The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-11 00:00:00

SYRIA.

Mr. iIUME wished to know nlica the piper's re-
t' Syria, which bad been ordered a fortnight

agn, would Le ldd ou the table ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL c;-ntld not five a positive
answer to the question as the rapers were not in his
offile, but bad no doubt they would he presented in the
emirs° of a few days.
JEWS' DECLARATION BILL.

On the Order of the al being read for the second
reading of this B. 11; •

Mr. HODGES pre.ented a petition from the Hebrew
congregation of F.linburgh in favour of the Bill.

Mr.-ANDREW WHITE presented a similar p -
titian from Sunderland.

Mr. HAWES said that as his Hon. Friend the
-Memler for Exeter was not in the House, and had
given him no notice of his intention with regard to that
131, he hardly knew if in his abs nee be should be
justified in moving the second reading. He did not
know if any opposition was to be made to the Bill ; if
so he would not press it.
Mr. LAW HODGES said the Hon. Member for
Exeter had requested him to move the second reading,
although it would have been more agreeable to his
fecliags to have left the matter in the hands
of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, whose name
was on the beck-of the MIL In performance of the
premise then made to the Hon. Mimber for Exeter,
he would now move the second reading of the Bill.
Ttie House, he trusted, were already aware of the diffi-
culties under which persons professing the Jewish reli-
gion laboured with revcct to certain offieies in the kingdom,
aed it slid not require uny lengtnened statement Lon.
him to justify the motion that this B II be read a second
time.—(Hear, hear.) When the Test end Corporation
Acts were repealed, a declaration was required from all
persons taking office that they would not use
any power which they might acquire to the prciedicp
of the EstabLehed Church. The 9th of Geo. IV. re-
quired that all persons haling office under the Crown
should take the declaration within six months after
taking office, but in Corporations it was required that per-
sons holdingoffi• e should make the declaration on catering
on the duties of their effice, oryeithin one month after.
wards. Now they all recollected a gentleman who had
filed the high office 3f Sheriff of London and
Middlesex, who bad afterwards appeared at the bar of
the House with petitions from the City of London,
and who had discharged his duties with the higLest
credit to himself. He had afterwards been elected an
Alderman of the City of London, but he had not been
badhyal
cehei tsdo
if thefoanc cou
requiredncto of dbeeyenrtcthae
cee
rtain
wordsee cteoelf nn htri
on_
tnto the drniceelniafar declaration
Parlia-
ment. From that difficulty Quakers, Moravians, and
Separatists had since been relieved, and( hele satrooyue.ohtffiptbirty.3
this Bill to afford the same relief
sons professing the Jewish religion.
bear.)ee
The same gentleman had afterwards seprrvHoehdoatibt.lit
of Sheriff of the county of Kent, and
owini, to that circumstance that his
the Member for Exeter had requested Friendo
move the second reading of the Bill, as to
would be more satisfaCtory that some gentlemen
connected with that county should have an opportunity
of bearing testimony to the manner in which he had
discharged the duties of the Sheriff of the county of Kent.
HoHigh Sheriffs, and he must confess
thatknewhe many
never knew one who discharged his duties with
more credit to himself, or satisfaction to the
.county,
than Mr. Salomons. There was not
which h
a charityis tat
was brought under his notice,. and
fo
assist-
anceandlihtse•arsairlyequeoirhetdr,
contribute.—(Hear,
olheeadr,idhneeart.)most
Therecbe wereerfully
buildingeven instances
o f
churcheso f tha gentleman'siththe cocounty
contributing n tr
Kent.—(huti g
ilato e the
)
The 'difficulties under which these parties laboured
were not from the provisions of any statute, but from
conscientious motives which they had imposed upon
themsßves, front making the declaration required of
them. • Ile had been told that in the Corporations of
Southampton and Birmingham, persons of the Jewish
persuasion Were members of the Council, and they had
become so because they were not required
by those Corporations to make the declaration ; it
showed, therefore, that it was in the power of Corpo-
rations completely to exclude persons from situations of
honour and trust. That was a state of things that
ought not to continue. It was an act of justice to
place these persons upon the same footing
of equality., with the Quakers and Moravians.
Ho was unwilling to take up the time of the House
further, believing that they could not do better than to
pass this Bill, which would have the effect of joining
all persuasions in one bond of common interest. It was
upon these gronnds that he begged to propose the
second reading of the Bill.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Sir R. INGLIS said .that when last the Bill was

