The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-05 00:00:00

p :PL
THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER.

Mr. HORSMAN inquired if any steps had been
taken to furnish a residence to the Bishop of Man-
chester in his diocese ?

Sir G. GREY replied that no steps had yet been
taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for that
purpose.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY LAWS.
Mr. DIVETT said, as much importance was at-
tached to some alteration in these laws, he wished to
know if the Government intended to submit any Bill
to the House on the subject during the present
session.
Sir G. GREY said, that the subject was under the
consideration of the Government.
S PAIN.

Mr. URQUHART said, as the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not in his
place,_ he wished to ask the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government whether the correspondence (which,
to say the least of it, was incredible) that had re-
cently appeared in the newspapers, purporting to be a
letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
to the Government in Madrid, dictating in the most
peremptory manner changes in that country, and which
was likely to detract from the high name of this
country abroad, was authentic. It appeared that the
Duke de Sotornayor indignantly repelled with scorn
the interference of the British Government. He also
wished to know if that letter was authentic ; and,
if so, whether the Government had any objection to
lay copies of them on the table. Also whether any
communication had been received from the Spanish
Government with respect to the recal of Mr. Buli,ver.
Lord J. RUSSELL (who was only indistinctly
heard in the gallery) was understood to say, in reply
to the first question, that there was one important
omission in the correspondence between his Noble
Friend and the Duke de Sotomayor that had appeared
in the newspapers, but that with this exception it was
substantially correct. He merely stated the course
of policy he should recommend in the event of any
occasion arising to render its adoption necessary.
The letter then went on as it was printed in the news-
papers. The Hon. Gentleman must be fully aware
that there was a great difference between the ob-
servations contained in a letter and in an official
notice. The lion. Gentleman stated that the
Duke de Sotomayer rejected the advice and returned
the note of his Noble Friend. N ow he should have
referred to some former proceedings, by which
he would have found that this country had
been called upon by Spain to agree to a
treaty which would have laid this country under the
obligation of making efforts by sea and by
furnishing supplies of arms and ammunition, for the
purpose of maintaining the present Queen on the
throne of Spain. If he would refer to the document
in which these matters were set forth, he would find
that there was a considerable sum of money owing by
Spain for stores and ammunition. He thought it was
also a fact that in the course of last year repre-
sentations were made to the British Government to
know whether under the treaty then in force, if an
emergency should arise, this country would use its
influence and power to maintain the Queen upon the
Throne. Now the Hon. Gentleman and the House
must be aware that if this country were to be
called upon to do this, that it was not unnatural that
it should offer through its Government frank and
friendly advice, with a view of preventing any
reckless proceedings which might cause a civil
war. All that was intended by his Noble Friend,
was not to dictate to the Government of
Spain with respect to its internal affairs,
but, that being its ally, and having made efforts to
maintain the Queen on her throne, it was not
outraging their relations to offer friendly. advice
for the maintenance of the kingdom, consistently
it!: the iiost!oit of ttie (taLuil, t;,,, .Leurity
of those institutions which were intimately con-
nected with her claims.—(Hear, hear.) His

Noble Friend (Lord Palmerston here entered the
House) would state whether there was any objection
to produce the correspondence.
Mr. URQUHART inquired whether any address
had been received from the Government of Madrid
with respect to the recal of Mr. Bulwer ?
Lord PALINIERSTON had no objection to lay
the papers on the table of the House. They were
already in preparation, and would no doubt be ready
to-morrow. The address in question was received
some time ago.
Mr. URQUHART inquired if any correspondence
had taken place with respect to the demand of the
Spanish Government to have Mr. Bulwer recalled ?

Lord PALMERSTON said there was no corre-
spondence on the subject.
Mr. URQUHART wished to know from the
Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, whether the mediation of England had been
accepted by the parties in the Danish duchies?

Lord PALMERSTON—In answer to the Hon.
Member :—I have the satisfaction to inform the
House, that both parties, Prussia on the one hand,
and the Danes upon the other, have accepted the good
offices of Great Britain, with a view of settling ami-
cably the question in dispute, and that communica-
tions are now going on between her Majesty's Go-
vernment and the two parties with a view of effecting
this object.-4 Cheers.)
Mr. BANKES wished to know with respect to the
dispatch of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, whether he would explain the circumstances
of that dispatch appearing in the papers at Madrid
before the date of the dispatch itself.
Lord PALMERSTON—The question of the
Hon. Member must, I fear, be treated in the same
manner as that related of Charles 11. and the fish
!
(Laughter.) The first point to establish is, was such
the case? and in point of fact it was not the case.
The note did not appear in any Spanish paper
neither has it appeared in any Spanish paper, except
so far as it was copied into one from one of the
French papers. It was first published in La Presse,
but in what manner it got there it is not for me even
to guess. All that I can say is that her Majesty's
Government had nothing to do with the
publication of it there. I believe that a
short advertisement, or paragraph rather, did appear
in the corner of one of the Spanish newspapers, the
Clamor Publico, I believe, stating that they under-
stood that it was the intention of her Majesty's repre-
sentative at Madrid to present some note to the
Spanish Government. That paragraph appeared some
days before the note was issued, how it appeared,
of course, I cannot say. It was not a copy
of the nate, but a short statement, and
I rather think if the Honourable Member
wishes it that I shall be able to add that paragraph
to the other papers which I shall present to the House
upon the subject.

111 r. BANKES wished to know whether the
Spanish Government had not made complaint of such
correspondence having taken place.
Lord PALMERSTON lincl Lord J. RUSSELL—CST
talnly.

