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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVEN LNG-, APRIL 30. 185f3

heard any sound reasons against the measure. Of course
their lordships had heard again that it was a measure to
" unchristianise the Legislature ;" but, again, explana-
tion of what that phrase meant was totally omitted.
(Hear.) He must have been a great man who had
invented that "cry;" it was admirably adapted to the
purpose of creating an alarm, and and it conveyed no
definite idea to be grappled with. (Hear.) Did a Chris-
tian Legislature mean a Legislature to which only Chris-
tians were admitted ? If so, this bill would not neces-
sarily un-Christianise the Legislature, for the bill might
pass and still a Jew might never, again be elected is
England. (Hear.) Did a Christian Legislature then
mean a Legislature elected by an exclusively Christian
constituency? It might be supposed that a measure
which it was stated would have the effect of un-Chris-
tianising Parliament might have some sensible effect in
other respects. But he never heard or read of any such
effect being anticipated, and for the simple reason that
the tenets and doctrines of Christianity, as a religion,
could never come under discussion in the assembly into
which those to whom this measure related were to be
admitted. Topics might be discussed there relating to
the temporal interests of the Christian church, but what-
ever might be the interests of any church or religious
body which were discussed there, they must remain un •
affected by such an addition to the composition of the
Legislature as was now proposed. He did not know
bow his right rev. brother felt ; but he (the Bishop of
St. David's) could declare that in any question referring
to the rights and interests of his church, there were not
a few whose places he would not desire to see supplied
by any Hebrews that could be found in the synagogue
in Duke's-place. There were other points which influ-
enced the opinion of many persons, and be was not sure
but that the minds of many of their lordships were in-
fluenced by it. There had been one brought forward
that evening. It was the old cry that the Jew was
not sufficiently rooted in our soil to enable him to per-
form the high functions of a legislator. That argument
might years ago have had some weight, but the experi-
ence of the last few years had abated its force.
When he considered the emigration which was carry-
ing so large a portion of the people of this country
to other shores—not the indigent, and those who
were compelled by their necessity to seek a settlement
in the Antipodes, but it was numbers of the middle
classes who left their homes and their native soil, for
the sake of a slight addition to their worldly prosperity
—he could not see how you could use the argument
against the Jews that they were not sufficiently attached
to this country, but that their hopes had drawn all their
thoughts to a distant land. In conclusion, he would
remind the house of another fact. Their lordships would
recollect that before the discussion of this evening com-
menced a petition had been presented by a right rev.
prelate, which he accompanied by a statement that the
petitioner was a person who had granted a piece of land
as a site for a Christian church. That he (the Bishop of
St. David's) was prepared to say was by no means a
solitary case. He knew cases of Jewish manufacturers
employing Christian workmen, whose example he should
be glad to see imitated by those who bore the name of
Christian, and who liberally built Christian churches
and Christian schools for the benefit of their Christian
workmen. If they were to judge people not only by
their professions, but still more by their acts, and he
thought that those who so acted could not be called
blasphemers of our Lord.
The Earl of HARROWBY said that he grounded his
opposition to this bill on no prejudice against, or hostility
towards the Jews ; but on his belief that this act, trifling
as it might appear, would he injurious to Christianity.
He could not forget that Christianity was interwoven,
not only with the religion but the habits of the people of
this country. He could not look at a painting over the
throne in that house, representing the baptism of an
English Bing, without seeing a proof of how much
Christianity was intermixed with all our habits and
customs, and the object of this measure was to attempt
to eradicate that feeling. He was not always of this
opinion, but the more he had seen of life, the more he
had seen the power or expansion possessed by a prin-
ciple, when once it was admitted, to however small
an extent. In this case he did not believe that any
political necessity existed, or political advantage would
be derived ; and notwithstanding the attempt of the
most rev. prelate to reason it away, he believed the pub-
lic feeling would be, that when words, "on the true
faith of a Christian," were struck out of the Parliamen-
tary oath, you had struck out, as it were, one of the
nails which held Christianity and the Constitution toge-
ther, and that it ought not to be done for so trifling a
purpose as that which was proposed. For the reason,
then, that there was no choice of evils to be made, that
there was no political necessity for this measure, or any
political advantage to be derived from it, because the
Jews were better off in this country than in any other,
and were admitted already to a large share of the admi-
nistration of its affairs, he would not lend his hand to
promote an impulse, however small, which he believed
so fatal to the religious feeling of the country. (Hear.)
The Duke of ARGYLL assured the house that it was
with some reluctance that he rose to address them—
firstly, because he felt that the subject was exhausted ;
and, secondly, because on three or four previous occa-
sions, he had stated the grounds on which he was pre-
pared to vote for the admission of the Jews to Parlia-
ment. But there were some observations which had
been addressed to their lordships, particularly by the
noble earl who had just sat down, and by the noble earl
who moved the rejection of the second reading, on which
he was anxious to say a few words, and he trusted that
nothing which fell from him would be an exception to
the rule which had hitherto prevailed in the debate,
namely, that the deepest respect should be paid by the
supporters of the measure to the prejudices of those who
differed from them. The noble earl who had just sat down
appeared to him (the Duke of Argyll) to have abandoned
the principle insisted on by former speakers who resisted
the bill. The noble earl had said that he• did not feel
bound by the strict rules of logic laid down by the most
rev. prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin), and he held
that on questions of policy, they were not to be bound
by the strict rules of logic, but that they ought to
consider all the circumstances connected with each par-
ticular occasion. He (the Duke of Argyll) would en-
tirely agree with the noble earl, if the noble earl was
prepared to admit this to be a question of expediency
and policy. But the noble earl had forgotten that all
the previous speakers had addressed themselves to the
question of religious principle, alone, and he (the Duke
of Argyll) maintained that, when you appealed to reli-
gious principle, youlwere bound to show that you were
ready to act on the principle which you avowed, or else
to reconsider the principle, and see if you could apply it
to the individual case before you. The noble earl had
said that, if a greater political advantage was to be ob-
tained by this measure, or if there had been any great
pressure on the subjcct, it might be different ; but he
rested his argument on the fact that there were no em-
barrassing circumstances connected with this question.
He (the Duke of Argyll) agreed that there were no em-
barrassing circumstances connected with it, so far as
pressure out of doors was concerned. But he main-
tained that that was not the question. No one would
vote against the admission of the Jews to Parliament
merely on the ground of the danger that, to our institu-
tions, would follow. That ground had been abandoned,
and the objection now rested solely on religious grounds.'
The noble earl had referred to an argument which had
been used with some effect in this and previous debates.
The noble earl said that the exclusion of the Jews was
owing to an accident in the form of the oath, but he
asked if it could be imagined that, if the Jews were not
excluded by that means, no other means would have
been taken for the purpose. He (the Duke of Argyll)
would contend, in conjunction with his noble friend
behind him, that that was a most inconclusive ar-
gument. The Jews were at this moment exercising
the functions of electors. How came they to obtain
the elective franchise ? Did the noble earl imagine
that in the times of cruelty and persecution, to which
he had referred, the Jews would have been allowed
to have votes any more than to sit as members
of the House of Commons ? How had the
Jews come by the enjoyment of that privilege, which
they enjoyed in common with all her Majesty's subjects,
except by the enlightenment and progress of the world,
and it was in consequence of there being no accidental
form of oath which interposed between the voter and
the polling booth that they possessed a privilege which
might have been extended to the right of sitting
in the House of Commons if it had not been for such an
accident as the form of the oath. He would now notice
some of the observations of the other noble earl (Shaftes-
bury). That noble earl said that his noble friend (the
Earl of Aberdeen) asserted that the Jews had a consti-
tutional right to sit in Parliament. He (the Duke of
Argyll) did not understand his noble friend to say that
they had a constitutional, and certainly not a legal
right ; for'if they had there would be no necessity for
this measure, but that they had a kind of natural right,
and that their position in the country made it reasonably
just that they should be allowed to sit in Parliament.
The noble earl said that the bill excluded Jews from
many offices, and that for one enabling proviso there
were several disabling clauses. If the noble earl had
looked at the bill he would have found that the disabling
clauses referred chiefly to offices with which ecclesiasti-
cal patronage was connected, and from several of those
Roman Catholics. were also excluded. The noble earl
also said that the question should be considered by the
house on the ground of religious principle ; and he re-
peated what he had before said, that if Jews were pos-
sessed of this privilege, he would not be prepared to ex-
clude them by a new enactment, but that he was also
not prepared to give them the privilege by a new enact-
ment. If this was a question of policy he (the Duke
of Argyll) would have admitted that distinction, but
when the question was put on religious grounds, he
thought that if you were bound to exclude in the one
case, you were equally.bound to exclude in the other.
If this was a Chpstian nation, and therefore Jews ought
not now to.be alloived to exercise the functions of the
legislator, it would be a duty to exclude them if they
already possessed them. With regard to what, after all,
was the main question, the noble earl said that the oath
required to be taken was a distinct assertion of a pro-
fbbeoeus
tsz
much
takeni
theounc hocfsbcoay,concluding
u Christianity.ndlianng He (the Duke of Argyll) main-
tained that it was not, but that it had been adopted as a
form which was tendered to a man who took the oath ;
s
for
rlume iann:rti:evren if indeed,wi
twthhooar
that
a st formedhna odt
a beencni i or
saids pt
Christian.
nt
.t of fa
Htt hei et
agreedmight oath ;
with the most,rev. prelate that there would not be much
Cinhorriestaiamqs, and it was
effectually pees: were an assertion of Christianity,
iboilteyivi.eerd
argumentHtheat, (thehis
tDoNiviuhkeiae:
question of feeling mthigoebfetAhrritasktilelanitchwahraoctewreroef
annoyt reallyassem-
bly. se
m
was impossible to say that it could
Y hadg speaking,
b e
a relic of the prejudices of 'r:
.arn)erbeeflieavredgumteheatt. thHis e wbaes:
allude, namely, the number of ti
nn
uszetst; Ther•e
eist
cwaa was
ha c
h t
h c remnant
Houseane and
of Commons had decided on this question, and the was
which he would
ad-
visability of their lordships not interfering with those
decisions. Although he was as zealous as any one for
1 the honour and independence of their lordships' house,