before the House, he had stated that it was a Bill to
enable Mr. Sslomons to fill the officasof Alderman of the
city of London, and the speech they had just heard ve-
rified that statement. That speech had told them much
of the excellent qualities of Mr. Salomons' but as to
the general principle involved in the Bill of un-
christianizing England for the purpose of admit-
ting Mr. Salomans to become an Alderman
of London, the Honourable Member had said nothing.
However reluctant he was to refer to individual cha-
racter, yet when it was brought forward he could not
allow it to pass altogether unnoticed. The liberality
of David Salomons, Esq., would prove nothing more than
this; that he was neither a Jew nor a Christian. If he
were a consistent Jew it was impossible that be could
assist Christians in raising a temple to one whom he
must blaspheme and regard as an impostor. An
instance of the same kind of liberality happened in the
United States. A Presbyterian chapel was in pecu-
niary difficulties, and a Jew came forward• to assist the
congregation. It was impossible that a man could act
in this way if he sincerely believed in his own religion.
All the offices of this country, whether legislative, judi-
cial, or administrative, had hitherto been exercised by
persons professing Christianity, and for the sake of an
individual,—at least a particular individual, had
been referred to by the Hon. Member—it was sought to
expunge the declaration made by all those who discharged
public functions, that they hold _ the true faith of a
Christian. It was, in fact, an attempt to unchristianize
England for the sake of admitting a single individual
to a public office. On former occasions he (Sir R.
Inglis) had stated the preliminary objection which he
took to this measure—namely; that the Jews were a
nation as well as a creed,—that they were a
nation absolutely, and, as he bblieved, till it pleased God
by his own act to alter their position, irrevocably sepa-
rated from the rest of the world. The time would come
—all who were sincere Christians must beliciehnd desire
it—the time would come when every Jew.must become
a Christian, but till that time should come, the Jew, whe-
ther born in Germany, or Portugal, or England, derived
his character; not from thesaccidental,sp-Ort of earth on
which ho may be born, - but., from the parents
from whom he - proceeded, and from the creed
by which he was distinguished. He was a
member, not of the nation of Germany, or
any other country, but of the ancient Israelitish
people. This was so distinctly and emphatically the
case, that there was hardly any paper written by a Jew
in which there was not some reference made to this
nation. It escaped them almost involuntarily. The
very first sentence of a remarkable letter, addressed by
Mr. Hart, of Montreal, to the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, when he filled the office
of Secretary of State for the Home Department was
couched in these terms, " As a member of an oppressed
nation I appeal to you." They would all bear in mind
that his late Right Hon. Friend Sir R. Grant, was fre-
quently addressed by the Jews of Germany and Portu-
gal for his zeal in the Jewish cause, but they never
thanked him for interfering on behalf of any individuals,
but always for that nation ; they were a distinct nation,
and the House were about to naturalize a people and a
creed when they only professed to confer civil and reli-
gious liberty upon part of her Majesty's subjects. The B:11
wasaat very simple looking Bill ; it consisted of only
some seven or eight lines, and at first sight appeared to
be a very innocent one, but he would call upon Hon.
Members to pause before they took a first step in such
an unwise course.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He
would ask whether the public would have been satisfied
had a Jew been the presiding Magistrate, when
a person named Carlyle was charged with printing or
exhibiting a blasphemous print? That person was un-
doubtedly guilty of blasphemy in the eyes of the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies—nay., in
the eyes of every Hon. Member in the House.
—(Hear, hear.) Would the public have been
sat.sfied, or was it right for' the House to put any one
in such a false position as to call upon him to pronounce
judgment in a case where conscientiously he could
not believe any blasphemy had been committed ?
Law and legislation were formed of extreme cases, and
be knew the danger of beginning. There were many
Hon. Members in the House (end he spoke without
any personal disrespect) who had been admitted little
by little, and whose admission be had always regarded
as one of the greatest evils which the country had
ever sustained.—(lronical cheers.) The present was a
preliminary step to the admission of Jews, and, as the
Honourab'e Member for • Kilkenny had said, of
Parsecs, Mahornmedans, and Brahmins ; because,
in answer to him (Sir R. Inglis) the Honourably
Member had said that he saw no objection to their
admission, provided they d:scharged their duty as citi-
zens. That he thought a most mischievous doctrine,
and he maintained that in the case of a State like Eng-
land, Christianity was an integral part of the law of
the country. It appeared to him that it they delibe-
rately expunged from their statute book the words, " I
do this upon the true faith of a Christian," it would he
preparing the way for expunging these words in all cases
es they arose, according as the increasing liberalityof Honourable Members on that or the other
side of the House prompted there. The House
was not perhaps aware that many members of
the Jewish persuasion were opposed to the 13:11
—the Jewish community resident in that country were
certainly not unanimous upon the subject. The Hon.
Member for Lambeth would recollect that, five or six
years ago, he had presented a petition from Ebeaezer.
Demur, praying that a similar 8.11, then in
progress, might not be passed. (Hear, bear.)
He had received a communication from a Jew residing
in Cambridge. That individual addressed him (Sir
It. Inglis) privately by letter ; and also in a public
pamphlet. The substance of both were the rime. In
the pamphlet, which he held in his hand, and which
was written in answer to one on the emancipa-
t ion, the writer addresses his Jewish brother
as follows :—" Brother," said he, " you are mis-
taken greatly—you are no Englishman." And again
addressing the Jew claiming the privileges of an Eng-
lishman, the writer said, " Though You were born in
England, you are no more than a foreigner—you have
no home in this land, or in any other country—are you
not a Jew ? If so, you must. describe yourself as an
English Jew, btlonging to Jerusalem, and a free-
man of the land of Canaan." It was a Rabbi,
residing in Cambridge who wrote thus. That
Rabbi steted distinctly that a man could not ho
a Jew and an Englishman at the same time.—(Laugh-
ter.) He (Sir R. Inglis) bad quoted a Jew in sup-
port of his views on the present question, Ana Hoe.
Gentlemen did not contradict him (Sir R. Inglis) but
they were attempting to contradict that Jew.—
( Ileir.) The Jews were not like the French Pro-
iestants, who came over here to England, and in one or
two generations became absorbed in the great mass of
:he English people, so that one could scarcely dis-
tinguish, in the present mass of 'English society, the
descendants of the French Protestants. So also with
the Dutch who came over with Ring William,
and the. Normans who came over with the Conqueror
—they were all soon amalgamated in the general mass
of t're English per ply. That was not the case wth
the Jews: Tue object of 4he present Bill was to introduce
into the Corporations, and next into the Legislature of
England, men who of a ecessity and beyond the powers of
all human law, were unable to become the citizens
of a country in which they might rojoure.
cif it is as a claim of justice be would not oppose it, but
it was not—it was a claim of expediency. What-
ever was done in the Legislature was done on
the true faith of Christians, and by seek-
ing to introduce a few individuals according to the pre-
sent Bill they were preparing to expunge that declaration.
Tho:e Jews who came into England knew what the law
of England was. We did not invite them. They came
for their own objects. Were they degraded or despised
here ? Had they not complete and absolute protection
of all social and personal rights ucconeected with
power? Two centuries ago there was not a single
Jew in England. They had gradually come in since
that period, and there was. nothing to justify us
Of
oThiseiu e
in altering on their account our social system. Oue of
two arguments must follow. Were they prepared by
their legislation that night to declare that the al-
ternative of their own religion should follow ?
The Jews declared Him whom they all honoured
and adored, to be an impostor—that He in whose
name alone they hoped for salvation was a -deceiver.
When the Jew came to the table of that House, he
must state that as solemnly as any man could
state it. Thank God it. was not yet proposed
that that measure should pass the House, but he
warned them that if they passed that initiatory mea-
sure, the other would soon follow after ; and that
hermseearvf.teercraluthey would soon have to legislate for the
Christianity of England.
MembersMM I NCr r
oßs
eR
simultaneouslyU CE
addressm e t i
tohne.
House and great confusion ensued, until the Speaker,
amrgedpuuctedthetoamoneendbmetent, called upon Lord John
intolerance Russell.
Lord RUSSELL was glad the question was
having
Honourable Genawtnleeeemenan
speech, that we
stated religious
tated in
liberty
severalon p
et
rhtee
one hand and
on the other. The
religion
mfuaslt consider our religion true,
of his
and the Jewish
of false, end that, therefore, the
rights to
who
Dissentersopposed
Jews are incapable
Sir, I do not think that municipal offices.
willing
altwoaypsuatnxtihoeuisr
which the State
and Roman Citholicts were
iD
the extension
. .
toop ppoustati ohne
question
it:tia,:tagti.rpoounn ds
was concerned.--(Cheers.) Their principal argument
was that those who dissent from the Church had not the
same interest in the State, and would not be so stead-
fast in the it allegiance as those who were members of
the Church which was connected with, and, as it were,
a part of, the State.—(Hear, hear.) That argument
had been overruled by the Parliament, and Dissenters
were admitted to equal civil rights with their fellow-
subjects of the Established
Church.--(Hear, hear.)
In the case of Roman Catholics,
those who were 'eta
posed to their cla7ms took every care to avoid saying
that they did so, because the Roman Catholic religion
was false and ours true. They said that the Roman
Catholics had another allegiance, namely, to the Pope

