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

much ignorance and crime, which the most enlightened
were daily striving to remove; and would the Legislature
proclaim to those benevolent individuals their disregard
or indifference to the great principles of Christianity?
Not only at home, but in our distant possessions, would
the effect of such a measure be severely felt. In le east,
the British nation earnestly inculcated the truth of
Christianity upon its millions of Hindoo subjects; and
of what avail would be those efforts and professions if
the Hindoos learnt that at home no difference was re-
cognised by the British Legislature between those who
held Christianity and these who denied it? After this,
how would it be possible to persuade the Hindoos that
the English were sincere in their professions of Chris-
tianity ?—(Hear, hear.) The greatest obstacles to the
diffusion of Christianity had always arisen from the
inconsistent conduct of its professors; and if the step
now proposed were taken by the Legislature, it would
weaken the efforts of all the promoters of Christianity
in every part of the world.—(Hear, and cries of
" Divide.") He looked upon it as a question of a reli-
gious nature, and viewing it in this light, he cordially
concurred in the sentiments of the learned body he repre-
sented, that if this measure was passed into a law, it
would be calculated to shock the religious feelings of the
country.—(Hear, hear, and loud cries of" Divide.")
Mr. PLUMPTRE opposed the motion.
Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I observed that the Noble
Lord who introduced this question to our consideration
to-night introduced it to our consideration as a ques-
tion of principle. I have just heard the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge
(Mr. Goulburn) oppose that proposition in a very able
speech, and he grounded that opposition also because it
is a question of principle. The principle of the Noble
Lord is the principle of religious liberty; the principle
of the Right Hon. Gentleman is, I apprehend, the prin-
ciple of religious truth. The Noble Lord, in applying
to the solution of this question the principle of
religious liberty, has adopted a principle which, in
comparison with the subject on which we are now
deliberating, is one of novel introduction into this
country; a principle which in its application has effected
very great ends and very great results—a prin-
ciple which the Noble Lord has a right, almost above all
other men, from his descent and his personal exploits, to
look up to with respect. It is not, Sir, for me on the
present occasion to give any opinion upon the validity
of that principle. I am not here to impugn its sound-
ness, and I do not find it necessary to say anything in
support of it. I am satisfied that a great body of gen-
tlemen in this House will allow that opinion on the
present occasion to be decided by their belief in the
principle of religious liberty. But, I may say, for my-
self, that I am one of those who believe that there is
something more excellent than religious liberty—
and that more excellent thing is religious truth. I may
be permitted to say, also, that religious conformity—re-
ligious truth taking the shape of religious conformity—
is in my mind unquestionably a very great blessing;
and though I am not here to impugn for a
moment the validity of the principle on which
the Noble Lord has founded mainly his argument in
support of this measure, at the same time I beg to state
that it is not upon that principle that I shall be in-
fluenced in giving my vote this evening. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of
Cambridge has told us that this is a question of princi-
ple, and a question, indeed, whether this is to be a re-
ligious or a non-religious country ; and the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford
(Mr. Gladstone) is going to support the proposition of
the Noble Lord—although he declared frankly, and in
a manner that did him, under the circumstances in which
he spoke, the greatest honour, that he found it necessary
to excuse the vote that he was giving from the character
which that vote might assume from the more superficial
circumstances of the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman
gave us a philosophical description of the consecutive
development of the circumstances in this country which
rendered it, in his opinion, most politic and even neces-
sary in him to support the proposition of the Noble Lord,
though, at the same time, he seemed to conceive that a
state of affairs might exist which would be more agree-
able to his feelings and more consentaneous to his
wishes. The Right Honourable Gentleman con-
fessed it was the progress of events that rendered
it necessary for him to give that vote, and—l appre-
hend I son not misinterpreting him—he feared that
the House and the country might misconceive
the motives which induced him to give that vote,
and the reasons which influenced him in coming to the
resolution which he himself was enforcing. Now, Sir, I
have arrived at a conclusion entirely contrary. Ido not
think that the vote which the Nuble Lord wishes us to
support him with is one which ought to give an impres-
sion to the country that there is any deficiency of reli-
gious feeling in this House. Because, what are the cir-
cumstances of the case? It affects those subjects of the
Queen who profess the Jewish religion. They are not
many in point of number—they are a people who do not
hold monster meetings; they do not form themselves
into societies to act against the law; but they are a
people who come and make an appeal to this House, and
who ask the House whether it is prepared—as I hope it
will be prepared—to admit that appeal—(Cheers)—and
among other reasons on account of the religious asso-
ciations connected with the subject. I agree with the
Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley) in con-
sidering this as a religious question. For who are those
persons professing the Jewish religion? They aro per-
sons who acknowledge the same God as the Christian
people of this realm?—(Cheers.) They acknowledge
the same divine revelation as yourselves. They
are, humanly speaking, the authors of your reli-
gion. They are unquestionably those to whom
you are indebted for no inconsiderable portion of
your known religion and for the whole of your divine
knowledge. Well, then, Sir, there is prima facie
reason to suppose—looking at the question upon the sur-
face with regard to its religious associations—that the
representatives of a Christian community would not look
with disfavour at such an appeal made by such persons.
—(" Oh! oh!") Some gentleman whom Ido net know,
and whom I cannot see, appears to express dissent.
He probably is one of those who look with disfavour
upon the appeal made by the Jewish people, but he ap-
pears to me to represent upon the present occasion a
small minority.—(Cheers.) Because I observed that
many persons who have spoken against the proposition
of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) have admitted the
extraordinary claims of those who profess the Jewish re-
ligion to participate in the rights and privileges of a
Christian society, and they have felt unable to get over
that difficulty. The Noble Lord the Member for Bath
was a signal example of that position of the debate. I
had the misfortune not to hear a portion of that which I
will call the noble speech of the Noble Lord the Member