and was strongly convinced that it was their duty to
maintain that position in all questions affecting the
policy of the empire, nevertheless, he would refer to the
fact of the House of Commons having come to these de-
cisions by laage majorities in different parliaments, and
under successive governments, as proving that the feeling
which induced them to resist this measure was at va-
riance with the existing feeling of society ; and he be-
lieved that there must be consciousness even in the
opponents of the measure that they were not bona
fide attempting to secure spriritual Christianity ; and
that so far as religious feeling was concerned, they must
leave it to the electors to choose whom they would to
represent them in Parliament.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA thought it impossible for
any person to dwell upon the dispersion of the Jews
without having his Christian charity excited. But this
was a different question altogether. They were asked
to admit as legislators those who denied the foundation
upon which their religion existed ; and it was for deny-
ing those very truths that the judgments of God had
fallen upon them. He denied that this was a question
touching the freedom of election, and he maintained it
would be a fearful act for a Christian legislature to de-
clare in the face of Heaven that a Jew was fit to make
the laws of a Christian country. If the house consented
to this measure, it would inflict a very severe blow upon
the country, and he warned the right reverend bishops
opposite that if this measure were carried by their votes
they would be mainly instrumental in separating the
Church from the state. (Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM thought that the noble earl (Win-
chilsea) laboured under a very needless alarm, for it did
not appear to him that the right rev. bench of bishops
would by their votes carry the measure for although
some of them would vote in favour of this measure, yet
he believed the majority would be against it. For the
conscientious opinions of the opponents of this measure
he entertained the profoundest respect ; but he did not
enter into their alarm at all, and had no fear that the
legislature would be unchristianised in consequence of
the admission of the Jews. The noble earl (Shaftes-
bury) must surely be aware of what had been done in
past time, and to which he was about to call their at-
tention. That circumstance was the admission of the
Jews to take the declaration of abjuration without the
words "on the true faith of a Christian." What was
the ground of that omission ? On the accession of the
house of Hanover to the throne, a bill passed for the
relief of the Quakers, and although the words "on the
true faith of a Christian" were left out, other words were
put in, which the Quakers, though with some scruples
and objections, adopted, and for six or seven years the
form of the declaration of abjuration contained these
words, " In the presence of God, the witness of what
I affirm." Here then commenced the unchristianising
process ; and what happened six years afterwards ? In
the year 1721, they struck out the words, " In the pre-
sence of God, &c." as before they had struck out the
words "on the true faith of a Christian ;" and this
second change admitted the Atheist, as the first altera-
tion had admitted the Deist. The whole matter rested
upon a civil and political, and not upon a religious foot-
ing at all. It was not, as the Earl of Shaftesbury sup-
posed, that the Quakers were favoured by the Legisla-
ture, because they were a kind of Christian. The Ear-

