The Sun. — London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

Zbirtr SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock. MARKET INTELLIGENCE. (From the London New Price Current of Dec. 17.) StloAn.—To-day the home trade were less disposed to make purchases in Raw Sugar, whereas there was no improvement in the export demand, and former quotations were not generally abtainable. For West India the demand was limited from refiners and grocers, the private sales not exceeding 333 hhds and tierces, but the rates obtained were much the same as on Friday last: At auctiOn 95 hhds, 11 trs, and 12 barrels of Barbadoes, however, sold 6d per cwt cheaper, low yellow went at 36s 6d to 375, middling 37s 6d to 395, good 39s 6d to 40s, and fine 41s to 43s per cwt. The total sales for the week are 2,370 hhds and tierces of West India Sugar. RSIPINED.—To-day refined goods were in excellent request; low to fine brown Lumps 52s 6d to 533 6d, and standard Lumps 54s per cwt., and upon which terms not many parcels were to be obtained. Bonded crushed is held with firmness; first sort 30s to 31s per cwt. MAURlTll73.—Although there are sellers of inferior and brown descriptions at a further reduction in prices of 6d to is per cwt, yet on the part of the home trade er exporters, little disposition has been shown to do busi ness. The supply continues to be large, and merchants are anxious sellers. For the better qualities of yellow and grey the demand, however, is more active, and a good business has been concluded, but holders are com pelled to accept previous rates, as there is yet a fair supply. At auction 1,410 bags of the new crop found buyers. EAST INDIA.—To• day Bengal was not more in de mand, and 2,119 bags at auction went at barely former rates. At public sale 777 bags of Singapore Sugar on low terms. Of Penang 1,885 baskets and 11 bags were offered, and went at very low prices. FOREIGN.—To-clay there was no public sale of Fo reign Sugar, and privately the purchases made were of little moment; holders, however, refused to accept lower rates. MOLASSES.--To-day, at auction, 100 puns of Barba does were taken in at 18s, and 231 puns of St. Vincent as 16s. COFFEE.—This afternoon of Ceylon Coffee 1,008 bags and 39 casks were offered at public sale. Plantation was in better demand, and the whole sold at stiffer rates. Of washed Rio 139 bags 7 tierces were taken in at 35s for fine ordinary, and 200 brls Bahia at 32s for good ordinary mixed. Cocoa.—For West India former rates are required; the sales made privately are, however, to a small ex tent only, red at 403 to 495, and grey at 37s to 445. This afternoon 127 bags of Bahia at auction sold at 36s for fine bright red, which is cheaper. 6 bags Caracca went at the high rate of 60s 6d for bold dark grey. TEA.—There has been no public sale held this week, and none was received. Privately the market is, however, abundantly supplied with all descriptions. The purchases made in Congou of all kinds have been trifling. Holders, however, are not dis posed to submit to any further reduction in the value. Pouchong is little required, whilst low and middling can be obtained at 3d to sd, and the better quality 6d to Bd. The sales made in Souchong are triflng, and holders are willing to accept tid to is for low and middling, and le 2d to 2e for good and fine. The market for all kinds of Green Teas is in a very unsatisfactory state, and some holders are inclined to submit to further reduced rates. Mon.—To-day at public sale 8,684 bags of Arracan Rice were all taken in at lOs to 103 6d for middling to good Pearl Barley, 9s for cargo, and at 8s to 9s for sea damaged. Privately there was little passing in any kind. FRUIT.—The private transactions have been extensive, but in consequence of the immense supply merchants are eompelled to accept further reduced rates. At auction 10 butte. 10 crts, 10 brls new Zante Currants, damaged, 36s to 395. 94 butts, 48 crtls Putras 33s to 355; 200 boxes Valencia "Raisins sold at 31s. 914 boxes Elaine 41s to 42e. 14,922 drums and boxes Turkey pulled Figs partly sold. Sercas.—To-day at public sale 31 casks of Jamaica Ginger were sold at 753 to 100 s for good quality ; 112 bags of Pimento went at a turther reduction of lf, mid selling at 3id, low mid 34d. and good ord 3i to aid ; 100 bags cloves sold at 64d to 6id for good, one lot kid, and damaged Sid to 6kd, which are rather rates; two cases Mace went at 2s 5d for middling quality. SPIRITS.—Holders of Leeward Island Rum are un willing to make any further concession in the value, although the sales concluded this week are trifling, and do not exceed 150 puns at is 7d to is 8d proof strength. East India has been operated in with caution at is 6d to Is 64d proof with certificate. Demerara is less re quired, and it must be quoted rather cheaper. Of Jamaica there are large arrivals, whilst the home and export demand has fallen off considerably, and the rates taken are rather under those that existed previously. All sorts have been operated in with caution. Brandy has been operated in with more freedom, and prices have risen Id to 2d per gallon for old sorts. The stock, however, is less than it was, and is now not more than 8,800 puns and hhds. There is yet an active de mand for Spirits made hero from Sugar and the price is firm at Pas 7d per gallon, the supply is yet small. Geneva is dull of sale. Immoo.—The demand continues on the increase for all descriptions of East India, and prices tend upwards; holders also have confidence, and offer only a limited quantity for sale. There has been a good home demand by private treaty this week, and exporters have been purchasers to a fait extent. At public sale 240 chests of sea damaged Bengal, went at 2d to 3d per lb advance. OlLS.—This afternoon Palm Oil did not decline in value; 100 casks at auction taken in at 26s to 30s. Of Sperm 125 tuns sold at lower rates. Southern is wanted, and prices are firm; 10 tone at auction sold at 23l lOs to 251 for low and ordinary. Cocoa Nut is cheaper; 30 tons went at 58s 6d to 61s. TALLOW.—This afternoon the public sales of Tallow went off quietly, and at easier rates. 827 casks of New South Wales were most sold at 41s to 46s 6d, very low 39s 6d to 40; 680 casks of Odessa and Taganrog 42e to 463; 33 casks East India 435 to 455. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. ' The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, took his seat upon the Woolsack shortly after Five o'clock. MEDALS TO THE NAVY. Lord COLVILLE asked whether it was intended to recommend any extension of the order made in the month of June last, recommending an extension of the distribution of medals for services in the navy. The Earl of AUCKLAND replied that ri deputation of officers had represented to the Admiralty the pro priety of such extension, and that the Admiralty was vepared to recommend an extension of such distributon. £here was no objection to furniah the Noble Lord with any information he might desire on the subject. PETITIONS. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a land lord in Ireland, stating that his tenants on whom he had distrained had cut off and carried away the standing corn, and praying that measures might be adopted for the protec tion of life and property in Ireland. Also a petition from some place in Denbighshire, praying the House to adopt measures to punish those priests who published the bull " In calla domini," a hich censured the Queen and her loyal Protestant subjects ; and also to punish those priests who denounced persona from the altar. The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented several peti tions against Jewish emancipation. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented several petitions in favour of that measurer. Lord FARNHAM presented several petitions praying for some measure to punish denunciations by Catholic priests from the altar. Also a petition from the magis trates and other inhabitants of the county of Tipperary, complaining of the inefficiency of the measure introduced by the Government for the repression of crime and outrage in Ireland, and praying for a measure of re pression of a general and permanent character. The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented a petition from Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, praying the House to adopt measures to prevent the publication of the Bull " In cceaa Domini" in these realms. CASE OF DR. HAMPDEN. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose together, and both commenced speaking. The Marquis of Lansdowne, however, gave way to The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, who asked whether the remonstrance of the bishops against the recommendation of the Rev. Dr. Hampden to the see of Hereford, addressed to Lord J. Russell, is an authentic document, and whether the Govercment intended to persevere in that recommendation ? He could not but recollect that when, under a former Administration, a certain diplomatic appointment had been made, the Noble Lord at the head of the Government had come forward and challenged that appointment, and that in consequence of the challenge of that appointment the person_ so appointed had at once waived that appoint ment, and he thought he had a right, acting upon the example of th e N o b le Lord to chalenge this appoint ment- lie was aware the Crown had that right to make theapp o at n slimet me n fe whenb he challenged it as unwise and inex pedient controversy in the Church was so rife. He trustedthean r ip e otreent would not be hurried for ward in each a manner it taking place In this House, s se to prev en t any di scuss i on on ,A l in another place. The Marquis of LANSDO would confine himself to answering the questi on of which the Noble Marquis the particulars of had given notice, and would not his speech. He believed that the published iniiisted correspon s was correct dence between Lord J. Russell and ti t and if the Noble Marquis would re er to Jil l' estri an G d ov t e h ru at would find the eongi dllire had been issueed,,Ga2etie' he therefore, it was the intention of her Maj meat to persevere in the appointment. The Bishop of ROCHESTER said, that it was with regret thst he heard the determination of the G overn _ went bo persevere in the appointment of Dr. Hampden. There was no person more opposed than he was to Tractarian principles and he believed that the great majority of the clergy of his diocese entertained the same views with himself; but al though he was strongly opposed to tractarian views, and had a great respect for Lord John Russell personally, yet he considered that other persons besides those holding tractarian views were opposed to the appoint ment of Dr. Hampden. He thought that if the appoint ment were brought before a proper tribunal it would not take place. He believed Dr. Hampden to be a very excellent person, but he considered that he held erroneous doctrines. He believed that it was necessary to confirm the appointment by the imposition of hands by other bishops, but he begged to say that he would not be a party concerned. CRIMINAL LAW. Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he should, after 1 the recess, at the earliest convenient opportunity, pre- , sent his Bill for the consolidation of the criminal law. CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Bill. The Earl of WINCHELSEA complained that the Government had not adopted more energetic mea sures, and unless they were adopted, the dreadful state of disorganisation would go on. These outrages had not arisen from distress. They had occurred in the most prosperous parts of Ireland, and increased the dis tress by driving from Ireland the resident land lords. If the Government had acted with huma nity, it would long since have proclaimed military law in those districts, and tranquillity would have been restored. The present measure would prove utterly inefficient, if it did not even tend to the encou ragement of crime. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY contended that no measure would be of any effect which did not deprive the people of Ireland generally of the possession of arms. (LEFT SPEAKING.) THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EV E NING, DECEMBER _l7 l 1847. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. Mr. SOMERS and Mr. HOWARD took the oaths and their seats. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Mr. TUFNELL. a new writ was ordered for Rye, in the room of Mr. Curteis, decased. , OUTRAGE—IRELAND. Mr.:ANSTY presented a petition from Birmingham, signed by 1,600 persons, against the Crime and Outrage Bill, and praying for the introduction of the Bill for the establishment of tenant right in Ireland. HEALTH OF TOWNS. Mr. ALCOCK presented a petition from Surrey, in favour of the introduction of some measure to secure the health of towns. DENUNCIATIONS AT THE ALTAR. Viscount COURTENAY presented petitions from Devonshire, praying for an inquiry into the statements that had been made as to the denunciations at the altar in various parts of Ireland. Mr. W. FOX presented a petition from Oldham, pray ing that in any course that might be adopted to prevent crime and outrage in Ireland, it might be accompanied with remedial measures. Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from Lismore, complaining of the operation of the poor•liw in Ireland. Dr. BOWRING presented petitions from ♦arious places, praying for an examination into the civil as well as the criminal law. Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Clerken well, praying that the Woods and Forests might be authorised to carry out the improvements originally contemplated of carrying a street from Farringdon-street to Clerkenwell, and the removal of the Fleet ditch. JE WISH DISABILITIES. A great number of petitions were presented by several Members, among whom were Mr. Spooner, Mr. Law, and Mr. Tatton Egerton, against the admission of Jews into Parliament. SANITARY REFORM. Lord ASHLEY presented petitions from various parts of Somerset praying for sanitary reform. ELECTION PETITIONS. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had re ceived a report from the examiners of election petitions that the recognizances in respect of the petitions com plaining of undue returns for Chiltenham, Leicester, Drogheda, Stockport, Bodmin, Carlisle, and Bolton, had been completed. THE MAURITIUS. O❑ the motion of Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, the petition of the members of the Mauritius Association was ordered to be printed with the votes. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice that, immediately after the recess, he should call the attention of the House to a plan for employing able-bodied poor upon reproduc tive works. _ _ Mr. HINDLEY gave notice that on Monday he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee appointed to inquire into the causes of commercial dis tress to inquire specially into the means which induced the directors of the Bank, on the 27th August, 1846, to reduce the minim im rate of interest to 3} per cent., and o continue the same until January, 1847. SHANNON NAVIGATION. Dr. BOWRING moved for returns from the Audit Board, showing the date up to which the accounts of the sums received and expended by the Shannon Naviga tion Commissioners under the Act 2 and 3 Vic. c. 61, for works, and rents, and tolls, have been examined and audited; also, of such of the said accounts as have been examined but not yet audited : showing the arrears, if any, of the delivery of the said accounts, up to the present time, for examination by the Audit Board ; and what proceedings have been taken by the Audit Board, with the dates thereof, with reference to the Act 46 Geo. 111. c. 141, and the Act 2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 104, requiring the delivery of the said: accounts ; and showing the date up to which the Commissioners of the Board of Works have rendered accounts of the expenditure under the Acts 1 Vic. c. 21, 9 Vic. c. 1, and 2 and 10 Vic. c. 107, to the Commissioners for auditing the Public Accounts, or to any Commissioners specially appointed by the Treasury fur the examination thereof.—Agreed to. TURNPIKE TRUSTS. Mr. FORSTER moved fora tabular return of the names of each of the surveyors, treasurers, sub-sur veyors, and inspectors of Turnpike Trusts and Commis sions in England and Wales, with the name of the Trust or Commission, the separate and aggregate salaries or other emoluments derived by each individual holding any one or more of those appointments, distinguishing the sums received under each head, in the c Ise of indi viduals holding more than one appointment ; stating also whether they are in any trade or profession other than as officials under the said Trusts or Commission. THE NAVY. Mr. COBDEN moved for a return of the British naval force in the Tagus, and in the other waters of Portugal, on the Ist day of each of the twelve months ending De cember 1847 ; containing the names and descriptions of the vessels, with their complement of guns, and the number of their crews.—Agreed to. CHURCH RATES _ _ _ Lord NUGENT presented a petition complaining of the practice of forcing Dissenters to pay church rates. He is as confined for a refusal to pay ss. He was aware that this House could only give him relief by the abro gation of the Church•rate law for which he prayed. NAVIGATION LAWS. Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE gave notice that on Mon• day he should ask when it was the intention of the Noble Lord, Lord John Russell, to bring forward his measure with respect to the navigation•laws? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he should not be able on Monday to state the precise day on which he should bring forward the measure, but he was then pre pared to say, that that measure would be introduced at the very earliest period after the recess. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. LABOUCHERE, in answer to a question put on a previous evening by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Mahon), said that no dispatch had been received from Governor Grey on the subject, with reference to which the Noble Lord had put a motion on the table. Lord MAHON complained that there was no assimi lation in the mode of laying papers before the House pursued by the Foreign and Colonial officers, the former officers giving the dates of the dispatches, which the latter did not. He wished to know whether the officers could not be assimilated in this respect. Mr. LABOUCHERE had communicated with the Secretary for the Colonies, and that Noble Lord had no objection to urge against the same rate applying in the case of the Colonial-office. GOODS IMPORTED INTO SPAIN. Mr. BANKES said that with respect to a question asked of the Foreign Secretary last night be did not see the Noble Lord then in the House ; but as the Noble Lord at the head of the Government and the President of the Board of Trade were in their places, perhaps they could answer. He wished to know if the Government had received any intimation from the Spanish Government that that country had altered the tariff on all goods imported into Spain from other countries? ............„.... Mr. LABOUCHERE expected the Noble Lord in his place presently, when he would answer the queslion of the Hon. Member. PUBLIC PROSECUTION IN CRIMINAL CASES. Mr. S. WORTLEY begged to give notice that he should put a question, on Monday, with reference to the necessity of establishing a pablic prosecutor in criminal cases. Sir GEORGE GREY said that the question had been under consideration but no definite plan had been yet settled. Mr. WAKLEY thought that the sooner a public pro secutor were provided the better. CHELTENHAM ELECTION. _ _ Mr. WALPOLE, in moving the consideration of the petition of Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., M.P. (pre sented 14th December), alleging that the recognisance entered into by the petitioners against the return, is not in the form prescribed by the Act 7 and 8 Vic. c. 103, and praying that no further proceedings may be had upon the said petition, said that the recognisances en tered into on the case of the petition against the return for Cheltenham was not in the form required by the Act, inasmuch as the electors, who were bound, did not enter into their recognisances severally as well as jointly. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to precedents in which the Speaker had decided Lthat costs could not be paid in similar cases; and Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Tindal had decided that as the pro ceedings in one of the cases had commenced with a upon the' face of them, that they could not be rectified. This opinion was also entertained by some of the ablest lawyers in the courts, namely, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Austin. Another question—and it was an important one —was, whether the decision of the examiner of the recognisances was final or not?—(Hear, hear.) This officer gave two certificates—first, that the recognisances entered into Were in the form prescribed by the Act; and secondly, that the sureties were sufficient. These were important matters for the consideration of the House, as the The on. a i n i T E L i e g pmaerattness of f nterested on the other side had no other that the sureties were defective. the appointment -a P r a ne—d e -M e Th Member concluded by moving the aeatieetsaf o t T ile b 1 ct Committee to inquire into to the House. petit ion, and report upon the same important was The SOLICITOR-GENERAL m uch mi staken if there was not a much more H t e h a e r ; i, he a a fte ri n t th e al: i tt s -: On this subject than the question container qtiuninrynwowas,bewfohreeththere t H h o ey ns c e o . House.—(Hear, of the Act entertain jurisdiction of mg any such hear.) That was the matter.—(Hear, question for the consideration 0f the House, and he bitted that they were not such a court as could entertain juris diction on the present matter.—(Hear, hear.) Either by way of appeal or review. He asserted that upon two grounds—first, on the general question; and, secondly, upon the construction of the question upon the present petition with reference to the Act of Parliament— That House was a difficult and bad tribunal to try difficult questions of law.—(Hear, hear.) What was the object of the Act in some of its principal clauses ? It was to withdraw from the consideration of the House the consideration of ques tions that could be much better settled elsewhere. He contended that under the circumstances of this case the House had no power to interfere. The House had delegated its authority in such cases to the Examiner of Recognizances, and the House could not consistently move in the matter. The Right Honourable Gentleman then went on to read a number of similar cases where the House had refused to interfere, and grounded his opinion that it would be contrary to law if the House departed from the rule established by these precedents. (LEFT SPEAKING.; BANK OF ENGLAND. (From the night's Gazette.) An Account, pursuant to the ♦ct 7th and Bth of Victoria, cap.32,for the Week ending on Saturday, the I ith day of December, 1847. 1881111 DITAZTICENT. X. Notes 135ued........ 24,769,685 Government debt •• 11,015,10 Other securities .. • . 2,984.900 Gold coin and bullion 9,450,007 Silver bullion ••• • • • 1,319,678 Z 24,769,685 I £ 24,769,684 M. MARSEIALL, ChistCa3hier. r, 1847. Dated the 16th day of Deceml BANKING D 1 X. Proprietors' capital . • 14,553,000 Rest • • -•••.. • • . • . 3,601,390 Public deposits (in cluding Exchequer, Commissioners of National Debt, Sav ings-banks, and Di vidend accounts) .. 8,229,759 Other deposits .... • • 8,437.376 Seven day and other bills . • • • • • • • .- .... 861,271 .AITXIIf T. Government securi ties (including Dead Weight Annuity) • . 10,946,594 Other securities •• • . 17,430,931 Notes ••••••• • • • • • • • 6,448,780 Gold and silver coin.. 06,491 £35,662,796 i 135,682,796 M. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier. r. 1847. Dated the 16th day of Deceml THE LONDON GAZETTE. (THIS EVENING.) ST. JAMES'S PALACE, DEC. 12, 1847. The Queen has been pleesed to appoint Edwin Sann. ders, Esq. to be Dewtist in Ordinary to her Majasty. - WHITEHALL, DEC. 13. _ The Queen has been pleased by letters patent under the great seal of the United Kingdom to nominate, con stitute, and appoint Charles Buller, Esq., to be a Poor law Commissioner for England. CROWN-OFFICE, DEC. 16, 1847. MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PAR, LIAMENT. Borough of Liskeard—Charles Buller the younger, of Chester-place, in the county of Middlesex, Esq., one of the Commissioners for administering the poor•law in England. Borough of Weymouth—The Hon. Frederick Wil liam Child Villiers, in the room of William Dougal Christie, Esq., who has accepted the office of Steward of her Majesty's Chiltern Hundreds. City of Edinburgh—Charles Cowan, of Valley-field, in the county of Edinburgh. Esq. WAR• OFFICE, DEC. 17. 2d Begiment of Life Guards—Lieutenant William Augustus Tollemache to be Captain, by purchase, vice Boyce, promoted ; Cornet and Sub-Lieutenant William Hamilton Greville to be Lieutenant by purchase, vice Tollemache ; Charles Hayes Miller Gent., to be Cornet and Sub-Lieutenant, by purchase, rice Greville, Dec. 17. Ist Regiment of Foot—Brevet-Major Henry Phipps Raymond to be Major, by purchase, vice Bennett, who retires ; Lieutenant John Edward Sharp to be Captain, by purchase, vice Raymond; Ensign Edward Hamilton Finney to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Sharp; Charles James Phillipps, Gent., to be Ensign by pur chase, vice Finney, Dec. 17. 4th Foot—Surgeon Thomas Galbraith Logan, M.D., from the 53d Foot, to be Surgeon, vice Dartnell, who exchanges, Oct. 11. 10th Foot—Captain George Frederick Moore, from the 28th Foot, to be Captain, vice Gorle, who exchanges, Nov. G. 18th Foot Major Francis Williams Dillon to be Lieutenant Colonel, without purchase, vice Cowper, deceased; Brevet-Major Francis Wigston to be Major, vice Dillon ; Lieutenant John Joseph Wood to be Captain, vice Wigston ; Ensign Edward Jones to be Lieutenant, vice Wood, Dec. 7; Ensign George Augustus Elliot, from the 44th Foot, to be Ensign, vice Jones, Dec. 17. 22 Foot—Lieutenant Frederick Genrge Moore, from the 28th Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Ussher, who ex changes, Oct. 1. 25th Foot—Gentleman Cadet William Henry Newen ham, from the Royal Military College, to be Ensign, without purchase, vice M'Beatb, deceased, Dec. 17. 28th Foot—Captain John Taylor Gork, from the 10th Foot, to be Captain, vice Moore, who exchanges; Lieutenant John Theophilus Ussher, from the 22d Foot, to be Lieutenant, vive Moore, who exchanges; Oct. 1. 44th Foot—Gentleman Cadet Julius George Mangen Strode, from the Royal Military College, to be Ensign, without purchase, vice Elliot, appointed to the 18th Foot, Dec. 17. _ 53d Foot—Surgeon Nelson Dartnell, from the 4th Foot, to be Surgeon, vice Logan, who exchanges, Oct. 11. 76th Foot—George Anderson Wilkinson, Gent. to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice Wallace, deceased, Dec. 17. 84th Foot—Lieutenant John Willington Monck to be Adjutant, vice Seymour, promoted, Dec. 17. 86th Foot—Lieutenant Charles Fade Heatley to be Paymaster, vice Ormond, deceased; Lieutenant Ormond Fitz Gerald, from the Cape Mounted Riflemen, to be Lieutenant, vice Heatly, appointed Paymaster, Dec. 17. 93d Foot—Ensign Robert Eglinton Seton to be Lieu tenant, by purchase, vice M'Donald, promoted in the 37th Foot; John Millar Bonnatyne, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase. vice Seton, Dec. 17. 94th Foot.—Ensign James Buchanan, to be Lieute nant, without purchase, vice Cardew, deceased, Aug. 25, 1847 ; Enbigu Norcliffe Bendyshe Walton to be Lieute nant by purchase, vice H. W. Cleveland, who retires ; Donald Macleod Farrington, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Walton, Dec. 17 ; John Edmund White, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Buchanan, Dec. 11. 2d West India Regiment—Lieut. J. Warren Glubb to be Captainn, without purchase, vice Campbell deceased ; Ensign Alexander John Blair Child, to be Lieutenrnt, vice Glubb, Oct. 26 ; Samuel Sexton, Gent. to be En sign, vice Child ; Lieut. J. M'Dona gh to be adjutant, vice Harper, who resigns the Adjutancy only, Dec. 17. , Ceylon Rifle Regiment—Second Lieutenant Charles Caldwell Grantham to be First Lieutenant, without pur chase, vice Irwin, appointed to the 18th Foot; Lieu tenant Francis Taylor, from half-pay 46th Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Adams, appointed to the 49th Foot, Dec. 17; Second Lieutenant Charles Peregrine Teesdale to be First Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Taylor, who retires, Dec. 18; James Winterbottom, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, vice Grantham, Dec. 17; Walter Henry Long, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by pur chase, vice Teesdale, Dec. 18. Cape Mounted Riflemen—Lieutenant William Henry Emerson, from half•pay 39th Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Fitz Gerald, appointed to the 86th Foot, Dec. 17. HOSPITAL STAFF. —Frederick Augustus Kingdon, M.D., to be Assistant Surgeon to the Forces. Dec. 17. Erratum in the Gazette of Oct. 14, 1842-44th Foot— For Lieut. William Evans to be Captain, vice Robinson, killed in action, Oct. 14, 1842, read, Lieutenant William Henry Dodgin to be Captain, vice Robinson, killed in action, Nov. 15, 1841; and Lieutenant William Evans to be Captain, vice Dodgin, killed in action, Oct. 14, 1842. MEMORANDIIM.—The names of the gentleman, ap pointed to the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards, on the 10th instant, are Arthur John Bethell Thel. lusson. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, DEC. 16. Royal Regiment of Artillery—Major General Thomas John Forbes to be Colonel Commandant, vice Lieute- nant General Sir Joseph Carncross, 1i.C.8., deceased, Dec. 8. Commission by the Lord-Lieutenant of Merionethshire. Royal Merionethshire Rifle Corps of Mirtia—The Hon. Edward Mostyn Lloyd Mostyn to be Lieutenant- Colonel, Dec. 14. ADMIRALTY. DEC. 14. Corps of Royal Marines—John Burstead Seymour, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, Dec. 9; Arthur John Stuart, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, Dec. 14. ADMIRALTY, DEC. 17. The following promotions have this day taken place, consequent upon the death of Vice-Admiral Peter Ri bouleau, on the 16th instant : Vice-Admiral of the Blue John Wight, to be Vice-Ad- miral of the White. Rear-Admiral of the Red Sir Charles Richardson, K.C.8., to be Vice-Admiral of the Blue. Rear-Admiralof the While Charles James Johnston to be Rear-Admiral of the Red. Rear-Admiral of the Blue Thomas Searle, C.B. to be Rear-Admiral of the White. Captain Edward Harvey to be Rear-Admiral of the Blue. _ _ _ WHITEHALL, NOY. 20. The Lord Chancellor has appointed William Dowell Wasbrough, of Wantage, in the county of Barks, Gent., to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery. WHITEHALL, DEC. 11. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Alfred Whiteman, of Eastbourne, in the county of Sussex, Gent, to be a Master Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery BANKRUPTS SUPERSEDED. William Thacker, licensed victualler, Birmingham. BAKRUPTS. Joseph Robinson, draper, Ipswich. Thomas Raymond. builder, Bishop's-road, Paddington Henry White Lake, commission merchant, Liverpool Richard Newman, grocer, Bristol. Samuel Brown Fry, warehouseman, Bristol. John Davison, coach builder, Leeds. John Leedbam, innkeeper, Northowram, Yorkshire. William Lake, printer, Fleet-street. John Morrison, tailor, Cheapside. Henry Edward Field, eating housekeeper, Mark-lane. Henry John Hammond, architect, Threadneedlestreet. Thomas Holmes, bleacher, Pendleton. Thomas Stott, laceman, Liverpool. George Davy Ewens, butter merchant, Axminster. George Butler, ship broker, Liverpool. Edward Alanson, wine merchant, Liverpool. Adam Singer, grocer, Trowbridge, Liverpool. John Rickards, woollen dra per, . Merthyr Tydvil. John Parry Platt, commission merchant, Liverpool. Algernon Horatio Swift, iron merchant, Crosby Hall chambers, Bishopsgate-street. Edward Briggs, hatter, Cadletoimille, Rochdale. John Norris, woollen merchant, Manchester. William Boyls, licensed victualler, Upper Lisson street, Lisson• grove. Frederick Pike, tallow chandler, High-street, South wark. John Binns, linen draper, Newland-place, Kensington. George Workman, beer shopkeeper, St. George's place, Water-lane, Brixton. George Rigby and John Rigby, coal merchants, Liver pool. Isaac Newton Pearce, stationer, Liverpool. Robert Roberts, innkeeper, Denbigh. PRICE OF SUGAR. The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed from the returns made in the week ending December 1* 1847, is 225. Vhd. per cwt. TUE SEE or HEREFORD.--We understand that yesterday the first formal step was taken, in the proper Court, at Doctors' Commons, to bring to a legal test the orthodoxy or otherwise of Dr. Hampden. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF COMMONS, Dec. 16. JEWISH DISABILITIES. (Continued from our Third Edition of last night.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL—As I understand that my Honourable Friend the Member for the University of Oxford means to oppose the motion for . the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the disabilities at present affecting her Ma jesty's Jewish subjects, I feel myself compelled, before making that motion, to state to the House the general grounds on which I intend to rest it. I am, at the same time, given to understand by my Hon. Friend, that if a majority of the House should agree to go into Committee on the subject, he does not mean to carry his opposition to the point of refusing to consent to the Committee adopting the resolution which is necessary to the intro duction of a Bill. That being the case, it will be as convenient to the House to take the discussion at this stage as to reserve it, as was done on former occasions, till the House had resolved itself into Com mittee. In bringing forward this subject I feel that I cannot avail myself of many of the topics which those who formerly proposed the removal ofdisabilities on account of religious tenets-were able to appeal to for the purpose of inducing this House to comply with their propositions. I cannot say—as I did in proposing the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts—" Here are some three millions of her Majesty's subjects, engaged in all the pursuits of industry in your cities and towns, forming a most important portion of the community, and distin guished for their loyalty to the House of Hanover, un deviatingly maintained ever since that illustrious family was seated on the throne of these realms." I cannot, like the great orator who introduced the question of Catholic disabilities, refer to the state of a neighbour- ing country as a potent motive to induce the House to remove the cause of discontent and dissatisfaction. I cannot speak, as he did, of the indignation felt by a whole people at the deprivation of their rights; nor can I point to the dangers which would menace the peace and welfare of the country from refusing the claim to relief. I can employ none of these arguments in favour of my pro position. I feel that this is a question which does not affect a very large portion of the people of this country, and does not involve in its acceptance or rejection the momentous consequences which were justly apprehended on former occasions. I am prepared to argue this ques tion as one of principle, not of political expediency—as a question involving, indeed, the political liberties of the country, but involving them only as they concern 30,000 or 40,000 people, members of a community which is not disposed, nor indeed able, if it were disposed, to excite clamour and tumult, to agitate the country by means of public meetings, or to produce social convulsion, if its demands should not be conceded. But, although I am unable to appeal to the topics to which I have referred, I must, nevertheless, take the liberty of informing the House that there may be danger, not affecting the public tranquillity, indeed, but affecting the character and dignity of the Legislature, if the claims of our Jewish fellow-subjects continue longer to be re fused. It may then be said that the Legislature is un willing to concede the claim of religious liberty, that Parliament has never adopted those just principles of equality which ought to be applied to all the subjects of her Majesty; but that when the question regarded vast bodies of men, important from their numbers and wealth, or threatening from their dissatisfaction and discontent, the Legislature yielded a reluctant assent to their claims for the sake of immediate peace; and that when an op portunity presented itself of doing an act of justice with out any danger, and without inconvenience to public interests, the Parliament acted on the principle of reli gious persecution, and was determined to show the world that it was not from any willingness to adopt en larged and liberal principles as the rule of its conduct that it had on former occasions yielded to the petitions of its fellow-subjects.—(Cheers.) I venture to say, that if such an opinion as that should become prevalent,it must have a very injurious effect on the character of this House, There is, as I have before said, but little risk of danger to the public, peace involved in the rejection or adop don of my proposition. One danger was pointed out as likely to arias from its adoption, many years ago, by my Hon. Friend who intends to oppose me on the present occasion, but he is not in a position to repeat his warn , ing now. In 1830 my Hon. Friend took upoa himself the character of a prophet, and said, " You may depend upon it that if you admit the Jews to civil offices and seats in Parliament, it will follow that in less than seven years you will have a reform of Parliament."—(Hear, and laughter.) But, without the admission of Jews to Parliament, as the precursor of the so much dreaded event, within two years of the time when my Hon. Friend used those words I have referred to the reform of Par liament was effiacted.—(Hear.) Therefore, there is, at least, cne danger which it will be unnecessary to take into consideration in discussing this question.—(Hear.) I place the question upon this simple, but, I think, solid grouad—that every Englishman is entitled to the honours and advantages which the British constitution gives him.—(Cheers.) I state further that religious opinion of itself ought to be no disqualification for the enjoyment of those rights.—(Renewed cheers.) I found myself on a declaration in one of the statutes of the law of England—" It is the birthright of the people to en• joy the privileges common to all." I found myself on a declaration made in the House of Lords during the dis cussions on the Conformity Bill :—" The Lords think g o n hist a than princeto h andput b y country lawunder and therefo re incapa citythereforehappy of condit i on nothing but a ,crime of the most detestable nature ought to put him under such a disability." I say, then, that on this ground, unless something shall be proved to disqualify Jews, they stand in the position of persons born in this country, bearing all the burdens which are imposed on them, and ready to serve their prince and their country in any capacity which they may be called upon, and that, therefore, they are en titled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by their fellow-subjects.—(Cheers.) I state this with confidence, and I will not attempt to ask your favour by anything which I might urge in behalf of the merits of the Jews. I think this is not a matter of favour towards the Jews, but that, unless some strong ground of disqualification be proved against them, it is a matter of right.