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

PARLIAMET,i T.

heard anv sound reasons against the measure. Of course
their lordships had heard again that it was a measure to
" unchristianise the Legislature ;" but, again, explana-
tion of what that phrase meant was totally omitted.
(Hear.) He must have been a great man who had
invented that "cry ;" it was admirably adapted to the
purpose of creating an alarm, and and it conveyed no
definite idea to be grappled with. (Hear.) Did a Chris-
tian Legislature mean a Legislature to which only Chris-
tians were admitted ? If so, this bill would not neces-
sarily un-Christianise the Legislature, for the bill might
pass and still a Jew might never again be elected
ix
England. (Hear.) Did a Christian Legislature then
mean a Legislature elected by an exclusively Christian
constituency? It might be supposed that a measure
which it was stated would have the effect of un-Chris-
tianising Parliament might have some sensible effect in
other respects. But he never heard or read of any Auch
effect being anticipated, and for the simple reason that-
the tenets and doctrines of Christianity, as a religion,
could never come under discusSion in the assembly into
which those to whom this measure related were, to be
admitted. Topics might be discussed there relating to
the temporal interests of the Christian church, but what-
ever might be the interests of any church or religious
body which were discussed there, they must remain un-
affected by such an addition to the composition of the
Legislature as was now proposed. He did not know
how his right rev. brother felt ; but he (the Bishop of
St. David's) could declare that in any question referring
to the rights and interests of his church, there were not
a few whose places he would not desire to see supplied
by any Hebrews that could be found in the synagogue
in Duke's-place. There were other points which influ-
enced the opinion of many persons, and he was not sure
but that the minds of many of their lordships were in-
fluenced by it. There had been one brought forward
that evening. It was the old cry that the Jew was
not sufficiently rooted in our soil to enable him to per-
form the high functions of a legislator. That argument
might years ago have had some weight, but the experi-
ence of the last few years had abated its force.
When he considered the emigration which was carry-
ing so large a portion of the people of this country
to other shores—not the indigent, and those who
were compelled by their necessity to seek a settlement
in the Antipodes, but it was numbers of the middle
classes who left their homes and their native soil, for
the sake of a slight addition to their worldly prosperity
—he could not see how you could use the argument
against the Jews that they were not sufficiently attached
to this country, but that their hopes had drawn all their
thoughts to a distant land. In conclusion, he would
remind the house of another fact. Their lordships would
recollect that before the discussion of this evening com-
menced a petition had been presented by a right rev.
prelate, which he accompanied by a statement that the
petitioner was a person who had granted a piece of land
as a site for a Christian church. That he (the Bishop of
St. David's) was prepared to say was by no means a
solitary case. He knew cases of Jewish manufacturers
employing Christian workmen, whose example he should
be glad to see imitated by those who bore the name of
Christian, and who liberally built Christian churches
and Christian schools for the benefit of their Christian
workmen. If they were to judge people not only by
their professions, but still more by their acts, and he
thought that those who so acted could not be called
blasphemers of our Lord.
The Earl of HARROWBY said that he grounded his
opposition to this bill on no prejudice against, or hostility
towards the Jews ; but on his belief that this act, trifling
as it might appear, would he injurious to Christianity.
He could not forget that Christianity was interwoven,
not only with the religion but the habits of the people of
this country. He could not look at a painting over the
throne in that house, representing the baptism of an
English King, without seeing a proof of how much
Christianity was intermixed with all our habits and
customs, and the object of this measure was to attempt
to eradicate that feeling. He was not always of this
opinion, but the more he had seen of life, the more he
had seen the power or expansion possessed by a prin-
ciple, when once it was admitted, to however small
an extent. In this case he did not believe that any
political necessity existed, or political advantage would
be derived ; and notwithstanding the attempt of the
most rev. prelate to reason it away, he believed the pub-
lic feeling would be, that when words, "on the true
faith of aChristian," were struck out of the Parliamen-
tary oath, you had struck out, as it were, one of the
nails which held Christianity and the Constitution toge-
ther, and that it ought not to be done for so trifling a
purpose as that which was proposed. For the reason,
then, that there was no choice of evils to be made, that
there was no political necessity for this measure, or any
political advantage to be derived from it, because the
Jews were better off in this country than in any other,
and were admitted already to a large share of the admi-
nistration of its affairs, he would not lend his hand to
promote an impulse, however small, which he believed
so fatal to the religious feeing of the country. (Hear.)
The Duke of ARGYLLlassured the house that it was
with some reluctance that he rose to address them—
firstly, because he felt that the subject was exhausted ;
and, secondly, because on three or four previous occa-
sions, he had stated the grounds on which he was pre-
pared to vote for the admission of the Jews to Parlia-
ment. But there were some observations which had
been addressed to their lordships, particularly by the
noble earl who had just sat down, and by the noble earl
who moved the rejection of the second reading, on which
he was anxious to say a few words, and he trusted that
nothing which fell from him would be an exception to
the rule which had hitherto prevailed in the debate,
namely, that the deepest respect should be paid by the
supporters of the measure to the prejudices of those who
differed from them. The noble earl who had just sat down
appeared to him (the Duke of Argyll) to have abandoned
the principle insisted on by former speakers who resisted
the bill. The noble earl had said that lie did not fuel
bound by the strict rules of logic laid down by the mold
rev. prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin), and he held
that on questions of policy, they were not to be bound
by the strict rules of logic, but that they ought to
consider all the circumstances conpected with each par-
ticular occasion. He (the Duke of Argyll) would en-
tirely agree with the noble earl, if the noble earl was
prepared to admit this .t6' be a question of expediency
and policy. But the noble earl had forgotten that all
the previous speakers had addressed themselves to the
question of religious principle, alone, and he (the Duke
of Argyll) maintained that, when you appealed to reli-
gious principle, youlvere bound to show that you were
ready to act on the principle which you avowed, or else
to reconsider the principle, and see if you could apply it
to the individual case before you. The noble earl had
said that, if a greater political advantage was to be ob-
tained by this measure, or if there had been any great
pressure on the subject, it might be different ; but he
rested his argument on the fact that there were no em-
barrassing circumstances connected with this question.
He (the Duke of Argyll) agreed that there were no em-
barrassing circumstances connected with it, so far as
pressure out of doors was concerned. But he main-
tained that that was not the question. No one would
vote against the admission of the Jews to Parliament
merely on the ground-of the danger that, to our institu-
tions, would follow. That ground had been abandoned,
and the objection now rested solely on religious grounds.
The noble earl had referred to an argument which bad
been used with some effect in this and previous debates.
The noble earl said that the exclusion of the Jews was
owing to an accident in the form of the oath, but he
asked if it could be imagined that, if the Jews were nut
excluded by that means, no other means would have
been taken for the purpose. He (the Duke of Argyll)
would contend, in conjunction with his noble friend
behind him, that that was a most inconclusive ar-
gument. The Jews were at this moment exercising
the functions of electors. How came they to obtain
the elective franchise ? Did the noble earl imagine
that in the times of cruelty and persecution, to which
he had referred, the Jews would have been allowed
to have votes any more than to sit as members
of the House of Commons ? How bad the
Jews come by the enjoyment of that privilege, which
they enjoyed in common with all her Majesty's subjects,
except by the enlightenment and progress of the world,
and it was in consequence of there being no 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 Christian nation, and therefore Jews ought
not now to be allowed to exercise the functions of the
legislator, it would be a duty to exclude them if they
already possessed them. With regard to what, atter all,
was the main question, the noble earl said that the oath
required to be taken was a distinct assertion of a prop
fsbeoessriaoukneeho:sbCoy,hristianity. He (the Duke of Argyll) main-
tained that it was not, but that it had been adopted as a
form which was tendered to a man who took the oath ;
but the concluding words formed no part of the oath ;
ainndrand,wthhoatwiatshnaodt
abecehnrissatiiadnt. that
eitamgrigeehdt
with the most rev. prelate that there would not be much
value in it even if it were an assertion of Christianity,
for
effectually m anYpreserve was
(the Duke of Christian
ppersons might take it who were not really
Christians and
be-
lieved that, historically impossible
characterto say thatof
an
yi t could
assem-
bly. He of Argyll) believed that this was
more a question of feeling
other argument which had
allude, namely, the number of
than of argument. He be-
speaking, it was a remnant and
been
timesused t o whichhic
a relic of the prejudielYe former ages. There was one
House
of Commons had decided on this uoensttiv.on and the ad-
visability of their lordship not interferingwith those
h theh e would
decisions. Although he was as zealous as any one for
the honour and independence of their lordships house,