of Shaftesbury said this—but what said the Parliament ?
The act of Parliament said " that whereas since the
year 1714," when the first change was made—" where-
as the Quakers had been"—what ? Religious persons
and good Christians of their own class and kind ? No
such thing : but it was this. Whereas they have been
proved " loyal and peaceable subjects, and zealous sup-
porters of the House of Hanover, in the title and hold-

ing of the Crown of this realm." Thus it was entirely
for civil, secular, and temporal views alone, that this
second change was made, whereby the Atheist was ad-
mitted, as the Deist had been admitted by the first alter-
ation, and God knows the Quakers were neither the one
nor the other. It was much against his own convenience
to speak that night, and he only did so to show his

feeling upon this-matter ; and God forbid he should
join in enacting an act of Parliament which in the
slightest approached towards showing irreverence to
that sacred religion which their lordships not only pro-
fessed but believed ; or which was in disregard of those
conscientious feeling which his fellow subjects enter-
tained. It was not with the view of showing disre-
gard for the one or the other that he should give his
vote for this bill. (Hear, hear.) It was most satisfac-

tory to him to find that uo asperity of party feeling had
been shown in this debate ; and that there had been no

want of respect shown to that most respectable and
amiable body of men, the Jews, He called them amiable,
for they were men zealous in all good works, as any per-
son acquainted with the charities of this country must
know. And they were easier to be admired than imi-
tated in the assistance which they cheerfully and con-
tinually gave, without regard to religious opinions.
(Hear, hear.)

Lord COLCHESTER said that there had been another

cause of exclusion against the. Quakers and Jews than

that adverted to by the noble lord (Brougham).. Up to
the year 1828, nobody could sit in parliament without
taking the sacramental test, and that was a mode of ex-
cluding the Quakers and Jews.

Lord BROUGHAM stated that this was not so, for
that test did not apply to members of Parliament, but
only to members of corporations ; and then there was
annually a bill of indemnity, exempting parties from the
penalties which attached.

Their lordships then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading :
Content, present .
Proxies .

46-115
96

Non-contents, present
Proxies

68-164

Majority against the second reading 49
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
SOUTH SEA AND OTHER ANNUITIES
COMMUTATION BILL.

On the motion of Lord GRANVILLE, this bill was
read a second time and ordered to be committed.
Their lordships then adjourned at a quarter to ten
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before four o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Rossendale Waterworks Bill was read a third
time, and passed.

The London Docks Bill, and the Londonderry, Ennis-
killen, and Sligo Railway Bill, were considered, and
ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

TOTNES ELECTION.
The members of the Totnes Election Committee were
called to the table and sworn, and appointed to sit at
twelve o'clock to-morrow.
HARWICH ELECTION.
The members of this committee were also sworn, and
appointed to sit at twelve to-morrow.
PETITIONS.
Mr. WILCOX presented a petition from tea-dealers in
Southampton against any increase in the cost of trading
licenses.

Mr. FREWEN presented a petition from Sussex in
favour of the total repeal of the malt duties.
Lord GODERICH presented several petitions from
Yorkshire in favour of legalising marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister.

Mr. OLlVEmEmleßeAffecptr.esented several petitions from
Kent to the

Mr. A. HASTIE presented a petition from tea and
coffee dealers in Glasgow, against any increase in their
annual licenses.

Mr. A. KINNAIRD presented a petition from En-
field, Middlesex, against the opening of the Crystal
Palace on Sunday.
Mr. HEADLAM presented a petition from Newcastle,
in favour of the reduction of the duty on cork ; also a
petition from Gateshead, approving of the proposition to
extend the income tax to Ireland, and generally in favour
of the Ministerial budget.
Lord BROOKE presented a petition from Warwick.
shire against the malt tax.
Lord D. STUART presented a petition from Fredk.
John Cheshire, on behalf of himself and other settlers in
Canada, complaining of being ejected from certain lands
purchased by them from the British Government, on the
ground of such lands forming part of an " Indian re-
serve."

chester Chamber of Commerce, praying that the gene-
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Man-
ral propositions of the budget be passed into a law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition
from the Polytechnic Institution, Southampton, in favour
of the distribution of Parliamentary papers to literary
and scientific institutions.
CLERGY RESERVES BILL.
The SPEAKER acquainted the house that the Lords
had agreed to the Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill. (Cheers.)

Tilt BUDGET.
Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from
Finsbury, in favour of the Government financial scheme,
RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.