for Bath.—(Cheers.) But I had the gratification-of
listening to the last and much the larger portion of his
address, and if I had not known anything about this
House, I might have supposed him to be some person
rising with the inspiration of his subject, and speaking
with great authority, so irresistible was the Noble
Lord's argument and so rich his illustrations, had he
not ended by opposing the motion and acknowledging
more than once that he felt a great difficulty in assigning
a distinct reason for that opposition. The Minister,
when he introduced this question to-night, felt it neces•
sary to glance with some obscurity to the only tangible
reason which could influence them and other Govern-
ments in opposing the admission into Parliament of per-
sons holding the Jewish religion. The reason was only
partly adverted to by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell),
but the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, with the
earnestness of his heart in the subject, told us that the
real cause of the prejudice against the Jews is, that they
are looked upon by the people of this country—by por-
tions of them at least—as having incurred a penal retri-
bution for the crucifixion of our Lord.—(Hear.) The
Noble Lord (Ashley) placed that question before the
House, and it is only because he did so that I allude to
the subject. But the strange feature in the case is, that
the Noble Lord stated at the same moment that
he gave no credit to that proposition, and
that he could not bring to his mind to be-
lieve that the existing Jewish population in this or any
other country, were, in consequence of that mysterious
and most important event in the annals of the world,
liable to any such punishment. It is well known that
long before that momentous event the Jewish people
had been dispersed through many lands, and that the
Jews of this and other European countries may have
sprung from those who had left Palestine long before
that event. The Noble Lord said, then, there was no
ground for entertaining that belief. But if that is not
the cause of the opposition to the present motion—and
that is the cause out of doors—what is the definite
ground which you bring forward in opposition to the
Jewish claims? I leave the question of religious freedom
to work its own way, and I will not advert to that por-
tion of the subject which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
J. Russell) has touched with the ability of a master. But
I look to the opposition of Gentlemen on this side of the
House who object to this motion on the ground of reli-
gious truth, and I say that it is on that ground, as well
as on the ground of religious freedom, that I feel bound
to give my vote for the proposition of the Minister—
for if faith is valued as a sanction of conduct, with what