they ought to admit the Jews. My lords, it is surely an
injustice to deny to the electors the right of choosing any
..• , man not legally incapacitated. • Now, I contend there
noun OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) is no legal incapacity in a Jew, and that if you deprive
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
o'clock. the electors of choosing any person they please, whether
at fiv, a Jew or a Christian, to represent them in Parliament,
'Lore seeyE and SELE Thence a decided injusticethose electors.
of the Jewish Disabilities Bill. presented
petitions in favour t is always unwise in your Lordships unless under
I The Earl of ABERDEEN presented petitions from very extraordinary circumstances indeed,' to oppose
SoLithampton and other places to a similar effect. yourselves determinedly and obstinately to the voice of
The Earl of MALMES BURY presented petitions the House of Commons in a case which peculiarly touches
from
Ilampshire against the admission of Jews into the constitution of that house. (Hear,' hear...). Paella-
Parr
1.0.. la. ment ; also, front Whitehaven, against the open-
-6 of the Crystal Palace on Sundays. mcnt after Parliament has confirmed that decision of the
House of Commons on this subject. It is true that you
n. Lordi,l BROUGHAM presented petitions from places need not fear on this occasion the pressure of danger
Lancashire praying for the extension of the county
courts
0_
the Government
The noble lord proceeded to urge from civil war. There is no fear; as I recollect hearing
_ a
.ts • Government the propriety of introducing some' the great duke whom we
thi have lost declare in this very
measure th less
count to en the fees exacted from suitors in the place that he assented to i . atholie Emancipation Act
per
ruLleLe
t, urts, which now amounted to more than 25 from fear of a civil war. Certainly them is no danger. of.
that kind. But although there is no danger of a civil
of the whole amount recovered.
Then '
inept felt CHANCELLOR said that the Govern-LORD eyear war, give me leave. to say that there is a danger of a
..,1! the necessity of such a measure, and had the serious collision. I say that if you go on year after
suoject at present I• • body and composition is
refusing the.just•denntels of the House of Commons in a
matter in which their own
i,. Lord GA. un, under their consideration..
MP BELL expressed himself desirous of see-
"g,riloom
Bishop
passed to remedy this great abuse• essentially concerned, you expose youresdelfvuersthteor. aNreiwsk.,
which I should be very sorry to see earned
agr.ainist. the Jepwiosfh
Disabilities Bill.
presented petitions my lords, does any man suppose, although you may
Similar • titions were presented by Lord BERNE,RS, I have referred—does any man suppose that this pies-
not have a pressure of that alarming kind to which
the Earl of
noble lords,
f DERBY, Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and tithe
e
the Lord•
The Ea,il trop an lone remain without being settled ? Whether
if it bee' the progress
of
freason demandorthyeeunnma,nflilmhoeueselnpell
of the other house Parliament, ed
of CARLISLE presented a petition from before
Mayor, Aldermen, and. Town Council in favour' long
In the Jewish Disabilities Bill ,also petitions from placesto should not exercise the just prerogative
.Susses.._, to the.. same effect. man to say you deal with. this uestion. I am the last
Lens petitions petitions were presented by the Marquis of You do well to exercise it if you
you possess of throwing out any measure which is sent
up for your approval.
Alb , the Duke of Newcastle, and the Earl of
n d wne
emarle, from the Great St. John-street Synagogue. think proper; but in thisqueeesmtiopne,siwtfheincheftotuhlieesthseor
nearly the character and the
I,aol..l4theemotion of Lord REDESDAL.g, the Crystal
The Duke
Companies Bill was read a third time and passed. house of Parliament, I do maintain, that although the
constitution has vested in you a full and free exercise of
Inc Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from your prerogative, yet you would do well to be cautious
how far you persevere in its exercise, My lords,
Sussex,believ-
against the malt tax.
The ' JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. inn as Ido that your lordships, in your inmost hearts,
_ for Earl of ABERDEEN, in moving the order of the this occasion
are fully persuaded that this is merelya question of time,.
._Yl:ethe second reading of this bill, said—My lords, I more or less, Ido hope that we shlallle:nth
e settlement
arrive at that stage at which we shall
nave now to move your lordships to give a second read-
purgofteoBB9le bill for the relief of her Ma'esty's subjects winds this last
of this long pending question. Ido seep
the time has
now arrived at which we may cast to the
atte'net93
the ....,IPg the Jewish religion. heaj r.) My lords,
est has already so much ena(Hear,ed our lordships' rag of intolerance, and that we may make our practicehieh
conform to those principles of religious freedom which
that !en, and has been so fully discussed in this house, we profess to hold. (Cheers.)
possitievTuld be difficult for any one, and certainly im- The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said if anything could
ships in I°r me, to attempt to place it before your lord- add to the importance of this discussion, it would be
'tete hort? new point of view. But before I proceed that the noble earl who had just sat down, having fo
firm, to this
to remark on some of the principal objec- many years opposed these claims as a private individual,
brig
efl7.,..Measure, I will offer a few observations in had now become not only the supporter but the pro-
tu.rilig before ease which I have now undertaken to pounder of them as the first minister of the Croy: n. A
althou -1;'
Lion was last
Your lordships• My lords, when the ques- city that was set on a hill could not be hid, and heo
last before your lordships two years ago, feared that many would follow the example of so high a
iii°n, mg taking no part in the discussion on that occa- personage. The gravity of the noble earl and the known
lords; Jnte was given against themeasure. Now, my sincerity of his heart precluded him from making any
Chang I c)e this lam not aware that a change of opinion observation on the change, and he would only express a
subject necessarily calls for any remark, never- hope, nay more, a belief, that the grounds on which he
'climes. I ani.desirous of stating to the house that this reversed his vote this night were as solemn and true as
Year'a-o,°f 'Opinion on my part took place more than a those on which he formerly stood. He was astonished
Year 6°. In the month of January or February last to hear it said that the popular voice was in favour of
Peso certainly before the accession of-the noble earl op- this measure. Why,. the popular voice, in the full
tlie pre office--I communicated to my right hen: friend extent of the term, was neither on the one side nor the
rueneee._ent Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, and now, other. There was, upon the whole, a general apathy
suppeer. for the University of Oxford, my intention of on this question. Where any feeling was entertained, it
next 0 ung the removal of the Jewish disabilities on the was deep and serious, but the, feeling did not pervade the
W are ienea„si°ll when the' subect should be brought for- whole of the community. It was argued that the Jews
mu is house. I subsequently made the same coin- had a constitutional right to sit in Parliament. He would
. (the Secretary
to
my noble friend near me, the noble duke undertake to argue the question if he thOught that they
cieeenre?etary for the Colonies.) I wish to mention this really belieVed so ; but by this bill, so far from stating
. Need t';:ance, lest, by any possibility, it might be sup- that, they stated the very reverse. For one enabling
the Qat my change of opinion had any. relation to clause. they had a dozen disabling ones ; for one
. stn cone,
creucent political combination, with 'which, as far as I Privilege that they gave there were eight or ten that
There .esepaed, it has had nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) they refused. (Hear, hear.) They enacted that no Jew
eu Bee;i
_loss cause for remark upon a change of opinion should be Lord Chancellor, or Keeper of the Great
t4ken question as this, because I apprehend it has 'Seal, or Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, or Lord High
elees place on the part of most of those of your lord- Commissioner of Scotland ; that Jews should not present
%erste who„ are now favourable to the measure. Most of to benefices in right of office ; that if they advised the
4 tinle°l your lordships who now support it must recollect Crown as to presentation of benefices, they should be
feeeet direction
your feelings on this subject were in a dif- guilty of a high misdemeanour. If they had a constitu-
the naZrection ; and it is natural that this should be tional right to a seat in Parliament, they had a consti-
tneet th• I look upon this as less the result of argu- tutional right to all the privileges and consequences of
an of religious obligation, which when it is felt that right. When Jews were admitted to corporate
and re
ems r garded, must be stronger than all arent and offices, it was argued that they had given their sanction
• 14.,
as
ening on this subject. I consider them existing to the admission of the Jews to legislative functions.
khroau a remnant of that feeling which formerly existed They replied that executive and legislative functions
vitt, geout this country. In former times, no doubt were diametrically different, that they might be trusted
the jeninell greater intensity, this prejudice against with one and not with the other. But they (the minis-
Creel 178 existed ; and it was turned to account by terialists) now reversed that order. They said the Jews
pe,_crnen and atrocious tyrants for the purpose of might be trusted with legislative functions, but they
real': tition and cruelty ; nevertheless, some of them excluded them from a large share of executive power.
faoi
..''ave thought by .so acting they were doing They were told that this demand ought to be granted
ettein'erivice. My lords, I do not now speak of perse- in accordance with the principles of civil and religious
by the' Jewish
I know that those who oppose the claims made liberty. If by civil liberty was meant that every man
Food w„e, wish people entertain and express feelings of should be free in mind, body, and estate, he believed they
is thatll and kindness towards them. Nevertheless it all, Jew and Gentile, were free enoughin that particular.
ofinien that this feeling of opposition is a remnant But as to religious liberty, if this bill passed, the Jew
existed strsejailing persuasion which in former tides would have his religious liberty, but he did see how
My lords, IrlnnglY in every country in Europe. (Hear.) Christians would have theirs. If it were a principle of
they now are, Upon the Jewish nation, scattered as civil liberty that a man should be tried by his peers, he
?f. a crime of ila People who lie under the commission held it to be an equal principle of religious liberty that
imprecated on their magnitude,wrath—we
the and who have none but Christians should be allowed to make laws that
consequence of that re.;° curse which was to ensue should bind Christian churches. The opponents of the
t due. We have insensibly bill respected the Jews, they saw them under a cloud,
Five effect to the
rath—eve have taken
decree of the Mo
it were, accessories in the Divine but they acknowledged them as hereafter to be the sove-
nateo operation the veeinigle:erele °olfitrhselves,
.mo,re or less, to reign family of the human race ; they wished them well,
st High and to carry they could not be harsh to them, either in language or
W recollect that ~ e Almighty ; but when even in thought ; but when they heard their advocates
' .110 t for
Pius „ vengeance is not ours," and that it is declare, that for the purposes of legislation, all religions
\,,ith .s to repay," we should view te Jewish people were alike, then they said emphatically—No ; and they
My
.lords, this