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 11,1841

of Rome, and that: the State could not rely upon
their acting in Parliament and in civil offices,
with a faithful regard to the interests of the State and
the rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects. But
that argument also has been, lam glad to say, over-
ruled by Parliament, and Roman Catholics .as well as
Dissenters are placed upon an equal footing as to civil
rights with Protestants. Now, Sir, when we come to
this case of the Jews, there is nothing to meet it but
the bare naked principle of intolerance—(Cheers)—
because they differ from us in religion.—(Renewed
cheers.) Sir, the principle whigh I would prefer is
directly opposed to that.—(Cheers.) I think that, with
respect to civil offices, where we find persons fitted to
fill them, difference of religion is no ground for exclusion.
But with respect to the Church, it is another matter.
We cannot admit persons to hold offices in the Church
or connected with the Church, who hold opi-
nions different from those of the Church. But
in respect to civil offices, we have no reason
to inquire the religious opinions of any candidate, pro-
vided he is qualified to discharge the duties—(Great
cheering)—and that he can be relied upon as respects
the Sovereign and Parliament for allegiance .and obedi-
ence to the laws and fidelity to his fellow-citizens.—
(Cheers.) Is not this the case with respect to Baron
Rothschild, Sir Moses Montefiore, Mr. Salomons, and
other men whose families have long been established in
this country, and who are known to those who adminis-
ter the affairs of the country as persons as deeply in-
terested in the welfare, and honour, and liberties of
this country as any other subject of her Majesty ?
(Renewed cheers.) Could you say that such men are
not to be relied on as members of the Common Council
of the City of London ?—(Hear, hear.) Really, Sir,
I do not understand the principle on which this opposi-
tion is founded.—(Cheers.) I have heard with sur-
prise that a Jewish gentleman is accused of insincerity.
because he gave a contribution' to the building of a
Christian church. Sir, I do not think that it is any
reproach to that gentleman, that when he saw a large
number of Christians in his neighbourhood unpro-
vided with the means of religious worship and instruc-
tion, he came forward to supply those means that they
might be made good Christians, instead of becoming
pagans. Is there anything extraordinary in this ?
I think it exhibits the greatest wisdom and prudence,
as well as liberality.—(Cheers.) My Hon. Friend ar-
gued that it was a principle of the Constitution of
this country, and I think he added of the colonies also,
that what he called the Christian character should be
preserved ; and that, therefore, the Jews should be ex-
cluded. Now, with regard to the colonies, I can inform
my Hon. Friend of one, at least, which is an exception.
—(Cheers.) In the colony of Jamaica Jews aro ad-
mitted to an equality of privileges with their fellom-
subjects.—(Loud cheers.) The Assembly of the Co-
lony, .with the assent of the Governor, has decided
that Jews shall be admitted to all offices, and I can see
nothing to call for the intervention of the Crown to
prevent that decision from being carried into effect.—
(Cheers.) My Hon. Friend goes on to say that this is
a religious question, and that the prophecies declared
that the Jews were to be a separate nation ; and that
by the incorporation of them we were acting against the
sacred interpretation of Scripture. Now that is not
a point for the consideration of the House.—(Cheers.)
If it were necessary to enter into a discussion on that
subject here, I should say that the fulfilment of the
prophecies was perfectly compatible with the persons of
that nation holding corporation offices. In my opinion,
Sir, the Divine power and the D:vine institutions
require no assistance from
us. My Hon. Friend
does not see the absurdity of his argument, which ren-
ders it perfectly unavailable for his purposes.—(Cheers.)
If I mistake not, in 183.5 we passed an Act, almost un-
animously, authorising Jews to hold the office of Sheriff
of London and Middlesex. Now, if a Jew being an
Alderman is against the prophecies, the same argument
applies to the Sheriff of London and Middlesex.—
( Loud cheers.) Therefore these consequences have
already taken place, and the force of the Hon. Gentle-
man's argument, as I take it, isthat Jews must be cut off
from office a!together ; for if you once admit them to
any office there is an end of his argument.—(Cheers.)
They now hold many offices, and in places in which there
are no corporations the Act of Parliament does not
require any declaration ; and there Jews exercise the
office of trustees of towns,, of Commissioners of Paving,
Lighting, and Police. It so happens, that in the town
of Devonpcit a Jew held the office of Trustee of the
I town for Paving, Lighting, and Police, and it was only
when the town was incorporated that he was deprived
of his office. So that at the present moment a Jew he
town not incorporated may exercise offices per-
fectly analagous to Li e office of Town Councillor. My
Hon. Friend cannot carry his principles into effect, be-
cause the Jews may hold many offices now.—(Cheers.)
Now with respect to the particular frame of the Act
we are now considering. When the repeal of the Test
and Corporation Acts was trade: consideration before
this House a declaration was proposed by the Right
Eon. Gentleman the Member for Temworth. That
declaration did not contain the
.words "on the true