consistency can a Christian people say that those
to whom they are indebted for the doctrines of their
faith—who profess the religion which every gentle-
man in this room professes—for every gentleman here
does profess the Jewish religion, and believes in Moses
and the Prophets—have not faith?—Cheers.) I find that
there are gentlemen who, it seems, do not believe in
Moses and the Prophets, and that gives some strength
to the observation made to-night about Gibbon and Hume.
But until I heard this scoff I thought this was a position
in the argument whist' might be regarded as established
and which was too clear to need refutation. Well, then
I say if religion is a sanction of religious conduct you
have that security in the instance of the Jews, who pro-
fess a true religion.—(" Oh, oh I") It may not be in
your more comprehensive form. I do not say it is the
true religion ; but although they do not profess all that
we do, all they do profess is true.—(Hear, hear.) You
must admit then, that in men who are subject to the
divine revelations that you acknowledge—whose morals
are founded on the sacred oracles to which we all bow—
that as far as religion can be a security for their con
duct, for their public morality and justice, you have in
the religion of the Jews the best sanction in the
world except that of our own Christianity.—(Loud cheers.)
You will hardly say that the religion of the Jews
is not a sanction of their moral conduct ; but then you
will say, that if you admit the Jews into this House on
the principle advocated by the Noble Lord, you will de-
Christianize the country, and the professors of other
religions, not like the Jews, and which have not so great
an affinity to that which we profess, may enter into the
House. But the best evidence in the face of Europe of
our Christian sincerity, is that we admit the Jews to the
highest privileges of citizenship, and to the highest offices
of the State, without so admitting the professors of other
religions. The very reason for admitting the Jews is
because they can show so near an affinity to you.
Where is your Christ, if you do not believe in their
Judaism ?—(Hear.) Do not mix up, then, the conside-
ration of a question which is so intimately allied to you
with the different considerations that would apply to the

