, of the whole amount recovered. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Govern- collision. I say that if you go on year after year war, give me leave to say that there is a danger of a serious '`lent felt the necessity of such a measure, and had the and composition is eielb.j e matter in which their own body refusing the just demands of the House of Commons in a Subject at present under their consideration Lord CAMPBELL expressed himself de ' sirous of see , eng some measure passed to remedy this great abuse. which I should be very sorry to see carried further. Now, essentially concerned, you expose yourselves to arisk The Bishop of CHlCHESTERpresented petitions against the Jewish Disabilities Bill. my lords, does anyman f that alarming you may not have a pressure . . ' " Sirnilsr petitions were presented by Lord BERNERS, I hnve referred—does ainy -man suppose that this ques the Earl - of DERBY, Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and other or the demand noble l ords. if it be the progress of reason unanimous tion can long remain without being settled ? Whether 0 rue Earl of CARLISLE presented a petition from .e Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Council in favour before long to deal with this question. I am the last of the other house of Parliament, you will be compelled 'of the Jewish Disabilities- ._ _ Bill,also petitions from places you possess of throwing out any measure which 1,, 's sent man to say you should not exercise the just prerogative -un 6ussex to the same effect. Similar petitions were presented by the Marquis of Lansdowne..., the Duke of Newcastle, and the Earl of which touches so up for your approval. You do well to exercise it if you think proper • but in this question, Albemarle, from the Great St. John-street Synagogue. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Crystal nearly the character and the composition of the other a house of Parliament, I do maintain, that although the Palace Companies Bill was read a third time and passed: constitution has vested in you a full and free exercise The D k u eof RICHMOND presented a petition from li - your prerogative, yet you would do well to be cautious how far you persevere in its exercise, My lords, be ev a place in Sussex, against the malt tax. •-• JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. ing as Ido that your lordships, in your inmost hearts, are fully persuaded that this is merelya question of time,. The Earl of ABERDEEN, in movine , the order of the this occasion day for the second readin of this bill, said—My lords, I more or less, Ido hope that we shall on arrive at that stage at which we shall see the settlement have of this long pending question. Ido hope the tirn.e last have now to move your lo g rdships to give a second read ing to the bill for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish reli • (II hear.) My lords, now arrived at which we may cast to the winds this the subjeat has already so much engaged ' your lordships' rag of intolerance, and that we may make our practice conform to those principles of religious freedom which attention, and has been so fully discussed in this house, we profess to hold. (Cheers.) that it would be difficult for any y one, and certainly im- The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said if anything could possible for me, to attempt to place it before your lord- add to the importance of this discussion, it would be , ~, P s in any new point of view. But before I proceed that the noble earl who had just sat down, having for ..era , shortly to remark on some of the principal objet- many years opposed these claims as a private individual, t"l"ns to this measure, I will offer a few observations in had now become not only the sUpporter but the pro- T ° ,PPort of the case which I have now undertaken to pounder of them as the first minister of the Crown. A ong before your lordships. My lords, when the ques• city that was set on a hill could not be hid, and he yourlordships . two ailethu_wa.s last before lo2cgt taking no part in the discussion onthat occa,- person . age. The gravity of the noble earl and the known in' my vote was given against the measure. Now, my sincerity of his heart precluded him from making any ds, althou rh lam not aware that a change of opini on observ a ti on on th e c h ange, an d h e wou ld on ly ex p ress a on this subjett necessarily calls for any remark, never- hope, nay more, a belief, that the grounds on which he theless lam desir ous o f s t a ti ng t o th e h ouse th a t thi s reverse d hi s vote this night were as solemn an d true as C hange of opinion on my part took place more than a those on which he formerly stood. He was astonished year ago. In the month of January or February last to hear it said that the popular voice was in favour of Yeer---certainly before -the accession of the n oble ear l op- thi s measure. W hy, the popular vo i ce, i n th e f u ll Posits to office--I communicated to my right hon. friend extent of the term, was neither on the one side nor the the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, and now, other. - There w as , upon the whole, a general apathy M ember fo r th e University of Oxford, my intention of on this question. here any feeling was entertained, it liuPPorting th e remova l o f t h e J ew i sh d i sabilities on the was deep and serious, but the feeling did not pervade the next occasion when the subject should be brought for- whole of the community. It was argued that the Jews Ward in this house. I subsequently made the same corn- had a constitutional right to sit in Parliament. He would tannication to my noble friend near me, the noble duke undertake to argue the question if he thought that they (the Secretary for the Colonies.) I wish to mention this really believed so • but by this bill, so far from stating pii•cunistance, lest, by any possibility, it might be sup- that, they stated the very reverse. For one enabling .eseo that my change of opinion had any relation to clause they had a dozen disabling