In reply to Mr. RICARDO,
Mr. CARDWELL said it was the intention of the
Government to lay down their views on the subject of
railway amalgamation in the course of the present session.
M. KOSSUTH AND THE SEIZURE OF ROCKETS

fpuc. stibt ieorn tpor
ofeoeremd
ng hiss ownlvb opinionicb
vve
were
ep o n
otihnatte
dw hido cuht ha
Wthhee n p
u theby.
(Hear,
concluded, hear.)p
stated
magistrate in
ewerevide entirely i r
pub-
lic;
en
nwould then have still better grounds on
w Bich to arrive at a decision. With regard to the last
qc testion, he had to state that it was the duty of the
pc lice, according to their general as well as their special
in.itructions, to watch the proceedings of any persons,
wl iether Englishmen or foreigners, who were open—it
might be rightly or wrongly—to the suspicion of con-
tel nplating any breach of the law. (Hear, hear.) Nei-
th ar M. Kossuth, nor any political refugee in this coun-
try, could be exempt from these ordinary precautions'
wb ich were taken against any individual, whether he
was a British subject or not. (Cheers.)
Alr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the proceed-
ing s taken by the police in this matter were in the first
place instituted in consequence of, or arose from, direct
or indirect instructions from the Home Department.
Th, a noble lord, in his answer the other night, and to-
nig ht, had taken a course which in his (Mr. Bright's)
opi neon was not becoming his position, nor becoming
the Government of this country in regard to Kos-
sue!). They spoke in that and the other house as if
we offered a refuge to the exiles from all foreign
cou ntries--(hear, hear)—but it had been broadly stated
in the public press that the Government had either di-
rect ly or indirectly permitted spies to be set on the
house of M. Kossuth- -(hear, hear)—and on all the per-
son, s who went in or came out of the house, and who
were supposed to have any communication with
him.. (Hear, hear.) Then there was a seizure of cer-
tain war stores at Rotherhithe, and the newspaper
which was the great organ of the Government, pub-
lished the most defamatory charges against Louis Kos-
suth. The noble lord, who must know all the facts of
the case as well as any man in the kingdom, was
askod to state, not the whole circumstances of the
case, but whether he had any evidence which con-
nected M. Kossuth with the proceedings at Ro-
therhithe ; but instead of giving a direct reply, he
spoke in the most evasive manner, and although he said
he did not wish to cast imputations on M. Kossuth or
any one else, he allowed charges to go forth to the
world, and studiously avoided saying anything which
would lead the public to feel that there was no
evidence at all against that individual. (Hear, hear.)
His own opinion was that Kossuth honestly intends to
obey the law while he remained in this country, whilst
they had his word of honour that he was in no way con-
nected with these proceedings at Rotherhithe. He
wished, therefore, to know whether the Government had
caused these proceedings to be instituted, or whether
they had any evidence in their possession which could at
all implicate Kossuth in the matter ?
Lord PALMERSTON found fault with the hon. mem-
ber for the ignorance he displayed of our constitutional
law. The hon. member took him to task because he
would not answer a question which no one had a right
to put to him as a Minister of the Crown. The
honourable gentleman wanted him to prejudge a
case that was now being tried in a court, but
he could do nothing of the sort. (Cheers.) It was
no part of his duty to explain the conduct of the judges
of a constituted court ; bat with regard to the other
questions put to him, he had no hesitation in stating
that these proceedings had been taken under instructions
issued from the Home-office. He had no desire to
shrink from the responsibility of his office, and that
admission be made candidly and openly. (Cheers.)
With regard to the question -of refugees residing in this
country, they were as free as the air they breathed so
long as they obeyed and respected the law, • but when
they violated the law, they as well as Englishmen, must
be held responsible to the constituted authorities of the
land. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT said the noble lord's excuse would
have been perfectly justifiable had the proceedings
been taken against Kossuth instead of Mr. Hale,
and therefore he had betrayed no ignorance
of constitutional usage in that house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COBDEN said this matter could not be allowed
to rest here. The noble lord had evaded the question
put to him. The noble lord said it was a breach
of constitutional doctrine to ask these questions,
but he denied that most positively. (Hear.) Was
Mr. Commissioner Mayne to be allowed to set
a policeman to watch his house, and yet not be respon-
sible to any one for such conduct ? Certainly not. The
commissioners were responsible to the Home Secretary,
and the minister could be constitutionally called upon to
give some explanation of his subordinates to the House
of Commons. (Hear, hear.) Honourable members
might cry " Oh, oh," but let them remember what
had been said about the vaunted freedom of the country,
ind then think that it was just possible that they were
standing between Austria and these unfortunate refu-
gees by demanding these explanations. (Hear, hear,
hear.) He, therefore, blamed the noble lord for
the tone he had adopted on this occasion, and if
he valued his character out of doors, where most
assuredly this matter would be again taken up, he would
consent to give candid and explicit answers to these
simple questions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PHINN deprecated the tone which had been
adopted on both sides in this discussion, but the noble
lord, when he talked of constitutional usage, should
remember that the people of this country looked with
jealous eyes upon anything like an interference on the part
of foreign powers in our domestic affairs, and these pro-
ceedings were calculated to excite a good deal of irrita-
tion out of doors, following as it did upon a remon-
strance which had recently come from Austria.
(Cheers.) The noble lord had displayed a pro-
per reserve in declining to prejudge a case
which was being investigated by a court of law,
but at the same time the noble lord should bear in mind
that the name of M. Kossuth had been improperly
mixed up with the proceeding, and lie ought now
to state distinctly whether he had any intention of
following up the charge which had been made in the
prosecution against Kossuth ? (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON protested that he had made
no charge against Kossuth, nor had ho any intention of
directing a prosecution to be taken against that gentle-
man. The hon. gentleman for the West Riding 'had
quite misapprehended the question which had been put
to him. He had not been called upon to explain the
conduct of a police commissioner, but he had been asked
if he thought there was sufficient evidence in the hands
of the police to convict certain parties of an offence !
(Hear, hear.) Now, that was a question which must be
left to a court of law, and which he could not be ex-
pected to answer. It was in that respect, then, that he
found fault with the hon. member for Manchester for
having displayedi gnorance of the constitutional doctrine
observed in the house, and not because he wished to
shrink from the responsibility which attached to the
office that he had the honour to fill. (Hear.)
Lord D. STUART must again take the opportunity
of telling the noble lord that in his opinion he was pur-
suing a course that was highly calculated to lower him in
the estimation of the country. The people of England were
averse to a system of police espionage for political pur-
poses, and the Government might depend upon it that
if they kept up that species of annoyance to foreign exiles
who had sought refuge on our shores, there would arise such
an agitation out of doors that no Government, however
strong, could resist it. (Hear, hear.) It would be much
better if the noble lord would display a little more candour,
and confess at once that he had no evidence whatever
against Kossuth, which he believed was about the fact.
At all events let the noble lord give up doing the work
of Austria, and consent to make such replies to these
interrogations as should be calculated to satisfy the public
mind and remove their anxiety upon the subject. (Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. FRENCH, the discussion
dropped.

