The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-04 00:00:00

THE. SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 4, 1848.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

the intention of the Government to take any proceedings
against the publisher of the Times newspaper, for the
publication, this morning, of a letter upon the subject of
street firing, and the means of overthrowing her Ma-
jesty's Government.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his atten-
tion had not been called to the letter in question.
EVICTIONS IN GALWAY.
Mr. C. St. GEORGE rose for the purpose of explain-
ing to the House some of the circumstances connected
with the rent evictions of a large body of tenantry in
Ireland. He had received a letter from Mr. Riddington
on the subject, requesting that any explanations which
he might have to offer should be addresses to his Ex-
cellency the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. To this letter
he had replied, and had expressed therein his regret
that the Poor-law Commissioners had not thought fit in
the first place to communicate with him urn the sub-
ject, instead of sending down their inspector, Major
McKie, to investigate the circumstances. The Poor law
Commissioners, by acting otherwise, would have shown
more impartiality, and have performed their duty in a
much better manner than by causing to be inserted in
the Blue Book a number of statements for the most
part unsupported by facts. He had further stated
in his letter to the Lord-Lieutenant, that upwards
of 1,5001. was due to him from the tenants on his
estate, and he had offered, seeing the distressed condi
tion in which they were placed, to accept of 4001. in
di,charge of the whole amount due to him. To this
offer the tenants gladly acceded, requesting, at the same
time, that a number of bad and disorderly
characters might be removed from the land.
Several objectionable persons here pointed out to him,
whom he informed he could not allow to remain, and
gave them some money to leave. No act of an
had taken place upon his part,
and, except in the most urgent case, the
power which he pcssessed as a landlord,
had not been exercised. Ile was quite averse to any
acts of cruelty. He had borrowed 6,000/. under the
Act for improving land in Ireland, for the purpose of
giving employment to the people; he had also borrowed
large sums of money from various other sources,
which he had expended in improvements upon :his
property, but could not get any rent from the tenantry.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the declaration
of the deputy-sheriff of the county of Galway with respect
to the course of proceeding adopted on the late ejections.
He trusted that he had now satisfied the House that he
had done nothing illegal or illiberal. He would
not attempt to censure the report of Major McKie,
or the course pursued by the Commission, but
he felt bound to say a few words as to
the character of the persons examined before the
Commission—as to the character of oae of those per-
sons, Thomas M'Donogh, he had a letter from the
parish priest of the district in which he resided stating
that upwards of 900 sheep and 9 head of cattle had been
taken from the estate, and that Donogh was a bad cha-
racter. Lie (Mr. St. George) could also satisfy the
House that so far from his having turned Donogh and
his family out of the house, they had left it themselves
and gone to Galway. The Hon. Member then read
several documents showing the charges that had been
made against him were totally void of foundation, and
concluded by expressing a hope that the House was con-
vinced that he had been unjustly attacked by the Hon.
Member for Stroud.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know from the Hon.
Member what number of persons had been ejected, and
what number of houses had been pulled down?
Mr. ST. GEORGE had confined himself in the re-
marks he had made to the charges that had been made
against him personally, and he did not consider himself
called upon to give any other reply to the Hon. Member.
The subject then dropped.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES.
Mr. B. OSBORNE, seeing the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government in his place, wished to know
whether it was the intention of the Government to pro-
ceed, before Easter, with the Encumbered Estates Bill,
that had just come down from thelHouse of Lords ?
- Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was not intended to
proceed with that Bill before Easter.
TENANT-RIGHT BILL.
In answer to a question from Mr. A. STAFFORD,
Sir GEORGE GREY said the object of the Tenant-
Right Bill would provide against evictions from land
without the knowledge of the poor-law guardians
of the vicinity, and also to prevent the pulling down of
the huts and homes of tenants, although a legal right to
do so might exist. He could not say whether the Bill
would be brought on before Easter or not.
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BILL.
Mr. FORBES wished to know when the Bill for es-
tablishing Diplomatic Relations wiih the Court of Rome
was likely to come on ?
Lord PALMERSTON said it certainly would not
come on till after Easter.
ECCLESIASTICAL FUNDS.
Mr. HORSMAN then rose to bring forward the mo-
tion of which he had given notice, namely, that in the
opinion of this House, the distinction between the
episcopal and common funds, restricting the appli-
cation of the surplus revenues of Archbishops and
Bishops to episcopal purposes, and permitting
no part of it, in any circumstances, to be applied to the
relief of parochial destitution, is inexpedient, and ought
not to be continued. It had been laid down as a principle.
which could not be violated, that episcopal funds could
not be applied to any other than ecclesiastical purposes,
and that in the event of there being a surplus of these
funds, it must be applied to the establishment of
bishoprics abroad. Such a principle, in his opinion, was
absurd, and ought to be got rid of.
(LEFT STEALING.)