ones ; for one ti n a ii recent political combination, with which, as far as I privilege that they gave there were eight or ten that ~,,, eeorencerned, it has had nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) they refused. (Hear hear.) They enacted that no Jew :3 There is less cause for remark upon a change of opinion should be Lord Chancellor, or Keeper of the Great r"lc, such e a question as this, because I apprehend it has Seal, or Lord-Lieutenant of ' Ireland, or Lord High n place on the part of most of those of your lord- Commissioner of Scotland ; that Jews should not present s hips who are now favourable to the measure. Most of to benefices in right of office ; that if they advised the those, of your lordships who now support it must recollect Crown as to presentation of benefices, they should be a time When your feelings on this subject were in a dif- guilty of a high misdemeanour. If they had a constitu !hent.% direction ,- and it is natural that this should be tional right to a seat in Parliament, they had a consti e case. I look upon this as less the result of argu- tutional right to all the privileges and consequences of ° 4 s than of religious obligation, which when it is felt that right. When Jews were admitted to corporate _and regarded, must be stronger than all argument and offices, it was argued that they had given their sanction ;rid reasoning on this subject. I consider the existing to the admission of - the Jews to legislative functions. ' 4 `iv . as a remnant of that feeling which formerly existed They replied that executive and legislative functions thoughout this country. In former times, no doubt were diametrically different, that they might be trusted Withminis -the much greater intensity, this prejudice against with one and not with the other. But they (the minis ‘4 Jews existed ; and it was turned to account by terialists) now reversed that order. They said the Jews cruel men and atrocious tyrants for the purpose of might be trusted with legislative functions, but they Persecution and cruelty ; nevertheless, some of them excluded them from a large share of executive power. may have thought by so acting they were doing They were told that this demand ought to be granted ,Outiod service. My lords, I do not now speak of perse- in accordance with the principles of civil and religious on, for I know that th ose w h o oppose t h e c l a i ms made liberty. If by civil liberty was meant that every man ° Y the Jewish people entertain and express feelings of should be free in mind, body, and estate, he believed they _Pod will a n d ki n d ness towards them. Nevertheless it all, Jew and Gentile, were free enoughin that particular. 73itn,ye7pinion that this feeling of opposition is a remnant But as to religious liberty, if this bill passed, the Jew iexistedta t prevailing persuasion which in former times would have his religious liberty, but he did see bow fyrr strongly in every country in Europe. (Hear.) Christians would have theirs. If it were a principle of they nc ,": , nook upon the Jewish nation, scattered as civil liberty that a man should be tried by his peers, he of a crimea,z,l' as a People who lie under the commission held it to be an equal principle of religious liberty that Lee.dthee queries t t that t ere'cr i e mpreca .__, 0 inconceivable magnitude, and who have none but Christians should be allowed to make laws that oeuiaseeeieenstheir heads the curse which was to ensue should bind Christian churches. The opponents of the we haveme. We have insensibly bill respected the Jews, they saw them under a cloud, -wrath— wive effect to the dear Illson ion the vennce accessories in the Divine but they acknowledged them as hereafter to be the sove ourselves, more or less, to reign family of the human race ; they wished them well, into operation e—ee of the Most High, and to carry they could not be harsh to them, either in language or not for 'we recollect that "vengeanceof the Almighty ; but when even in thought ; but when they heard their advocates , is pity and us "to rnot ours," and that it is declare, that for the purposes of legislation, all religions with re we should view te Jewish people were alike, then they said emphatically—No ; and they humanity' 31 exhibit towards them fellow-feelings of said it upon what they believed to be the "true faith of exhibit this country, at least in recent a Christian." (Hear, hear.) His lordship then moved time s, eJsi _ h e as. Prodaimed an absolute freedom of religious that the bill be read a second time that day six months. La o .: • We have declared that religious truth, or re- The -Earl of ALBEMARLE would ask the house, as tiT il u ri error, shall not be the test of anyqualification for they had lately done a great act of justice to their Cana 13ers„ ghts. (Cheers.) My lords, the Jew is the only dean fellow subjects to do a similar act towards the c. t , 4 'a Who is excluded from rights and immunities, in Jews. He asked this the more confidently, because a libi eauence of his religious belief. (Hear. hear.) Hor- great statesman had on that evening; for the first time, ota;,and unchristian as those laws were which persecuted s p o k en i n d e f ence o f t h e rights of their Heorew fellow top ~,'‘onean Catholic fellow-subjects, still they were not countrymen. Th a t f ac t alo ne oug ht t o h ave we i g ht 41 44 7,,e 4 :1 so much WI their religions creed, but were upon those of their lyrdships who were not decided in kel adopted as a compendious test of political belief, their minds upon this question. It was now t e years of bumnot incorrectly chosen as indicating that since Oliver Cromwell sought to relieve . . h . Jews LeZloal faith. (Hear.) But, my lords, the Jew, simply England from the operation of these disabilities which for his time, and was not tl "' l se he entertains a religious belief which we un- effected them at that period. That great Protestant ass n des be most erroneous, is the only prince was too enlightened -eaa We can prove to A century ago—in 1793—a regard to him alone bill was brought in somewhat similar in its nature to of his Wh o .in the present day is proscribed in consequence successful in his attempt. . . 