faith of a Christiai.," but they were inserted in the
House of Lords, and it was only in consequence of
wishing that so important a measure should not be de-
'eyed, that I did not raise an objection to those words?
I believe if I had raised that objection th it House
would not have agreed with the House of Lords in
waking a new exclusion of the Jews. However, I de-
clared at once that I wished the Bill to be passed, and
those amendments were agreed to ; but what is the
practical and I believe the legal effect of those words.
.They do not altogether exelure Jews from corpuretions.
The corporations may, if they please, require the &-
claret:on to ha taken upon the assumption of office,
but if they do not think fit to enforce the put-
ting of the declaration the Jew may hold the office,
and woull afterwards be covered by the Indemnity Act
for so acting. In the case of the City of London, the
de: legation was put in the first instance, and the Judges
decided that the Aldermen had acted legally in putting
that declaration ; hut I do not believe there is any rea •
son for obliging Town Councillors to put that declara-
tion before the office is taken. This is certain, that
there has been more than one instance du Jew holding
office in corporations. There is an instance in which
a Jew held office in Southampton, and I am informed
there is another instance in the town of Birming-
ham. Therefore what is now proposed is not
to introduce a thoroughly new practice, but
to allow that which has been done in Southampton
and Birmingham to be done in our corporations and
boroughs. The last argument of my Hon. Friend is
that this concession may be carried further, that you
may have the Jews asking to have scats in Parliamcet.
and every other privilege allowed to British subjects.
I do not know what the Jews tray think fit to do with
e s
whether,
if they gain this concession,
thufurther concessions, and seek to
respect
toctay to
not that,
ask or
for
obtain the full privileges of British subjects ; but of thii I
am sure, that if they do ask that I shall support them—
(Tremendous cheers.) I have not the smallest hesit rtion
in shying that I shall carry the principle to its lira ex-
tent—(Cheers)—that with regard to civil privilege., I
twill ask for civil qualification and no.other, but when I
am satisfied those civil qualifications arc possessed, I
shall then admit to office those persons who may think
proper to claim them. With respect to religious
offices and offices connected.with the Church Establish-
ment, I wish again to guard myself by saying the
case is entirely different ; but with regard to
the possession of all other civil privileges
enjoyed by British subjects, I think, whenever
it is asked for, you should carry out the prin-
ciple to its full extent, and I am sure I shall
give my hearty support not only to this Bill but to
every measure that is founded on a similar principle.—
(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.)
Mr. E WART said if he had rose somewhat prema-
turely that evening the House must attribute it to the
imwtienee, he had ;almost said the indignation, with
which he had heard some of the statements of the Hon.
Baronet, opposite. He (M?. Ewart) deprecated that
House being made the theatre for theological discussion.
The Hon. Baronet had introduced theology instead of
reason. The claim of the Jews was founded upon the com-
mon right of all men to be admitted to equal rights with
their fellow-citizens. The Hon. Baronet had said that the
Jews had proclaimed themselves a separate people.
What, he would ask, would induce them to persevere
more in that than drawing the line of demarcation}
which the Hon. Gentleman wished to be kept up. The
argument of the Hon. Baronet with respect to the
Vansittarts and the Keppels did not apply to the pre-
sent case.—(Cries of .4 Divide, divide.") It was not
worth while to press the Hon. Gentleman's arguments
further—the House was impatient at his theology, and
he would therefore content himself by cordially sup-
porting the second reading of the Bill.
Cdptain HAMILTON observed that if he bad not
heard any arguments in favour of the Bill, the speech
of the Hon. Member for Oxford would have decided
him to vote in favour of it.—(Hear.) He believed it
would be found that the Right
Hon. Baronet had not
a majority even on his own side of the House.
Mr. MILNES differed from the Right Hon. Baro-
net, the Member for the University of
did Oxford, on this
subject. The Bill before the House not appear to
him to involve those national peculiarities which his
Hon. Friend had so eloquently clescribe
ques-
tion was simply whether gentlemen of the Jewish s per-
suasion should or should not execute those corporate
-rThe
h he
Jih
offices, which being entirely of a local nature, they were
from their position and acquaintance with the particu-
lar locality as likely to execute well as any other
class of individual!. The question was neither reli-
gious nor political, and protesting against the principle
of exclusion, he should giire his vote in favour of the
Bill.
House divided— . 137
For the second reading ........ .........
Strangers wore then ordered to withdraw, teed the
Against it ....................................
24113
MMajority 113
ajority .................
The Bill was then read a second time.
COUNTY CORONERS.
Mr. PAKINGTON moved the second reading of
the County Coroners' Bill. it contained the same
provisions as a Bill which had been introduced in that
House in 1835, and which bore on it the name of the
lion, Member for Bridport, namely, that the election

