The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 11.
Their I.orLhips assembled at Five o'Clock.
Mr. BERNAL and others from the Commons brought
up a number of private Bills.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON, the Sugar
Duties Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Tithe Composition (Ireland) Bill passed through
Committee.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from a place
in Cornwall against any alteration in the Corn laws.
The Earl of ROSEBERRY presented a petition from
a place in the County of Edinburgh against the present
Corn-laws. .
Earl FITZ WlLLlAMpresented petitions from Paisley
and other places in Scotland against the Corn-laws.
Tha Marquis of BREADALBANE presented peti-
tions from Scotland, praying for some legislative enact-
ment for the bettor observance of the Lord's Day, by the
abolition of Sunday travelling. Also, petitions against
any further grant to the Roman Catholic College of
Maynooth.
The Earl of CLARENDON laid on the table his
Bid for regulating the law relating to principal and fac-
tor, which was read a first time.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented a petition
from Peckham, against the Jews Declaration Bill.
SPANISH LEGION.

The Marquis of LONlJONDlilil7.put a question to
the Noble Viscount epposite (Lord Melbourne), relative
to the payment of the half-yearly instalments to the
officers engaged in the Spanish Legion. He had put a
question on the subject before, and the Noble Lord had
promised to make an inquiry into the matter.—(Hear.)
Viscount MELBOURNE said measures had been taken
preparatory to informing the claimants when the instal-
ments would be paid, but no claimants had been paid yet.
'rho Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he should not
let the matter drop in the present Session of Parliament.
MEETING AT MANCHESTER.
The Earl of WILTON wished to put a question to the
Noble Marquis (Normanby) opposite, relative to an oc-
currence which had lately taken place in Manches-
ter. The transaction to which he alluded, if true, was
one of a most disgraceful character. The statement
that had been conveyed to him (the Earl of Wilton) was,
that a requisition had been sent to the Mayor of Man-
chester, requesting. him to call public a meeting for the
purpose of petitioning Parliament for a repeal of the ex-
isting union between England and Ireland. With
that requisition the Ma:•or refused to comply, and
the requisitionists paradjd the streets of Manchester
with flags and banners. They held a public meeting,
and on the hustings were three county Magistrates.
During this meeting a riot of a most serious description
took place, during which 11 individuals were so injured'.
that they were conveyed to the Infirmary. He (the
Earl of Wilton) wished to ask the Noble Marquis if any
inquiries had been instituted by the Government re-
specting it.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY said he had
not yet made inquiries on the subject, but he
would do so. Ile thought that the statement
made to the Noble Earl had been exaggerated. Sir
Charles Shaw was at the head of the constabulary force
in Manchester, and he felt convinced that if any serious
disturbance had talon place he should have beard
of it. From what he had heard it appeared that there
were two parties at the meeting, and both were violent.

He would, however, make inquiries, but he thought
the individuals to whom the Noble Earl had alluded,
were not very seriously injured, as they were all out of
the infirmary in a day or two.
The Earl of WILTON said, the circumstance of
which he principally complained, was the fact of three
county Magistrates being present without attempting to
quell the disturbance.
THE JEWS DECLARATION BILL.

The Marquii of BUTE moved the third reading of
he Jews Le2laration Bill.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF would trouble their
Lordships with a few words on this subject. If this Bill
passed, it would no longer be necessary for any person
holding a public office to be possessed of any reli-
gion whatever. He (the Bishop of Llandatf) looked
on that as calculated to aim a vital blow at

the religion and Constitution of the country.
The question had often arisen, what was Christianity ?
Theologians had differed on the subject ; but he ob-
jected that a body of men should be included in the
pale of that Church who had nothing to do with Chris-
tianity, and who objected to its principles. He thought
if any change was to be made on the subject it ought to
be the subject of a specific measure. He should, there--
fore, move that the Bill be read a third time that day
three months.