Pagan and the Mahominedan. I am prepared to lay down 1
the broadest principles as to the importance of maintain-
ing a Christian character in this House and in this coon
try, and yet it is on this very ground you will found and
find the best argument for the admission of the JeWs
(Cheers.) I deny that their case, to a Christian senate
and people, depends on the same arguments, and re-
quires the same pleading as the case of the Pagan nod
the follower of Mahomet. But the Right Hon. Gent le-
man the Mgmber for the University of Cambridge says
that the very consequence of your admitting the Jews
into this House is, that you are losing your hold on
distant countries ; that you are, in fact, losing your
power of conversion in distant lands by admitting them
into Parliament ; and that, in fact, you will no longer
recognise the Christian religion. I ask you, on the other
hand, to admit the Jews into this House, and into the
enjoyment of every social and civil right, just becaure I
differ with the Right Hon. Gentleman. Look at it as a
religious case. Suppose this was, as it might have been,
a Druidical assembty ; suppose you had, as you might
have had, a bench of Druids in another place—(Hear,
and laughter)—and supposing then that the Jews, a
people numbering some 40,000 or 50,000, had claimed
from you an entrarte into this House, and demanded
the full enjoyment of British citizenship. Then I appre-
hend that you might have said, " This is a question
of high policy, whether we shall admit these persons,
small in number, professing a religion of which we
know nothing, and following perhaps habits of life
which may be very dissonent with ours, to a full parti-
cipation in our privileges, and allow them to sit in the
national senate." But a Christian senate and commu-
nity are placed, in reference to the Jews, in a position
quite different, and must not for a moment be confounded
with what their position would be in reference to a fol-
lower of Mahomet or a Pagan. The night Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for the University of Cambridge
appears to be alarmed lest our influence in foreign
countries, our influence in the work of conversion in
foreign countries, should be lessened by acceding to the
proposition of the Minister. Sir, I have that faith in
Christian principles, that I think they will make their
way, and must make their way, by their own essential
power—(Cheers)—and that he who preaches them will
not exercise great influence in their diffusion because,
according to the view of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he
can intimate to those whom he wishes to convert that
they will enjoy some advantages by acceding to the
faith he wishes to propagate.—(Cheers.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman was once a Secretary of State, and Se-
cretary of State for the Colonies, and when in that office
he must have seen, in the West Indies and other places,
colonies of ours governed by deliberative and represen-
tative assemblies, in which Jews were seated—and not
Jews only, but even Pagans.—(No, no.) There are
Buddhists who sit in the Legislative Chamber in the
island of Ceylon. But I am not adducing these facts as
precedents for the guidance of your decision in the pre-
sent case. I place the question upon the religious
grounds on which it was based by the Noble Lord the
Member for Bath, and I mix it up neither with the
principle of religious liberty, nor :with those principles
which other Gentlemen have advocated, that you should
not look to faith, but admit all faiths alike. I dismiss
all those considerations, and I say it is because this is a
Christian assembly, and this is a Christian country, that
the Jews must find a reception among you. So far es
reason is concerned, I say that no reason one can
grapple with—no precise and definite argument—has
been adduced against the motion of the Noble Lord.—
(Hear, hear.) There is one part of this question
which has great influence in this country; and allusion
has been made to the difficulty which would arise
out of the position in which the Jews if admitted
here would be placed in connexion with the Church of
England. That is a question, as it appears to me, on
which great misconception exists. I shall not dilate
upon a point already referred to, remarking only that
the professors of the Jewish religion are not those who
proselytize. So far as my argument is concerned, I place
no weight upon that consideration. But observe, the
Jew is necessarily, from his religion, a religious being.
However he may have been persecuted —however he may
have been degraded—however he may have been bruta-
lised by the effect of those dark traditions which have
' really influenced the public opinion in relation to him to
which I have referred, which never existed at the ear-
lier periods of Christianity, but which are the product
1 of the most benighted part of the feudal ages, he has
r been sustained alone by the Divine law he obeys, and by
the sublime morality he professes.—(Hear, hear.)
The Jew has no thought of establishing his own
church ; it is an idea foreign to his own nature—
foreign to the result of all his laws, of all his habits,
and all his traditions. As such an object is both un-
desirable and impossible to him, it is his object to
support the religious institutions of whatsoever coun-
try it may be in which he is permitted to enjoy the civil
rights of a subject. In China there is a large colony of
Jews, descendants of Jews who probably left Palestine
thousands of years before Christianity was established,
and there they exist, a loyal, religious people, no doubt
anxious, as they always are, to uphold the ecclesias-
tical institutions of the country. But in Europe—that
Europe which you have baptised Christendom—how
stands the Jew in relation to the Church of Christ ?
What possible object can the Jew have to oppose the
Christian Church? Is it not the first business of the
Christian Church to make the population, whose minds
she attempts to form, and whose morals she seeks
to guide, acquainted with the history of the Jews ?
Has not the Church of Christ—the Christian Church,
whether Roman Catholic or Protestant—made the his