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
Oa the order of the day fur the third reading of
this Bill,
Sir F. THESIGER rose for the purpose of
moving that the Bill be read a second time this day
six months. He was quite prepared to be told, in
adopting this course, that he was actuated by narrow-
minded feelings, and whatever obloquy he might
receive, he was not to be deterred from pursuing
the course which he thought to be his duty.
He did not think that the question could be decided.
upon religious grounds, he was not able to discover
any specific precept of God's law which had been
given to guide them in the decision of the question,
nor did he think that any course of conduct pursued
by that House could in the least degree interfere
with those denunciations and prophecies respecting the
Jews which were recorded in holy writ. Neither
did he agree in the opinion that the admission
of Jews into the Legislature would tend
to unchristianise its character—he could not for a
moment indulge such an opinion. Christianity was
bound up too strongly in the constitution of the
country; and he should deeply regret that so im-
portant a subject should be treated with anything
like levity, or be approached in any other manner
than with becoming awe and admiration.—(Hear.)
He thought that, independent of those grounds which
appeared to have operated with other Hon. Members,
there were other grounds upon which he founded his
opposition to the admission of the Jews into the
Legislature. Let the House, for instance, suppose a
society of men associated for a given purpose; such
society could only be held together ,by a confidence
in the desire of all its members to promote
the objects of that society. If any of the
members were satisfied that another pre-
ferred objects inconsistent with those of the society,
it was clear that no confidence could exist between
them. The case was considerably stronger when
the party holding the different opinion, and seeking
the different objects, was one of the rulers or go-
vernors of that society. If this case were applied upon
a larger scale to that of a political Government,
the basis of which was religious or moral,
the objection to such a state of things
would be increased in a tenfold degree.
He apprehended that all human laws require a higher
sanction than of those who make them. There must
be a higher standard to which all human laws ought
to approach or to appeal, and he put it to the House
whether it was not the laws of the Bible
that they had taken for their standard. The
House and the country had long ago decided to be
guided by Christian morality, but it was utterly
impossible to guard against fraud. They could not
prevent the infidel from passing the threshold to
play the hypocrite whilst violating their Christian
declarations, but in that case the chance fell upon
the infidel, not upon the House. The House could
not be charged with having neglected to preserve its
standard of Christian morality, because it had
done all it could possibly do to secure respect
for Christianity in that House. Pass this Bill, how-
ever, and the case would be quite different. The Bill
could not be supported upon the principle that the
Jews acknowledged the same God as themselves, be-
cause they did no such thing. The religion of the
Jew was the shadow of something that was past, and
their code of morality fell very far short of the standard
set up by Christianity. The Jews were openly op-
posed to all other religions but their own; and if this
Bill passed into law, and the principle upon which
it was supported were allowed to prevail, he very
much feared that it would be exceedingly difficult for
the House to maintain its Christian standard of morality.
If the Noble Lord was not prepared to admit the
Deist to a seat in the Legislature, he could not see
how he could admit the Jew; in his opinion
there was a greater objection to the Jew
than the Deist. No law had ever been made with
respect to the Jews sitting in Parliament, because
no one ever dreamt of such an occurrence taking place.
Because he believed the Church was placed upon a
rock, was he to allow an objectionable class of
persons to come near it, because he knew
they could net undermine it ?—(Hear, hear)—because
he knew that " God would defend his truth," was he
unhesitatingly to open a gate by which even a small
body of persons might enter who did not believe in
its principles, and who might assail them, though
they could not injure them ? In reading the Christian
religion, and freely interpreting its principles,
he found nothing to command him to take the
unbeliever into the bosom of his family.—
(Hear, hear.) Let them treat the Jewish people
with Christian forbearance, and join with them in all
the duties which devolved on man in the ordinary
affairs of life; but do not give them any vantage-
ground by admitting them into a Christian Legis-
lature.

The amendment having been read,
Mr. TRELA.WNY said it had been argued against
the Bill that the Jews were a nation sui generis, but he
wished to know what was to be looked upon as consti-
tuting a nation. Was it a common language? If so,
the Americans and English were one nation. If the
Jews owed allegiance to any temporal Jewish sovereign,
such an argument might be tenable, but any government
they had was purely hierarchical, and could no more
affect their allegiance, than could the supremacy of the
Pope affect that of the Roman Catholics. Besides the
Jews had themselves solemnly declared that there was
nothing in their religion to affect their allegiance to any
country in which they resided. Had not the Jews ever
shown themselves loyal subjects in England? Had they
not on the 10th April last exhibited as much alacrity as
their Christian fellow-subjects? And why? Because
they had equal rights and property to protect. In his
opinion it was bad policy to have in any country 40,000
dissatisfied citizens. It would be much better to deport
them altogether, than to keep them in such a state, at
the risk of contaminating the rest. The Honourable
Member proceeded to quote the various hardships which
had been inflicted on the Jews by successive kings of
England, observing that he did not mean to contend
that such things could happen at the present time, but
he feared that the same spirit. animated the opposition
to this Bill. There was no fear that the Jews would
seek proselytes. It was well known that Lord George
Gordon had turned Jew, but that after his death the
Jews refused to acknowledge him. As nothing he had
heard in the course of these bebates had convinced him
of the propriety of excluding Jews from Parliament, he
should continue his support to the Bill under
con-
sidertion.

Mr. WESTHEAD congratulated the House that they
had been enabled to discuss this question uninfluenced
by vast public meetings, but calmly and deliberately and
without reference to anything but its real merits. He
feared that many of the Wesleyan community would be
surprised at the course he was about to take, but after
careful consideration, he had come to the conclusion that
c ,ur,e w. thc a 60,1
holy word. A Noble Lord had quoted Dr. Arnold
against this Bill; but in another passage that eminent
divine had said that if the admission of the Jews to