BOMBAY JUDGES.
Mr. OTWAY wished to ask the President of the
Board of Control, whether he will inform the house of
the cause of the dismissal of two judges of the Sudder
Adawlut by the Bombay Government, and whether he
will lay on the table of the house all the papers and corres-
pondence relating to the dismissal of those high judicial
functionaries.

Sir C. WOOD was not prepared to answer the ques-
tion, as the Overland Mail had not yet arrived.
The motion that the house at its rising should adjourn
until Monday, was then agreed to.

by seven years would he said amount to about 2,500,000/.
but he contended that that country would gain 1,500,000
by the transaction. Now whether the income tax would
be rep)aled at the end of seven years had nothing to do
with the question. The question under consideration was
the readjustemnt of the burden of taxation between the two
countries, and if he (Mr. Moore) could prove that the bal-
ance, the proportion which subsisted ever since the union,
would now be altered to the debit or loss of Ireland, to the
extent of 300,0001. or 400,000/., it would not matter whether
the income tax should be taken off at the end of seven
years or to-morrow. The whole amount of the remission to
Ireland would be 564,287/. The income was expected to
produce 460,0001., the spirit duty 198,000/., and the legacy
duty 267,0001.—making altogether 925,040/.—leaving a
balance against Ireland. of upwards of 350,0001. (Hear.)
In addition to that Ireland would sustain a loss of 150,0001.
by the remission of the duty on butter. He did not mean
to say that it was not right to remit such a tax, but in
proposing new taxes such a remission ought to be taken
into consideration. (Hear, hear.) The Irish people were
now watching over their liberties and honour, and if a
atalfhnson
thought
tiutnrgapd.
hsa
jtrhophshaking
ila.libertieslto
pi
eetorßti
to
oi e
nunderstoodlju trampled theirtLw attack
ah
kaois
another
him—(cries
they
nhhss 1
ee.
i_riyt)
oh(
honourable(cneLraeus
would
honourable
of
hfht (Laughter.)
ee, re permit
1 m, )ps
dissolution should occur, many hon. members would be
itilthies h
rwraisg thehts
.ogkemne,telmsep
spoke")—
and member
ne
,hac_.l
in-
tended to do so--(spoke, spoke)—he did not desire to waste
the time of the committee, but trusted that he might be
allowed to say one word. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) It
painncilonn,otthveyeryg
vlis.-hasensolmrhsehivmheaut
drehffinearerkdaibole
btlheo,
utghhatt,
encreerdiallt;
it necessary to indulge in personal insinuations—(hear,
hear, and oh, oh)—and to impute base motives to
those'
who differed from them. (Spoke, spoke.) If he could
condescend to imitate the tone of the honourable gentle-
man who had just addressed the house, he perhaps
might
succeed in saying disagreeable and offensive things,
might succeed in inventing imputations. (Hear, hear, and
oh, oh.) He would simply say this—he was of course un-
known to the great majority of the house. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) But although unknown, he believed the
humblest member was entitled to defend his personal
honour. (Cheers.) Although unknown to the house, he
was content to allow time to settle the question so far as
he was concerned. He would allow honourable gentlemen
to say as offensive and disagreeable things as possible. He
would allow their speeches to go over to Ireland, and was
satisfied they would not have the slightest effect so far as
he was concerned. (Hear, hear, and oh.)
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR said the immediate question
before the house was the imposition of the income tax for a
period ending in 1860. He agreed with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in regarding the income tax as an engine to
work great events. When it was first proposed by Sir R.
Peel, it was to enable!him to do great good to the country,
as well as to maintain the national credit. At that time
there was a deficiency of about 2,000,0001., arising from
various circumstances. Sir R. Peel succeeded in supplying,
that deficiency by means of the income tax, and also suc-
ceeded in conferring those benefits on the country which
would ever be remembered. (Hear, hear.) He admitted,
unhesitatingly, that the income tax was not levied so fairly
and equitably as it might be ; but he thought it could
scarcely be imposed more equitably without making it
more inquisitorial than it was at present. The income tax
did not exceed 6,000,0001., and in imposing that tax the
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with the tea
duties, amounting to about the same sum, with the spirit
duties and with a variety of other taxes on articles of con-
sumption, yielding a revenue of 32,000,0001., and he did
not think it would be a great hardship on those who had
the ability to pay to contribute for seven years to an in-
come tax of 6,000,0001. (Hear, hear.) He trusted the
income tax would not terminate in 1860, and that before
that period the Government would be able to remit many
taxes much more objectionable. He fully approved of the
abolition of the soap duties. He considered a partial re-
duction of Excise duties most objectionable, because such
reduction did not remove the restrictions on trade and give
the consumer the full benefit of the change. It was on
that ground that he last year opposed the reduction of the
malt tax, believing, as he did, that the consumer would
not derive any benefit from the reduction. (Hear.) With
regard to the objections that he had made to the extension
of the income tax to Ireland, he regretted that the
hon. members from that country who had spoken upon this
subject had placed themselves in such a humiliating
position as they had done in resisting the proposal of the
Government. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that Ireland
had been subjected to great oppression by misgovernment,
and regretted that the Act of Union had not been accom-
panied by the removal of religious disabilities and the 1
establishment of the principles of political and civil liberty
in that country. At the time of the union the debt of
Ireland amounted to about 30,000,0001., but between that
period and 1816 it was increased to about 130,000,000/.
The then Chancellor of the Exchequer found it very
inconvenient to pay a certain sum out of the taxes of
Great Britain to meet the interest of the Irish debt, and
accordingly, in 1817, ha consolidated the English and Irish
Exchequers. Since that period this country had paid, on
account of the interest of the Irish debt, no less a sum
than 45,000,000, which, added to the principal of the debt,
and deducting the expense of the army and constabulary
in Ireland, brought out a total sum of, about 200,000,0001.
Such was the state of the debtor and creditor account be-
tween the two countries. He regretted to state that up to
the time when Sir Robert Peel came into power in 1835,
Ireland was most oppressively and unjustly governed ; but
since that period the Governments of Earl Grey, Lord
Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel had
done all they could to ameliorate her condition, and he
believed the present Government was anxious to do the
same. (Hear, hear.) A few days only had elapsed since
that house passed the Clergy Reserves Bill, and he believed
they could not long go on in Ireland without a re-adjustment
of the Church revenues in that country. (Hear, hear.)
He wished also that in every other respect the people of