tory of the Jews the most celebrated history in the
world? On every sacred day you read to the people
the exploits of Jewish heroes, the proofs of Jewish
devotion, the brilliant annals of The past Jewish mag-
niticence.—(Hear, hear.) The Christian Church has
covered every kingdom with sacred buildings, over
every one of who,e altars, as we were properly
reminded by the Honourable Member for Oldham,
you found the tables of the Jewish law. Every Sunday
—every Lord's-day—if you wish to express feelings of
praise and thanksgiving to the Most High, or if you
wish to find expressions of solace in grief, you find both
in the words of the Jewish poets. It is in the Christian
Church, which you persist in believing it must be the
desire of the Jew to oppose, that he must, if he be not
persecuted, behold that Divine corporation which teaches
to all the nations of the civilised world the sublime morality,
the beautiful poetry, and the true faith which he pro-
fesses. And I cannot help believing that a man owning
all the traditions, all the habits, all the laws of a Jew—
a man who wishes to maintain inviolate the religious in-
stitutions in every country in which Ole lives—can ever
look upon the Catholic Church, whatever may be its
forms, with other feelings than those of the deepest in-
terest, and as I think, with those of reverent affection.
An Hon. Gentleman has said that if you wish to convert
the Jews it is no hard matter; the first step is to let
them become acquainted with you. And it ought not
to be a hard matter. All the early Christians were
Jews. The Christian religion was first preached
by men who had been Jews until they were con-
verted ; every man in the early ages of the Church, by
whose power, or zeal, or genius, the Christian faith was
propagated, was a Jew, and I cannot believe if you arc
really anxious for the conversion of the Jews—(" Di-
vide")—l am sorry gentlemen are so impatient, but I
feel that I am pleading a difficult cause—(Cheers)—and
I feel it my duty to speak without concealment of my
real opinions. Nothing but a conviction of solemn
duty has caused me to undertake a task which I assure
the Honourable Gentleman is no agreeable one.—
(Hear, hear.) I think, Sir, that if this question be dis-
cussed at all, it should be discussed with the most per-
fect frankness. I do not think it in the least advisable
that we should discuss it with reference to what after
all is the real point, and I for one thank
the Noble Lord the Member for Bath for
having put the case fairly before the House.
If one could suppose that the arguments which he heard,
—the arguments actually put forth—were the only ar-
guments that influenced the decision of this question, it
would be impossible to conceive what was the reason of
the Jews not being admitted to a full participation in the
rights and duties of a Christian Legislature. In exact
proportion to your faith ought to be your wish to do
this great act of national justice. If you had not for-
gotten what you owe to this people,—if you were grateful
for that literature which for thousands of years has
brought so much instruction and so much consolation to
the sons of men, you as Christians would be only too
ready to seize the first opportunity of meeting the
claims of those who profess this religion. But you are
influenced by the darkest superstitions of the darkest
ages that ever existed in this country. It is this feeling
that has been kept out of this debate; indeed, that has
been kept back in yourselves—enlightened as you
are—and that is secretly influencing you as it is
influencing others abroad. Why, the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Kent is a man who ought to be
the foremost advocate of the claims of the Jews, un-
less he believes in what the Noble Lord the Member
for Bath calls the base calumny of the middle ages.
The Hon. Member for Bath assigned irresistible reasons
for not believing it; yet it is that dark calumny of the
feudal times, founded on gross misrepresentations of
history, geography, and theology, which is the origin of
the prejudice against the ancient faith, It would be the
most difficult task in the world to present these truths to
any but a Christian assembly. I feel that the race are
deficient in many of the qualities which would make a
statesman consent to be an advocate of their interests.
It is entirely on religious grounds and on religious prin-
ciples that I venture to recommend the subject to your
notice. If I do so with earnestness I hope I may be
pardoned. This is not a subject which often comes
under our consideration. I hope we shall find occasion
to dispense with its consideration again. But it is a ques-
tion on which men, whatever may be the consequences
—on which at least I, whatever may be the con-
sequences, must speak what I feel. I can-
not sit in this House with any misconception
ever may be the consequences on the
..
of my opinion on the subject—( (sHeaetalr.) hold—andWt-
I should not have referred to such a consideration un-
less other gentlemen had done so,—l cannot, for one
give a vote which is not in
egdeferencelio Yes,towh it is a
what believesa
to be the true principles of religion.
Christian that I will not take upon me the awful re-
sponsibility of excluding from the Legislature those
who are of the religion in the bosom of which my, Lord
and Saviour was born.—(Cheers.) This is the consi•
deration on which I place the question, and so confilent
am I of the sacred truth I have enunciated that, though
sensible there may be a majority of the [louse, who,
however favourable to those claims, may decide upon
the question on grounds of political
upon
nicailt jaunstiimeea,teetx, expediency,
and
considerations. ,
adtruttelwill
It
tisdoen the religious ground, on thecid
prerloigipoosuitsionproinrctihpelemailnstoinee,rtliat I give my vote for the
and it is to those who have
objected to it on that ground that I venture to address
a statement of views which I hope they will accept, not
from my words, but from the eternal truths on which
they are based.—(Loud cheers.)
iSir T. ACLAND must on fixed principles rest his
objection to the motion, In a constitutional point of
view, he denied that it was simply an extension of those