— (Cheers.) I, therefore, will not urge that even those who have opposed the claims of the Jews have admitted their peaceable conduct and their moral character as subjects—that they are governed by that moral law which is adopted by and is binding on us—that there is among them many persons distinguished for eminent talents— that in the offices to which they have been admitted they have shown themselves as capable of discharging their duty as any of. their competitors ; and that in various other capacities, as well as in the pursuit of science and art, they have shown themselves competent, by their in telligence, to undertake the duties of any position to which an Englishman may aspire. —(Cheers.) I will not urge these circumstances, because, by doing so, I might seem to make this a matter of f avour and indulgence. No I I ask the Legislature to remove the disabilities under which the Jews labour, not on account of any peculiar merits belonging to her Majesty's Jewish sub jects, but because, being subject to the burdens of the State, being born is this country, being compelled to fulfil all those duties which the State imposes on them, I maintain that they have a just claim to be admitted to its honours and rewards.—(Cheers.) I come, then, without pressing any peculiar merits appertaining to the Jews, to consider the objections which are urged in bar of the recognition of the rights which I claim for them. In the front of those objections this is put—that it is proposed to un-Christianize the country—that it is proposed to take away the Christian character of the country by admitti ng not only Jews, but every kind of infidel intolp ar li ament an d the offices of State. — (Hear, hear.) Th e li on . M em b e r by that cheer seems to ad mit that I am correct ly s tating the objections which are urged to th e measure I am advocating. I will not say, in answer t o suc h o bj ec tions that the religion of man is a thing apart from the business of man.—(Hear, hear.) I certainly will not say otherwise than that I think that in our private concerns—in our daily occupations—in all those trades and pro f ess i o ns which men exercise, religion should have influence and control. Sti ll more, ther efore , when I am s p ea ki ng o f t h e Legislature which has to dispose of all the var i ous i nteres t s of the country, should I be disposed to iay th a t religion ought to influe n ce and con trol its d ecisions , —(H ear , hear.) I do not, therefore, argue this quest i on on th e ground that civil offices and seats in Parliament are totally separate and apart from religion; but what I do contend for is, that it is entirely a mistake to suppose that by the words of an Act of Parliament, by the postcript of an oath or the fag end of a declaration, you can insure religious motives and religious obligations.—(Cheers.) I believe, and I think I can prove, that by those declarations you do not obtain the security which you pretend to obtain—that you do by these means shut out men who are conscientious and deserving—men who would exe cute the duties of civil offices, and exercise the functions of legislators with due regard to religious obli gations—and that you do not shut out those whom you profess yourselves afraid of admitting, I mean, that class of persons who, having thrown off altogether the obliga tions of religion, do not conceive themselves bound to fulfil any of it duties.—(Cheers.) I say that it must depend upon the general opinion of the country—it must depend on the s t a t e o f things therein ex istin g , it must de pend on th e s t a t e o f e ducation — it must de p end on the religion exi s ti ng i n the country, whet her or not y o u have a Christian Parliament. Let me, for the sake of illustration, refer to two very different times. In the reign of James I. 'and Charles L strong religious feeling existed in this country. Men were divided into several sects, but nothing was more remarkable than the deep religious fervour which p revailed, sometimes burning more fiercely in one sect, sometimes in another, but all believed themselves bound by Christian obligations. Imagine that you have before you the assembly in which Falkland, Hollis, and Vane met—men differing from each other in religious views, but all sincerely religious, and pro. fessing the doctrines of Christianity ;—would the Chris tian faith have been better secured in that Parliament if no man had been permitted to enter it without binding his conduct by a declaration "on the true faith of a Christian?"—(Cheers.) Would it have added in the slightest degree to the security of Parliament, and would you have believed more strongly than you do now that these snen were Christians, because they had stated the fact at the end of a declaration? Let us take another period and another coun try. Let us imagine a Parliament assembled in France towards the end of the last century, at a time when many among the aristocracy were the disciples of Voltaire, and among the democracy of Rousseau—let us suppose Mirabeau, Condorcet, Robes pierre, and other men of that description, returned to that assembly; can you believe that any security would have been obtained by compelling every one of them to pledge himself to observe the oath which he took "on the true faith of a Chriation ?"—(Cheers) I will refer to another illustration, which our own country furnishes me with. The complaint against the Jews is, that they are revilers of Christianity—that they make a mockery of the Christian religion—that they hold up Christ as an impostor; yet was there ever a man who more sneered at Christianity—was there any Jew of the last century who used such language with the view of de preciating the doctrines of Christianity and destroying the belief in it in the minds of the people, as Gibbon? —(Cheers.) Yet Gibbon took your declaration.—(Loud cheers.) He came to the table and swore " on the true faith of a Christian."—(Cheers and laughter.) He held office under Geerge lll.—he sat on the Treasury bench, under a Government which was more of a High Church Government—which was more disposed to raise the cry of " Church and King," than perhaps any Government which ever existed during the reign of that monarch.— (Loud cheers.) Take the case of Mr. Hume.—(Hear, hear.) He did not, it is true, have a seat in Parliament, but he held an office under Government, and I believe that he held office for a short time at the Court of Paris. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Uni versity of Oxford must well know that there was no man in the last century who wrote essays so much calculated to undermine religion as Mr. Hume; and yet, if he had been returned to Parliament, and had to make the declaration " on the true faith of a Christian," he would have taken the oath with a smile or a sigh, as the case might be, but he would have taken it, and the cobweb would have been swept away. I hold that it is not by a declaration of this kind that you can ob tain security. You say that the Legislature ought to be a Christian Legislature; that the Parliament aught to be a Christian Parliament; but do you not say that the nation is a Christian nation, and that the British people are a Christian people? Why, in the same sense in which you say that the nation is a Christian nation, though there may be 30,000 Jews among them, you might say that the Parliament was a Christian Parlia ment, although among the 656 Members of the House of Commons there might be six persons professing the Jewish religion. I therefore wish that this ground of argument were not taken by those whose object it is to prevent the Jews entering into Parliament, because the general character of the Parliament must depend now, as in former times, on the sentiments of the people at large, and on the sentiments of those who represent them; and it is not by inserting seven words in an Act of Parliament—it is not by a mechanical contrivance of this kind—that you can secure religious obligation. But I have heard it said that, although there might be such instances as those of Mr. Gibbon—instarces of persons sitting in this House and subjecting themselves to the required declaration, yet, that this Parliament has been from time immemorial a Christian Parliament, that Christianity is acknowledged to be part and parcel of the law of the land, and that it would be a portentous innovation if we were to quit that safe and secure ground of obligation. It appears to me that great mistakes are made by those who thus regard the history of this country. In the early history of this country the Jews were persecuted in every mode and by every contrivance which cruelty could suggest. At one time they were forced to surrender all their property, at another time they were sent to prison, at another time they were tortured, and at another time they were banished the realm by a general Act of the Legislature.