' Diyident Amount
Name of Company• per of Paid. 1
Annum. Share.
-------
£ a. d. £ s. d
Bank of Scotland
British Linen Company 81. per cent. 100 0 • 100 • 0
Caledonian Bank •• .•• Si. per sent. 10 0 0 i 2 10 0
City of Glasgow Bank . 61. per cent. 10 0 0 , 10 0 0
Clydesdale Bank• •• • —6/. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0
Commercial Bank •• •• 71. per cent. 500 0 0 ,100 0 •
Eastern Bank •.
Edinb.k Glasgow Bank 6/. per cent. ' 5 0 0 5 0 0
Exehangellnk of Scot 6/. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 0
Isle of Man. Company 71. per cent. 10 0 0 7 0 0
National Bank • ..... • . 6/. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0
Northof Sootlandßank 71. per cent. 20 0 0 5 0 0
North British Bank • • 50 0 0 10 0 0
Royal Bank of Scotland 6/. per cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0
Union Bank of Scotland 8/. per cent. 100 0 0 50 0 0
western Bank •• • . 81. per cent. 50 0 II 50 0 0
Aberdeen Fire and Life 121. per cent. I'2 10 0 2 0 0
B. Accord. Life aud Fire 20 -, 0 011 0
British Guarantee Ins. 10 I 0 1 0 0
Caledonian Fire Insur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0
Church of England Ins. 50 0 0 2 0 0
City of Glasgow Life 5l. per cent. 25 0 0 2 0 0
Fdinburrh Life Insur. Si. per cent. 100 0 0 12 10 0
East of Scotland Life.. 10 0 0 015 0
Eng. & Scot, Law Life I 5/. per cent. 50 0 • 217 6
Hercules Insurance Co. 71• per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0
limn Co. of Scetlini.• Si. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0
Life AFSOC. of Scotland 5/. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0
Mercantile Life .. •• • • 10 0 0 010 0
National Fire and Life bl. per cent. 10 0 0 1 0 0
North British Incur. • • 5341. pr cent. 200 0 0 20 9 0
North & West of Soot. 10 0 0 1 0 0
Scottish Life and guar. 20 0 0 011 0
Scot. M as. and Gen. Life 51. per cent. 1 0 0 015 0
Scottish Union haulm 011. pr cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0
Stan laid Life .. ••.. . 51. per cent. 50 0 0 4 5 0
United Dep. Assurance 51. per t. 10 0 0 I____ 0 0

Price.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool

sack at Five o'clock.

PETITIONS.
The Earl of FALMOUTH presented a petition from
Exeter against the continuance of legacy duties on be-
quests to charitable institutions.
ODD FELLOWS.
Lord BEAUMONT introduced a Bill for legalising
the Odd Fellows' Societies, which was read a first time.
NAVIGATION-LAWS.
The Earl of HARD WICKE presented several petitions
from shipowners and shipbuilders in various parts of
Great Britain, praying that no alteration should be made
in the navigation-law s. The Noble Earl alludt dto the dis-
cussion which had taken place yesterday in another place
on the subject of allowing the importation of cotton from
Havre in consequence ot the dearth of cotton in this
country, fur the purpose of denying that there was any
dearth of cotton in this country.
POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from West-
meath praying for an a!teration in the poor-law.
TENANT-RIG LIT.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from various tenant farmers of the county ot Wexford
in favour of tenant-right. He did not go so tar as the
petitioners in the advocacy of tenant-right. He thought
that tenants should have compensation made to them for
improvements, but he objected to any compulsory law
on this subject. He concluded by eulogising the con-
duct of the Lord-Lieutenant; no one had ever held that
important office who had been so generally approved of.
ODD FELLOWS.
Lord BEAUMONT and Lord CAMPIILLL presented peti-
tions from societies of Odd Fellows, praying to be placed
under the provisions of
CEYLON e Friendly Societies Act.
.