Lord LYTTLETON said he would trouble their Lord-
ships with but very few observations on this question.
If he had ever heard any argument advanced which could
show him that the supporters of this Bill could, with any
consistency whatever, refuse to support a further measure
for the admission of the Jews to Parliament, to which he
believed the Jews themselves considered this measure as
a stepping stone, he might hesitate as to the course which
it was his duty to take.—(Hear, hear.) But it was out
of doubt that this Bill was but a stepping-stone to what
he should consider a monstrous anomaly—namely, the
presence of the Jews in the legislature of a Christian
country.—(Hear, hear.) It was easy to say that it was
impossible to oppose this Bill with any arguments which
would not equally apply to the exclusion of any but mem-
bers of the Church of England. It was a common arti-
fice to ,push to the extreme abstract arguments without
regard to those - modifications of which they were
legitimately capable. It was found that an over-
whelming proortion of the people of this country
belonged to the Established Church, while but an insig-
nificant minority of the people of this country were of
the Jewish persuasion. But they found also here a dif-
ference in kind, as well as degree. The Christian pro-
fession meant something ; but he would not dwell upon
this subject, which had been so ably argued by the Right
Rev. Prelate. Surely the accomplished person who had
said that there was a greater difference of opinion be-
tween the various sects of Christians than between some
of them and the Jews, had made a very ill-considered
declaration.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that the law, as
it at present stood, was easily avoided ; but they must
either show that they could not make the law so as it
could not be avoided, or that it was not desirable that
this law should be complied with. He imagined that
neither could be said, and he could not think that
any man who sought to fill a municipal office would
wish to evade the law. The only other allegat.e he
would notice was that the words " on the true faith of a
Christian," introduced in 1702 were not introduced for
the specific purpose of excluding the Jews. Undoubt-
edly they were not, but they were introduced to exclude
all persons-not professing the Christian religion, atni, he
trusted that the test would not be abolished.—(Bear.)
The Earl of WINCHILSEA said he thought if the
House conceded this point, they could not, with consis-
tency, refuse any ulterior measure. Up to that moment
Christianity had been part and parcel of the law of
England, and the English Government had been con-
sidered to be distinctively Christian. If they passed
this Bill they would abandon the claim of the country
to this proud distinction, and the country would lose its
Christian character. It was often said that religion was
a matter between an individual and his God.
He cared not whether he was • deemed in-
tolerant or not, but he would maintain that
such an opinion was not tenable by the Bible.—(Hear.)
If the Jews were asked whether they would admit us,
as Christians, to legislate for their country, they would
say that they could not conscientiously do any such
thing. He did not believe it was the religious Jew de-
sired this at their hands it was the, political Jew only.
He was sure that the Christianity of this country was
the cause of those national blessings they had received
at the hand of the Almighty.—(Hear, hear.) For these
reasons he should support the amendment of the Right
Rev. Prelate.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WICKLOW intended to support the Bill,
not for a moment thinking it would oblige him at a fu-
ture periOd to support any Bill for allowing Jews to sit
in the Parliament of a Christian country. The law at
pressnt was extremely loose, as it left the admission of
Jews to-Corporations to be settled by the Corporation
itself ; and there were three CorporationS in Eng-
land in which Jews now sat. That was not a proper
footing on which the law of England ought to stand.
They ought, either to be admitted or excluded by law.
Another circumstance in favour of the Bill was, that
thirty-nine Corporations had petitioned for the Bill, and
it would be absurd to allow a Jew to fill the important
office of Sheriff, and refuse to allow him to be a Com-
mon Councilman, or an Alderman. He would give his
hearty concurrence to the Bill.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S thought it highly de-
sirable to conciliate such a large and wealthy body as
our countrymen the JeWs, to the land of their birth,
although they must always remain so far foreigners and
aliens amongst us ; he would therefore support the Bill,
which would not alter the nature or character of our
institutions.

The Bishop of LONDON said that he heard the
speech of the Right Rev. Prelate- (the Bishop of St. Da-
vid's) with great mortification. He hoped there was
nothing improper in the expression, because his morti-
fication arose from the painful sense he had of the weight
which must be given to any side of the question by a
divine of such eminent talents and learning as the
Right Reverend Prelate. It was said that there
were unbelievers, heretics, and Atheists, who
took a part in the Councils of the State, and why rot ad-
mit persons who believed in the greater portion of tla-
Scriptures ? To that he would reply that all who wer,
admitted to have a share in the legislation of the country,
or the administration of "its laws, were at least Chris-
tians by profession, and any provision on that. score
could go no further. But those persons whom this Bin
affected were not only not believers in Jesus Christ, but
they were persons who despised His law. lie certainly-
believed that the Jews were men of honour and veracity.
—many of them men of religion, but he could sat, on
authority which was well founded, that the religion
which most of the Jews throughout. Europe professed
was not the religion of Moses, but the religion of the
Talmud. Many of the Jews,too, he had. reason to know,
doubted whether they could, consistently with their re-
ligious belief, accept of the political privileges now
sought to be conferred upon them. It - was their
Lordships to say whether they were content to overtur;
the sacred principles of the Constitution of this country.
to break down the great national bulwark of the religio
of the nation.

The Earl of GALLOWAY opposed the Bill.
The Marquis of BUTE replied. He saw no reascp
why the Jews should not be allowed to perform the saw,
offices -in' Municipal Curporations which they had don,'
previous to the passing of the New Municipal Act. is
depended upon the majority of the Town Council of each
Corporation whether the declaration required by th,
Municipal Act should be put to the Jews or-not.
The house then divided on the amendment wben there
co.
appeared—
Cctt s
- 64
.Non-crintcnts
Majority