1,, religious opinions • and with ed o not acting on the principle which . e are ' Jeet t ed since the abolition of the Test and Corporation of Parliament and received the royal assent ; but so , it the same obi,and the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. (Hear.) The powerful a clamour was raised against the mea ez-te--`,4°,13 t° extending to the Jews the same principle we sure that it was necessary to repeal t eem e_ bo all other . persuasions, howeve . r they may differ year. The tories were at that time upon the oppo sieei urselves, is founded mainly, I think almost exclu- sition side of the house, and a general election being a r i a 7, upon this feeling, that we are doing something at at hand sought . to obtain power by an appeal to the is , o :ace with the Christian character of the country. It religious prejudices of their c sey e e s r o a f l constituents. At " no mass-houses," Pli e d . ve ry easy to understand how this argument is ap- the hustings there were heard n Since that ento t e The existence of the Jews in this country is, pro "no conventicles," and "no synagogues." t. cou l 4 an unchristianising of the nation. The only period the provisions against mass-houses and conven '- foli o r Y that is consistent is Spain. No doubt you might Iles were abolished. The noble earl asked . the house by Jew w the exam bench of bishops example of Spain, and you might expel the their vote on this occasion to place the synagogue also but 8 4.,, fr° n 1 Your dominions. That would be consistent ; upon the list. On looking across to the • ht rev prelate t o .`" Confer privileges, rights, honours on Jews, and yet he was reminded by the presence t of ti a ,„l7 that their admission to Parliament is unchris- (the Bishop of Norwich) that itw e as a th ri e g ßishop ' of Nor elearl, the nation, is such an argument I cannot with who, at that time, incurred the greatest amount and --./ comprehend. It is true that Christianity is part oblogy. Indeed it was said that the fe b r is d ho w p e w a o nd ld u n ho e l u d will !.a.rcel of the law of the land, but your lordships an ordination upon . the . Saturdays s elini e e . ec ' n eet, so far as Parliament is concerned, it is not the Sundays for Christians. He trusted that t d he iu r s i p g u ht . bliebllanity alone that has been the law, but the Este- rev. prelate opposite would be equally orwa h r • p e nit:Church has been the law of Parliament. You port of the Jews. An advance had certainly been mad excluded various d se t cts; by means of acts of indem- in public feeling since the last century. Take the City ) lous e 4,11,.„ave contintroduce Dissenters into the of London, for instance. A century ago that had been thos e ‘ „,14 k - onunons ri b e ut th e principle has been to exclude the head-quarters of the opposition to the Jews. Now the -,„,,"",`" do not 'belong the principle the Established Church of that city, numbering 20,000 inhabitants, had returned a app r Z e n trY. That state of things no longer exists. I Jew as their representative. During the debatse h u er po e n f as exele 9 that in no sense will be said that Parliament this subject in another place a distinguished . t , persons entertaining 'tier' p s 'Yely---in the sense in which it is used—a Chris- the legal profession had urged in opposition toin member bill, Chris ' Parliament ; that is to say there are modes of be- the inconvenience which would arise from a call of the arl eame ing peculiar opinions, admitted into house being made upon a Friday, upon which day the to b, ut, those opinions being so erroneous as almcst Jewish Sabbath had commenced. He had, however, edini: l3 P cs ed to Christian belief. Now if we extend been assured by a Jewish friend that no inconvenience er eeneo lma to Parliament to person s b o ldi ng opinions so would arise in such a case. The prejudice which existed eipi e f 2p. so grievous, so monstrous, I think the prin- against the Jews was the effect of their legal disabilities. elu s i v 7T us entirely of looking to Parliament as an ex- Prejudices, if not fostered by legal enactments, surely bee 0 :, god of any Christian persuasion. But you have died away in the course of time. Every one could re tbesemY admitted to Parliament persons entertaining collect the prejudice which had existed against Scotch aezel rave opinions, but you have a c t ua lly, a lth oug h men, and how the poetry of Churchill and the prose o f hied o r e not unchristi an i se d P ar li ament, unc h r i st i an - Macklin were levelled at them. When John Earl of li atee _ifer legi s l at i ve bodies. You have by act of Par- Bute was First Minister the complaints were not levelled n a d a :" admitted Jews into the Legislatures of the Ca- so much against his incapacity as at his country. A n ech Land of Jamaica, an d why by so doing you would Scotchman was now upon the Treasury bench who had th eta l st ianise those bodies any more th a n by admitting shown that he would not hesitate to do justice to the ti en i ee t to the Imperial Parliament you would unchris- Jews. As to the objection that the Jews were merely o aris 7 it cannot understand. The truth is, you un- sojourning in this country he believed that they could haii_ a rse neither the one nor the other. Whether th e e , .::!zen Jews be in the Assembly of Canada or in make out a longer term than many others. For in stances—those who came to this country after the Edict the .osta ish House of Commons makes no difference to of Nantes, and those who, like his (the Earl of Albe this °I-letian character of the Assembly. But, after all, merle's) ancestors, came to this country with William 41,,.. exclusiveness, as your lordships are perfectly well leokfee,nrests only on an accident. There is no law at this 111. Spain and Portugal were often referred to upon . the questions of religious disabilities, and the condition 11"_l e . t to exclude the Jews from a seat in