The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 5, 1818.

i M PERIAL PA ItLIAM EN T.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THuRsDAT, MAY 4.
The Luau CHANCIILLOU Wok hig Neat it 6 o'clock.

PU BLIC imam Mc.
PETMOBIIB.—By Lord Canaan. from Wigton, 1n Scotland, for
an alteration of the law of catalL—Tle Dart of %lidos, Lord Hsi,
nose, and the Dube of BIAVPOILT, several petitions from carious Woes
in fermi. of the bid for legalising Odd Yellows societies.
NOTICES OP hitMON.—ArrAla% or Be STAWIST, to.
morrow (this day), to call attention to the correspondence between
noble lonl the Secretary foe Foreign Affairs and the Spanish govern-
meat; and to move for the production of the same.
Law RKFOILIC—Iard t. II Ali. on the 18h iast., to bring for.
ward a motion on the whole state of our law and the legl.istion of
this country, ita welt e.o the mode of Its administration, and to propose
a motion for the amendment of the law similar to the one which he
made
re ran Oirr or Tun Caown.—The Bishop of
I.I.ANUAFF, on a future day, to introduce a bill to limit the time during
which church livings 1n the gift of the crown should remain ratan%
and to more an address to her Modesty that she might be graciously
pleased to consent to tie introduction of the bill.
Ono Paupers Socorro:a. —Lord Br_ivuoser, on TurraLiy neat, to
move the second reading of the bill for legalising Oild Fellows societic,
Their lordships adjournod at halt-post tire o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUURSDAT, MAT 4.
The Breams took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
THIRD RF.lDlNO.—Brifthton 4040414404 and CAlke Mnsrany Bill.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
PETITIUSS.—By Yr. Uttar. liaar, from Woroester, against the
ratite Health 11111.—Tho tua of Domto, from Norwich, fur the
amendment of the poor laws. --Lord O. Coosiesnow from certain In-
habitants of London in favour or Unproved tunitatv re 141114144000 for
the metrupols.—Lord Deer v, from Bath, againat tke centralisation
of sanitary retralationa.—Mr. F. MarLa, ham Mac. in Scotland, In
favour 04 the Sara of Chinches (Scotland) IlilL—Yr. 110 nvAIW, from
Whiteharen and other placca, earaloat tha sale of aphituous liquors

oa riundo. _
ROlMlTTEF.c.—Evieteil Deatitute Poor (Ireland` ; Petty Bag
()thee; Poce.h. was (Ireland; Bills.
1:K1'Olt P4.—Breit Yarmouth Freemen DlahmiteliMement ; Public
Work', (Inland);
NOIICEN OF MOTION.—Praue Amor ars.-11:. BON RIM., on
the 30;h lust., to move recolution, relahve W the manner of heepinc

the pAblie nvountr.
--
Its t, w,r C(111111.+10NrAft Acr.—Mr. tvgrl 9n T 1
more for leave to bring in a to repeal the liAfinny

yTCYt, LO

Act.
KETURN ORDERED.--On the motion of Viscount Desists, re.
runt of all expired contracts for British nth and !hist Indian and
African teak Umber, supplied far the use of her Majesty's ihickyards,
together with the quant.tiesdeliveml to this date unit 1' .oiy emoting
contracts (in continuation of parliamentary return, No. till, of ses-
sion lett'.
NEW MEMBER.
Viscount MANPEVILLE, introduc d by Sir 11. 11. Istotts
•nd Mr. FnEwek, took the oaths and his seat for Bewdley.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
On the motion of Mr. Earcounr, leave of absence was
given to Mr. Lang for one month, on account of urgent pri
•ate business.
On the motion of Mr. Tersr.tt, leave of absence was
given to Mr. Touiaon for one wee's, on account of urgent
private business.
On the motion of Mr. M. J. O'CoNkr.tt., leave of ab-ence
was given to Mr. T. O'Brien for three weeks, on account of
urgent private business.
BOROUGH ELECTIONS BILL.
The second reading of this bill woo postponed until Tues.

day, 9:11 inst.
TILE LATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
Lord J. RUSSELL, after paying a high tribute of praise
to the conduct of the late Sir William Gosset in the public
service, both before his acceptance of the office of Sergeant-
at-Arms, and during the twelve years he tilled that office.
moved : " That this house entertains a just sense of the zeal
and abi.ity with which the late Sir William Cosset uni-
formly discharged the duties of the office of Sergeaat-at-
Arms during the period of his attendance upon this house."
S:r It. H. INGLIS had great pleasure in seconding the
resolutioa. From personal acquaintance with their late
eminent Sergeant-at-Arms, as well as from his observation of
*Dr William Goraet's public conduct, he considered that no
testimony to that gentleman's merit could exceed his claims.
The SEJSiOn was then unanimously agreed to.
BRIBERY AT ELh.O [IONS.
Sir J. lIANMER poetponed his bill on this subject from
Tuesday next to the following day.
SEE OF MANCHESTER—ENDOWMENT.
Mr. HOUSMAN begged to ask the right bon. baronet,
the Home Secretary, whether any steps had been taken
to provide the Bishop of Manchester with an adequate
revenue.
Sir G. GREY said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
were engaged in taking measures for the purpose of pro-
viding the bishop with the stipulated income.