Ireland should be placed upon exactly the same footing as
the people of this country, and he lamented exceedingly
the course which had been adopted by the Irish members
with regard to the extension of the income tax. He be-
lieved they could not put Ireland in a satisfactory and
prosperous condition until the Irish members did that
which the Scotch members had at all times endeavoured
to do since the union of Scotland with England—agree
among themselves upon all great national questions.
(Hear, hear.) Ho did not expect that in Ireland, or else-
where, they could be entirely separated from those divi-
sions which were incident to party; but there were great
questions affecting their own country upon which they
ought to be unanimous, and instead of resisting the intro-
duction of the income tax in the spirit they had evinced,
they ought to have considered whether they should not
assume the high and proud position of saying that they
would pay their fair share of taxation in return for the
benefits they had received, were receiving, and would
continue to receive. (Hear.) In Scotland, notwith-
standing the original barbarism of the country, the barren
and sterile nature of the soil, and the great obstacles in
the way of trade and agriculture, the people had, by dint
of perseverance, industry, and energy, attained to a pros-
perous and independent condition, and were now paying
without a murmur every tax that was paid in England.
(Hear.) He found from the works of Sir John Sinclair,
published in 1835, that th ree-fourths of the whole revenue
of Scotland had been paid into the Imperial treasury since
the Union, one-fourth having been sufficient to pay for the
whole expenditure of the country, civil, judicial, and ad-
ministrative, and also for the expense of collection. Since
1835, a still larger proportion of the revenue of Scotland
had found its way into the Imperial Exchequer. Such
had been the result of unanimity and industry on the part
of the people. He made these remarks in no invidious
spirit, but in the hope that the people of Ireland would do
what the people of Scotland had done, and would act in a
more harmonious manner in discussing great questions af-
fecting their own interests. (Hear, hear.) He would now
refer for a moment to the budget. He had no hesitation
in'saying, in the first place, that he considered some por-
tions of it defective—(hear, hear)—but, taking it altogether
he believed it to be the most important budget, with the
exception of the great free-trade budget of Sir Robert Peel,
that had ever been presented to that house. The sweep
ing reform that was proposed in the Customs, accompanied
by the improvements that were to be introduced into the
administration and management of that department of
the.public service, would be of the utmost advantage to our
commerce. The reduction of the duties on butter would
also be of great benefit, though he did not believe the fall
in the price of these articles would be to such an extent as
was anticipated. With respect to the reduction of the tea
duty, he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
adopted the course which he proposed at the commence-
ment of the session, and resolved to reduce the duty on
tea to Is. per lb. in three years. That was a wise and
proper measure, for he believed that the increased im-
portation of . ea from China would not be sufficient to
justify a greater reduction. He was convinced that at
the end of three years the proposed reduction would
be of immense advantage to the commerce of the country,
that it would greatly increase the consumption of tea,
and that the wives and children of poor labourers
instead of having only hot water drink, would have good,
strong, wholesome tea. (Hear, hear.) lie now came to
the Excise. The remission of the duty on soap would re-
move the presence of the exciseman altogether, enable the
manufacturer in this country to supply the whole world,
increase the trade with Africa for palm oil, and to diminish
the traffic in slaves, be of great service to our cloth manu-
facturers, and, above all, promote the health, comfort and
cleanliness of the people. With regard to stamps, he re-
gretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not boldly
abolish the tax upon receipts altogether, while, with re-
spect to the advertisement duty, he could not cordially ap-
prove the course adopted in that matter, inasmuch as by
retaining one-third of the tax they would still keep up the
whole expense of collection, without getting rid of the dis-
satisfaction which prevailed on the subject. In remitting
the stamp upon supplements, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had done right ; but he did not think that untaxed
supplements
should go through the Post-office without
paying postage, inasmuch as there were other papers that
were entirely devoted to advertisements,which would
but
still be subjected to the stamp duty, although containing
no news whatever. He trusted that this part of the scheme
would be modified ; if not, he was afraid it would create
much dissatisfaction. He thought that the extension of
the legacy duty to real property wasc a a
tax, whether levied very great measure,
u
though he was of opinion that ouch
dom.
upon real or personal property, was
not founded in wis
' h the people of England
It was a tax of the nature of wine
had always complained, and which was similar to the feudal
whichproduced Magna
exactions that created the resistance .
tion of the Chan-
Charta. Perhaps, however, theproposi
one at the
miler of the Exchequer was the only practicable
that at the end of a few
present moment ; but he trustedinto a
more regular tax
years it would transformedberotso
fi property of every description.
upon the rents and
the financial results of the budget would
Life believed that
be much greater, more valuable and productive, than the '
Chancellor of seemed
the Exchequer to anticipate,
though, at the same time, looking forward to the possi-
bility
of bad harvests during the next six or seven
years, he thought the right honourable gentleman had
done wisely in not estimating the produce of the revenue
at a greater amount than he had done. He believed
that
the budget would give
nd rcia great satisfto tion the country,
and that l a other advanta
from it would be such that no one would ges accruing
income tax as proposed, although he ad Fornplain of the
the most just or equitable tax that nutted it was not
Looking at all the advantages that could be imposed.
the imposition of the first income ta we had derived from
in our commercial legislation—re x, and the alterations
prosperous way in which we had rnembering the happy and
culties of the last eleven gone through all the diffi-
while other countries had been rs—
bearing in mind that,
had maintained peace at home and
to sad disasters, we
our commerce beyond all aud abroad, and extended
that there would be previous anticipations—he trusted
very little adoption of the income tax further opposition to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as proposed, in order that the
other parts of his most valuable
might be able to carry the
scheme. (Heat) ost valuable and important financial
Colonel HARCOuRT
of the house, desired
pre-
sent occasion, he. e
hon. baronet theshould , who rose on the Opposition side
could
state the reasons why, on the cou d not support the amendment of the
member for Hertfordshire, and why he
vote for the measure proposed by the Government.