litiml3l•47, and exhibit towards them fellow-feelings of said it upon what they believed to be the " true faith of
(44.
ei%ehitay:
country, at least in recent a Christian." (Hear, hear.) His lordship then moved
(pNii,,)4: proclaimed an absolute freedom of religious that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
ti`Zvi,(l!li,
i.t. We have declared that religious truth, or re- The Earl of ALBEMARLE would ask the house, as
Nriri•eli,°r, shall not be the test of any qualification for they hail lately done a great act of justice to their Cana-
-4,3 ‘,.,14. (Cheers.) My lords, the Jew is the only drag fellow subjects to do a similar act towards the
!.°llB ~,10 is excluded from eights and immunities, in Jews. He asked this the more confidently, because a
'lbleeal'enee of his religious belief. (Hear. hear.) Hor- great statesman had on that evening; for the first time,
°llr It-„14 unchristian as those laws were which persecuted spoken in defence of the rights of their Heoi raw felloshvt-
L%11d„,-,ilaan Catholic fellow-subjects, still they were not countrymen. That fact alone ought to laveeozvdeeig
in
'',4. '''''religious creed, but were upon those of their lordships who were not d
and itilv adoptedBo much on their
f their minds upon this question. It was now 200 years
4
It
ince liver Cromwell sought to relieve the Jews •of
politic ere not incorrectly chosen as indicating. tal s
raged f m the operation of these disabilities which
lefea.l faith. (Hear.) But, my lords, the Jew, simp y Enre
that period. That great Protestant
dO-3:110 Ise he
t e entertains a religious belief which we un- effected them at
htened for his time, and was not.
man "e'lly can prove to be most erroneous, is the only prince wals.
of wh • successfu inhis attempt .
A century ago—in 1793—a
-4 his °, in the present day is proscribed in consequence
..
1 broueht in somewhat similar in its nature to
we erreiigious opinions ; and with regard to him alone bu was
of Cromwell. This bill passed both houses
ado 4e not acting on the principle which has been fully the attempt
the royal assent ; but so
sketP:ed since the abolition of the Test and Corporation of Parliament and received
against the mea-
obje:nd the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. (Hear.) The powerful a clamour was raised
repeal it the same
sate to extending to the Jews the same principle we sure that it was necessary to .
ire rid tothe oppo-
all other suasions however they may,differ year. The tones were at that time upon .
being
tivt: ourselves, is foundeder main] I think almost exclu- sition side of the house, and a general electionte
I the
VareeY,,' upon this feeling, that we are doing something at at hand sought. to obtain power by an appeal to
is e-"ee with the Christian character of the country. It religious prejudices of their several constituents.At
Plied ve,ery easy to understand how this argument is ap- the hustings there were heard cries of "no !!r,a. h
sSince that
Nee, J-he existence of the Jews in this country is, pro "no conventicles," and `.4no synagoghouuseess and convents
forte unchristianising of the nation. The only period the provisions against mass
asked the house by
folio country
that is consistent is Spain. No doubt you might Pea were abolished. The noble earl
he also
tint
w the example of Spain, and you 'might expel the their vote on this occasion to place t
the synagoguebench of bishops
tut Stofroni your dominions. That would be consistent ; upon the list. On looking across to the a
rev.
prelate
to 8, confer privileges, rights, honours on Jews, and yet lie was reminded by the presence
rightthe Bishop of Nor-
tien,"T that their admission to Parliament is unchris- (the Bishop of Norwich) that it was
amount of
• eleaeltng the nation, is such an argument I cannot wich who, at that time, incurred the greatest
would hold
Y comprehend. It is true that Christianity is part obloqy. Indeed it was said that the bishop
ems Saturdays for Jews and upon
Will Parcel of the law of the land but your lordships an ordination upon the .
that the • ht
14 reed]. 1 it is not the Sundays for Christians. He trusted rig
%e__ recollect so far as Parliament is concerned,
have alone that haa been the law, but the Esta- rev, prelate opposite would be equally .
been made
ed Church has been the law of Parliament. You port of the Jews. An advance had certainly..
excluded .
ofof • d - • bl. feeling since the last century. Take the City
ht, various sects ;by means acts in em in pu ice
• ]douseYen have contrived to introduce Dissenters into the of London, for instance. A century ago that had been
of Commons but the principle has been to exclude the head-quarters of the opposition to the Jews. Nowa
thoseshe who do not 'belong to the Established Church of that city, numbering 20,000 inhabitants, had returned
a country. That state of things no longer exists. I Jew as their representative. During' the debate upon
f
J./Prebend that in no sense will be said that Parliament this-subject in another place a distinguished member
bill,
trap the sense in which it is used—a Chris- the legal profession had urged in opposition to this
h
p_!,l Parliament ; that is to say, there are modes of be- the inconvenience which would arise from a call of te
lief, Persons entertaining Peculiar opinions, admitted into house being made upon a Friday, upon which day the
toalls lament, those opinions being so erroneous as almost Jewish Sabbath had commenced. He had, however,
opposed to Christian belief. Now if we extend been assured by a Jewish friend that no inconvenience
er admission to Parliament to persons holding opinions so would arise in such a case. The prejudice which existed
e. roneoto, so grievous, so monstrous, I think the Fin' against the Jews was the effect of their legal disabilities.
;Pl fails us entirely of looking to Parliament as an ex- Prejudices, if not fostered by legal enactments, surely
e body of any Christian persuasion. But you have died awe,'the of time. Every one could re-
boot only admitted in course .
the
entertaining thewhich hadexisted against Scotch-
prejudice
se peculiar opinions, but you have actually, although prose of
men, and how the poetr of Churchill and the
)'ou have not unehristianised Parliament, unchristian- Macklin y When John Earl of
iced other legislative bodies. 'You have by act of Par- B were levelled at them.
liament admitted Jews into the Legislatures of the C Bute was First Minister the complaints were not levelled
Ca- so much against his incapacity as at his country. A
nadas and of Jamaica, and why by so doing you would Scotchman was now u on the Tres. ury bench who had
unchristianise those bodies any more than by admitting shown that he would not hesitate tos do justice to the
them into the Imperial Parliament you would unchris- Jews. As to the objection that the Jews were merely
tianise it, I cannot understand. The truth is, you un- sojourning in this
christianise neither the one nor the other. Whether
make out alonger others. For in-
balf-a-dozen Jews be in the Assembly of Canada or in • term than many
stances—those whoafter the Edict
the British House of Commons makes no difference to this country came to
the Christian character of the Assembly. But, after all,lb
of Nantes, and those who, like his (the Earl of A e-
sari '
this exclusiveness, as your lordships are perfectly well iiiii. 0s) ancestors, came to this
aware, rests only on an accident. There is no law at this upon
Spain and Portugal were often referred to
thequestions of disabilities,and the condition
moment to exclude the Jews from a seat in Parliament. f
There is an whole ofwhich they are not
oath, the
the other hand
ta n tries,ke, a oath which I must say is one of the most unne-, i n Holland, the most Protestant of coun-
cessary and useless oaths. But they are ready to take2so years the Jews have enjoyed a perfect
for
equality of rights • with those of other citizens. Every
this oath of abjuration in its substance and essential cha- one knew tine material and this
racter ; all that they cannot take is an assertion that adds surely ought
temhateerial prosperity of Holland,
nothing whatever to the substance of the oath, but nation of shopkeepers. In
argument of some weight with a
merely giving an additional asseveration at the close to their lordships would
eepers. In conclusion, he trusted that
that which they have already sworn. Now this, in many not unmindful show by their vote that they were
instances you have dispensed with. By many acts of Par- subjects. of the rights of their Jewish fellow-
Lament you have. allowed Jews to take the oath of abju- The Earl of DA:RNLE
rationexpressly omitting this asseveration at its close. Y, in voting against this met).-
Th sure, wished to state to
That is the mode in which youlave extended the power upon religious motives. the house that he did so solely
of admission to your Colonial Legislature. It is the modelt had been said, that the legis-
lature already numbered among
by which you have over and over again admitted Jews to and Unitarians. That might
b its members Socinians
take an oath in this country.. This oath, in its sub- attempted plainly to recognise e true ;but it was now
stance and essentials they will take, except this addi- in the Legislature. the anti-Christian spirit
Lien, 'which is not binding on their conscience, and I
The Archbishop of DUBLIN
would ask any one of your lordships if you would yen-
not like
tore topatchwork legislation : relieving Quakers
„ enact it at this moment. I think I recollect on a C Catholics another, Diss te one time,
former occasion that a noble earl opposite, who is fore- Roman a en rs another, and then
most •He would prefer a comprehensive bill,
tin every goodwork, 'd he took this as he found Jews.
saiintroduce to do at
it, and that he would • once what had to be done in the end. (Hear, hear.)
would not be prepared to such
a condition. lf so, what becomes of the objection to the Before he sat down, he
. wished to say one word with
Is." hmightarise
admission of the Jews ? Ifnoble friend would hesi-my respect to an evil w lc
tate to enact suchwere proffered and passed as a triumph of Christianity.
an exclusion, surely he ought not to
Chris-
make their excl • has The proper way to consider it was as a triumph of Chris-
rion dependent on an accident. It
also been said tianity—(hear, hear) —and he asked their lordships to
dig to our tat
these persons are in truth not belong-
- support the bill, not because it was 11, measure in favour
distinctnation, that they are aliens, that they are a
people, and therefore of the Jews, but because it was a measure in support of
with us, andought
tobe
have nothing in common
Christianity. (Cheers.)
But, my lords, that theexcrleuded from our legislature.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said he saw no weight
people, and will continue soa u in one sense a distinct
in the argument of the most rev. prelate who had last
tiny is fulfilled, I admit ; but
thatntil their mysterious des-
addressed their lordships, that the words "on the true
senseas anything but Englishm en they are in any other
\ faith of a Christian" did not act as a protection to Chris-
. any other I utterlde , and as good Englishmen . .
t since nominal Christians might, under that cover,
burdens of Englishmen,ny. You impose on them the Item y, .
rights of and you ought to confer the '
I enter Because the bar notquite
rights legislature. was
to be a •
Englishmen upon them. I hold, therefore, this effectual, was i •t, to be thrown down altogether ? Both,
fou •notion which is utt •
ndatio A. rightutterly untenable and without therefore, as a m . ember of their lordships house, and in
neer occasion, made reverendf friend of mine, on a for- Ids capacity as a bishop of the Church, he should give
eluding the Jews froma ?reible observation, that in ex- j his vote against the bill. .
Penalty on Christian Parliament you in effect inflict a The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S agreed with the most
11111.1
—, and that it • electors, that it is they who are in- I rev. prelate (Whitely), that it was to be regretted that
Fegud to the • r not from a love to the Jew, but the title of this bill was such a misnomer, and. that it was
? privileges °a
Christiana, he argued, that snot called-a bill for the relief-of electors, lie had never