SPANISH CORRESPONDENCE.
Mr. URQUHART, in the absence of Lord Palmerston
begged to address the questiou of which hr had given notice
to the noble lord the First Minister of the Crown. lie had
read an incredible correspondence which had been printed in
the public papers, and there had appeared a letter from the
noble lord tee Seerstary for Foreign Affairs, desiring her Ms-
jesty's ambanador at the Court of Madrid to interfere in the
most direct manr.er in the internal affairs of Spain. The com-
munication made by the British Ambassador had received an
in lignant re ply from the Duke of Set; mayor, and the letter
addressed to that nobleman had been scornfully returned to
the ambassador. The question he whited the noble lord to
answer was whether the correspondence to which he referred
was authentic; and, id s c whether then was any objection
to lay it on the table of the house ? He also begged to ask
the eoble lord if he could state whether any steps had been
taken to reran Mr. Bulwer.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the bon. member, after ap-
plying many. epithets and qualifications to the correspond-
ence in:questten,hadasked whether it was authentic. Ile must
beg to state, in the first place, that there was a most important
omission in the despatch of h • noble friend, as printed in the
public papers. Ile thought it necessary to state that the
despatch commenced by enjoining the ambassador at the
court of Madrid, " if an opportunity should arise for so do-
ing, to offer some advice to the Spanish minister, dec." It
might he as well to call attention to the difference which ex-
isted between a recommendation to give advice on such a
subject, if an opportunity for so doing should arise Cu' of any
conversation that might take place between the ambassador
and the Spanish minieer, and the tendering such advice in
more formal manner. In the next place. it was asked whether
the Duke of Sotemayor bad indignantly rejected the advice
offered to him, and had scornfully returned the communica-
tion of the British envoy: It would have been as well if the
hon. member who asked these questions had referred to
the anterior transietiona by which this country was bound
under a treaty to render assistance, by supplying arms and
armed tree., to maintain the Queen upon the throne of
Spain. Ile would, upon inquiry, have found that a con-
siderable sum of money was still ,sing by the Spanish go t I
vernme::t to this country for the arms thus supplied, and I
dia.:op the couree of last year an application nee made to
ascertain whether the treaty under which the Queen of
Spain had been placed upon her throne was still
in force, for if such was the ease this country
might still be called upon to make more naval
efforts and to spill more British blood in maintaining her •
upon that throne. The hon. member would see that if it
was not, therefore, unlikely that Great Britain should be
again called upon to make some efforts to support the Queen
on her throne, it was incumbent on the government to see
that any danger to that throne was not uselessly incurred ;
and under those circumstances ministers had thought it
proper to tender some advice to the Spanish government on
this subject. (Hear, hear.) He could safely say, that all
that his noble colleague intended was not to offer any diet.,
tion on the subject of the internal government of Spain—
(hear, hear), but merely to impress on the ministry there the
recollection that England having made most expensive efforts
to place the Queen upon the throne, it was not unbecoming
on the part of her anthassador to offer some friendly advice
as to the necessity for maintaining those institutions which
were necessarily bound up with the Spanish monarchy as
established at present. The answer which, on the part ef
his nob' friend, he was prepared to give to the question of
the hon. member was, that there were no papers relating to
the subject in question but what he was prepared to give to
the house. (Hear.)
Mr. URQUHART begged to ask whether the recent
distinction conferred upon Mr. Bulwer was in any degree
attributable to the conduct punned by him in respect to the
correspondence to which he had referred ?
Lord PALMERSTON (whs. had entered the house whilst
Lord J. Russell was speaking) said, with regard to the cor-
respondence between Mr. 13ulwer and the Duke of Soto-
mayor, copies of it were preparing, and would, probably, be
laid on the table that evening. With respect to the hut
question, he begged to say that he had tendered advice to
her Majesty togive Mr. Bulwer a stark of her royal approval
by conferring on him the honour to which the hon. member
alluded ; but this was lor.g ago, and lie hod subsequently
seen no resem to advise the crown to alter any intention
farmed in Mr. Bulwer's favour.
Mr. 'URQUHART asked whether the noble lord would
have any obj ction to irielude in the papers the correspond-
ence respecting Mr. Bulwer's real.
Lord PALSIERSTON—There is no correspondence on
that subject. (SCHLHear, and a laughllO.)
ESWIG-LSTEIN.
Mr. URQUHART had another question to put to the
noble lord. The hon. member for Buckingham (Mr.
Disraeli) had recently brought the subject of Denmark under
the notice of the house. lie wished to know what steps had
been taken by the government, as the guarantee under the
treaty of 1720 was not considered to be such as could be en-
forced under the circumstances of the case ? (The hon. mem-
ber was very imperfectly heard in the gallery.)
Lord PALMERSTON said that the government of her
Majesty had certainly not been able to discover any circum-
stances in the case of Schleswig that could bring the
guarantee under the treaty of 1720 into operation. The
good offices of the British g cvernment had, however, been
accepted by
.Denmark and Priv sia, and conferences between
the commissioners appointed for the purpose of settling the
disputed points were at present going on. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. BANKES asked how it happened that the des-
patch addressed by the noble lord to the British ambassador
at Madrid hadfeund its way into the public papers of Madrid
before it was communicated to the Spanish minister ?
Lord PALMERSTON : I must make the same reply that
was made to Charles 11. about the li-li—first establisn the
fact. The fret notice of the subject was contained in
Leo Prcue,—bow it gat there ho could not tell, for he had
bad nothing to do with it. From that paper it got into the
Clamor Public°, where there appeared u short paragraph
stating that it was understood to be the intention of Mr.
Bulwer to present a note on the subject of the state of affairs
to the Spanish minister. It was his intention to add to the
copies of the correspondence a copy of the paragraph in the
Clamor Publico.
JF.WISII DISABILITIES.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that this Lill be read a third
time.
Sir F. THESIGER rose to propose the amendment of
which he laud given notice, namely, that the bill be read a
third time that gray six months. In so doing, he knew he
was acting in opposition to many with whom he had hitherto