Parliament. of those countries was not to be envied by this. Upon tie, ai,e an oath, the whole of which they are not able to the other hand, in Holland, the most Protestant of coun t n oath which I must say is one of the most urine- tries, for 250 years the Jews have enjoyed a perfect Un a ; 3 7 and useless oaths. But they are ready to take equality of therights with those of other citizens. Every atst one knew material prosperity of Holland, and this racter • 11 of abjuration in its substance and essential cha,- surely ought to be an argument of some weight with a ti othz _ , a that they cannot take is an assertion that adds enererg giving to the substance of the oath, but their lordships would show by their vote that they were nation of shopkeepers. In conclusion, he trusted that th at Z . , givulg an additional asseveration at.the close to instances uich they have already sworn. Now,this, in many not unmindful of the rights of their Jewish fellow ietne You have dispensed with. By many acts of Pr subjects. The Earl of DARNLEY house n eu v s oti t n i f against d. this inlela reake" You have allowed Jews to take the oath of abiu eexpressly omitting this asseveration at its close. upon religious motives. It had been e s a a t i l' ee h . at ,Z the mode in which you have extended the power sure, wished to state to the' 1 tdh, ;but tehri it was st so ho: i s in o ei ga l ne y ; h y 4 ri, u , .eisston to your Colonial Legislature. It is the mode lature already numbered among its t e k e l l e i h you have over and over again admitted Jews to and Unitarians. That might be true in ' e attempted plainly to recognise the q aanc 4 _ ll oath in this country. This oath, in its sub- was now of DUBLIN said he did not like:: tio n, ._?.. el is they will take, except this addi- Quakers one time,• anti - Christian spirit would is not binding on their conscience, and I • i n Thette Leg i Archbishopa l at u ra. tee s ask any one of your lordships if you would yen-ferceto enact it at this moment. I think I recollect on a Roman Catholics another, Dissenters another, and then patchwork legislation . : relieving z eest e f occasion that a noble earl opposite, who is fore- Jews. He would prefer a comprehensive bill, to do 'at it l° e verY good work, said he took this as he found bill, if it a as that he would not be ared to introduce such once what had to be done in the end. (Hear, hear.) Before he sat down, he wished . to say one word with cd ?sdition. If so, what beco p m re e p s of the objection to the tale t° enact of the Jews ? If my noble friend would hesi- respect to an evil which might a ariseont of e this 10'4(13 their such an exclusion, surely he ought not to were proffered and passed_ as triumph triumphf Christianity.,, The proper way to consider it was as a of Chris else bee r such dependent on an accident. It has n said tianity—(hear, hear) —and he asked their lordshis to discio 0 that these persdns are in truth not belong n our nation, that the arethat they are a it was a measure in support the bill, not because in favour vith net people, and therefore a l i e ns, ' of the Jews, but because it was a measure support of -,.,_ ~ us, and ought to be excludedhavenothing in l common Christianity. (Cheers.) D'aelotpierny hernia that they are in from our legislature. Christianity. The Bishop of SALISBURY said he saw no weight tin y is and will continue suntil one . sense a . ' in the argument of the most rev. prelate who had last fulfilled, I • o their mysterious Iles-sense an tin' adnift ; but that they ' ' addressed their lordships, that the words "on the true are in any other , ,te any e t n h mg but Englishmen andfaith of a Christian" did not act as a protection to Chris rd ens other, I utterl en ?..... as . good Englishmen . nominal Christians might, under that cover, ens 0e Englishm e n y- You impose on them the , tianity, since 11 , Ann of Englishmen , and you'enter the legislature. Because the bar was not quite co be upon l i t ought to confer the :. be thrown down altogether ? Both, f e a notion which i • t one I hold, therefore, this effectual, was it to undation 1. s 11 terly untenable and'therefore, as a member of their lordships' house, and in mere ~ .. J right reverend f ' e without . friend of I • a for- his capacity as a bishop of the Church, he should give e,.tioscasion, made a forcible nine, on : il : 1 g the Jews from Parliament -observation, that in ex- his vote against the bill. jured , tY " Christian electors you in effect inflict a The Bi hop of ST. DAVID'S agreed with the most ~_ and that it is not , that it is they who are in- rev. prelate (Whately), that it was to be regretted that re to the from a love t t pri v il eges of c ,_ . ohe Jew, but a the title of this bill was such a misnomer, and that it was unctions, he argued, that ' not called a bill for the relief of electors. He had never THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVEN LNG-, APRIL 30. 185f3 heard any 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 is 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 such 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 bow 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 be 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, a nd h e 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 Bing, 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 a Christian," 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 feeling of the country. (Hear.) The Duke of ARGYLL assured 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 he• did not feel bound by the strict rules of logic laid down by the most 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 connected 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 to 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, youlwere 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 subjcct, 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 had 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 not 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 had 