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

TRE Sew , ILON'DON, •-SATITADA.Y E.VEI4ING, APRIL 80, lent

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 oiCommons 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 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

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 ander 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 be 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 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 bad
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 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 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 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 pro-
fession of Christianity. 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 ;
bat the concluding words formed no part of the oath ;
so much much so, indeed, that it had been said that it might
withowwerans
an
not Christian.aaasertinnof
H
theWitis taken
by
a man
most rev, prelate that there would not be much
value
He
agreed
Christianity,
t
persons might take it who were not really
Christians,any
and it was impossible to say that it could
.m it even
effye. ctually preservebl the Christian character of any assein-
(the Duke of Argyll) believed that this was
more a question of .feeling
lieved that, historically g an
th of argument. He be-
a relic of the prejudics ?feking, it was a remnant and
former ages. There was one
other argument which had been
allude, namely, the number ofeuti used to which hee wouldeuse
of Commons had decided on thin: es on which th
question, and the ad-
visability ,of their lordship not interfering with those
e
decisions,, Although he was as zeal
us as any one for
the honour and independence of their lordshi •
ps house,

position to form his ewn 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 still better grounds on
which to arrive at a decision. With regard to the last
I question, he had to state that it was the duty of the
I 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, bear.) 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 that 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.) 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
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 conduct 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 bad the proceedings
been takenthereoragainstfeh
e had Kossuth
betrayedssuthinstead
noof Mr.ign oHraanleee,
and
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 anythinglike 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 I (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON protested that lie had made
no charge against Kossuth, nor had lie 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 displayed ignorance 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 h,e 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 Air 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.

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 I 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 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 been"—what I 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 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

. 69

.. 46-115
.. 96

Non-contents, present

Proxies

.. 68-164

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.

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. °iVEIe ffßeAecptr.esented several petitions from
Kenttothesam

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, Middlithex, against the opening of the Crystal
Palace on Sunday.
Mr. HEADLAIVI 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." _ _

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. WOODS 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.

THE BUDGET.

Mr. MOORE resumed the adjourned debate with an ex .
pression of surprise at the various and altogether contra-
dictory grounds on which gentlemen in favour of the
budget had based their arguments for supporting it, and at
the remarkable unanimity with which they had agreed in
one thing—in an utter dissent from the views of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in proposing that budecogomermtee,pseewnsahtxi.acthasaioTpxneha.de
nevertheless, for reasons of their own, they supported. The
legacy duty, he imagined, was what had attracted the ma-
jority of them. As to the income tax being only for seven
years, seven years was a little eternity in finance ; and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer who confessed the faults, the
inequalities, and the inquisitorial character of the tax, yet
asked them to submit to it so long, not as a great necessity
but only to enable them to repeal other taxes to which the
right hon. gentleman could not, in principle, see any such
objections. In England the question was simple, a com-
parison and a balancing of the advantages and disadvan-
tages of the income tax and of those taxes which its imposi-
tion would allow the right hon. gentleman to remit. In Ire-
land there was no such gratifying embarrassment, the question
there being, whether they should be taxed more in order
that we might be taxed less.; and because they ventured
to demur to the operation, they had been assailed by the
press in language which he regretted should have been
pressed into the service. He recollected hearing of the stu-
dents of Dublin hissing a patient because he declined a very
severebut curious operation they proposed, and that seemed
to be the position of those who now found fault with Ireland.
They were called factious and dishonest ; and as to "fac-
tious," that was a phrase used by every party that was in
to every party that was out. But as to " dishonesty," that
was a serious charge, which Englishmen would not make
unless they were very selfish or very much in a passion.
H,,
"supplementary"
Ing thought wtarry,itlrsrewashoonsucfeocir tshoisdolianugg_uagumghitgehrt)
;haanv(ei
whatever came of the budget, he was sure it would be
the general opinion that it ought to be pruned of
one excrescense ; that Cwsar's. wife ought to bo above sus-
picion.it
together,hati
bAwe
nshir ecoghbassrehduroeudedl
dthbheyasjewbbjoeece(tniuoefksetthii)oetn
sldriibssteliiinnicigitc, ojwitnthineebtt
whether
al
exedr,
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
t, oo f thethe imposition
Exchequer
t aotfltrhelea proposedninde
to
omoeu would
extendtl xb.,e
ittTe
ahtroe.
to him that the proposition of the late Government was,
n respect to pound, shillings, and ponce, precisely the
same as that propounded by the present Government, so
Ifiraatreel:Cnhdreapainacarettlelidoarlly. The present Chancellor of the Exche-
lnuoeetrre,,,i
fmbio nuyueohlp
omfeetaxjhbtiple;rt
onptodif:pec
elioepoarns
a:s
egeyontacu
rhitstaeo,rtbmrlifieemwda
svepghi
extension
lost: wwi:thnhis ati 3
saotot
tfenodhit
,otheo 0
otf
ewhct aaahllts.le
,elati
which
Consolidatedeh l
piaenh a
multiplied
would
z b e
Annu-
ities had nothing to do with the matter. (Hear, h matter
ehon.au e d

vv
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Man-
chester Chamber of Commerce, praying that the gene-
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 BUDGET*
Lord PALMERSTON presented a petition from
Finsbury, in favour of the Government financial scheme,
RAILWAY AMALGAMATION.

In reply to Mr. RICARDO,
I
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.
K KOSSUTH AND THE SEIZURE OF ROCKETS
A:rthaßt°thTeHhEolutt at T
its
rising do adjourn
On the motion
until Monday nest,
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, be 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 at
be had
no connection either directly or indirectl t Y
with the manu-
facture of warlike stores or arms in this country. Other
statements had been publicly made on the same
subject, and they were gaining general credence in the
Tnetropolis greatly to the injury of the reputation of M.
Kosuth. He therefore wished to ask the noble lord
the Secretary for the Home Department, whether the
legal investigation into the seizure of arms or warlike
stores at Rotherhithe, had resulted in substantiating the
charges or insinuations that Louis Kossuth
had was ceenon-
nected therewith ; and, whether the police b
employed to watch the residence of Louis Kossuth or
the houses of other political refugees.
Lord PALIVIERSTON 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 to the rockets, the magistrate
in the proceedings, and stated that he thought
the case ought to be sent before another tribunal. The
honourable gentleman had asked him what was the
result of this latter proceeding as regarded certain im
putations which had been cast upon M. Kossuth.
Now he really could do no more than say, that that
which had hiterto passed in regard to these proceedin in gs'
was now beforhe the public., and that every man was a