U. It
105.0.1
U. Os
l'2s.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Nortrich, April 3.
(Before Chief Justice WILDE.)
THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF DR. LEE, BISHOP
OF MANCHESTER V. GDTTERIDGE.
The trial of this indictment, which has excited so
much interest, came on to-day.
The case is so well known by the voluminous reports
published by us of the proceedings in London, that it is
hardly necessary for us to give the present in detail.
Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., Mr. llumfrey, Q.C., and Mr.
Waddington, were for the prosecution. Mr. Gutteridge
conducted his defence in person.
The information charged that at the time of the
printing the libel, be (the prosecutor) was a clergy-
man of the Church of England, and the Head Mas-
ter of the Free Grammar School at Birmingham,
and, as such, had the education of many youths
under his care, and there was a certain other school
called " The Bluecoat Charity School," but that the
defendant, intending to wilfully, &c, did, oa the 24th day
of Decembers, 1946, publish a scandalous libel, to wit—
"He (meaning Dr. Lee) eagerly sought to connect
himself with every public establishment here (meaning
Birmingham), whether of charity, literature, or science,
and almost everywhere, by exhibiting a most officious,
insolent, and domineering behaviour, and an intriguing
and ill-natured disposition, which dishonoured his cha-
racter as a clergyman, he insulted and disgusted the
most respectable and respected supporters of our public
institutions; and, further, pursued with spite and bitter-
ness many of even the persons of their children:wholdared
to act with independence and spirit, so far as to resist
his advances, &c. Also, on the 30th May, 1846, in the
defendant's printed report of the meeting, he reiterated
those charges, and upon other occasions, the charges
made by the defendant, in fact being, that Dr. Leo was
a person of overbearing manners; that he had been
guilty of intoxication, and of conduct generally such as
to throw an odium upon the Church and on himself as
an unworthy member of that Church." The defendant,
by his plea, justified the principal charges.
Mr. WHITEHURCT, in his opening address, observed,
the Bishop of Manchester bad very reluctantly been
compelled to bring the case into court to vindicate him-
self from the libels, the result of the defendant's
malignant enmity. But though he (the prosecutor) felt
reluctant to, and abstained from prosecuting the author
of the libels upon himself whilst he remained at Bir-
mingham, where he was known, yet now that he was
promoted to the high station he then filled, it became
absolutely necessary he should do so, unless he wished
to limit his sphere of usefulness in his diocese. Dr.
Lee was formerly Second Master of Rugby School. from
which he was promoted to the Head Mastership of King
Edward's School, at Birmingham, and since his master-
ship of it, the school had become second to none in re-
pute, and some of the most distinguished scholars had
been sent from thence to both the Universities, where
they had taken the highest honours. Dr. Lee had lived
in Birmingham, beloved and esteemed by all who knew
him, and being desirous to extend his usefulness to the
charitable institutions in the town, he was led to become
a governor of the Hospital, and a member of the
government of the Bluecoat School, where he exerted
himself to rectify and reform abuses. No doubt that
created in the minds of many. On the
24th of December, 1845, there was that published in
a pamphlet which formed part of the libel complained
of ; certain parts were not justified by the pleas. (The
Learned Counsel read the matter charged as libellous at
length, and, as this has already appeared in our columns,
we abstain from reiterating it.) These libels being pub
lished, Dr. Lee took the advice of his friends as to the
propriety of prosecuting them. Their advice being that
he should, observing " He was well known, that every-
body loved and esteemed him, and that nobody believed
a single syllable of what was uttered in his dispraise."
On May 111th, 1846, Mr. Gutteridge ' called a meeting
together, by placard, the object being stated to be, "To
take into consideration the state of the public charities,
especially the Hospital and King Edward's Free School."
At that meeting 5,000 people attended. Mr. Gutteridge
addressed them, and reiterated his previous charges.
When Dr. Lee was named for the bishopric, the defen-
dant addressed a circular letter to the Archbishops,
Bishops, and all the great officers of state, remonstrating
against the appointment. Dr. Lee feeling that now,
elevated as he was, his usefulness would be much nar-
rowed unless he disproved such charges, obtained a rule
for a criminal information, thus giving the defendant an
or portunity of putting what he did know upon oath.
Mr. Gutteridge made no affidavit whatever, neither he
or his friends, and the rule was made absolute. Though
- the case was coming down for trial, Mr. Gutteridge, On
the Bth March, addressed a meeting, reiterating the
charges, and attacking Lord Denman. The Learned
Counsel passed an eloquent eulogium upon the conduct
of Lord Denman, both as an advocate and judge, alluding
to his fearlessness of offending those in power when
duty to his client urged him on, reminding the Court
and jury of a particular instance of the latter on a
% memorable trial in the House of Lords, alluding also to
the generosity of the Prince, who, when on the Throne,
chose to forget all that had passed at that time. The
Learned Counsel concluded by expressing a firm belief
that none of the charges the defendant had justified
would he be able to sustain, and that in the result there
must be a conviction.
The evidence was proceeding when we were obliged
to close our dispatch.
The case will probably occupy three days.