—(tlear, hear.) Such was the treatment of the Jews. But, with respect to the theory under which this law was adopted, that theory was, not that the Legislature should be open to all classes of Christians, but that every member of it should belong to the church which was then universal, the Roman Catholic Church. Llt is stated by Bracton that the statute Dc Thrretico Comburendo was supposed to be as ancient as the common law itself. Every heretic was committed to the flames at once; and I will read to you the words of an ancient author (Lyndewode) to show what sort of a person a heretic a as Hasreticus est qui dubitat de fide Catholicis et qui negligit servare ea qua, Romans ecclesia statuit se servare decreverat." He thought that every man was a heretic who did not adhere to the Roman Catholic church, or who departed from it in any particular. Such was the common law of this country, which was not framed in favour of Christianity, but for the protec tion of what was then the established church of the realm. But in the course of time the Reformation came; various sects arose ; the Reformation was triumphant, and the Church of England became a Protestant church. But heretics still continued to be punished, and in the reign of Elisabeth, I believe, persons were sent to the flames on account of heresy. But at another time there arose a new distinction—a distinc tion founded, not upon religious belief, but very much upon political differences. The Roman Catholics of that day, thinking that they had no chance of supremacy under Elizabeth or James 1., entered into repeated conspiracies with a view to change the succes sion of these realms. I am asking your attention on this point, because it was at that time that the words were introduced " on the true faith of a Christian." In the time of Elizabeth it was necessary that the oath of allegiance should be taken on the four Evangelists, which the Jews, a despised and neglected race, could not take. But I will beg to read to you the preamble of an Act which is the first which I can discover in which the words " on the true faith of a Christian" were intro duced, the Act 3 James 1., c. 4, entitled " An Act fur the better Discovering and Repressing of Popish Recu sants." The preamble states:— Forasmuch as it is found by daily experience that many of his Majesty's subjects that adhere in their hearts to the Popish religion, by the infection drawn from thence and by the wicked and devilish counsel of Jesuits, Seminaries, and other like persons, danger ous to the Church and State, arc so far perverted in the point of their loyalties and due 'allegiance unto the King's Majesty and the Crown of England, as they are ready to entertain and execute any treasonable conspiracies and practices, as evidently appears by that more than barbarous and horrible attempt to have blown up with gunpowder the King, Queen, Prince, Lords, and Commons, in the House of Parliament as sembled, tending to the utter subversion of the whole state, lately undertaken by the instigation of Jesuits and Seminaries, and in advancement of their religion, by their scholars taught and instructed by them to that purpose, which attempt by the only goodness - of Almighty God was discovered and defeated." And section 15 prescribes the oath of obedience : " I swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or depriva tion made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his successors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from from him or his see, against the said King, his heirs, or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience, I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, his heirs, and successors, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration, or other wise, and will do my best to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them. And I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and ab jure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position that princes which be excommunicated or de prived by the Pope m iy be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do be lieve, and in my conscience . am resolved, that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever bath power to absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknowledge, by good and full authority, to be lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and swear, ac cording to these express words by me spoken, and ac cording to the plain and common sense and understand ing of the same words, without an equivocation, or men tal evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever, and I do make this recognition and acknowledgment heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian." In the seventh year of James I. another Act was passed, by which Members of Parliament were required to take the oath of allegiance according to the oath in 3 Jac. 1., c. 4, a. 15, that is " upon th e t rue f a i t h o f a Ch r i st i an. " Now this shows clearly what the intention of Parlia ment was in inserting that declaration, " on the true faith of a Christian." It was intended to meet the cases of those Roman Catholics who bore true alle giance to the Crown of this realm, and to separate them from those who declared that their prince might law. fully be murdered. Therefore these words, " on the true faith of a Christian," were intended not to exclude either Jews or infidels, but to give a greater sanction to the oath which the Roman Catholic Christian took when he declared himself a faithful and true servant of the Crown. Now, I think I can contend that the his tory of this declaration shows that it was intended only to give a security that those who were Roman Catho lics, and who were admitted to office and to Parliament, were not men who had swerved from their allegiance ; and that, being Christians, they were asked to make the declaration " on the true faith of a Christian." I have stated this for the purpose of showing that, so far as the Roman Catholics were concerned, the introduction of these words, so far as any exclusion or disqualification was in view, was founded upon what were supposed to be political dif ferenoes. In the reign of Charles 11. the same reasons prevailed. James 11., and those who were with him, wished to overturn the laws of the country, and there fore political reasons, and not others, led to the continued obligation of the same form of oath. B u t th ere was another class who were likewise excluded from Parlia ment—l mean the Protestant Dissenters. Were they excluded on the ground that they differed in religious belief ? By no means. The ground of their exclusion was most ably stated by Bishop Sherlock, then a young' man, in a pamphlet which he wrote in dehnce of the Test and Corporation Acts. He declared that every Member of Parliament ought to be Well affected to the , Established Church of the realm, and that it was not enough for him to be well affacted to the civil institutions of the country, but that he must also be a friend to the Church as established by law. This was the ground on which the religious distinction was based. It was based on the ground that reli gious opinion was a reason for disqualtica non. In earlier times, a difference in religious opinion led to the stake, and, if you take that ground as a suffi cient reason against the admission of Jews into the Legislature, why do you not resort td that penalty which was then inflicted—namely, capital punishment ? [So we understood the Noble Lord to say, but, as he was but indistinctly heard in this part of his aix cell, we cannot vouch for the accuracy of this sentence of the report.] But, when the ground of a political disquali fication was taken as a reason for exclusion from Parlia ment or office, it was either on the score of the Roman Catholics failing in their allegiance to the king, or, in the case of the Dissenters, that they were so averse to the ecclesiastical constitution of these realms, that the Church could not be secure unless they were excluded from office. But, whatever these reasons might be, in the years 1828 and 1829, we removed all those dis abilities. Parliament declared, in its wisdom, that the Roman Catholics should no longer be sub jected to the imputation to which they had been exposed, that of infidelity to their Sovereign, and that they were as well qualified as any other persons to hold office, with the exception of some offices connected with the ecclesiastical constitution of the king dom. They declared, likewise, that the Protestant Dis senters should not be subject to the disqualifications which excluded from corporations and from office—for they were before eligible to Parliament—because dis affection to the Church Establishment was no sufficient ground for depriving them of the honours and rewards hich were the right of every subject of these realms.— (Hear, hear.) I submit, then, to the House, that what is called the Christian character of our constitution, if it ever had any existence at all, has only existed from the years 1828 and 1829. Previous to the first of those years your constitution excluded certain persons from Parliament, but it was on the ground of their political and civil disability to perform the dutiesof good sub jects and citizens. With respect to the words in the oath of abjuration, I should say that they were intro duced, not for the purpose of exclusion, but for the purpose of giving a superior . sanction to that declaration. It it had been intended to exclude the Jews from Parliament on the ground that their erroneous faith ought to deprive them of the character of British subjects, there would have been introduced into that oath some declaration like that against the doctrine of transubstantiation, or a declaration of a belief in the New Te.4iiinent, or some such declaration. You admit that there are no direct words of exclusion, but you leave exclusion to be inferred. It is said, again, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land. I have always understood the meaning of that statement to be, as I have heard it interpreted by several learned persons, that any writings reviling and blas pheming the Christian religion, the Scriptures being part of the law of the land, are illegal, and that those who so revile and blaspheme may be punished. But I never understood it to mean anything beyond that, and I think it would be quite a new interpretation of that doctrine to assert that, because Christianity is a part of the law of the land, every person is required, on taking the oath of office, to make that declaration " on the true faith:of a Christian." I think now, therefore, I have established that the law was intended and professed to exclude, not persons of the Jewish persuasion, but per sons whom it was deemed advisable to keep out of Parliament on account of political distinctions. I have shown to you that, as the law is at present, there is no security whatever for preventing an infidel from sitting in Parliament. That declaration which the scruples of the Jew induce him to refuse is taken at once by the man who believes nothing.