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1853.

and was strongly-convinced that it was their duty to
maintain that position in all questions affecting the
policy of the empire, nevertheless, he would refer to the
fact of the House of Commons having come to these de-
cisions by large majorities in different parliaments, and
under successive governments, as proving that the feeling
which induced them to resist this measure was at va-
riance with the existinc, feeling of society ; and he be-
lieved that there must° be consciousness even in the
opponents of the measure that they were not bona
.fide attempting to secure spiritual Christianity ; and
that so far as religious feeling was concerned, they must
leave it to the electors to choose whom they would to
represent them in Parliament.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA thought it impossible for
any person to dwell upon the dispersion of the Jews
without having his Christian charity excited. But this
was a different question altogether. They were asked
to admit as legislators those who denied the foundation
upon which their religion existed ; and it was for deny-
ing those very truths that the judgments of God had
fallen upon them. He denied that this was a question
touching the freedom of election, and he maintained it
would be a fearful act for a Christian legislature to de-
clare in the face of Heaven that a Jew was fit to mat&
the laws of a christian_rountry. If the house consented
to this measure, it would inflict a very severe blow upon
the country, and lie warned the right reverend bishops
opposite that if this measure were carried by their votes
they would be mainly instrumental in separating the
Church from the state. (Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM thought that the noble earl (Win-
chilsea) laboured. under a very needless alarm, for it did
not appear to him that the right rev. bench of bishops
would by their votes carry the measure, for although
some of them would vote in favour of this measure, yet
he believed the majority would be against it. For the
conscientious opinions of the opponents of this measure
he entertained the profoundest respect ; but he did not
enter into their alarm at all, and had no fear that the
legislature would be unchristianised in consequence of
the admission of the Jews. The noble earl (Shaftes-
bury) -must surely be aware of what had been done in
past time, and to which he was about to call their at-
tention. That circumstance was the admission of the
Jews to take the declaration of abjuration without the
words "on the true faith of a Christian." What- was
the ground'of that omission? On the accession of the
house of Hanover to the throne, a bill passed for the
relief of the Quakers, and although the words "on the
true faith of a Christian" were left out, other words were
put in, which the Quakers, though with some scruples
and objections, adopted, and for six or seven years the
form of the declaration of abjuration contained these
words, " In the presence of God, the witness of what
I affirm." Here then commenced the unchristianising
the
; and what happened six years afterwards ? In
the year 1721, they struck out the words, " In the pre-
sence of God, &c." as before they bad struck out the
words "on the true faith of a Christian ;" and this
second change admitted the Atheist, as the first altera-
tion had admitted the Deist. The whole matter rested
upon a civil and political, and not upon a religious foot-
ing at all. It was not, as the Earl of Shaftesbury sup-
posed, that the Quakers were favoured by the Legisla-
ture, because they were a kind of Christian. The Earl
of Shaftesbury said this—but what said the Parliament ?
The act
.of Parliament said " that whereas since the
year 1714," when the first change was made—" where-
as the Quakers had becn"—what 1 Religious persons
and good Christians of their own class and kind ? No
such thing : but it was this. Whereas they, have been
proved " loyal and peaceable subjects, and zealous sup-
porters of the House of Hanover, in the title and hold-
ing of the Crown of this realm."- Thus it was entirely
for civil, secular, and temporal views alone, that this
second change was made, whereby the Atheist was ad-
mitted, as the Deist had been admitted by the first alter-
ation, and God knows the Quakers were neither the one
nor the other. It was much against his own convenience
to speak that night, and he only did so to show his
feeling upon this matter ; and God forbid he should
join in enacting an act of Parliament which in the
slightest approached towards showing irreverence to
that sacred religion which their lordships not only pro-
fessed but believed ; or which was in disregard of those
conscientious feeling which his fellow subjects enter-
tained. It was not with the view of showing disre-
gard for the one or the other that he should give his
vote for this bill. (Hear, hear.) It was most satisfac-
tory to him to find that no asperity of party feeling had
been shown in this debate ; and that there had been no
want of respect shown to that most respectable arid
amiable body of men, the Jews, He called them amiable,
for they were men zealous in all good works, as any per-
son acquainted with the charities of this country must
know. And they were easier to be admired than imi-
tated in the assistance which they cheerfully and con-
tinually gave, without regard to religious opinions.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord COLCHESTER said that there had been another
cause of exclusion against the Quakers and Jews than
that adverted to by the noble lord (Brougham). Up to
the year 1828, nobody could sit in parliament without
taking the sacramental test, and that was a mode of ex-
cluding the Quakers and Jews.
Lord BROUGHAM stated that this was not so, for
that test did not apply to members of Parliament, but
only to members of corporations ; and then there was
annually a bill of indemnity, exempting parties from the
penalties which attached.
Their lordships then divided, when there appeared-
For the second reading :
Content, present
Proxies
Non-contents, present