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 accidental form of oath which interposed between the voter and the polling booth that they possessed 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 there were 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 Chpstian nation, and therefore Jews ought not now to.be alloived to exercise the functions of the legislator, it would be a duty to exclude them if they already possessed them. With regard to what, after all, was the main question, the noble earl said that the oath required to be taken was a distinct assertion of a pro fbbeoeus tsz much takeni theounc hocfsbcoay,concluding u Christianity. ndlianng 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 ; s for r lu m e i a n n : r t i : e v r e n if indeed,wi twthhooar that a st formed hna odt a beencni i or saids pt Christian. n t .t of f a Ht t h ei et agreedmight oath ; with the most,rev. prelate that there would not be much C in h o r r i e st a iam qs , and it was effectually pees: were an assertion of Christianity, iboilteyivi.eerd argumentH th e at, (the his t D oNivi u h k eia e : question of feeling m th ig oe b fe t Ahrri ta s k til e lan it ch w a h ra o cte w r er o e f annoyt reallyassem bly. se m was impossible to say that it could Y hadg speaking, b e a relic of the prejudices of 'r : .arn ) er b e e f lie a v r ed gum t e h e a t t . th H is e w b a e s : allude, namely, the number of ti n n us ze t s t; Ther•e e i s t c w a a was h a c h t h c remnant Houseane and of Commons had decided on this question, and the was which h e would ad visability of their lordships not interfering with those decisions. Although he was as zealous as any one for 1 the honour and independence of their lordships' house, 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 laage 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 existing 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 spriritual 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 make the laws of a Christian country. If the house consented to this measure, it would inflict a very severe blow upon the country, and he 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 w ou ld vote i n 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 process ; and what happened six years afterwards ? In the year 1721, they struck out the words, " In the pre sence of God, &c." as before they had 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 Ear- 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 been"—what ? 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 th e Ath e i s t 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 uo asperity of party feeling had been shown in this debate ; and that there had been no want of respect shown to that most respectable and 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 . 46-115 96 Non-contents, present Proxies 68-164 Majority against the second reading 49 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, an d appointe d to s i t 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. Mr. FREWEN presented a petition from Sussex in favour of the total repeal of the malt duties. Lord GODERICH presented several petitions from Yorkshire in favour of legalising marriage with a de ceased wife's sister. Mr. OLlV Em E m leßeAffe c p t r . esented several petitions from Kent to the Mr. A. HASTIE presented a petition from tea and coffee dealers in Glasgow, against any increase in their annual licenses. Mr. A. KINNAIRD presented a petition from En field, Middlesex, against the opening of the Crystal 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 petition 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, complaining of being ejected from certain lands purchased by them from the British Government, on the ground of such lands forming part of an " Indian re serve." chester Chamb er o f C ommerce, praying that the g en e - Mr. BRIGHT presented a pe titi on from the Man 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.) Tilt BUDGET. Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from Finsbury, in favour of the Government financial scheme, RAILWAY AMALGAMATION. 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 f p u c . s t i b t i e o r n t p o r o f e o e r e m d ng his s ow nlvb opinion icb vve were e p o n o t i h n a t t e d w hid o c u h t ha W th h e e n p u the by. (Hear, concluded, hear.)p stated magistrate in ewerevide entirely i r pub lic; en n would then have still better grounds on w Bich to arrive at a decision. With regard to the last qc testion, he had to state that it was the duty of the pc lice, according to their general as well as their special in.itructions, to watch th e p roceedings of any persons, wl iether Englishmen or foreigners, who were open—it might be rightly or wrongly —to the suspicion of con tel nplating any breach of the l aw . (H ear, hear.) Nei th ar M. Kossuth, nor any politi ca l re f ugee in this coun try, could be exempt from these or di nary precautions' wb ich were taken against any individual, wheth er h e was a British subject or not. (Cheers.) Alr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the proceed ing s 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. Th , a noble lord, in his answer the other night, and to nig ht, had taken a course which in his (Mr. Bright's) opi neon was not becoming his position, nor becoming the Government of this country in regard to Kos sue!). They spoke in that and the other house as if we offered a refuge to the exiles from all foreign cou ntries--(hear, hear)—but it had been broadly stated in the public press that the Government had either di rect ly or indirectly permitted spies to be set on the house of M. Kossuth- -(hear, hear)—and on all the per son, s who went in or came out of the house, and who were supposed to have any communication with him.. (Hear, hear.) Then 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 askod to state, not the whole 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 conduct of the judges of a constituted court ; bat 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 refugees residing in this country, they were as free as the air they breathed so long as they obeyed and respected the law, • but wh en 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, ind 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 noble 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 t a lk e d o f cons tit u ti ona l 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 calcul a t e d t o exc it e a goo d 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 lie 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 no charge against Kossuth, nor had ho 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 he 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 who 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 dropped. 