always coincided In opinion. He regretted the circus...—
but must persevere in the course he had chosen. He was
swan he should be seemed of being narrow-minded and
bigoted. He could not help it. lie was not conscious of
bung actuated by such sentiments. lie was at a loos to un-
derstand the principle upon which it was sought to give
the Jews admission into that house. It had been
argued that to do so would be to unchriatienise the
legislature, for Christianity was so intimately bound
up with all the institutions of the country as to render
the admission to parliament of its open deniers and du-
avower. most dangerous. He, however, should not take
that ground, or adopt those reasons for opposing the present
bill. lie would oppose the admireinn of the Jews into par-
liament ou the principle that to do so would be en act of
gear absurdity. If, as was the case, religion for/nem the
of the associations of the state, it became the duty of
the government and of the legislature to uphold that form of
religion which constituted the basis of the institutions of the
country. When, therefore., the question arose whether an
infidel should or should not be admitted as a member of the
governing body of a Christian state, said the objection to his
admission was baud on the grounds of his being en infidel,
that objection must govern the decision, and he must
stand rejected. If the house abandoned the maxim that the
Christian standard of morality was the true one, end ad.
mitted the infidel standard of morality as of equal value with
the Christian, the result would be to reduce all alike to the
'mature' standard of morality without reference to revelation,
and consequently considering the whole system of morals a
delusion. The duty of the legislature was to insist on in-
scribing over the portals of that house " This is the temple
of Christianity." (Neer, hear.) Hitherto they had done
their best to keep it so,—(hear, hear)—and if any person had
played the hypocrite in making the required declaration the
sin was on his conscience and di I not rest ou the Louse. But
it bad been said, as a reason for admitting the Jews into
parliament, that they believed in the same Oal as the Chris-
bans did,—and when the hon. member for Buckinghamshire
had argued that the Jews professed a true religion, though
not the true religion, his reasoning was not just ; for nothing
short of the true religion could be acceptable or valid in the
sense recalled for the security of the institutions of the cone-
, try. Assuming, for the rake of the argument, that there
were as many deism as Christians in the country ; and as-
gaming, also, that en equal number of deists and Jews were
qualified to sit in that house ; the former might very reason-
ably object, in eau the present bill pasted, to take the oath
in its present form, and might fairly demand of the noble
lord that he strike out the fag end of the declaration now
required in their favour. And if, as he would in that
case be called upon to do, the noble lord *hoed,' ac-
cede to this demand, upon what security would
Christianity then stand ? What was the difference between
a deist and a Jew ? In his opinion Judaism was nothing but
dolma dressed out in the worn-out rubes of the Jewish
hierarchy. It had been truly represented of the Jews that
they hail no sympathy with the nations aniouget whom they
dwelt, said that they cared nothing for the institutions of
theta countries. That in his opinion was an additional
reason for giving a preference to deists. It had also bees
argued that if the present bill were rejected the !egielature
would be acting inconsistently so long as admission into that
house was granted to unitarians and quaker*. It must be
recollected that both of these classes entered the house and
subscribed themselves as Christians, and it was also of
the utmost importance that the difference should
be marked between admitting into that house per-
sent merely indifferent to the strict principle, of
Christianity and those who were absolutely hostile to it. It
bad been argued that the Christian faith was impregnable ,•
hut that was no reason why an enemy should be admitted
a hose first endeavour would be to undermine the strong-
hold of the Christian faith. He was willing to give the
Jews a very fair right and privilege. Let them do as their
anceetors were required to do in Babylon—let them plant
gardens, let them take wives and beget sons and daughters,
1. t them seek the peace of the land in which they
dwelt, and, if they Fleeced, let them pray for that peace.
I.et the people of England exhibit towards them
the true Christian character, and communicate with
them in all good offices. Let us impart to them every right
and privilege which, with security, could be conceded ; hut
let us at the same time exhibit Christian ceurnge and revile-
tion. Let us stand up valiantly for the safety of our coun-
try and the tenets of our religion, and prevent one single
en.niy from getting a vantage ground, whence he could as-
sail that religion on which depended the peace, the happi-
me., and the security of this Christian country. (Cheers.)
Mr. TRELAWNEY said it had been argued against the
bill that the Jews were a nation sui geturit, but he wished
to know what was to be looked upon as constituting a na-
tion. Was it a common language If so, the Am• ricans and
English were one nation. It the Jews owed allegiance
to any temporal Jewish sovereign, such an argument
might be tenable, but any government they bad was purely
hierarchical, and could no more affect their allegiance, than
could the suerernacy of the Pope affect that of the Boman ca-
tholic. Besides the Jews had themselves solemnly declared
that there wee nothing in their religion to affect their allegi-
ance to any ceuntry in which they resided. Had not the Jews
ever Amen themselves loyal subjects in England? Had
they not oit the leth April last exhibited as much alacrity as
their Christian fellow subjects ? And why ? Because they
had equal rights send property to protect. In his opinion it was
had policy to have in any country 40,000 dissatisfied citizens.
It would be much better to deport them altogether, than to
keep them in such a state, at the risk of contaminating
the rest. The hon. member proceeded to quote the various
hardships which had been inflicted on the Jews by successive
Kings of England, observing that he did not mean to con-
tend that such things could happen at the present time, but