position to form his own opinion upon that which had
been stated in evidence. (Hear, hear.) When the
further proceedings which were pointed out by
the magistrate were entirely concluded, the pub-
lic would then have stifl better grounds on
which to arrive at a decision. With regard to the last
question, he had to state that it was the duty of the
police, according to their general as well as their special
instructions, to watch the proceedings of any persons,
whether Englishmen or foreigners, who were open—it
might be rightly or wrongly—to the suspicion of con-
templating any breach of the law. (Hear, hear.) Nei-
ther M. Kossuth, nor any political refugee in this coun-
try, could be exempt from these ordinary precautions,
which were taken against any individual, whether he
was a British subject or not. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the proceed-
ings taken by the police in this matter were in the first
place instituted in consequence of, or arose from, direct
or indirect instructions from the Home Department.
The noble lord, in his answer the other night, and to-
night, had taken a course which in his (Mr. Bright's)
opinion was not becoming his position, nor becoming
the Government of this country in regard to Kos-
suth. They spoke in that and the other house as if
we offered a refuge to the exiles from all foreign
countries—.(hear, hear)—but it had been broadly stated
in the public press tlizt the Government had either di-,
rectly or indirectly permitted spies to be set on the
house of M. Kossuth- -(hear, hear)—and on all the per-
sons who went in or came out of the house, and who
were supposed to have any communication with
him. (Hear, hear.) Thed there was a seizure of cer-
tain war stores at Rotherhithe, and the newspaper
which was the great organ of the Government, pub-
lished the most defamatory charges against Louis Kos-
suth. The noble lord, who must know all the facts of
the case as well as any man in the kingdom, was
asked to state, not the 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 vonduct of the judges
of a constituted court ; but with regard to the other
questions put to him, he had no hesitation in stating
that these proceedings had been taken under instructions
issued from the Home-office. He had no desire to
shrink from the responsibility of his office, and that
admission be made candidly and openly. (Cheers.)
With regard to the question of 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,
and then think that it was just possible that they were
standing between Austria and these unfortunate refu-
gees by demanding these explanations. (Hear, hear,
hear.) He, therefore, blamed the 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 he ought now
to state distinctly whether he had any intention of
following up the charge which had been made in the
prosecution against Kossuth ? (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON protested that he had made
*so charge against Kossuth, nor had he any intention of
directing a prosecution to be taken against that gentle-
man. The hon. gentleman for the West Riding had
quite misapprehended the question which had been put
to him. He had not been called upon to explain the
conduct of a police commissioner, but lie had been asked
if he thought there was sufficient evidence in the hands
of the police to convict certain parties of an offence !
(Hear, hear.) Now, that was a question which must be
left to a court of law, and which he could not be ex-
pected to answer. It was in that respect, then, that he
found fault with the hon. member for Manchester for
having displayedi gnorance of the constitutional doctrine
observed in the house, and not because he wished to
shrink from the responsibility which attached to the
office that he had the honour to fill. (Hear.)
Lord D. STUART must again take the opportunity
of telling the noble lord that in his opinion he was pur-
suing a course that was highly calculated to lower him in
the estimation of the country. The people of England were
averse to a system of police espionage for political pur-
poses, and the Government might depend upon it that
if they kept up that species of annoyance to foreign exiles
whp had sought refuge on our shores, there would arise such
an agitation out of doors that no Government, however
strong, could resist it. (Hear, hear.) It would be much
better if the noble lord would display a little more candour,
and confess at once that he had no evidence whatever
against Kossuth, which he believed was about the fact.
At all events let the noble lord give up doing the work
of Austria, and consent to make such replies to these
interrogations as should be calculated to satisfy the public
mind and remove their anxiety upon the subject. (Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. FRENCH, the discussion
Iropped. a

. 69

46-115
.. 96

.. 68-164

Proxies..

Majority against the second reading 4
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
SOUTH SEA AND OTHER ANNUITIES
COMMUTATION BILL.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Rossendale Waterworks Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
The London Docks Bill, and the Londonderry, Ennis-
killen, and Sligo Railway Bill, were considered, and
ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

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

licenses. Yorkshire
favour i
. FREWENof
th
ine totalfnveurre pee:.
legalising
atrhi
sei
emgaliet
adrurtiiaegse.
presented a petition from Sussex m
eenL3sioerrd.dwGoifOLe,DievEsiEßetielnrC.: presented [several petitions from
KcoeffnetetdoetallieerssainmeGelasffegcotw.
Mr. A. HASTIE
annualfie
MMr.
iddlesex,
iic.deKdolseieeNse.xN, presented several petiwtioitnhs afrdome-
.A
t4iDI stpresentedpit.ehsee
presented
depetitionopening ot
iftfirotohnmef
rtoce
mar
Crystal
and
ld,
against any increase in their
Palace on Sunday.
Mr. HEADLAM presented a petition from Newcastle,
in favour, of the reduction of the duty on cork ; also a
petition from Gateshead, approving of the proposition to
extend the income tax to Ireland, and generally in favour
of the Ministerial budget.
Lord BROOKE presented a 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,
purchased
complainingchbaymtbhe er m
o f
Commerce,o
fromf beingthe
British ejectedp r
ayng that the gene-
ral firom Government, certain
ol an
tnh%
ground of such lands forming part of an " Indian re-
serve."
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Man-
chester
ral propositions of the budget be passed into a law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition
from the Polytechnic Institution, Southampton, in favour
of the distribution of Parliamentary papers to literary
and scientific institutions.
CLERGY RESERVES BILL.
The SPEAKER acquainted the house that the Lords
had agreed to the Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill. (Cheers.)
THE MIDGET.
Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from
Finsbury, in favour of the Government financial scheme,
RAILWAY AMLGA.MATION.
In reply to Mr. RICARDO,
Mr. CARDWELL said it was the intention of the
Government to lay down their views on the subject of
railway amalgamation in the course of the present session.
M. KOSSUTH AND THE SEIZURE OF ROCKETS
AT ROTHERIIITHE.
On the motion that the house at its rising do adjourn
until Monday next,
Sir J. WALMSLEY said it would be in the recol-
lection of the house that when he put a question a few
days ago to the Government respecting the seizure of
rockets at Rotherhithe, he received an intimation that
legal proceedings on the subject were then pending.
Since then he had received a communication from M.
Kossuth, in which he unequivocally stated that he had
gaining general credence in the
no connection either directly or indirectly with the manu-
facture of warlike stores or arms in this country. Other
statements had been publicly made on the same
Ntvoertehe injury of the reputation of M.
therefore wished to ask the noble lord
msKuebetjereeoncptt,onla.ins dgiiteelai they were
the Secretary for the Rome Department, whether the
legal investigation into the seizure of arms or warlike
stores at Rotherhithe, had resulted in substantiating the
charges or insinuations that Louis Kossuth was con-
nected therewith ; and, whether the police had been
employed to watch the residence of Louis Kossuth or
the houses of other political refugees.
Lord P.A.LMERSTON said the house was aware that
one of the proceedings before the Bow-street Magistrate
with regard to the seizure of gunpowder was closed, and
that a decision had been given, and that, with regard
to the other case as dings, rockets, the magistrate
interrupted the procee, and stated that he thought
the case ought to be sent before another trib
was unal. T
the
he
honourable gentleman had asked him what
result of this latter proceeding as regarded certain im-
putations which had been cast upon M. Kossuth.
Now he really could do no more than say,
that that
which had hitherto passed in regard to these proceedings
Was now before the public, and that every man was in a

LL
BOMBAY JUDGES.
Mr. OTWAY wished to ask the President of the
Board of Control, whether he will inform the house of
the cause of the dismissal of two judges of the Sadder
Adawlut by the Bombay Government, and whether he
will lay on the table of the house all the papers and corres-
pondence relating to the dismissal of those high judicial
functionaries.
Sir C. WOOD was not prepared to answer .the ques-
t►on, as the Overland Mail had not yet arrived.
The motion that the house at its rising should adjourn
until Monday, was then agreed to.