When he looked back upon the .
the enormous benefits which had
country by the imposition of the
looked forward to the next sere
mated the great advantages whip
the continuance of the tax, he col
himself to vote for an amendmen
tinuanco of the tax to be unjusi
it was true that the late Chancellp
posed to modify to a certain extent,
of the tax, by making a distinction between precarious
and permanent incomes, it was equally true that the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer had conclusively
shown that a sufficient distinction existed already, land
and houses being virtually charged at the rate of 9d.
in the pound, and professional incomes at the rate
of 7d. Surely the possessors of precarious incomes
could not desire a broader distinction than that. Again
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to
make any difference in the amount of tax levied upon in-
comes from 1001. to 150/. a year. The proposal before the
house was more just in that respect, for the rate chargeable
upon incomes below 1501. was less than that levied upon
incomes above 1501. (Hear, hear.) It had been sid that
the tax as now proposed was unjust towards traders and
professionals; but he begged to remind the house that the
income tax of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was
aceompanied by a double house tax, which would have
fallen with great and oppressive severity upon the very
class whose interest some honourable gentlemen on his
side of the house appeared so anxious to defend against
the Government. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It appeared
to him to be madness to drive on this matter when they
knew the honour of the Government was concerned in it.
(A cry of " oh.") The honourable member might cry
"oh," but what he stated was the fact. (Hear.) Ho might
be a bad party man, but he felt that on this occasion he
was about to give at least a conscientious vote. (Hear.)
Mr. H. HERBERT said tho real question to consider
was, whether it was unjust that persons possessing an
income in the prosperous parts of Ireland should be asked
to pay a tax which was imposed upon the holders of income
in England. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the proposal
was not an unfair nor ureasonable one. The honourable
member for Mayo had said that the tenant-farmers were
indifferent to this subject ; but blind to their own interests
resolution which
Chancellorhad b en
of
the Exchequeras the honourable member supposed that class to be, he
(Mr. Herbert) might inform him that by intelligence which
t
he had received that day., it appeared that in one of the
unions of the county which he had the honour to represent,
baoppositionproposedinhad b to the
might almo at
thrown out by a large majority—so large, indeed, that
he
say was a
unanimous. hear.)
He thought that this was a proof that the tenant-farmers
were alive to their interests in thi • s respect at least.
(Hear, hear, hear). And in a recent number of the
Cork Examiner a letter had appeared, in which the writer
expressed an opinion that if Ireland wero to be taxed
at all it would be better to have an income tax, which
would fall upon the persons best able to bear it, and that
any Irish representatives who opposed the present budget
would, in the event of an election, have no chance of being
re-elected by an agricultural constituency. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Mayo had said that if a general elec-
tion were to take place the Irish members who supported
the budget would tremble in their shoes. But he (Mr.
Herbert) would say that if he were to oppose this propo-
sition he should not venture to show his face on any agri-
cultural hustings in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for the city of Cork had argued that Ireland ought
not to have been called upon to pay these Consolidated
Annuities at all, but an argument of that kind would have
been more properly addressed to the house a few nights
ago, when this entire subjec • t had been brought before it.
Allusion had been made to the present emigration from
Ireland, and a pathetic description had been given of the
numbers of persons who were driven out of that country
by distress; but it was the agricultural labourers and
small fir/leers who were now flying in such large numbers
from the shores of Ireland, and they were the very class
who, if they remained, could not be affected by the income
tax. With regard to the duty on spirits he (Mr. Herbert)
confessed that he could see no possible objection to levying
the very highest rate of duty upon that commodity that
could be obtained with profit to the revenue. With re-
spect to the legacy duty, he could only say, that having all
he possessed in land he had no wish to keep any exemption
to which he did not believe himself entitled, and as to the
statement that this duty would break down the landed
aristocracy, he must say he did not believe it. He was of
opinion that nothing exercised a more wholesome influ-
ence on the country than the landed aristocracy, but they
must not endeavour to retain that influence by means of
an odious exemption, which was not founded on reason
and justice. He should certainly give his vote in favour
of the budget with a clear conscience from feeling that he
was no longer to enjoy an exemption to which circum-
stances gave him no just claims. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. R. MORGAN said if this budget were carried,
which he (Mr. Morgan) trusted it would not be, it was at
all events to be hoped that the right honourable gentle-
man would continue to pay attention to the subject of land
with the view of seeing whether greater facilities might
not be given in the transfer of it. (Hear, hear.) With
re"ard to the advertisement duty he considered that the
right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would have acted more wisely had he attended to
the opinion expressed by a majority of the house. If ad-
vertisements were to be taxed at all, they might fairly be
taxed when they appeared in the form of the large carpet
bag or gold nugget which now appeared in the streets. He
was unable to agree with the opinion which the honour-
able member for the West Riding had advanced, that the
imposition of the legacy duty was a benefit to the small
growers. Not being an Irish member he felt some degree
of diffidence in offering any opinion on the subject of the
extension of the income tax to Ireland. He considered,
however, that at the present time it was inexpenient to ex-
tend it to that country.
Mr. FORSTER was of opinion, that as regarded the in-
come tax, the aspect of the question was entirely changed
by the fact, that the committee were now only called upon
to consider it as a tax of a temporary character, and there-
fore the charge of inconsistency brought forward by the
member for Roscommon against those hon. gentlemen who
voted against the continuance of the income tax in 1848,
and for it now, was a groundless one. He believed that
the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had proposed measures which were well adapted
to develop the resources of the country, and so to provide