he feared that the same spirit animated the oppositicn to
this bill. There was uo fear that the Jews would seek pro-
selytes. It was well known that Lord George Gorden had
turned Jew, but that after his death the Jews refused to ac
knowledge him. As nothing he had heard in the course of
the .e debates had convinced him of the propriety of excluding
Jews from parliament, he should continue his support to the
bill under consideration.
Mr. WESTH END coneratulated the house that they
had been enabled to discus; this question uninfluenced
by vast public meetings, but calmly and deliberately
and without reference to anything but its real merits. He
leered that many of the Wesleyan community would be sur-
prised at the course he was about to take, hut after careful
consideration, he Lad come to the conclusion that such course
wee in accordance with the dictates of ficelte holy word. A
noble lord had quoted Dr. Arnold against this WI; hut in an-
other passage that eminent divine had said that If the :mis-
sion of the Jews to parliament was the wish of the universal
people of England nu should not oppose it. The hon. hart.,
the member for Oxford University. had urged that it Wag no
greater hardship to exclude Jews on the score of religion than
it was to exclude Christians who said not possess a pecuniary
qualification ; and at the same time had blamed a right hon.
gentleman nut now in the house for undue levity iii talking of
protestant cookery and christian horsemanship. Surely the
levity was as great to compare a question of religious scruple
to one of mere pecuniary qualification. Another objection
urged against the bill was that it was for the moral interests
and well-being of this country to procure as much as possible
unity in religious matters. Now, if there was one country
in Europe in which, more than another, unity of religion was
attained, and that the Lutheran religion too, it. was Sweden.
If much unity were coeducive to a high amount of national
morality, surely Sweden should be a pattern to nations. But
what was the testimony of travellers on the subjects The
Rev. J. Scott, a Wesleyan missionary, who had
resided twelve }ens in the country, stated that
in Sweden the most rigid means were adopted to preserve
unity of religion, but that, judging a tree by its fruits, it did
not seem with the moat beneficial effects. There was no
difficulty in getting work done on Sunday, the theatres
were all open, and tent even the ministers of religion did not
hesitate to pass from rho pulpit es the metre box. With
respect to morals, Mr. Scott stated that the population
returns showed the proportion of illegitimate children to
legitimate to be en one to one and a half. Mr. Laing gave
lemilar testimony, so that there ISM nut a nation in Europe
which must not give up the palm to Sweden is immorality.
So much, then, for the arguments founded on unity of reli-
elm. lie should rueport this bill, not confirming his judg-
ment by appeals to barbarous times, but founding it on the
great charter alike of Jews and Christians, which told us to
do unto others as we would that others should do unto us.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. O. C. LEWIS observed that two objections had been
opposed to the admission of the Jews to the legislature ; the
one that they wore aliens, the other that they were not
Christians. The first objection had not been much insisted
on, and for a good reason—for there could be no doubt that
British Jews born in this country were as much natural born
subjects of her Mejeaty, owing her the same allegiance, sub-
ject to the same burilera and obligations, as their Christian
fellow-countrymen, :eel were abstractedly entitled to the
same rights and privixees. Then as to the religious objet
tion, thuuele they di I not admit the truths of Christianity
they were not oppose t to any of the great moral doctrines
which that religion recognised and inculcated. Then there
was no reie.on for seppoting that the admission of Jews
would unchristianise the legislature. This hill did not pro-
pose to nominate Jews as members of parliament, but
merely opened the doers of parliament to them should they
be elected. And where was the danger in this ? Was there
a single constituency in which the majority were not chris-
liens ? In London even, where the greatest number of
Jews was to be found of any town in the kingdom, the Jews
formed but a small n inority of the electoral body. Vattcl,
quoting Orotius, bed laid it down that emongst lade-
pcnilent nations difference of religion was no harrier to the
recognition of equal independent riqhta. Why should they
not apply the same principle to individuals ? (Hear.) Locke
said that the state enould be exclusively occupied with the
temporal interests, awl the church with thespiritual interests,
of mankind, and that on no account should these two dis-
tinct provinces be confounded together. It appeared to him
(Mr. Lewis), on every ground, that the admission of the
Jews es members of the legislature, being in accordance with
the proerem of opinion and legislation in this country, and
with the practice of the most civilised nations, and being at
the same time free from political danger or social detriment,
the house would act wise:y by deciding by a large majority
in favour of the bill, and thus prevent the re-opening of the
question in future years. (11, ar, hear.)
Mr. CAMPBELL, haying supported the motion for going
into committee, assured the house that it was not on frivo-
lous
or hasty grounds that he felt himself compelled to vote
against the third reading of the bill, or to oppose a govern-
ment, which was in every respect entitled, especially at the
',resent time, to the warm and cordial support of the house.
(Hear.) With regard to the objection that the state in giving
the right to constituencies to elect representatives, ought not
to interfere with their choice, it appeared to him that while
the constituenciis elected members, not for the purpose of
representing them only, but to form a representative assem-
bly for the whole nation, it was perfectly reasonable
that the legislature should impose such restrictions
on their choice sus the public interest demanded. The hon.
gentleman who hail last spoken had said that the majorities
of all the towns and counties were christian : if so, what hard
ship could there be in requiring them to choose christian re-
presentatiees Admitting, generally, the &atria,: of ab•