Lord BEAUMONT then rose to present a petition j
from the inhabitants of Colombo, in Ceylon, complaining
of a measure of the Ceylon Government respecting the •
verandahs before their houses. Those verandahs had
been erected fur many years, for the purpose of pro-
tecting the inhabitants from the heat in summer and
the inclement weather in winter, and many had
been in posaession of them for sixty or seventy
yeors. They were ordered to be removed in
the sheets that were narrow, but all compensation re•
;used, on the ground that the property belonged to the
owner. as they were erected on Crown Lands. Parties
were allowed to purchase the verandales at from 2s. 6d.
to 2s. per foot, exclusive of the expense of the title-deeds
and a fee of 21. 2s. to the Colonial Secretary. A
putitition, signed by 2,800, was presented to the
Council against those proceedings, but it led to no
result, except some reduction of the rate of expenditure.
A second petition, with 3,200 signatures, led to no better
result. A legal gentleman then in the island interested
himself in the matter, and Lord Torrington, it was
understood, when he was sent out, was in-
structed to see the parties dealt fairly with ;
but the colonists were dissatisfied with the
conduct of that nobleman, who, they stated, had not
treated them courteously ; but from what he knew of
that Noble Lord, he did not consider that there could be
any ground for this complaint. The verandahs were at
present in the course of demolition, and as many of
their owners were poor, it was but right that
justice should be done them. He wished to know if
the Noble Earl intended to take any steps in the matter.
Earl GREY said the facts were not quite as the
Noble Lord had stated them. The verandahs were,
thare could be no doubt, encroachments upon the
public property, and, owing to the great increase
of traffic in the colony, their removal had
been deemed advisable. An ordonnance was agreed to
calling upon parties to prove their right to the veran-
dahs, and it they could not, they were to be pulled
down, or to continue in the use of the occupiers
at a moderate rate. Lord Torrington, when he
arrived, agreed to a great reduction in the
rates, and further that the proceeds should be
devoted to the improvement of the town. Public health
and public convenience required the removal of many
of the verandahs, and it would have been unjust to the
inhabitants of the other portions of the island, if com-
pensation had been made out of the revenu,. lie
hoped, on these grounds, the House would not think
proper to interfere in the matter, more especially
as the decision of Lord Torrington coincided with the
opinion of the Home Government.
IRELAND.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented returns
which he said were extremely valuable respecting agri-
culture in Ireland.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

LATEST PRICES OF SHARE,
N BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER COM
PANIES' STOCK.
From the Official List,
PUBLISHED EVERY TUEM3AT AND FRIDAY EVENING