SUPPLIES,

of Coroners should be vested in those who were en-
titled to vote for Members of Parliament. He truA:d,
therefore, his Bile would meet with no opposAion from
that Hon. Member.
Mr. WARBURTON said, it did not follow that
because the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill put
upon the back of it the name of another Hon. Mem.
ber, that tbt Hon. Member was bound by all the pro-
visions of the Bill. His objections were principally to
the clause which proposed to render the election of a
county Coroner the same as the election of Members
of Parliament ; because, by adopting that mode, the Ma-
gistrates would have a voice in the election, which be
deprecated, because it ought to be remembered that
the Coroner had often to sit in judgment even upon
Magistrates themselves, and therefore he thought the
election of that officer should be as little as possible
connected with the Magistracy. He thought the
election of Coroner ought to approach as near as pos-
sible to universal suffrage. It was upon these grounds
he opposed the Bill, and would divide the House upon
its second reading.
Mr. FOX MAULE hoped the Hon. Member for
Bridport: would not insist upon dividing the House on
tae second reading of the Bill. He thought, looking
at the state of the law with respect, to Coroners, the
House was much indebted to the Hon. Member who
had introduced the measure. With respect to what
had been stated as to Coroners' Courts being open
ones, he thought there was great room for argument
upon all sides ; but his opinion was that a large dis-
cretion should always be given to Coroners to clear
their Courts, or not, as justice required it.
Colonel SIBTHORP thought depositions ought
to be taken before Coroners as they were in Courts of
law. He hoped the House would let the Bill go into
Committee. _

Mr. HUME said that whilst he agreed with
the Hon. Gentleman that a Bill ought to be passed to
prevent fraud in the election of Coroners, he could
never agree to any measure which would narrow the
suffrage. He dissented entirely from that part of the
Bill. Ile trusted, however, that his Hon. Friend
would not divide the House upon the second reading,
but let the Bill go into Committee, on the understand-
ing that he would then oppose what he considered as
objcetionable. If the Hon. Gentleman who moved
the Bill would leave the suffrage on the same footing
as it had hitherto rested, he (Mr. Hume) would sup-
port the measure.
Mr. \VARBURTON said he would not divide the
House.