street right, which had been laid down by the edema's of
the bill, a held that they were not bound to adopt it in
every ease, if the result should be the sacrifice of a principle
which it was essential to preserve ; and if public virtue and
disinterestedness were necessary for the efficiint service of
the state, he held that christianity was the only 4twante•
far those qualities- With regard to former concessions—the
admission of dissenters and unitarians—those questions
stood on totally different grounds, mad as to the Roman ca-
tholic' it should be remembered that they had to deal with
a country obtained by coequal, disgraced and detcriorati
by centuries of misgovernment, a country in which the:Ba-
ll= catholic religion was that of the Till% majority of the
people, and which, at the time emancipation was granted,
was in that state that parliament had to choose between the
rain of the British empire and the wimissienof the Roman

catholic claims.
Mr. F. SCOTT opposed the bill on purely religious
grounds. The Jews, he observed, had not hitherto been
excluded because they were Jews, but because they were not
Christians. The admission of the Roman cathelics and dis-
senters formed therefore no precedent fur this bill, they
being Chtistians, and so far eligible to a seat in a Christian
legislature.
Mr. RAPHAEL said ho had voted against the first and
second reading, and meant to oppose in every stage this de-
christianising bill.
Mr. BROTHEItTON supported the bill as an act of
national justice, and !Renege ho believed that the people of
Eughoid were generally in favour of it. (No.) Well, such
Was his opinion, and that opinion was fortified by the faet
that 300,000 petitioners had demanded it, while not a fifth
of that number had petitioned against it. Ile maintained
that it would not militate in the least against the established
church, or against the religion of tho hum gentleman who
spoke last, who, twenty years ago, was himself excluded
from parliament on account of his religion, but who, ho re-
gretted to perceive, was now ready to abuse the privilege ex-
tended to him by the bill of 1829, in excluding a portion of
his &How-countrymen on account of their religious opinions.
Mr. G. It. ROBINSON had voted for the bill believing
that the admission of Jews into parliement could not by Toe
gibility now, or at a remote period, have the least injurious
effect up in the established ehurch.
Mr. NAPIER declared his intention to vote against the
third reading of the bill, and, without wishing to question
the personal religion of any member who supported the
measure, he must express a hope that the arguments on both
sides should be fairly considered before a candusion Imo come
to. The legislature of this country took its stand on the
acknowledgment of Christianity so truth; and, if this bill
became law, this country could no longer stand upon that
existing national acknowledgment. If this bowie disavowed
Christianity as the basis of its legislation, could it say that
the people might not expect to incur the divine displeasure /
(Hear, hear.) He was
,not there to argue against an en-
lightened toleration ; on the contrary, lie was of opinion
that, so long as the Gospel was sustained no the
standard of doctrine, and as the common rule
of public morals, they might afford to be very telenint
indeed. But the coovktion of his mind, after full considera-
tion of the subject, MO3, that should those be admitted into
that house us legislators who called the Redeemer an
impostor, and declared Christianity to be untrue, confusion
mint follow, as the nation would cease to houour Him whom
hitherto they bad always been taught to adore. (Hear.)
And he must also ink the house to consider what would
probably he the effect of this measure upon the Jerre them-
selves? Their hopes cold not, according to their faith,
centre in any Gentile land. They count upon the restoration
of their own nationality, and then fore he held that the
adoption of the measure could not help forward the removal
of those 'diction* this people had so long experienced. On
all grounds he called upou the house to paint, lisfere it
pc filled the constitution of the country, and before it pro-
voked the jealousy of Him whose mercies hod ea recently
heen extended to us as a nation. He cherished a feeling for
the Jews, but he cherished still mole n the true faith of a
Christian." (Hear.)
Mr. R. PALMER could not acquiesce in the conclusions
to which the hon. and learned gentleman who had jest
spoken had arrived ; for after full consideration of the
question, before and since he had been a member of the
house, his mind had been brought to the conviction that,
both on political and Christian grounds, the bill ought to be-
come part and parcel of the l iw of the land.
Lord MAHON said that though he had spoken at former
stages of the bill, he could not shrink from declaring hits con-
tinued opposition to it, now ihat it had arrived at its third '
reading. Ile regarded the measure as one which had been
shown by the petition of Archdeacon Wilhetfurce as likely I
to lead to the separation between church and state. It was tine
that he had supported the propositions which had admitted
Jews to the magistracy and to hold civic di tiactions ; hut he
held there existed a vast difference between those concessions
end their admission to make the laws to be so admitestered.
This was a queetiou of principle, and it ought net to be
argued on grounds of expediency. He was sorry to he
unlined to admit that there had been less manifestation of
feeling against this measure out of door, than he hail been
led to expect ; but should 'he hill be rejected elsewhere, and
re-intro:rued, he had no doubt such feeling would be
strongly shown.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS was anxious to take this lust oppor-
tunity of declaring that further examination had only
strengthened his conviction of the impeller of Chis measure,
lie altogether dissented from the view taken by the boo.
member fur Berkshire (Mr. It. Palmer), that those who
were in possession of a good thing ought to be called on to
prove their right, by showing a beneficial exercise of
the tool they held. One of the nest popular
arguments in favour of the measure Lad been
this: Having gone so far, you are bound to advance. But