When he looked back upon the last ten years, and observed
the enormous benefits which had been conferred upon this
country by the imposition of the income tax, and when he
looked forward to the next seven or ten years, and esti-
mated the great advantages which might be derived from
the continuance of the tax, he confessed he could not bring
himself to vote for an amendment which declared the con-
tinuance
of the tax to be unjust and impolitic. Though
it was true that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer pro-
posed to modify to a certain extent one of the inequalities
of the tax, by making a distinction between precarious
and permanent incomes, it was equally true that the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer had conclusively
shown that a sufficient distinction existed already, land
and houses being virtually charged at the rate of 9d.
in the pound, and professional incomes at the rate
of 7d. Surely the possessors of precarious incomes
could not desire a broader distinction than that. Again
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to
make any difference in the amount of tax levied upon in-
Comes from 1001. to 1501. a year. The proposal before the
house was more just in that respect, for the rate chargeable
Upon incomes below 1501. was less than that levied upon
incomes above 1501. (Hear,.hear.) It had been s:iid that
the tax as now proposed was unjust towards traders and
professionals • but he begged to remind the house that the
income tax of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was
accompanied ty a double house tax, which would have
fallen with great and oppressive severity upon the very
class whose interest seine honourable gentlemen on his
side of the house appeared so anxious to defend against
the Government. (Hear; hear, and a laugh.) It appeared
to him to be madness to drive on this matter when they
knew the honour of the Government was concerned in it.
(A. cry of " oh.") The honourable member might cry
oh," but what-he stated was the fact. (Hear.) He might
-be a bad party man, but he felt that, on this occasion he
was about to give at least a conscientious vote. (Hear.)
Mr. H. HERBERT said the real question to consider
was, whether it was unjust that persons possessing an
-income in the prosperous parts of Ireland should be asked
aim.i to
wasl
itEpmhffannebyegoerhltareaannoftatonadorx to.
honourable
trwna:
fah:hayilii e
aceosr h
shrinwun,mobecharil
member
satebltroeihear.) He
abs imposedsitouiuh nt
paeabpthul
oliptesnhoedn,elo
believedt
ont
tenant-farmers
holdersnhataethniTartcht-
o theh oo
honourable
incomeo n r nhi proposalo
(Mr. Herbert) might inform him that by intellolfiaawrrenmn
he
.had received that day, it appeared that in ontcieeonenotewbfewrehi'teshhchrteees
unions of the county which he had the honour to represent,
a thrownresolution
proposal
ouoout by
whichbhyea
large
Chancellora hadrg o
ulbeenn.
majority—so
frto
thep—os proposed d
Exchequerl iniii.go
h oppositionad to
thatt
beenhe
he might almost say it
vi.rtasri.
He thought that thistewrAahenaadd unanimous. ' indeed,(Hear,lhear.)
painrpopof that the tenant-farmers
were alive to their interests in this respect at least.
epaninrleit.on that if Ireland were to be taxed
aearreedc,enint
wnhuimohbetrheowrif the
r
Cork(H e a
expressedr
Examiner,
at all it would be better to have an income tax, which
would fall upon the persons best able to bear it, and that
any Irish representatives who opposed the present budget
would, in the event of an election, have no chance of being
re-elected by an agricultural constituency. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Mayo had said that if a general elec-
tion were to take place the Irish members who supported
the ;budget would tremble in their shoes. But he (Mr.
Herbert) would say that if he.were to oppose this propo-
sition he should not venture to show his face on any agri-
cultural hustings in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The an.
member for the city of Cork had argued that Ireland ought
not to have been called upon to pay these Consolidated
Annuities at all, but an argument of that kind would have
been more properly addressed to the house a few nights
ago, when this entire subject had been brought before it.
Allusion had been made to the present emigration from
Ireland, and a pathetic description had been given of the
numbers of persons who were driven out of that country
by distress ; but it was the agricultural labourers and
small farmers who were now flying in such large numbers
from the shores of Ireland, and they were the very class
who, if they remained, could not be affected by the income
tax. With regard to the duty on spirits he (Mr. Herbert)
confessed that he could see bo possible objection to levying
the very highest rate of duty upon that commodity that
could be obtained with profit to the revenue. With re-
spect to the legacy duty, he could only say, that having all
he possessed in land he had no wish to keep any exemption
to which he did not believe himself entitled, and as to the
statement that this duty would break down the landed
aristocracy, he must say he did not believe it. He was of
opinion that nothing exercised a more wholesome influ-
ence on the country than the landed aristocracy, but they
must not endeavour to retain that influence by means of
an odious exemption, which was not founded on reason
and justice. He should certainly give his vote in favour '
of the budget with a clear conscience from feeling that he
was no longer to enjoy an exemption to which circum-
stances gave him no just claims. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. R. MORGAN said if this budget were carried,
which he (Mr. Morgan) trusted it would not be, it was at
all events to be hoped that the right honourable gentle-
man would continue to pay attention to the subject of land
with the view of seeing whether greater facilities might
not be given in the transfer of it. (Hoar, hear.) With
regard to the advertisement duty he considered that the
rigt honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would have acted more wisely had he attended to
the opinion expressed by a majority of the house. If ad-
vertisements were to be taxed at all, they might fairly bo
taxed when they appeared in the form of the large carpet
bag or gold nugget which now appeared in the streets. He
was unable to agree with the opinion which the honour-
able member for the West Riding had advanced, that the
imposition of the legacy duty was a benefit to the small
growers. Not being an Irish member he felt some degree
of diffidence in offering any opinion on the subject of the
extension of the income tax to Ireland. He considered,
however, that at the present time it was inexpenient to ex-
tend it to that country.
Mr. FORSTER was of opinion, that as regarded the in-
come tax, the aspect of the question was entirely changed
by the fact, that the committee were now only called urn
to consider it as a tax of a temporary character, and there-
fore the charge of inconsistency brought forward by the
member for Roscommon against those hon. gentlemen who
voted against the continuance of the income tax in 184 S,
and for it now, was a groundless one. He believed that
the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had proposed measures which were well adapted
to develop the resources of the country, and so to provide
for it those means of defence which were only to be found
iu its general prosperity. (Hear.)
Lord A. VANE trusted no member would be influenced in
his-vote on this question by the threat which it was under-
stood the Government had thrown out, that they would.
dissolve Parliament if they did not carry their budget—
instead of taking the snore constitutional course which had
been adopted by the late Government, of resigning. It ap-
peared to him that questions had lately arisen affecting the
elementary principles of taxation, and that an inquiry with
a view to the re-adjustment of the basis of taxation would
be advisable. Ho should be glad if some member of more
weight than himself would move for a committee to inves-
tigate the whole system, believing, as he did, that such a
proceeding would tend more than anything else to dispel
the delusion which the exaggerated statements of the
Manchester school had created in the public mind as to
the partieii upon whom the burden of the taxes principally
fell. (Hear.) According to Mr. Gregg, the total expendi-
ture of the country in 1849, including the poor rates and
county rates, was 66,436,9721., of which the amount paid
by the propertied classes was, 45,641,2451 , leaving the
amount paid by the working classes, 20,799,7231., the lat-
ter classes comprising as they did, three-fourths of the
whole community. The proportion paid individually by
the two classes was 11. per head by the working classes, _
and 61.105. thl. by the propertied class. Contrasting the
financial scheme of Mr. Disraeli and that of the present
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he stated that the increase
in taxation under the budget of the late Government
would have been 1,060,0001., and the remissions would
thianvne amouundernt red
ptron
s3e,
n4t9opVan°ll.l,-aws h3i,lle3otl,loeiiacreaansde
sions 5,315,0001., and he wished especially to call the thoof rte'in'xias--
at-
tention of the Irish members to the fact, that their share of
the additional taxation under this budget would be
608,0001., or 453,0001. after deducting the remission of the
consolidated annuities, and including the legacy duty on
land, the increased taxation to be levied on Ireland was
753,0001. a year. He contended that the imposition of
the income tax on Ireland was most unjust. She had not
been subjected to it even during the War, and she was cer-
tainly not better able to bear it now that she was-but just
recovering from the famine. He objected to the extension
of the legacy duty to land, considering it unsound in prin-
ciple to levy taxes on the property instead of the income of
the country. With regard to the income tax, he believed
that no finance minister would be ever hereafter able to
dispense with it. The Times had praised the financial
scheme of Mr. Disraeli, because it proposed to establish a
difference between permanent and precarious incomes ;
and yet, when " a heaven-born minister" came down to
the house, and proposed to retain it unaltered and unre-
formed, its inequalities undiminished and its injustice as
glaring as ever; nay, when he even proposed to extend it
to persons of 1001. a year, and to a country where it had
previously been unknown, that consistent organ turned
round, and bespattered him with the most fulsome pane-
gyrics
and the warmest applause. (Hear, hear.) The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken two hours to prove
that the land already paid 9d. in the pound, and yet he in.
in-
vited them to submit to an impost amounting to 2,000,0001.
a year. The application of the tax to Ireland
had been
condemned by Sir It. Peel, and by many of the most
dis-
tinguished mon on the opposite side ; and yet those gentl o-
men were now ready to support the right hon.ttn agentleman(Mr. Gladstone) in his design of extending it t
coun-
try. This might be the last opportunity ho (Lord A. Vane)
(
might have of addressing them for a considerable period to
should not take
come. Even if the threatened dissolutionso
many
hon.
eeb
place, he was in the situation in whichnetitioned against,
P
mem-
bers had found themselves. He hadwho had professed
and seeing that so many gentlemen
had been turned out, he could
themselves to be innocentiethat,
though guiltless of any ilk-
conceive it quite pos_
' Isit share their fate. (Laughter.) If
gal practice, he mig
that were so, he s ou
b ld never regret that the last time he
addressed the
house was in favour of a principle he consci-
entiously believed to he right, and against that which he
self at the
land pledged hi 'm
his constituents * should,
at all events, face with more honesty,
And judgment than those who had condemned
sense,the
incense tax all their lives, and were now going to vote for
its continuance and extension. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He should always feel most grateful
ns for the kind indul-
gence
with which his last observations had been received,
in opposition to a tax which he considered
and to press unequally upon a strugglingred to be unjust,
Mr. P. URQUHART announced his class.
determination
support the .financial policy of her Majesty's to
It impossible to consider the Government.
dated Annuities and the imposition remission. of the Consoli-
apart. He thought that of the income tax
Ireland would be a great gainer
by the alteration. The only
taxes was to capitalise them _ way of comparing the two
An-
nuities, then, amounted toatoth. The Consolidated
mit 4,000,0001., and the pre-
sent value of the proposed income
tax was ab0nt2,500,0001.,
which would show a clear
(sear.)
Besides
if
they
traiq to Ireland of 3,500,000
...
uld
stand in a much better ypolimoni
itnedoatoothwehtiacxh, thedyflovrnoid,
Ireland should be visited again by a is•e'petition of the cala-
mities which she had just gone through. If they refused
it now they would be compelled to take it at some future
time, when they would not be able to make nearly so good
terms. (Oh, from the Irish members.) They would bo
like the Roman emperor, who was glad to give the same
price for three Sybilline books for which ho might have bad
the whole nine ; and he hoped the time would never come
when they would rue the day on which they had not fol-
lowed the advice of an hon. member for Yorkshire, and
clinched the bargain with both hands. (Hear, hear.) He
would suggest, however, that the right hon. gentleman
should make an allowance for the management of estates.
(Hear, hear.) It was true that this was not done in
rents were pain
Eng-
land, but the expense was mach less ;
tn , „Os. in
a habit of
more regularly ; the poor rate did not s!,nmo tot v° 4
the pound ; and tenants were and'le.
ears.) For his
eloping with their crops. (Laughterion, I.
t and it would be-
own part, he preferred direct tax
a_ to :livens° with it, as the
come every year less pcemac,„ „are peace had sprung up
manufactures which daring .-?-' ~
—, our ovra. (lieu, WI.)
avm _ -
on the continent Wow