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 Sudder 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 tion, as the Overland Mail had not yet arrived. The motion that the house at its rising should adjourn until Monday, was then agreed to. 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 rep)aled 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 300,0001. 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 564,287/. The income was expected to produce 460,0001. , the spirit duty 198,000/., and the legacy duty 267 , 00 0 1 .—making altogether 925,040/.—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 be taken into consideration. (Hear, hear.) The Irish people were now watching over their liberties and honour, and if a atalfhnson thought tiut n rgap d . hsa jtrhophshaking ila.libertieslto pi eetorßti to oi e nunderstoodlju trampled theirtLw attack ah kaois another him—(cries they nhh s s 1 ee . i_riyt) oh( honourable(cneLraeus would honourable of h fh t (Laughter.) ee, re permit 1 m, ) ps dissolution should occur, many hon. members would be itilthies h r w r a i s g the hts .ogkemne,telmsep spoke")— and member ne , hac_ . l in tended to do so--(spoke, spoke)—he did not desire to waste the time of the committee, but trusted that he might be allowed t o say one word. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) It p a i n n c i l on n , o t t h v ey ery g vlis.-hasensolmrhsehivmheaut drehffinearerkdaibole b t l h e o , u t g h h a t t , en cre er di all t ; it necessary to indulge in personal insinuations—(hear, hear, and oh, o h)— an d to impute base motives to those' who differed from them. (Spoke, spoke.) If he could condescend to imitate the tone of the honourable gentle man who had just add resse d th e house, he perhaps might succeed in saying disagre ea bl e and offensive things, might succeed in inventing 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 u n k nown, h e believed the humblest member was entitled to defend his personal honour. (Cheers.) Although unknown to the house, h e was content to allow time to settle the question so far a s 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 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 enable!him 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 6,000,0001., 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 vari e ty o f o th er t axes on ar ti c l es of con sumption, yielding a revenue of 32,000,0001., 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 6,000,0001 . (H ear, h ear.) He trusted the income tax would not terminate in 1860, and that before 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 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 A c t o f Uni on h ad not been accom panied by the removal of religious disabilities and the 1 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 Chancell or o f th e E xc h equer 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, ha 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 oppressively 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 Ireland without 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.) Ho 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 cons id ere d w h ether 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, were 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 p a yi ng without a m urmur every tax that was paid in England. (Hear.) He found from the works of Sir John Sinclair, published in 1835, that th ree-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.) He 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 the 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 t o b e introduced into the administration and management of that department of the.public service, would be of the utmost advantage to our commerce. The reducti on o f th e d u ti es 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 Is. 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.) lie 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 the Post-office without paying postage, inasmuch as there were other papers that were entirely devoted to advertisements,which would but still be subjected to the stamp duty, although containing no news whatever. He trusted that this part of the scheme would be modified ; if not, he was afraid it would create much dissatisfaction. He thought that the extension of the legacy duty to real property wasc a a tax, whether levied very grea t m easure, u though he was of opinion that ouch dom. upon real or personal property, was not founded in wis ' h the people of Englan d It was a tax of the nature of wine had always complained, and which was similar to the feudal whichproduced Magna exactions that created the resistance . tion of the Chan- Charta. Perhaps, however, theproposi one at the miler of the Exchequer was the only practicable that at the end of a few present moment ; but he trustedinto a more regular tax years it would transformedbe rotso fi property of every description. upon the rents and the financial results of the budget would Life believed that be much greater, more valuable and productive, th an th e ' Chancellor o f seemed the Exchequer to anticipate, though, at the same time, looking forward to th e possi bility of bad