let it first be considered whether they bad done well in going
so tar—whether the direction was originally a right one
otherwise the argent( tat was sophistical. the house had
not to deal with a visionary Chnstianity, hut with one em-
bodied in • particular form of religion. The members of
that house had to legislate on vital questions effecting the
church ; and, because they had admitted, perhaps unfortu-
nately, one discordant element, that could not he made an
argument for the admission of soother. Let this weasUre
be granted, and the house could not refuse the admission of
infidels and men of no religion at all. It had been inked,
what bad religion to do with politico ? The connexion was
such, that he could not consent to any further element
of opposition to the church being introduced into
the governing body. Already it was mutter of
complaint with some that the prelates were nominated
by the prime minister. But who made the prime minister ?
A congeries of Roman catholic, churchmen, and dissenters;
and surely it was not desirable to admit a new element of
apposition. It was unjust to Mourne that the mere privation
of political power was persecution ; if this were so, the num-
ber of the persecuted dames much exceeded that of their
persecutors. Pus great objection to the measure was, not
that it would utehristianise the country or the legislature,
hut that it would prove on the high. et authority that the
legislature was indifferent to the religious belief of the
cepuutry. (Hear, hear.) After carrying the word of salve-
tinn to the ends of the earth, how could we justify this in-
difference in the face of the converts from heathenism?
Mr. M. GASIII ELL said he bad come to a conclusion on
this measure at variance with that of the majority of those
with whom ho usually acted. Ile should have been glad to
have been able to take a different course, knowing that much
alarm had been excited amongst some classes by the proposal
of this measure.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE rose amidst loud cries of " divide."
He wished to ask the house whether the disconnexion of
the church from the state in France, had not led to the over-
throw of the monarchy of that country, and whether they
were prepared to follow a system which had produced such
results in a neighbouring country ? ("Oh, oh," and cries of
" divide.")
Mr. FORTESCVE, who spoke amidst continual cries fer
a division, was understood to say that lie could not conceive
how the exclusion of the Jews could conduce to the advan-
tage of the church establishment
Lord J. RUSSELL—Having taken no part in the debate
on the second reading of the bill, I feel bound, before the
house comes to a terininetion of its proceedings with regard
to it, to endeavour to give some answer to the objections
which have been made to the measure I have had the honour
to propose. And, in the find place, I must say that it was •
good augury for the success of the bill, and fur the advance
of the principle of freedom and humanity, that the lion. and
teamed gentleman who proposed the rejection of the mea-
sure began his speech by abaudonine sumo of those argu-
ments which had had a great effect in prejudicing the minds
of many gentlemen with regard to it. The hon. and learned
gentleman acknowledged, supposing the bill to pass' that
Christianity would ho no lons part and parcel of the law of
the land than it was at present ; and he give up the asser-
tion, which had been ono of the mod successful against the
measure, that it will tend to unchrhtianise the constitution
and legislature of this country. Sir, I derive encouragthaent
from these admissions. I derive encouragement from them,
not only on account of the great authority of the hon. gen-
tleman, but because I think that that authority shows that
many of' the objections to the measure have given way before
the progress of discussion. (Hear.) But I still find points
of principle and points of practice on which it is desirable
that 1I should make a comment. Let me address toyedf to
them; and in so doing let me remove the miaapprenension
which still appears to prevail, that it was any part of my use.
gument that religion hail nothing to do with politics, or that
we ought not to be guided by religious feeling in c inducting
the legislation of a nation. Sir, my opinion is quite the con-
trary. My opinion is that religion ought to influence us in
the smallest domestic affairs, and in our highest legis•
lative measures. So far from thinking that religion
has nothing to do with politics, I believe that
Christian principle is the basis of legislation. I believe that
it was Christian principle that guided in this country our
greatest representatives—that it was Christian principle, for
example, that inspired William Wilherforce, and those who
acted with him to that attempt which resulted in the destruc-
tion of the abominable slave trade—and to speak of no par-
ticular law, but of the general spirit of institutions, my belief
is, that whereas ancient republics and states not under the
influence of Christianity, as they became more civilised be-
came more loose in their systems, more demoralised in their
principles, and more corrupt and debased in their practices,
so, under notional rule which has Christianity to en-
lighten and to guide it, as nations became more
civilised they will, solely as they are so guided,
become more pure, become more ready to acknowledge
and to be directed by the influence of a ditine and holy law.
(Cheering,) lluldiug these opinions, it cannot be my view
that " religion has nothing to do with politics," or that
" Christianity ought to be kept out of systems of legislation."
But what I do maintain is, that you cannot by seeded decla-
rations—bywords introduced into an oath—by forms and
statutes imposing disqualificatien—obtain that Christianity
which you seek for in your legislation. The object is not to
be gained in that way. I proved this on a former occasion
by adducing the caste of notorious disbelievers in Christianity
who had sat in this house. But if your object is attained in
this way, why not carry the principle further i Why not
insist upon a declaration from • member on entering this
house that he is not swayed by [adieu or by party bias
—that be is not actuated by pausal or by corrupt