LONDON. TUESDAY, APRIL 4.
OTITT-STOCH SANAS.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN'i.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 3.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woo.
sack at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.
Lord STANLEY presented several petitions from
,14 members of Odd Fellows' Societies,praying that their
societies might be legalised.
AUSTRIA AND SARDINIA.
The Earl of ABERDEEN begged to remind their
.7‘ Lordships that a copy of a declaration made to the
• Austrian Government by her Majesty's Government
had been laid on the table of the House, in
which it was stated that her Majesty's Go-
vernment would not look upon any aggres-
sion in the territory of Sardinia with indiffer-
ence. He knew not if a declaration had been
made to Sardinia of a similar nature, but it
i% ought to have been made. The King of Sar-
dinia had been the first power who had violated
.3v the public law of Europe, invading the country of
,54 an ally without provocztion; and he thought that
this ought not to be passed unnoticed by those who
wished to preserve the public peace of Europe. It
; should be remembered that Lombardy had been
under the Government of Austria fur three „
cen-
turies, and therefore Austria could hardly be con-
' sidered as a usurping power ; and he wished to ask if
• her Majesty's Government had expressed to the Sar-
dinian Government that any aggression of this de-
scription could not be viewed by Great Britain with
indifference ?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would not follow
Ice.
the Noble Earl in his general observations, but in an-
swer to his question he would state that the advice
- given to the King of Sardinia had been thought to ob
serve a perfect neutrality. He would also state that the
King of Sardinia had not interfered until it had been
almost certain that the Austrians could not maintain
themselves in Lombardy, and it was not for him to
say whether, if the Austrians could not maintain
themselves there, it would be advantageous to
Europe for tike King of Sardinia to continue in his
interference.
Lord STANLEY said he thought it desirable that
that house should have been afforded an opportunity of
expressing its disapprobation of conduct which, if gene-
rally imitated, would lead to the most fatal consequences,
by establishing a system of interference in the internal
affairs of other countries, under the pretext of assisting
them to reform their institutions, and thus recognising a
propagandism which could only result in a general and
sanguinary war. He hoped that the House recollected
that he had called their attention to a late Act passed in
Canada,:relatiye to emigrants under the Passengers Act,
and particularly as it affected Ireland so much; for
every adult has been obliged tc pay hitherto the sum of
as. to the Canadas, and 7s. to New York. He thought
it most unjust that such a charge should be made on all,
without any distinction of age; but when ho looked
; upon that as unjust, he would ask their Lordships how
much more unjust was it now, when 20s. was to be paid
per head after the 10th of September, 3os. after the
30th of September, and 40s. beyond that time, and
c that the master of the ship is obliged to give a bond
_ of 201. that ho will not take any person who has not
relations in the country, capable of giving him support
if necessary. Though he considered that the colonies
were right in protecting themselves from too great an
influx of emigrants, as also from the many diseases that
have been spread through those emigrants, yet he should
say that he considered that the Canadians were too ex-
orbitant in their present proceedings, and that the sys•
tem of emigration, so long beneficial to the Canadas,
will be thus put an end to. He thought it highly un-
just that the colonies should inflict such a heavy taxa-
tion on their fellow-subjects. He wished to know
whether her Majesty's Ministers intended to assent to
Such penalties being imposed on British subjects who
might emigrate?

Earl GREY said, that at the time of the last discus-
sion relative to the Pa>sengers Act, he did not think
that any such barrier would be raised agair:st emigrants
from this empire, and therefore did not allude to the