—(Hear, hear.) If that be the case, let us see further whether there is a any reason, not founded on our constitution, not founded on the laws of the country, which should make you con tinue to exclude the Jews from Parliament and office. One ground which has been stated for their exclusion is, that the Jews are a separate nation. But the Jews themselves utterly deny this allegation. They say that they are not attached to any foreign state, and that as the Jews in France are French subjects, those in Eng land are English subjects; and that they are ready to do their duty as all good subjects should do, either in time of war or otherwise. Again, I say, if they are aliens, to what country do they belong? An alien is one who has another king and another country to whom his alle giance is owing, and therefore he cannot pay perfect obedience to the laws of the state in which he lives, and is subjected to some necessary disabilities. But those Jews who have lived in this country for a century, or a century and a half, who have their property in England, their wives and their families, to what other king or country oan they resort in order to pay their allegiance? To none whatever. It is obvious to all the world that their attachment is to England, and to no other country. But then we are told, though it is rather an insult than an argument, that, as the late Mr. Cobbett used to say, we do not see the Jews following the trades which other persons follow. Is there not a sufficient reason for this in your own laws? You disqualify them from holding land, and in many cities from practising retail trades; and what right have you to turn round and say to the Jews—" You have no taste for the cultivation of land, or for trades which other Englishmen follow?" Is that justice? Is that argument?—(Cheers.) I believe that in France the Jews enjoy all the honours and emolu ments which the state has to bestow; and M. Dupin, and some other eminent persons who have been elected to seats in the Legislature, are of that persuasion. Do not, therefore, I beg of you, rest their disqualification upon your former proscription, and do not argue that, if you take it away, you will not find the Jews fulfilling the obligations of citizens like other men in similar circumstances. But we have been told also, that there is a very solemn denunciation in the prophecies, which would prevent cur granting to the Jews the rights which they claim. It is obvious that if such be the meaning of the prophecies, it is not for us to decide what should be done, but that Providence will accom plish by its own means its own purposes. But I would ask where is it that those who use this argument would draw the line ? I have told you that in France they hold all offices to which Frenchmen are admitted, and that more than one Member of the Chambers has been of the Jewish persuasion. Even in this country , we have much relaxed the rigour of our enactments re specting them. A Jew has lassen a magistrate, a Jew has been a shei iff. By a late statute, which was introduced by the Right Hon. Member for Taaavvorth, Jews may hold offices in corporations, and it was but the other day that a Jew was admitted to the office of alderman in the corporation of the city of London.—(Hear, hear.) I ask you what ri g ht or b u siness have you to interpret a prophecy so as to draw the line between an alderman and a commissioner of customs—between a justice of the peace and a person having a right to sit Parliament ? —(Hear.) What enabled you, or authorised you to say where the line intended by the prophecies should be drawn, and how can you take upon yourselves to draw the limits of the line the Almighty intended to mark out? —;Cheers.) It would be, in respect to the Almighty being, to _ _ "Strike from his hand the balance and the rod, Rejudge his justice—he the God of God." I trust that no such presumption will fall to our lot—that we shall do that which we think our duty to our fellow countrymen, and the best for the country according to our imperfect reason, and rest in pious but humble confi dence that the Almighty will accomplish his purpose by means best known to his wisdom.—(Cheers.) Bat, Sir, there is that which I can hardly call an argument, but which operates more against those whose cause I have undertaken perhaps than any other thing. There is a popular prejudice against the name of the Jew founded upon various circumstances to which I need not allude —founded upon what I think a mistaken view of Sacred Writ, and the dislike and distrust there is on the part of men of a different religion. But that popular prejudice which induced the Administration of 1753, after passing an Act for the naturalization of the Jews, to come down in a hurry, in the next year, for the purpose of repealing it, has, I believe, very greatly died away—(Hear, hear) —that it has subsided in this metropolis I have with my own eyes a proof, 'because a gentleman in the city of London, well known in that city by his extensive tran sactions, by his wealth, his charity and liberality, was elected for that city by nearly 7,000 votes at the last ge neral election.—(Hear.) I quote that as a proof that this House would not be safe in saying— " Such is our opinion ; we are liberal ; we intend well to our Jewish fellow-subjects, but there is such a prejudice amongst the people against them that it would not be safe to legislate in their favour.—(Hear, hear.) I warn Hon. Gentlemen not to rely upon that feeling. I believe that the people are to the full as enlightened as the Members. of this house.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that the gene ral opinion, and the right and true opinion, as I con ceive it to be, is that religious opinions ought not to bring with them any penalty or punishment.—(Hear.) I believe that that is the right and true opinion, over bearing any prejudice that may have existed against the Jews.—(Hear, hear.) I have now, Sir, stated to you the reasons why I think that the objections which have been made against the admission of the Jews are futile and unfounded. If I am asked what are the prevailing reasons for the motion that I propose, I appeal in the first pleas to the constitution of these realms; I appeal to that constitution which is intended to give to every man those rewards, that honour, that estimation to which his character and talents ?nay entitle him.— (Hear, hear.) I appeal to that constitution which is the enemy of restriction or disqualification—(Hear) —to that constitution which by the abrogation of the laws existing a few years ago has put an end even to those cases of exception which our ancestors thought, upon the ground of imminent danger to the State and Church, they were justified in imposing. I ask you in the name of that constitution to take away this last remnant of religious persecution, to show that you are not influenced by the numbers or terrors that might make that which was an act of political justice an act of political necessity.—(Cheers.) I ask you in the name of that constitution to admit the Jews to all the privi leges, to all the rights, of which those who are not ex cluded from them are so justly proud—(Cheers);—and, let me tell you, that you cannot judge of the feelings of those who are excluded by the number of those who might wish for seats in Parliament, or who might aspire to hold office under the Crown. Many a man who would not seek for either, would be content to pass his days in obscurity, and would wish for no other advantages than those of private life; but he feels the galling degrada tion, the brand that is imposed upon him, when ho is told that men of all other classes, men of the Established Church, Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics, may all enter within these walls, may all enjoy those advantages, but that he belongs to a sect which by the law and constitution is proscribed and degraded. —(Cheers.) But I would make a still higher appeal. I would make an appeal to the principles of that Chris tianity which has so long been the . law of the land.— (Cheers.) I appeal to you, then, in the name of that re ligion which is a religion of charity and love, to do 1 unto others as you would they should do unto you'.'--• (Cheers.) I ask you why it is, that when we are taught by examples and parables that we ought to love our neighbours, it is not priests or Levites who are singled out as instances for our approbation and admiration; but it is one of a proscribed sect—one who belongs to what was then the refuge of all nations? I ask shy it is that we are taught thet all men are brothers--that there is no part of the human race, however divided from us by feelings or colour, that ought to be separated from utss but that all belong to the family of man, and ought to he loved as brothers.—(Cheers.) I ask yon , therefore, in the name of that constitution which is th e constitution of freedom, of liberty, and of justice—l as k you in the name of that religion which is the religion of peace and goodwill towards weis—to agree to.the mos tion which I have now the honour to make. The Noble Lord then moved "that the house should resolve itself into a Committee on the removal of the civil and poli tical disabilities affecting her Majesty's Jewish sub jects," and resumed his seat amidst loud and long-con tinued cheers. - Sir R. INGLIS, after alluding to the talent with which the subject had been brought before the House/ and the importance of the question, said he should be content, at this stage, to take one division. If the sense of the House should be that the Speaker do leave the chair, he would give the House now no further trouble; but it was the fixed intention of himself and others to give the measure, in its future stages, every possible opposition. Since 1830, he had always felt it his duty, on such questions as this, to take the sense of the House at the earliest period. He had not done so in reference to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill ; but on this pies' tion, which was entirely one of principle, the opposition would be as readily stated in its first stage as after" wards. Never had this question been presented to the Legislature so advantageously as on this occasion, under the auspices of the Prime Minister; and it migh,t, be expected to he much more fatal in consequence. Still the Noble Lord had not ventured to introduce - the mea" sure as ono which her Mjesty. with the consent of he Council, recommended to Parliament. Not did he, think it was the measure of the united Cabinet; he hope d it was nothing more than what was called an o pen question."