motive, but that his sole aim and object is the good of Me
oonntry ? If a declaration is good for saytiffes ono disbar
tion ie as good as another. (dear, hear.) And vast lOw
tend for is that although your exclusion may bi lend en •
negative, it is utterly useless as mating an affirmative.
You may, by a declaration, exclude the Jews ; but neither
by declaration nor by exclusion can you create a belief in
Christianity. (Loud cheers ) That is altogether beyond
you—it is far beyond the limits of your legislative power.
k Renewed cheers.) And yet, sir, 1 cannot hut think that
the want of • duo sense of the importance of this distinction
has run through nearly every speech that has been delivered
on the question. It is said " You ere anxious to
abolish Christianity; you are striving to unchriat-
ianise the parliament." Why, If a declaration of
this sort produce the effect of creating Christianity, I
admit there would be great force in the argument ; but
as I know that the words of exclusion can have no such
effect—that while we declare that the legislature shell not be
Jewish we are utterly powerless to declare that it shall be
Christian—why, I say, that the declaration is of no effect
whatever. (Repeated sheering.) An hon. member, in
wham I glad to recognise the son of an old friend—l refer to
the hon. motile r for Cambridge (Mr. Campbell)—said just
now, in a speech of great ability, that he should vote against
this bill because public virtue was necessary in a legislature,
and Christianity was the only assurance of public virtue.
Then, why not carry the principle of il, claration one step
further, and have • declaration of public virtue 7 The rea-
son why you have not is obvious—that the obligation of pub-
lic virtue is net to be created by public statute. (Cheers.) But,
sir, let me now come to the practical effects which may result
1 from the admission of Jews to parliament. With regard to the
Jews themselves, it might be admitted that there are many ex-
amples in the New Testament so well as in the Old that the
moral law to which they consider themselves subject is that
"on which hangs all the law and the prophets." With
respect to their civil conduct, no one impugns the conduct of
Jews as citizens of the state, ae citizens paying du,. obedience
to the law, ready to hear their share of the public burden,
and to enlist themselves in defence of the public safety in
times of war and tumult. Let us cementer, then, what are
assumed to be the dangers of giving this people the privilege
of parliament. We are tail that "we are all Christians,"
sad it is presumed that we arc all united. But ie
fact is that we hare had many debates of late
years in which the opinions of -bodies of Christians,
one against another, have been repeated with great
vehemence and urged with much violence. On an occasion
when the Unitarian Chapel question was the subject of dis-
cussion, and on • more recent occasion still, when the
endowment of Maynooth was the topic of debate, some mem-
bers ware found to soy that unitarians were not Christians,
whilst others laboriously argued that Roman catholicism was
a false religion. Tnough we may, therefore, all of us pro-
fess and cull ourselves Christians, yet it is evident that there
are among Christians themselves the differences which pre
vail between Christians and Jews. I do net know that of
late years there have been any material questions before us
relating to the Jews themselves, but there have been and
there are likely to be question% relating to Christian sects,
and especially to Roman catholics, on which the house has
been, and on which we must expect that its opinion
will hereafter he, divided. But I see no reason
why Jews should not treat these questions as candidly and
fairly as any other body. Then, with respect to the Church
of Euglend, the Jews, so far as 1 know, have no animosity
t.,, nor any disposition to injure our established church.
Can any reason be shown why they should not consider
questions relating to that church as fairly as any other
members not belonging to its communion ? With regard to
another class of questions, ler religions in their character,
on such questions as the currency and the bank charter, the
amount of th, supplies, and the commercial policy of the
country, no one will say that • member of the Jewish per-
seamen is not a most tit person to give an opinion. I:he
question is then, after all, whether you shall give up a
remnant of the system of religious exclusion
(Cheers.) I affirmed before, and 1 affirm engin,
that this exclusiou of the Jews is quite coutrary
to the spirit of the emstitution of the country. With regard
to social distinction, it is the pride of this country that per-
sons of the most humble birth may rise in the church, in the
law, in the state, to offices of the hi,..hiat rank. Such is the
constitution of this realm; and is it fair that the Jew should
ne the only person within it entirely excluded from the
advantages of so glorious a law? It has been said, though
the fallacy is so transparent as scarcely to need answering,
that this is a case similar ta that of a man possessed of a free-
hold valued at 39a, who is on the verge of the privilege, but
not within it. But we all know that in that case the free-
holder has only to get Is. better off to ensure his qualification,
whereas, with regard to the Jew, you say to him, unless
you change your conscience you shall not ponces the
qualification at all. (Hear, hear.) But, air, contrary
as is the system to the spirit of our constittt-
don, it is, according to the view I take, far more contrary
to the spirit of the Christian system. It is my belief
r that a relies ent, guided by the spirit of Christian principle,
, and with the greater portion of its members professors of
1 the Christian faith, will lose none of its superiority by the
I admission of a few members of the Jewish persuasion. It is
my belief that their admission would in no degree affect our
system ; whilst I feel that we should be displaying the great-
' est proof of our confidence In the doctrines of Christianity by
shoeing that we rely for our future, not on a declaration—
• not on • statute of tleorge IV.—but on a law which is
I written on the tables of the heart.
Tare house then divided—Fur the thirdreading 234
Against it
The bill was then read a third time tad passed.
EVICTED DESTITUTE POOlt (IRELAND) BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to.
On the 4th clause being pro d,
Mr. MAUNSELL proposed on amendment whereby the
expense of supporting tenants evicted from their holding‘,
should be thrown upon the holders of townlands, instead,
as proposed, of throwing it upon the electoral division.
After a lengthened discussion, the amendment was nega-
tived and the clause agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, the house resumed,
and the bill was ordered to be reported.
POOR-HOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.
In committee on this bill clauses were proposed by Sir W.
SOMERVILLE, presiding means of burial for destitute
poor who should die out of the workhouse.
The other clauses were agreed to, and the house reenmed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
On the motion of Mr. E. DZNISON the following com-
mittee was appointed :—Mr. E. Deni.on, Sir G. Grey, Sir J.
Graham, the Chancellor of the Exclirquer, Mr. Cioulburn,
Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Gladstone, Mr, Harman, Lord Ashley,
Mr. Baioe., Lord Mahon, Mr. J. A. Smith, Sir J. Y. I3ul•
ler, Sir J. Trollope, and Mr Stanfield.
The house adjourned at baltpaat one o'clock.

