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

EVENING EDITION

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 11.

Their Lordships 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 WILLIAM presented petitions from Paisley
and other places in Scotland against the Corn-laws.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented peti-
tions from Scotland, praying for some legislative enact-
ment for the better 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
Bill 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 LONDONDERRY put a question to
the Noble Viscount opposite (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.
The 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 Mayor refused to comply, and
the requisitionists paraded 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 NORMAYBY said he had
not yet made inquiries on the subject, but he
would do so. He 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 taken place he should have heard
of it. From what he had heard it appeared that there
were two parties at the meeting, and both were violent.
IN 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.
Tho 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 Marquis of BUTE moved the third reading of
the Jews Peclaration

The Bishop of LLANDOT would trouble their
Lordship's 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 Llandaff) 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
he the subject of a specific measure. He should, there-
fore, more 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 supporta 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 pith to the extreme abstract arguments without
regard to those modifications of which they were
legitimately capable. It was found that an over-
whelming proportion 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
she Jet...jell persuasion. But they found also here a.dif-
lerence in kind, as well as degree. The Christian pro-
feesion meant something ; but he would not dwell upon
this .subject, which had been so ably argued by the Right
Rey. Prelate. Surely the accomplished person who had
eahl that there was a greater difference of opinion be-
tweet the various sects of Christians than between some
of them and the Jews, had made a very ill-considered
-eeelration.—(Bear, hear.) It was said that the law, as
ir at present stood, was easily avoided ; but they must
'either show that they could not make the lawsn as it
onid not be avoided, or that it was not desirable that
)iis law should be complied with. He imagined that
*either could be said, and he could not think that
any man who sought to fill a municipal office would
avni to evade the law. The only other. allegate he
rsecrild 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-
'&lly they were not, but they were introduced to exclude
tersons not professing the Christian relieion, anel he
tied that the test would not be abolished.'—(Hear.)
The Earl of AVINCHILSI?,A. said he thought if the
House conceded this point, they could not, with consis-
tences, refuse any ulterior measure. Up to that moment
,christianity had been part and parcel of the law of
eangland, 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
this proud distinction, and the country would lose its
Christian character. It was often said that religion was
ev. matter between an e individual and his God.
the cared not whether he was deemed in-
tolerant, or not, but he would maintain that
jeich an opinion was not tenable by the Bible.—(Hear.)
the Jews were asked whether they would admit us,
-as Christians, to legislate for their country, they would
_gay that they could not conscientiously do any such
tiling. He did not believe it was the religious Jew de-
• sired this at their hands it was the political Jew only.
alle was sure that the Christianity of this country was
the cause of those national blessings they had
received
-itt the hand of the Almighty.—(Hear, hear.) For
these
-treasons he should support the amendment of the Right
'Rev. Prelate.—(Hear, hear.)
t'. The Earl of WICKLOW intended to support the Bill,
:.not for a moment thinking it would oblige him at a fin_
tare period to support any Bill for allowing Jews to sit
in the Parliament of a Christian country. The law at
present was 'extremely loose, as it left the admission of
• Jews to Corporations to be settled by the Corporation
eitstlf ; and there were three Corporations in En_
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-
. Orion 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 concili4te 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
:diens 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-
..Rl's) with great mortification. He hoped
,there was
nothing improper in the expression, because his mord-
-1.,..ati0n arose from the painful sense he had of the weight_
"Mai must be given to any side of the question by a
.'mine of such eminent talents and learning as the
Itight Reverend Prelate. It was said that there
were unbelievers, heretics, and Atheists, who
took a part in the Councils of the State, and why not ad-
mit persons who believed in the greater portion of the
Scriptures ? To that he would reply that all who were
admitted to hare a share in the legislation of the country,
,-d'r the administration of its laws, were at least Chris-
tians by profession, and any provision on that score
would go no further. But those persons whom this Bill
idfected were not only not believers in Jesus Christ, but
'hey were persons who despised His law. He certainly
believed that the Jews were men of honour and veracity
—many of them men of religion, but he could say, on
cauthority 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 for their
Lordships to say whether they were content to overturn
the sacred principles of the Constitution of this country,
to break down the great national bulwark of the religion
of the nation.
The Earl of GALLOWAY opposed the Bill.
whThe Marquis of BUTE replied. ,He saw no reason
yse Jews should not be allowed to perform the same '
in Municipal Corporations which they had done
previous to the passim-, of the New Municial Act. It
a- Cou
depended upon the m p
of the Town h
Corporation whether the
Munieipe.l Act should
eput to the Jews or not.
declaration required by thencil of each
The House then divided on the amendment when there

apptared--
Cont•nta ................................. c
Majority against the
Non-con tenti ........................
Bill ................ _34