—(Hear.) 'The Noble Lord had first adverted to the personal merits of the Jews, which he (Sir Inglis) was far from denying. He thought them men of great charity and liberality, and perhaps exemplary I r l all the relations of social life. But men were not on that asscount to be placed in Parliament. How many exern i : plary and respectable men did n o t p ossess th e boroug" qualification et 3001, or the county qualification of 600 k a year ? The right to sit in Parliament was only oil, as it was defined by the constituti o n ; th ere f ore to speck of the injustice of the privation of this right was mer e declamation. If, as Mr. Macaulay had said, privatio n was a punishment, he would ask were the millions from whom the elective franchise was withheld punished ? No more were the Jews punished by being excluded from Parliament ; for the right must be definded and limited in some way. This was no question between Jews and Christians, but between Christians ID, non-Christians—between Christians and Muss mans, Hiedoos, Parsees, Hottentots, and 4 ' others. If the Noble Lord's arguments were admitted, that this was a remnant of intolerance' the door of Parliament would be opened to that resr e .. able gentleman whom they had seen under the Vol"' last evening—(Laughter)—it would open the door to the representative of the Hindoos, who exceeded ourselves 01 numbers and in wealth; they were subjects of the same sovereign, and were certainly entitled to r e presentation Why should not the shipping interest of Bombay, 1111 . f the other interests of the East, be represented here , f l the door of Parliament was open e d to the Jews? I . ll t the petition which the Noble Lord had presented ;is seemed to be implied that election conf e rr e d the right "i sit. But could this principle be applied if a bankreP were returned? Would it be contend e d that the 1 1 ° 1 i could only inquire whether the returning officer 11 °,, truly represented the decision of the;," sweet voice; of the electors ?—(Hear, hear.) If exclusion nic es t sarily implied degradation, how many classes of el l e fellow-subjects were degraded ? A member of , Jewish persuasion had said in a pamphlet—entit letmd ,. " Ought Baron Rothschild to sit in Parliament? " if that this was not a Christian country. 14 °.f' sna this was authority, might they not expect the .' Rothschild to reiterate these views, and do his best t ° carry them out ? With the :fact, that the Jere,n . , garded our Saviour, God, as a crucified impostor — s u f. was language he did not wish to use—but, with 01 knowledge of that fact, when a Jew wrote such a Pam' phlet as that to which he had referred, would h e likely to be so gentle to his Christian brethren, 0 11 7 0 render it desirable to pass an Act to admit him al b '. Parliament ? The argument he used was, that se t s British empire was extended so widely that the and never set upon it, it embraced all creeds and stets, t o . was no longer exclusively, entirely a Christian elol ll , st A letter, which had been extensively circulated tn,i'd morning by a person of the Jewish persuasion , a?, l , that the Christian character of the English constitute had only existed since 1629. He contended that St period was there a single instance from the rejig:l,e% Alfred to this time when an oath had ever been t he except on some Christian symbol.—(Hear, hear.) . 1 _ elder Edward swore by a relic, which it was sa id " holy in the sight of God." The Jew had he' excluded from Parliament because he could not give I/ guarantee that ho would discharge his duties "on the true faith of a Christian." There certainly were such 1 11 e, n as David Hume and Edward Gibbon, to whom his No ble Friend had alluded, but they were infidels and disre• garded Christian morality—there was also Sir Francis Dash wood, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the stung opinions; but because they could find such men, who had been employed by the State, or had sat in that House, were they to blot out the declaration that the Members of the House of Commons should perform their duties as Christian men? And they could only admit the Joe sby striking out the words " upon the, true faith of a Christian." A petition which ho haa presented that evening said very truly that the most'? lemn engagement of the House was that of public prayer, and he need not add, that a Jew could without awful blasphemy on the one hand, or deliberst mockery on the other, join in the prayer—" Ch u have mercy upon us ; Lord have mercy upon ,o: ir Then, again, why should they abandon te Christian character to make a concession te . s d small a number of persons as his Noble Friend aclinitii`e,, the Jews in this country to be—numbering certairoU. not more than from thirty to forty thousand? Th e P t ha position of his Noble Friend would go altogether c to cry abolition of oaths, which were the main security 0f e Qp t state. His Noble Friend said he hoped would not continue religious persecution, but be ( -",, pot H. Inglis) contended th a t p r i va ti on i n this case was the persecution. You must have s ome sec urity th at an d person you eleoted had an intetest in the Stste;, a therefore property qualification, as w e ll as his h el 7 o l Christian, had been hitherto required ; and one " his important, in his opinion, as the other. The Je ws ' TO Noble Friend had stated, were a separate nation• the one could for a moment say, who knew anything ° of e history or literature of the Jews, that they were : the ir nation, whatever prophecy might predict as t so ul future destiny. The Jews came into this cO O O% drop by drop, without any invitation, heg i 4N --• at about the year 1656, for their own Purrfrhef and ought the laws to be altered for them now ? d only asked for protection, and they had obtain s le o. Did any one now insult them? They lived in S P t he dour ; did any one envy them ? lle called tir ri ,be House, by every consideration of duty and interestoiti called upon it in the name of their common Christi j eff —to pause before they sanctioned the admission of into Mr. hear.) Ch rir Mr. W. J. FOX could not conceive that either D ola' tianity or the constitution of this country had siveness as their characteristic feature. Chris ti- 0 00 of all religions, was the most capable of amalge ° t leso with political society. The great moral P rilic eody which were the glory of Christianity, were merebeeo prehensive than any other morality which had el e i te ar.,) inculcated on the consciences of men.—(Hear, Lord The great law which had guided the Noble t his at the head of the Government in proposingwosid measure, namely, "Do unto others as you beg, they should do unto you," taught them t ° a ired in mind the civil duties which they Il ec i rc ter o of their Jewish fellow-subjects.—(Hear.) The u u 'bich which they imposed upon them, the co-operation "" they required of them in works of peace and charitY o 'o% mended the adoption of that great law ; and sIIPP.OO, we were the minority, and living under their donlloith we should assuredly look for rights commensurat e r ibris . our duties. We were, therefore, taught by that a ti o he tian law to treat them in the same manner. Nor se of see in the constitution of this country any Je ll 'hrig" exclusiveness that could be set up as modifying leg tianity. What had been the whole current of lee 6 1.1 3 tion in this country ? It had been sontinually toelfter the pale of the constitution—to include one n 156,112. the another. There had scarcely been an instance , 'f bt , last century and a half, wh ere exclusion had been one At' t rect result of deliberate legi s l a ti on .—(Hear.) estab period, in the reign of Elizabeth, the religion ia by fished in the country, a n d th e religion he silent the great body of its inhabit an ts, were ide . ,, rl sil ent but this was found to be impracticable as a Pe!`" e d the arrangement, and the attempt to enforce it proun c o l a ttr, civil wars in the roign of Charles the First. she hear.) Matters were again patched up, but it w h .a: h t he found that toleration was the principle by w !mar Government of England must be guided. The. 00 in tion Acts put an end for ever to the unity of relit l_iods this country.--(Hear, hear.) The Society ofisr es to obliged the Legislature to concede civil privilircode them, and exempt them trim oaths. The penned and against the Catholics was from time to time reit". were softened in its enactments. Orthodox Dissenters _ a 0 admitted within the pale of the constitution,. 11_110,0 length Unitarians and all other Dissenters were Diroythe within the boundaries of toleration by the rePel down Test and Corporation Acts, which at once tbr.e.7 o fficer the barriers that had kept Dissenters out of ctri s iji. ot ieri —(Hear.) Where were they to find the constitution of Great Britain, if it was not in the, o et' istie features of a succession of' legislative rent:not ments? The Noble Lord at the head of the Gore , t s . er consi.h. had very justly said that we had not a paP _ nd tion; it was not to be found in a set of cut a ‘, , re at propositions; but it must be sought for in tittobideci principles which had gradually and surely nyor.) themselves in the principles of legislation.—( ll l e .pein: the history of the laws of this country they i ttg elh ciple of religious freedom and equality developinaf t he and declaring itself to be one of the principleeurober constitution.—(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet the -Th sons f er' for the University of Oxford contended t hat exe was not punishment. There might be a classhooldp with reference to whom this doctrine would but it was scarcely applicable to any class who n_ ll ".„, v er r ligence enough to conceive, and moral feeling.a;;ee . ciate, the rights and duties of citizenship- they it any body of men arrived at that laws but 0 ° 0 1)e ld wrong to have nothing to do with thee oi l n a t w s them.—(tlear.) The argument of exclusiveness