for it those means of defence which were only to be found
in its general prosperity. (Hear.)
Lord A. VANE trusted no member would be influenced in
his vote on this question by the threat which it was under-
stood the Government had thrown out, that they would
dissolve Parliament if they did not carry their budget—
instead of taking the more constitutional course which had
been adopted by the late Government, of resigning. It ap-
peared to him that questions had lately arisen affecting the
elementary principles of taxation, and that an inquiry with
a view to the re-adjustment of the basis of taxation would
be advisable. He should be glad if some member of more
weight than himself would move fora committee to inves-
tigate the whole system, believing, as he did, that such a
proceeding would tend more than anything else to dispel
the delusion which the exaggerated statements of the
Manchester school had created in the public mind as to
the parties upon whom the burden of the taxes principally
fell.
fore of (Hear.) According to Mr. Gregg, the total expendi-
the country in 1849, including the poor rates and
county rates, was 66,436,9721., of which the amount paid
by the propertied classes was, 45,644,2451 , leaving the
amount paid by the working classes, 20,799,7231,, the lat-
ter classes comprising as they did, three-fourths of the
whole community. The proportion paid individually by
the two classes was 1/, per head by the working classes,
and 61. 10s. 6d. by the propertied class. Contrasting the
financial scheme of Mr. Disraeli and that of the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he stated that the increase
in taxation under the budget of the late Government
would have been 1,060,0001., and the remissions would
have amounted to 3,490,000/., while the increase of taxa-
tion under the present plan was 3,130,0:101., and the remis-
sions 5,315,0001., and he wished especially to call the at-
tention of the Irish mem berg to the fact, that their share of
the additional taxation under this budget would be
698,0001., or 453,000/. after deducting the remission of the
consolidated annuities, and including the legacy duty on
laud, the increased taxation to be levied on Ireland was
7zz3,000/. a year. He contended that the imposition of
the income tax on Ireland was most unjust. She had not
been subjected to it even during the war, and she was cer-
tainly not better able to bear it now that she was but just
recovering from the famine. Ho objected to the extension
of the legacy duty to land, considering it unsound in prin-
ciple to levy taxes on the property instead of the income of
the country. With regard to the income tax, he believed
that no finance minister would be ever hereafter able to
dispense with it. The Times had praised the financial
scheme of Mr. Disraeli, because it proposed to establish a
difference between permanent and precarious incomes ;
and yet, when "a heaven-born minister" came down to
the house, and proposed to retain it unaltered and
its unre-
formed,• lities undiminished and its injustice as Inagua
glaring as ever; nay, when ho even proposedse, to extend it
I
to persons of 1001. a year, and to a country where it had
tent organ turned
previously been unknown, that consistent
round, and bespattered him with the most fulsome pane-
gyrics and the warmest applause.h (Hear, hear.) The
to prove
Chancellor of the Exchequer ad taken twohours
that the land already paid 9d. in the pound, and yet he in-
vited them to submit to an impost amounting to 2,000,000!,
a year. The application of the tax to Ireland had been
condemned by Sir R. Peel, and by many of the most dis-
tinguished men on the opposite side ; and yet those gentle-
men were now ready to support the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) in his design of extending it to that coun-
try. This might be the last opportunity he (Lord A. Vane)
might have of addressing them for a considerable period to .
d dissolution should not take
come. Even if the threatened
in which so many hon. mem-
bers he was in the situation
been
petitionedagainst,
bers had found themselves. He had
- and seeing that so many gentlemen who had professed
themselves to be
innocent had been turned out he Could
possiblethat, • e it quite though guiltless of ani
he might share their fate. au h
gal ractice,
that g lf
should never
thatp were so, he regret theL lastter time he
was in
addressed the house favour of a principle he coned-
entiously believe to be right, and against that which he
at
pledged himself at the hustings to wit
CI at all events, face his constituents with se. lie should,
sense, and judgment than those who had more honesty,
income tax all their lives, and we condemned the
its continuance and extension. (Hear,re now, going to vote for
He should always feel hear, and laughter.)
most fence with which his last observeteful for the kind indul-
in opposition to a tax which i°ns had been received,
and to press one uall e considered to be unjust,
Mr. p• sue upon a struggling class.
support the financial announced his determination to
It was impossible to considerpolicy of her Majesty's Government.
dated Annuities and th the remission of the Consoli-
apart. He the ht tha imposition of the income tax
by the alteration! t Ireland -would be a great gainer
The only way of comparing the two
taxes was to capitalise them both. The Consolidated An-
nuities, then, amount d e to about 4,000,000/., and the pre-
sent value of the
posed income tax was ab0ut2,500,000/.
which would show a clear gain to Ireland of 1,500,0004
(Hear.) Besides, if they submitted to the tax, they would
stand in a much better position in case, which' God forbid,
Ireland should be visited again by a repetition of the cala-
mities which she had just gone through. If they refused
it now they would be compelled to take it at some future
time, when they would not be able to make nearly so good
terms. (Oh, from the Irish members.) They would be
like the Roman emperor, who was glad to give the same
price for three Sybilline books for which he might have had
the whole nine ; and he hoped the time would never come
had not when they would rue the day on which they
and
fol-
lowed the advice of an hon. member for Yorkshire,a
clinched the bargain with both hands. (Heir, hear.)
gentleman
would suggest, however, that the right hon. t estates.
should make an allowance for the manag
enigt done in
paid
land, hear.) It was true that thiire:7
rents were paid
land, but the expense was much
did not amount to 20s. in
more regularly; the poor rtere
nett n
the habit of
the pound ; and tenants
(Laughter and cheers.) For his
eloping with their CrOP
fe eft surest taxation, and it would be-
own part, he Pre- as possible to dispense with it, as the
come every
Y°Blich during 35 years' peace had sprung up
manufactures w
on the continent began to rival our own. (Hear, hear.l

u
last ten yeara,Od observoo
sd been
_9 upon think;!"
e inco4,l4x; and when he
ren of" ')I years, and esti-
ich e derived from:
nifess- 14 euld net bring
at whi tired the con- ).
it and . t 0.,, ,'4lough
llor a the Exchokirdier
ant one of the inequalitiest