principles of religious enfranchisement which had of
late years been developing themselves; it was a wholly
new principle, now first introduced. The admission of
the Catholics presented no analogy; the Catholics had
aforetime constituted the Parliament altogether, and
they were only afterwards excluded from feelings of
political danger arising from their presence. He
thanked God that such political danger no longer ex-
isting, the Roman Catholics had again been admitted
within the walls of Parliament. BE this was a totally
distinct question from the admission of persons whose
religion was perfectly opposed to Christianity. The
new principle sought to be introduced was nothing less
than the introduction of the principle advocated by the
Hon. Member for Montrose, who had openly said in
the house that legislation had nothing to do with re-
ligion, and that the less religion had to do with legiyia-
tion the better.

On the motion of Mr. LAW, the debate was ad-
journed, amidst loud cries of " Divide."
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir R. IL INGLIS moved the following Select Com-
mittee on the present state of the New Palace at
Westminster, with a view to the reception and accom-
modation of this House therein :—Sir R. H. Inglis,
Viscount Morpt•th, Sir R. Peel, Earl of Lincoln, Mr.
Herries, Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Stephens
son, Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Osborne, Lord E. Bruce, Mr.
Deering, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Tufnell, and Lord Robert
Grosvenor.

Mr. FORSTER thought they ought to have some
information with regard to the proceedings of the former
Committee, and also as to the enormous expenditure of
money which was taking place, before they consented to
the present one.—(Hear, hear.) lie should therefore
move that the moti -4.1 for the Committee be postponed.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that all those whose names
were on the Committee were on the former one, with
the exception of Mr. Stephenson, and no persons could
have devoted more attention to the discharge of their
duties. _ _

Dr. BOWRING thought that a statement with respect
to the proceedings of the former Committees should have
preceded the present motion.
Mr. BANKES was of the same opinion, and thought
that they should have some account respecting the enor-
mous expenditure which had taken place, and he was
afraid, not very satisfactorily.
Lord MORPETH said that the Hon. Member for the
University had shown him the names of the Committee
before he made the motion, and he considered them in
every respect well qualified for the discharge of the
duties that were to devolve upon them. He, therefor*
could have no objection to the appointment.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought it was high time that this
job of the new Houses of Parliament was stopped.—
(Laughter,) A more wasteful expenditure of public;
money had never taken place. The original estimate
was 780,0001. ; 1,500,000/. had already been expended,
and yet the building was not near completion. On the
bringing up of the report he would state all the facts o
the case. .

Lord H. VANE believed no advantage would arise
from the appointment of a Committee. It would be
better to leave the matter entirely under the direction of
the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests.

Lord LINCOLN defended the parties engaged in thg
management of the new erections. If any job had been
perpetrated, those who had held the office of Chief Com-
missioner were blameable. As regarded expense, there,
were many items not contemplated in the original esti-
mate, including the river wall and ventilation, for the
latter of which 50,0001. or 60,0001. was added to the
estimate at the suggestion of a Committee. The inves-
tigations made on this subject had shown that Mr.
Barry had in no material instance exceeded the estimate.
Colonel SIBTHORP advocated inquiry.
Viscount MORPETH, after the charge brought fora
ward against Mr. Barry, and the uncortrteous way in
i
which it had been pressed, had no hesitation in sayng
that a Committee ought to be appointed, betare which
Mr. Barry should have an opportunity of rebuttaog the
very coarse attack that had been made upon him. IT-13
had no hesitation in saying that he regarded Mr. Barry
as honourable a man as any he knew.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he had brought forward this
subject as a public duty, and he was determined to
prosecute it. He did not charge Mr. Barry more than
her Majesty's Government. They were equally culpable,
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the appointment of a
Committee might have the effect of stifling inquiry. Go
where they might out of the House, they heard of no-
thing but complaints of the lavish expenditure on this
building.
Sir R. PEEL expressed an opinion that it would be
desirable to have a full inquiry into the whole subject of
expense, works, the probable period of completion, and
causes of excess upon the original estimate. Such an
inquiry, if entered into in a good spirit, might be very
useful in its results.l
Mr. B. OSBORNE on his part, was determined that
the matter should not be hushed up.
After one or two fuetiaOr observations, it was
agreed that this question be adjc,rned until to-morr©w
(this day.)
THE RAJA OF SATTARA. _

Mr. G. THOMPSON begged to ask whether it 7ras
the intention of her Majesty's Commissioners for the
affairs of India, in conjunction with the court of directors,
to send out any orders or instructions to the Govern
ment of India in reference to the future support of the
family and relations of the deceased Raja of Sattara, and
of his numerous dependents ? And also, whether any
dispatches have been received from India, stating the
steps which have been taken by the Governor-General
of India, in consequence of the death of the ex-Raja of
Sattara ? _ _

Mr. C. LEWIS said th© Board of Control and,. gill

India board had not received official intimation of the
death of the Raja, but when they did the subject woui..4
be taken into consideration.