by seven years would he said amount to about 2,500,000/.
but he .contended that that country would gain 1,500,000
by the transaction. Now whether the income tax would
be repe.lded at the end of
.seven years had nothing to do
. with the question. The question under consideration was
the readjustemnt of the burden of taxation between the two
countries, and if he (Mr. Moore) could prove that the bal-
ance, the proportion which subsisted ever since the union,
would now be altered to the debit or loss of Ireland, to the
extent of 300,000/. or 400,000/., it would not matter whether
the income tax should be taken off at the end of seven
years or to-morrow. The whole amount of the remission to
Ireland would be 564,2871. The income was expected to
produce 460,0001., the spirit duty 198,000/. and the legacy
duty 267,000/.—making altogether 925,6001.—leaving a
balance against Ireland of upwards of 350,0001. (Hear.)
In addition to that Ireland would sustain a loss of 150,0001.
by the remission of the duty on butter. He did not mean
to say that it was not right to remit such a tax, but in
proposing new taxes such a remission ought to bo taken
into consideration. (Hear, hear.) The Irish people were
now watching over their liberties and honour, and if a
s shaking dissolution should occur, many hon. members would be
foundla
in
in which
shoes.
they (wLoauulgdh te
permitr.) Tthhi
es
rw thehts
Parliamentka
in
and liberties to be trampled upon. (Cheers.)
Mr. JOHN B ALL said, as the honourable member had
thought proper to attack hi to—(cries of " spoke, spoke")—
and as he understood another honourable gentleman in-
tended to do so—(spoke, spoke)—he did not
desire
to waste
the tine of the committee, but trusted that he might be
allowed to say ono word. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) It
was somewhat remarkable, and not very creditable, that
when Irishmen differed in opinion, they generally thought
it necessary to indulge in personal 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, he
might succeed in inventins. imputations. (Hear, hear, and
oh, oh.) He would simply say this—he was of course un-
known to the great majority of the house. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) But although unknown, he believed the
humblest member was entitled to defend his personal
honour. (Cheers.) Although unknown .to the house, he
was content to allow time to settle the question so far as
he was concerned. He would allow honourable gentlemen
to say as offensive and disagreeable things as possible. He
would allow their speeches to go over to Ireland, and was I
satisfied they would not have the slightest effect so far as
he was concerned. (Hear, hear, and oh.)
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR said the immediate question
before the house was the imposition of the income tax for a
period ending in 1860. He agreed with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in regarding the income tax as an engine to
work great events. When it was first proposed by Sir R.
Peel, it was to enablelhim to do great good to the country,
as well as to maintain the national credit. At that time
there was a deficiency of about 2,000,0001., arising from
various circumstances. Sir R. Peel succeeded in supplying
that deficiency by means of the income tax, and also suc-
ceeded in conferring those benefits on the country which
would ever be remembered. (Hear, hear.) He admitted,
unhesitatingly, that the income tax was not levied so fairly
and equitably as it might be ; but he thought it could
scarcely be imposed more equitably without making it
more inquisitorial than it was at present. The income tax
did not exceed 6,000,000/., and in imposing that tax the
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with the tea
duties, amounting to about the same sum, with the spirit
duties, and with a variety of other taxes on articles of con-
sumption, yielding a revenue of 32,000,000/., and he did
not think it would be a great hardship on those who had.
the ability to pay to contribute for seven years to an in-
come tax of 6,000,000/. (Hear, hear.) He trusted the S
income tax would not terminate in 1860, and that before S
that period the Government would be able to remit many
taxes much more objectionable. He fully approved of the
abolition of the soap duties. He considered a partial re-
duction !I
of Excise duties most objectionable, because such
reduction did not remove the restrictions on trade and give
the consumer the full benefit of the change. It was on!
that ground that he last year opposed the reduction of the;
malt tax, believing, as he did, that the consumer would!
not derive any benefit from the reduction. (Hear.) With.
regard to the objections that he had made to the extension
of the income tax to Ireland, he regretted that the. ,
hon. members from that country who had spoken upon this'
subject had placed themselves in such a humiliating
position as they had done in resisting the proposal of the
Government. (Hear, hear.) • He admitted that Ireland
had been subjected to great oppression by misgovernment,
and regretted that the Act of Union had not been accom-
panied by the removal of religious disabilities and the
establishment of the principles of political and civil liberty
in that country. At the time of the union the debt of
Ireland amounted to about 30,000,0001., but between that
period and 1816 it was increased to about 130,000,000/.
The then Chancellor of the Exchequer found it very
inconvenient to pay a certain sum out of the taxes of
Great Britain to meet the interest of the Irish debt, and
accordingly, in 1817, he consolidated the English and Irish
Exchequers. Since that period this country had paid, on
account of the interest of the Irish debt, no less a sum
than 45,000,000, which, added to the principal of the debt,
and deducting the expense of the army and constabulary
in Ireland, brought out a total sum of about 200,000,0001.
Such was the,state of the debtor and creditor account be-
tween the.two countries. He regretted to state that up to
the time when Sir Robert Peel came into power in 1835,
Ireland was most opprzssis'ely and unjustly governed ; but
since that period the Governments of earl Grey, Lord
Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel had
done all they could to ameliorate her condition, and he
believed the present Government was anxious to do the
same. (Hear, hear.) A few days only had elapsed since
that house passed the Clergy Reserves Bill, and he believed
they could not long go on in Irelandwithout a re-adjustment
of the Church revenues in that country. (Hear, hear.)
He wished also that in every other respect the people of
Ireland should be placed upon exactly the same footing as
the people of this country, and he lamented exceedingly
the course which had been adopted by the Irish members
with regard to the extension of the income tax. He be-
lieved they could not put Ireland in a satisfactory and
prosperous condition until the Irish members did that
which the Scotch members had at all times endeavoured
to do since the union of Scotland with England—agree
among themselves upon all great national questions.
(Hear, hear.) He did not expect that in Ireland, or else-
where, they could be entirely separated from those divi-
sions which were incident to party ; but there were great
questions affecting their own country upon which they
ought to be unanimous, and instead of resisting the intro-
duction of the income tax in the spirit they had evinced,
they ought to have considered whether they should not
assume the high and proud position of saying that they
would pay their fair share of taxation in return for the
benefits they had received, wore receiving, and would
continue to receive. (Hear.) In Scotland, notwith-
standing the original barbarism of the country, the barren
and sterile nature of the soil, and the great obstacles in
the way of trade and agriculture, the people had, by dint
of perseverance, industry, and energy, attained to a pros-
perous and independent condition, and were now paying
without a murmur every tax that was paid in England.
(Hear.) He found from the works of Sir John Sinclair,
published in 1835, that three-fourths of the whole revenue
of Scotland had been paid into the Imperial treasury since
the Union, one-fourth having been sufficient to pay for the
whole expenditure of the country, civil, judicial, and ad-
ministrative, and also for the expense of collection. Since
1835, a still larger proportion of the revenue of Scotland
had found its way into the Imperial Exchequer. Such
had been the result of unanimity and industry on the part
of the people. He made these remarks in no invidious
spirit, but in the hope that the people of Ireland would do
what the people of Scotland had done, and would act in a
more harmonious manner in discussing great questions af-
fecting their own interests. (Hear, hear.) Ile would now
refer for a moment to the budget. He had no hesitation
in saying, in the first place, that he considered some por-
tions of it defective—(hear, hear)—but, taking it altogether
he believed it to be tho most important budget, with the
exception of the great free-trade budget of Sir Robert Peel,
that had ever been presented to that house. The sweep-
ing reform that was proposed in the Customs, accompanied
by the improvements that were to be introduced into the
administration and management of that department of
the public service, would be of the utmost advantage to our
commerce. The reduction of the duties on butter would
also be of great benefit, though he did not believe the fall
in the price of these articles would be to such an extent as
was anticipated. With respect to the reduction of the tea
duty, he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had,
adopted the course which he proposed at the commence-
ment of the session, and resolved to reduce the duty on
tea to ls. per lb. in three years. That was a wise and
proper measure, for he believed that the increased im-
portation of ea from. China would not be sufficient to
justify a greater reduction. He was convinced that at
the end of three years the proposed reduction would
be of immense advantage to the commerce of the country,
that it would greatly increase the consumption of tea,
and that the wives and children of poor labourers
instead of having only hot water drink, would have good,
strong, wholesome tea. ,(Hear, hear.) He now came to
the Excise. The remission of the duty on soap would re-
move the presence of the exciseman altogether, enable the
manufacturer in this country to supply the whole world,
increase the trade with Africa for palm oil, and to diminish
the traffic in slaves, be of great service to our cloth manu-
facturers, and, above all, promote the health, comfort and
cleanliness of the people. With regard to stamps, he re-
gretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not boldly
abolish the tax upon 'receipts altogether, while, with re-
spect to the advertisement duty, he could not cordially ap-
prove the course adopted in that matter, inasmuch as by
retaining one-third of the tax they would still keep up the
whole expense of collection, without getting rid of the dis-
satisfaction which prevailed on the subject. In remitting
the stamp upon supplements, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had done right ; but he did not think that untaxed
supplements should go through the Post-office
there were other pape withou
t
that
paying postage,, inasmuch as
were entirely devoted to advertisements, but which would
t • •n
still be subjected to the stamp duty, although containing
no news whatever. He trusted that this part of the scheme
create
would be modified ; if not, ho was afraid it wouldt
nsion of
much dissatisfaction. He thought that the ex e 0
very great measur
the legacy duty to real property
was
a tx whether levied
though he was of opinion that
not faounded in wisdom.
upon real or personal property, arcs
thepeople of England
It was a tax of the nature of which
ilar to the feudal
had always complained, and which wass
wocueed
31,,gnz,
exactions that created the resistance which)l
ition of nCharta. Perhaps, however, the propasacticableone at the
teller of the Exchequer was the only pr
d of a few
p
ce tod that at the en
resent moment ; but he trus regular tax
transformed into a more
years it would be
f of every description.
upon the rents and profits of property
s of the budget would
He believed that more financia_orensra
productive, than the
be much greater,
,val
haeleor seemed to anticipate,
Chancellor of the
tune,l! xc
looking forward to the possi-
though, at the same
9.rvests during the next six or seven
bility of bad
years, h© bought the right honourable gentleman had
done wisely in not estimating o the produce
had of the
revenue e
at a greater amount than liedch H e believed that
the budget would give great satisfaction to the country,
and that the commercial and other advantages accruing
from it would bo such that no one would complain of the
income tax as proposed, although he admitted it
the most just or equitable tax that could be imposed.
not
Looking at all the advantages that we had derived
the imposition of the first income tax, ad derived from
in our commercial legislation—rememberingaid the alterations
prosperous way in which wo had the happy and.
diffi-
culties of the last eleven gone through all the years—bearing in mind that,
while other countries had been
had maintained peace at homeexposed to sad disasters, we
our commerce beyond all previ and abroad, and extended
that there would be very littleous anticipations—he trusted
further opposition to-the
adoption of the income tax as
Chancellor of the proposed, in order that the
other parts of his mo valuable and important financial
Exchequer might be able to carry the
scheme. (Hear.) st
Colonel HA.RCOURT
of the house, desired t , who rose on the Opposition side
occasion, he could o state the reasons why, on the pre-
senthon. baronet
should vote „the member for Hertfordshire, and why he
tt Vote or the measure.proposed by the Government,