Sir G. STRICKLAND would give the Bill his
hearty support, because the system at present in force
was very expensive, particular.y in Yorkshire, where
each Coroner, although he was to act for only a district,
was elected by the whole county, in which there were at
least 50,000 electors. No one could go to that expense,
and the consequence was that the election was carried by
a law freeholders near the county town. He did not
agree to all the clauses in the 13111, but he would sup-
port the second reading, in the hopes that it would be
amended in the Committee

Mr. WAKLEY would support the second reading
of the Bill as several of its provisions were very good,
but he must decidedly object to the Magistrates having
anything to do with the election of the Coroner—the Co-
roner had often to sit in judgment on the conduct of the
Magistrates, and he must decidedly oppose giving them
any more power over the Coroner—they bad too much
already. Upon principle, and generally, the Coroner's
Court ought to began open Court, but cases might
arise, when, if the Coroner had not the power to
take evidence in secret, the ends of justice might
be, and he had no doubt had been de!ea!e It was
said that the murder of Mr. Westwood was in
the room where the inquest was held, and afterwards
escaped to America. In such a case, where no suspi-
cion attached to any individual, it would be very inju-
rious to the pubic interests, if tho Coroner had not
the power of closing his court. With regard to the
clauses relating to the franchise, the constituency in
Middlesex and Surrey would be enlarged, and would
not be so open to fraudulent practices. The registra-
tion would have a great effect in doing away with such
practices. The constituency under the Bill, in West
Middlesex alone, would amount to 25,000, whereas at
present, in the whole county, they did not amount
to 14,000. He objected to any chaege being
made in the Coroner's districts by the Magistrates,
without his consent. The districts in Middlesex
had been settled years ago, and his colleague
and himself never interfered with each other.
The Coroner was one of the hardest worked and worst
paid officers in the country. The Gallant Colonel was
anxious to have the depositions taken at length. Now, as
the inquiry was as to whether a person had died a vio-
lent or a natural death, many questions were asked,
which afterwards turned out to have no connection with
the subject, and which would give great pain, if they
were published. He was glad his Hon. Friend did
not intend to divide against the Bill. With regard to
the deputy, the 15th clause provided that such deputy
should be a barrister or ahattorney. Why not a qua-
tfied medical practitioner ? He had been Coroner for a
sufficient length of time to know that it was absolutely
necessary that the person holding the office of
Coroner should have ;received a medical education.
He beleved that when the Hon. Gentleman moved
that clause he wool I find a large majority against it.
With respect to appointing deputy-coroners he was op-
posed to such a measure, unless the Coroners ap-
pointed their deputies on the same terms that the She-
riffs did—namely, that they themselves should be re-
sponsible, and not the deputies. Unless that were
done, whenever any difficult or doubtful cite occurred
the Coroner would absent himself, and act by h:s de-
puty, and the decision made in such CilSO would not he
valid unless the Coroner were unavoidably. absent. The
greA inconvenience of that course must be then appa-
rent to all. 'Film was another point in the Bill to
which he wished to advert—the table of fees to be
paid by Coroners as disbursements. By returns
laid before the House relative to that sub-
ject, it appeared that the claims were not
situ hr in all the counties of England. In the county
of Middlesex, cue farthing was not allowed to jurors
who attended at inquests, whereas on the other side
of the river each juror was allowed ls. The clause
which would amend that state of things would meet
with his cordial support.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP,
the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Wednesday, the 24th March.

Tile Double Costs Bil lwas read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Friday next.

The Houghiew* of Catde (Irehnd) 1311 was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed.

On the motion of Mr. lIAWES that the Report of
the Committee of Su;rply be brought up,
Captain BOLDER° said that, during tire last
eighteea months, a large sum, 500,0001. (as we under-
stood) was voted by the House to supply arms and
ammunition for maintaining the integrity and inde-
pendenee of the Ottoman empire. 500,0001. had on a
former occasion been voted also by that House to sup-
ply military stores for the service of the Queen of Spain,
who was now their debtor to that amount. He wished
then to know whether the stores sent to the Grand
Seignior were voted on the same terms as those which
were sent out to Spain. That was a question which
he would put to-morrow evening, when he expected to
receive a satisfactory answer.
The Report was then brought up and agreed to, with
the exception of she vote for Orcicianee stores, which,
on the suggestion of Mr. Hume, was postpcmed till to-
morrow (this) evening, to give an opportunity of ask-
ing the question already mentioned by the Hon. and
Gallant Member (Captain l3oldcro), and also some
other questions rel itive to Syria.
. .