The House adjourned at Ten Minutes to One o'Clock,

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 16.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the
Lord Chancellor, took his seat upon the Woolsack at
Five o'clock.

PETITIONS.

Lord FARNHAM presented a petition from An-
dover, praying their Lordships to adopt measures
to prevent the Roman Catholics priests of Ire-land
from denouncing persons from the altar.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition
from Cricklade, praying for a consolidation of turn-
pike trusts.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a
petition from Downpatrick, complaining of the ad-
ministration of the poor-law in Ireland, more parti-
cularly as regards out-door relief. He had always
been a friend to the poor-law in Ireland, so
far as out-door relief was concerned, but
he considered that the system of out-door relief
tended to encourage pauperism.
CASE OF DR. HAMPDEN.

The NOBLE MARQUIS than gave notice that, to-
morrow, he should put a question to the Noble Mar-
quis, (Lansdowne), as to the authenticity of the cor-
reqoondence alleged to have passed between the Prime
Minister and certain of the Bishops, as to the pro-
posed appointment of Dr. Hampden to the bishopric
of Hereford, and whether it was intended to persevere
in the appointment.

CRIMP; AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE moved the order
of the day for the House resolving itself into
Committee on this Bill. The commission of
those crimes in Ireland which it was the
object of this Bill to repress was too
notorious to call upon him to go into any
lengthened details. It was one feature of these
crimes, that while the victim almost invariably fell,
the murderer almost as invariably escaped with im-
punity. He should have felt it his duty to recite and
describe those murders to which he had al-
luded, and to comment on them in the language
they deserved, but these crimes were matters of
public notoriety ; he should not, therefore, further al-
lude to the murder of Major Mahon and f other vic-
tims of these outrages, but should allude to other
crimes of less magnitude, which, in conjunction with
these murders, proved the existence of a conspiracy
against human life, against the existing state of so-
ciety, against the rights of property, and of
industry itself. In the month of November,
1,335 crimes had been committed in Ireland
against 1,035 committed in the preceding month.
These crimes consisted principally in the sending of
threatening letters and in robberies of arms. One of
these cases took place in Cavan. Two small farmers,
more industrious than their neighbours, had raised
crops, and had each provided himself with a gun to
defend himself from outrage. In one night the dwell-
ing of each of these persons had been broken open, and
their guns taken. In Monaghan a fishing company had
been established. Their establishment was attacked
and their property destroyed. In Limerick a man's
horse had been destroyed because he had let out the
horse to draw meal at a lower rate than these legis-
lators chose to determine. This Bill was a Bill not for
the defence of the rich man, but of every poor man who
was honest and industrious, and no one could object
pr
operty
and it who did not desire to see the rights of
and the rights of industry destroyed. In a recent
case Mr. Johnson, a most popular magistrate, had
been fired at, because, as a magistrate, he
had fined some persons for trespass. In
King's County a shot had been fired at Mr. George
Barlow, and another at his son, because he had re-
fused to employ a man named i egan. In Monaghan
an attempt had been made to shoot two far-
mers, named Blane (father and ion), because the
son had presumed to discharge a servant-maid.
These cases were sufficient to show the objects and
a
extent of this dark sanguinary conspiracy. He
would now describe ud
the character and provisions of
the Bill which gave the Lord-Lieutenant power to
adopt measures to put down crime and outrage in
disturbed districts.—(The Noble Marquis then pro-
ceeded to describe in detail the provisions of the
Bill, with which the public are already acquainted.)
In alluding to the provision rendering it a misde-
meanour iu persons refusing to join a hue and cry
against persons who had committed outrages, the
Noble Marquis paid a high compliment to those
among the peasantry who had nobly done their duty
by opposing, and in many instances apprehending,
persons who had been guilty of outrage. In
all these cases the parties so acting had been
sought out and rewarded by the Lord-Lieutenant.
The desire of the Government in proposing this mea-
sure had been to provide an effectual remedy for the
deplorable state of things existing in Ireland, but in