Zhe erproso.

MAILS.

The malls for Ttritisti NeithAlll;;ies, and the United Slates,
will be made up en the evening of the sth May.
The overland clovcd mails, rid Marseille.% to the Mediterranean,
Egypt, Aden, trylen, India, Hong-hong, Re., will be made up on the
evening of the with Nov.
The malls for Vigo, Oporto, Lisbon, Madeira, Cadiz, and Gibraltar
will be made up on the morning of the sth Mar.
The Weet India Mails, excluding Bermuda, Nunn, Havana,
Monaural% New Orleans, Vera Cru,., Tampa°, and Porto Rico, and
ineluding thoeo for Nladeira, Jaemel, Carthagrna, Santa Martha,
Chaim..., Panama, West Coast of South America, and St. Juan-de-
Nicaragua, will be made up on the meaning of the 17th May.
The overland mile for Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, the lonian Islands,
Erna, Aden, tX•ylon, India, llong-Kong, and China, rid Southamp-
tun, will be made 111$ on the morning of the 211th May.
The moils for New South Wahl., Van Diemen's Land, and New
Zealand will be made up ou the evening of the blot 7d .7.
The mails for the Weal (last of Africa and Madeirn will be made
ap on the evening of the :11st May.
The mail.. fur the Bragila, the River Plate, Monte Video, Pernam-
buco, Bahia, Madeira, and Emma Ayreig, will bo mode up on the
evening of the 3rd June.

NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS.
The number of STAMPS issued by tho authorities of the
Stump-office, during 1847, to the
DAILY NEWS wu 3,447,009
This, we believe, is within eight per cent of the number
issued to the Morning 'Jerald, Morning Chronicle, and
Morning Post, ALL PUT TOORTIIISE.
In addition to the above, issued to the DAILY NEWS,
Month:, Paper, there were issued for the Evening Edition,
THE EXPRESS 778,714
Which wee more, we believe, than were issued either to
the Utak or Standard, EveainiPapers.

11108 WATER AT WNDON
Tv. DAl—llernin. 10 000.14043 3 ; Aflerunno, 131^. put 3.
1114.-41usluir—NOreitog, 40 ma. vaat 3, 1.114rw04 .0/ put 1.

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 5.
Tut: resolutions on the general principles of parlia-
mentary reform by Earl STANHOPE, which we pub-
lished yesterday, are entitled to respectful attention.
It is gratifying to see a nobleman possessed of sympa-
thies so extensive as to pass the boundaries of caste,
and enter into the views and wishes of classes whose
position in society is so different from his own. In
one point Earl STANHOPE appears to have formed a
more just estimate of what is required to inspire the
at present unenfranchised classes with confidence in
and love of established institutions than any other
recent writer on the subject.
11 To give a certain portion of the working classes,
a voice in the election of representatives will
not satisfy them, unless they obtain at the same
time the power of sending some of their own number
into parliament. This is natural. The burgess class
have found that country. gentlemen are but inadequate
representatives of their order in parliament. The
working class have also a misgiving that none
are likely to speak their minds so exactly to
their mind as some of themselves. We do not fear
to startle our readers by stating that we think it of
the utmost consequence that this natural desire should
be granted, for we remember reading an expression
of the same opinion in the Edinburgh Review—no
very ultra-liberal journal—before the Reform Bill was
brought in.
Earl STANHOPE appears to be deeply impressed
with the necessity of an arrangement which will ad-
mit of working men finding their way into parlia-
ment. No leas than three of his resolutions aim more