On the motion that the Evidence Bill 63 reid a
second time,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that he
highly approved of the B 11, but he must request the
attention of those who had charge of it to look to
one proviso. The Bill went so far as to allow
parties to speak as witnesses for themselves. You
could not allow the defendant to prove his own case.
He thought that the landlord ought not to be allowed
to give evidence in favour of the tenant in a case in
which a verdict for the latter would be beneficial to the
former ; and that in other cases the evidence of parties
interested in the issue of a trial should not be received
in favour of that side with which their own interests
were identified. He hoped that gentlemen who had
charge of the Bill would look to that proviso. If it
were properly framed, he would support the Bill ; but
otherwise it would be his principal duty to oppose it.
Mr. HAWES said be would attend to the sugges-
tion of the Attorney-General.
Mr. HUME said there was one defect in the law of
evidence which he wished to see altered in this Bill.
The Judges were in the habit of telling witnesses that
they must not criminate themselves. Now, every man
ought to tell the truth, even if it were against himself,
and the object of the trial was to get at the whole truth.
After a few words from Colonel Surritoar and
Mr. PRYME, the Bill was read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed on Wednesday next.
Mr. HUME then said, that lest his observations
respecting the Judges giving caution to witnesses should
not be understood by the Attorney-General, he would
refer to a particular case in point—the trial of Lord
Cardigan in the House of Lords, where the Judge who
presided officiously interfered, and desired a witness ❑ot
to answer any question which might tend to criminate
himself.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no difficulty
in saying that Lord amlinan acted in accordance with
the laws of England, and was perfectly justified in
giving the caution which he did to Sir James Anderson.
as he (the Attorney-General) who conducted the pro-
secution, had informed their Lordships in his opening
address that the witness was liable to indictment as an
accessory before the fact. _ .

WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion of Mr. GORDON the House went
into a Committee of Ways and Means.
A sum of 8,000,0001. was then voted out of the Con-
solidated Fund.
Tao Report was ordered for Friday next.

The LORD-ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring.
in a Bill to provid.e for the better regulation of Muni-
cipal Corporations in Royal Burghs of Scotland.
Mr. BOLTON CLIVE moved that the petition
from the Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the
Hcreford Union, in support of the Poor-kw Amend-
rn-nt Act (presented 9th March), be printed with the
Votes.—Agreed to.

The House then Adjourned at Eight o'clock.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Globe.)
The Times this morning opens its columns, with
tardy compassion, to a vindication of Sir R. Peel from
the Tamworth philippics of " Catholicug,'"lle corre-
spondent who plays the fair-weather part in this Dutch
barometer, and calls himself a " Member of Parlia-
ment," defends Sir It. Peel's book-club harangue on
the ground that " there was nothing extraordinary,
nothing perhaps not common-place" in it. This is an
admirable Tory imprimatur, and speaks the sense of the
party—that portion of the party, we mean, who are not
stark-staring mad. Sir R. Peel has transgressedin nothing
the bounds of circumspect mediocrity. He has shown him-
self as safe a man as ever. Ile will not set the Trent on
fire. " In all this," to pursue our citation from the
" Member of Parliament," " there was nothing extra-
ordinary, nothing perhaps not common-place—nothing
that looked for any wider fame than the county news-
paper. Indeed, anything snore than this would
have been intolerable to that fine sense of
propriety, that feeling of the fitness of things,
which characterise the slightest action of Sir R. Peel."
Philosopher Square had a fine feeling of the fitness
of things ; but was not thereby exempted from some
husnaan weakness. We do not doubt that Sir Robert
Peel is more consistent in acting on that feeling ; but
with reference to the extent of the fame looked for,
on this occasion, by, or for the Right Hon. Baronet,
we have only to say that we hear from a Tamworth cor-
respondent that a reporter was sent for express to take
down the effusions of Sir R. Peel's wisdom and elo-
quence, and the speech has been carefully corrected and
published in pamphlet form. We agree entioely with the
" Member of Pcrliament," that there was nothing but
common-place in the whole affair : but we suspect
there is nothing in Sir Robert Peel's ideas of " the
fitness of things," that will ever prevent him parading
common•-place for the many common-place folks
who like it. We shall be more surprised when we .find
him sporting anything else on the like occasion. There
was a most amusing contrast between Sir R. Peel's
avowed common-place, and the fine frenzy into which it
threw Catholicus. The Right Hon. Baronet may
thence learn how vain the attempt to flatten liberal
views into common-place, sufficiently to please bigots.
His fate, indeed, in this business, has been that of the
miller, with his son and his ass. He has sought to
please everybody, and, it would seem, has succeeded
in pleasing nobody.
(From the Standard.)
As the attempt is made to perplex and obscure the
question of the San Sulpice incorporation by appeals
to the faith of engagements, and to natural justice, it
is proper that the matter be made plain. In the first
place, then, it is to be remembered that the act
of incorporation is an act without precedent since
the Reformation. Nothing of the kind has been
done in the British Empire for three hundred years.
Secondly, it is to be remembered that this is the act
of a merely provisional legislator. These two conside-
rations must satisfy every reasonable man, that not
merely a very strong case of policy and justice, but a
very urgent case, too, is required to justify the act in
question. We arc not aware, however, that any at-
tempt has been made to prove the case so urgent as
to command that the provisional legislator of the
Canadas must anticipate the decision in the
matter of the permanent constitutional Legislature
about to come into existence. We must, therefore,
deal with questions of policy and justice alone,
merely protesting, that though Lord Syden-
ham's proceeding might be politic and just
as an Act of the Canadian Parliament, it does
not follow that it is either the one or the other on
the part of a Governor armed with legislative autho-
rity for a limited time and for a special purpose. This
protest will be thought of more weight, when it
is borne in mind that what Lord Sydenham has
done had been left undone without exciting any com-
plaint of the neglect during seventy years, and
that, as we have intimated, no particular motive
for hurrying the Act at present is suggested. The
property which Lord Sydenham would alienate for
ever by his ordinance is of immense value, com-
prising the fee of the whole island and city of
Montreal, the fee of the lordship of the Lake
of the Two Mountains, and the fee of the lord-
ship of San Sulpice. We have no means of esti-
mating the value of the lordships of the Lake of
the Two Mountains and S.tn Sulpice ; but we
know that the island of Montreal is 30 miles long,
and on the average 12 miles wide, generally allu-
vial land, the richest in No:th America, and that
the city of Montreal is a thriving commercial city,
of between 20 and 30,000 inhabitants, with every
fair prospect of a rapid and great increase in wealth.
Such (the island and its city) is a part of the property,
the fee of which Lord Sydenhatn's ordinance would
alienate for ever—a part, we need scarcely say,
worth half-a-dozen German principalities. To speak
of less or more in a question of right is, however, as
Mr. Burke has said, to commit treason against property.
If the fraternity of San Sulpice have the right to this
immense territorial wealth, It t them enjoy it ; but if
they have not the right, then the question naturally
recurs, ought so much to be given away without some
good reason shown for the gift ? That the fraternity of
San Selpice have no legal right, is plain upon the sur-
face of the transaction ; for if they have such a right,
the ordinance is unnecessary,