harvests during the next six or seven y ear s, he thought the right honourable gentleman had done wisely in not estimating the produce of the revenue at a greater amount than he had done. He believed that the budget would give nd rcia great satisfto tion the country, and that l a other advanta from it would be such that no one would ges accruing income tax as proposed, although he ad Fornplain of the the most just or equitable tax that nutted it was not Looking at all the advantages that could be imposed. the imposition of the first income ta we had derived from in our commercial legislation —re x, and the alterations prosperous way in which we had rnembering the happy and culties of the last eleven gone through all the diffi while other countries had been rs— bearing in mind that, had maintained peace at home and to sad disasters, we our commerce beyond all aud abroad, and extended that there would be previous anticipations—he trusted very little adoption of the income tax further opposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as proposed, in order that the other parts of his most valuable might be able to carry the scheme. (Heat) ost valuable and important financial Colonel HARCOuRT of the house, desired pre sent occasion, he . e hon. baronet the should , who rose on the Opposition side could state the reasons why, on the cou d not support the amendment of the member for Hertfordshire, and why he vote for the measure proposed by the Government. When he looked back upon the . the enormous benefits which had country by the imposition of the looked forward to the next sere mated the great advantages whip the continuance of the tax, he col himself to vote for an amendmen tinuanco of the tax to be unjusi it was true that the late Chancellp posed to modify to a certain extent, 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 150/. 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 sid 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 aceompanied by a double house tax, which would have fallen with great and oppressive severity upon the very class whose interest some 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.) Ho 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 tho real question to consider was, whether it was unjust that persons possessing an income in the prosperous parts of Ireland should be asked to pay a tax which was imposed upon the holders of income in England. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the proposal was not an unfair nor ureasonable one. The honourable member for Mayo had said that the tenant-farmers were indifferent to this subject ; but blind to their own interests resolution which Chancellor had b en of the Exchequeras the h onourable member supposed that class to be, he (Mr. Herb er t) m i ght inform him that by intelligence which t he h a d received that day . , it appe are d th a t i n one of the unions o f th e county which he had the honour to represent, baoppositionproposedinhad b to the might almo at thrown out by a large majo r ity — so large, indeed, that he say was a unanimous. hear.) He thought that this was a proof that the tenant-farmers were alive to their interests in thi • s respect at least. (Hear, hear, hear). And i n a recent number of the Cork Examiner a letter had appeared, in which the writer expressed an opinion that if Ireland wero to be taxed at all it would be better t o h ave 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 hon. 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 subjec • t 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 fir/leers 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 no 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. (Hear, hear.) With re"ard to the advertisement duty he considered that the right 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 be 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 upon 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 1848, 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 in 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 more 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 of the basis of taxation would be advisable. He should be glad if some member of more weight than himself would move fora committee to inves tigate the whole system, believing, as he did, that such a proceeding would tend more than anything else to dispel the delusion w hi c h the exaggerated statements of the Manchester school had created in the public mind as to the parties upon whom the burden of the taxes principally fell. fore of (Hear.) According to Mr. Gregg, th e t o t a l expendi 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, 45,644,2451 , 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 1/, per head by the working classes, and 61. 10s. 6d. 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., and the remissions would have amounted to 3 ,490,000/., while the increase of taxa tion under the present plan was 3,130,0:101., and the remis sions 5,315,0001., and h e wished especially to call the at tention of the Irish mem berg to the fact, that their share of the additional taxation under this budget would be 698,0001., or 453,000/. a ft er d educting the remission of the consolidated annuities, and including the legacy duty on laud, the increased taxation to be levied on Ireland was 7zz3,000/. 