THE BUDGET.
Mr. MOORE resumed the adjourned debate with an ox.
pression of surprise at the various and altogether contra-
dictory grounds on which gentlemen in favour of the
budget had based their arguments for supporting it, and at
the remarkable unanimity with which they had agreed in
one thing—in an utter dissent from the views of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in proposing that budget, which,
nevertheless, for reasons of their own, they supported. The
legacy duty, he imagined, was what had attracted the ma-
jority of them. As to the income tax being only for seven
years, seven years was a little eternity in finance ; and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer who confessed the faults, the
inequalities, and the inquisitorial character of the tax, yet
asked them to submit to it so long, not as a great necessity
but only to enable them to repeal other taxes to which the
right hon. gentleman could not, in principle, see any such
objections. In England the question was simple, a com-
parison and a balancing of the advantages and disadvan-
tages of the income tax and of those taxes which its imposi-
tion would allow the right hon. gentleman to remit. In Ire-
land there was no such gratifying embarrassment,the question
there being, whether they should be taxed more in order
that we might be taxed less ; and because they ventured.
to demur to tho operation, they had
hould ed been assail
have
tithet
I press in language which he regrett s
pressed into the service. He recollected hearing of the stu-
dents of D Alin hissing a patient because he declined a very
severe but curious operation they proposed, and that seemed
to be the position of those who now found fault with Ireland.
They were called factious and dishonest ; and as to " fac-
tious, ' that was a phrase used by every party that was in
to every party that was out. But as to " dishonesty," that
was a serious charge, which Englishmen would not make
unless they were very selfish or very much in a passion.
He thought writers who u ed this language might have
" supplementary" reasons for so doing—(laughter) ; and
whatever came of the budget, he was sure it would d
of bo
the general opinion that it ought to bet w
one excrescense ; that Caesar's wife ought to be above sus-.
picion. As regarded the subject of the Irish income tax,
it had been obscured by two questions being jumbled
together, which should have been kept distinct, whether
Ireland was now sufficiently taxed, and whether she would
or would not have her taxation increased by the adoption
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal ? It appeared
to him that the proposition of tho late Government was,
n respect to pound, shillings, and pence, precisely the
NAMO as that propounded by the present Government, so
far as realatod to the imposition of the income tax. The
late Chancellor of the Exchequer proliosed to extend it to
Ireland partially. The present Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, in extending it, gave what he called compensation.
But if he proposed. the extension of the income tax as a
matter of justice, the remission of the Consolidated Annu-
ities had nothing to do with the matter. (Hear, hear.)
He would endeavour to show that Ireland would be taxed
more by the present budget that it was at present. The
hon. member for Carlow admitted that Ireland would be
called upon to pay some paltry 350,0001., multiplied