THE HON. E. 8. PLUNKETT

AGAIN.

It will be recollected that this sprig of nobility, who
has now become Accost as noted as the equally worthy
Marquis of Waterford, was sentenced at the last
March Assizes, by Mr. Justice Coleridge. to eighteen
months' imprisonment, for an assault and attempt to
rescue at Wigan. By some means or other, which will
doubtless lead poor men to believe that there is one law
for the rich and another for themselves, the sentence
was commuted, or, rather, the prisoner was liberated zt
the end of six months. Just at the time he was about to
leave the Castle at Lancaster he assaulted one of the
ja lers, for which he was sentenced to three months' im-
prisonment ; this period terminated on Wednesday, the
day of the steeple cha,e, when the honourable young man
was liberated ; but before yesterday morning's sun
had made his appearance in the cast, the Honour-
able Edward Sydney Plunkett was again in durance
rile. It appears that, about a quarter-past two yester-
day morning, the young nobleman and two friends
went to the Stork Hotel, Queen-square, and asked
for a Mr. Heys. The wailer told them that Mr.
Heys had gene to bed two or three hours before,
and, of course, they could not then see him. They
then desired to go up stairs, but were, of course, pre-
vented ; and, subsequently, they walked into the
hotel, and wished for a bottle of champagne. Fail-
ing in this object, Mr. Plunkett insulted a Mr. Ho-
garth, who happened to be in the room, and struck
him in the face. Mr. Hogarth seized the poker in his
own defence, when Plunkett took up the castors and
threw them at his head. This somewhat alarmed Mr.
Hegarth who immediately left the room, leaving Mr.
Plunkett alone. A noise was subsequently beard by
the waiters, and on their looking into the room they
found the newly-liberated dealing destruction to every
thine around him. He had the poker in his hand
smashing all the cruets and decanters ; he broke
the sideboard and door, and almost everything
that was in the room he instantly destroyed. The
assistance of the police was speedily obtained, but it
required five of them to take the depredator into cus-
tody. Yesterday morning the prisoner was brought
before Mr. Rushton, at the Police Court. Mr. Daven-
port appeared for him, and after the case had been
gone into (the damage to the glasses, furniture, &c.,
was stated to be to the amount of 301.), Mr. Rushton
stated that the question of damages was placed out of
his jurisdiction, which extended only to cases under 51.
value. After strongly alluding to the wanton outrage
committed by the prisoner, he said it was his duty to
prevent persons in the garb of gentlemen from commit-
ting such offences with impunity, and for the destruc-
tion ho had made he must pay Si. and costs, or be im-
prisoned two months ; and further, that he must find
bail, himself is 1001., and two sureties in 501. each, to
keep the peace, and that he should give twenty-four
hours' notice of his bail. Mr. Davenport applied for
the release of the prisoner on his finding sureties this
night, but Mr. Rushton said the case was one which
would admit of no relaxation.—Liverpool Mercury.