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. Ho 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 its unre formed,• lities undiminished and its injustice as Inagua glaring as ever; nay, when h o e v en proposedse, to extend it I to persons of 1001. a y ea r, an d to a country where it had tent organ turned previously been unknown, that cons ist ent round, and bespattered him with the most fulsome pane gyrics and the warmest app lause. h ( Hear , hear.) The to prove Chancellor of the Exchequer ad taken two hours that the land already paid 9d. in the pound, an d y e t he in vited them to submit to an impost amounting to 2,000,000!, a year. The application of the tax to Ireland had been condemned by Sir R. Peel, and by many of the most dis tinguished men on the opposite side ; and yet those gentle men were now ready to support the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in his design of extending it to that coun try. This might be the last opportunity he (Lord A. Vane) might have of addressing them for a considerable period t o . d dissolution should not take come. Even if the threatened in which so many hon. mem bers he was in the situation been petitionedagainst, bers had found themselves. He had - and seeing that so many gentlemen who had professed themselves to be innocent had been tu rne d out he Could possiblethat, • e it quite though guiltless of ani he might share their fate. au h gal ractice, that g lf should never that p we re so, he regret theL last ter time he was in addressed the house favour of a principle he coned entiously believe to be right, and against that which h e at pledged himself at the hustings to wit CI a t all events, face his constituents with se. lie should, sense, and judgment than those who had more honesty, income tax all their lives, and we condemned the its continuance and extension. ( Hear,re now , going to vote for He should always feel hear, and laughter.) most fence with which his last observeteful for the kind indul in opposition to a tax which i°ns had been received, and to press one uall e considered to be unjust, Mr. p • su e upon a struggling class. support the financial announced his determination to It was impossible to considerpolicy of her Majesty's Government. dated Annuities and th the remission of the Consoli apart. He the ht tha imposition of the income tax by the alteration! t Ireland - would be a great gainer The only way of comparing the two taxes was to capitalise them both. The Consolidated An nuities, then, amount d e to about 4 ,000,000/., and the pre sent value of the posed income tax was ab0ut2,500,000/. which would show a clear gain to Ireland of 1,500,0004 (Hear.) Besides, if they submitted to the tax, they would stand i n a much better position i n case, which' God forbid, Ireland s h ould be visited again by a repetition 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 wou ld be like the Roman emperor, who was glad to give the same price for three Sybilline books for which he might have had the whole nine ; and he hoped the time would never come had not when they would rue the day on which they and fol lowed the advice of an hon. member for Yorkshire, a clinched the bargain with both hands. (Heir, hear.) gentleman would suggest, however, that the right hon. t estates. should make an allowance for the manag e n i gt done in p a id land, hear.) It was true that thiire:7 ren ts were paid land, but the expense was much did not amount to 20s. in more regularly; the poor rt ere net t n the habit of the pound ; and tenants (Laughter and cheers.) For his eloping with their CrOP fe eft s urest taxation, and it would be own part, he P re- as possible to dispense with it, as the come every Y°B lich during 35 years' peace had sprung up ma nufactures w o n the contine nt began to rival our own. (H ear , hear.l u last ten yeara,Od observoo sd been _9 upon think;!" e inco4,l4x; and when he ren of" ')I years, and esti- ich e derived from : nifess- 14 euld net bring at whi tired the con- ). it and . t 0.,, ,'4lough llor a the Exchokirdier ant one of the inequalitiest AT ROTHERHITHE. 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 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 subject, and they were gaining general credence in the metropolis greatly to the injury of the reputation of M. Kossuth. He therefore wished to ask the noble lord the Secretary for the Home 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 PALMERSTON said the house was aware that one of the proceedings before the Bow-street Magistrate with reg ard to the seizure of gunpowder was closed, and that a decision had been given, and that, with regard to the other case as to the rockets, the magistrate interrupted the proceedings, and stated that he thought the case ought to be sent before another tribunal. The honourable gentleman had asked him what was the result of this latter proceeding as regarded certain im putations which had been cast upon M. Kossuth. Now he really could 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 THE BUDGET. Mr. MOORE resumed the adjourned debate with an ex 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 *eller 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 the operation, they had been assailed by the press in language which he regretted should have been pressed into the service. He recollected hearing of the stu dents of Dublin hissing a patient because he declined a very severebut 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 phrase used by every party that was in to every party that was out. 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 used this language might have " supplementary" reasons for so doing—(laughter) ; and whatever came of the budget, he was sure it would be the general opinion that it ought to bo pruned of one excrescense ; that Caesar's wife ought to be above sus picion. As regarded the subject of the Irish income tax, it bad been obscured by two questions 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 the late Government was, n respect to pound, shillings, and pence, precisely the same as that propounded by the present Government, so far as realated to the imposition of the income tax. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed 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 matter of justice, the remission of th e Consolidated Annu ities had nothing to do with th e matter. (Hear, h ear .) He would endeavour to show that Ireland would be taxed more by the present budget that it was at sent. Th e hon. member for Carlo w a d m itt e d that Ireland per would be called upon to pay some paltry 350,0001., which multiplied 4 , 1 ii i 11,i 3 9i 40 ii 1 Xi 1 34 ii ii g j SJ X3O es'° , '3O 1041" ,00 fOt pre' 301