Lord J. RUSSELL—I only just get up to say tha
before the House adjourns for the Easter holidays I wil
either fix a day for introducing a measure on the subject
of the navigation laws, or I or my Right lion. Friend
will make some decided statement on the subject.
The question that the orders of the day be read was
then agreed to. •
JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, in
order to go into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. GORING rose to move, by way of amendment,
that " so long, at least, as the House of Commons exer-
cises the authority which it at present exercises over the
Established Church, no Jew ought to possess the fran-
chise, much less be allowed to sit in this House." The
Hon. Member said that at present they were in the posi-
tion of a man who set: fire to his neighbour's house
whilst praying that it would not burn. Christianity was
so interwoven with our institutions, that it was utterly
repugnant to place any but a Christian in a position of
authority in this country. Suppose there was a Con-
mittee of that House on the subject of the Church, wouli
they exclude a Jewish Member from serving on it? It
seemed to him that a Jew in that House would ha
much in the position of a Christian in India required to
bow the knee before a graven image. It was not fair or
right that the Church, it governed by that !louse, should
have among its governors men who were not Christians.
But there were other grounds on which he opposed the
admission of Jews. The men whom it was proposed to
admit to place and power were the jobbers and gamblers
of the Steck Exchange—men who reaped their richest •
harvests in times of political disquietude and panic. Was
it for the interests of England to introduce such men as
these to the councils of the nation?—(" Oh.") One of
the apostles of Christianity inculcated that they " should
not receive into their house" a man who did not believe
in the words of Christ, and yet they were about to admit
the reviler of that Christ into their national Legislature.
—(" Oh, oh.") If they did so, he feared they would in
consequence draw doss n upon themselves the wrath and
vengeance of the Deity.---(Renewed cries of " Oh.")
He concluded by moving his resolution.
The amendment having been put,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Honourable Member
seemed to think that this was a debate upon the prin-
ciple
of the measure. As that debate had taken place
upon the second reading, he trusted the House would
not now re-open it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BRUCE, despite the Noble Lord's appeal, must
venture to say a few words. On two former occasions he -
had expressed his opinion against this Bill, and he had
heard nothing to induce him to change his views. The
grounds of his opposition might, indeed, be summed up
in one sentence, that the Bill tended to unchristianis•
the country. He could conceive that, for the pos-
sible attainment of some great and practical good,
conscientious men might be inclined to support on some
cccasions measures of which they could not fully ap-
prove. But so far as the attainment of any practical ,
good was concerned he could conceive no measure more ,
absolutely useless than the present. It removed no prac-
tical grievance. All he could find in it, in fact, was a
practical renouncement of the highest allegiance of the
nation. Politically, he did not think the Jews would do
any harm by being admitted to that House, except in so
far as they would doubtless desire to separate the Church
from the State. Ile should have thought that the history
of the Jewish race for centuries and centuries past would,
from the blighting influence which the wrath of heaven
bad cast upon that race, have afforded a warning against
the admission of any such principle as that now sought
to be introduced. The Scriptures abounded with ex-
hortations to nations, and to the governors of nations, to
cleave unto the Son of God, and to reject all association ,
with every race whose tenets rejected the Saviour.
Ile should have thought that the experience of only .
the last two years might have afforded a proof to the
British nation of the immediate punishment attending
national sin. But two years since the whole nation had
given itself up to the worship of mammon, to the idolatry'
of covetousness, and he would ask whether the punish-
ment of this national sin had not already been felt
throughout the land?—(" Oh, oh.") For the sake of a
halfpenny or a farthing saved in the pound of sugar the
people of this country had consented to the violation of
national faith, to the destruction of the West India in-
terest;
the punishment had long since manifested itself. '
—(" Oh, oh.") He had all due respect for the Jewish ,
people in their personal characteristics, and he would
give them all due protection and due justice in their
personal character, but he would not consent to go '
beyond this point or to act counter to the will of -
God. He could not support the immediate amend-
ment of his Honourable Friend, because he did not
think it just to deprive the Jews of the elective fran-
chise which they now enjoyed; but to the Bill itself
he should give his decided opposition at every stage.
Mr. GARDNER said that, to suit the views of some
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would really seem desirable
to appoint a Committee up stairs of controverted doc-
trines as well as a Committee of controverted elections.
He cordially supported the Bill as a measure absolutely
essential for the due accomplishment of civil and politi-
cal liberty. Ile denounced the Church of England as
having, for a mess of pottage, surrendered her birthright
to the State. The damage that at the present moment
threatened the Church, as the Church, was not the ex-
tension of religious liberty to other creeds, but the
rottenness which existed in her own bosom. For •
the sake of the Church herself, ho earnestly
called upon her to withdraw the pretensions she had so
long put forward and to far carried into effect, of maintain-
ing the Imperial Parliament, not as a Protestant Parlia-
ment, - •
not as a Christian Parliament, but as a Church
of England Parliament. The vindication of our common
Christianity was not a peculiunz of the high Church
party, or of the Church of England; it was a matter in
which the Methodists, the Baptists, the Unitarians,
Roman Catholics dissenters and Protestant dissenters,
were equally interested, and as heartily. Where, then,
were the petitions which these bodies had found it ne-
cessary to send forth against this measure? There were
none such, or scarcely any; and the reason was, that
these bodies had not the loaves and fishes to struggle 4
for—the real rationale of the enthusiasm of the Church
upon this and similar subjects. He himself was wholly
opposed to all church establishments whatever; ho re-
garded the connexion between Church and State as
wholly incompatible with the spirit of the age, and was
thoroughly convinced that sooner or later it must be
abandoned. The lamp of old Nonconformity was not
yet burned out.
Mr. SIMEON should oppose the introduction of Jews
to Parliament, but he could not consent to withdraw from -
them the privileges which the wisdom of former Par- •
liaments had thought fit to accord to them as British
subjects. The hostility which the Hon. Member who
spoke last manifested to the Church of England was an -
additional argument against the admission to the House .
of a fresh race of Dissenters.
Mr. URQUHART supported the Bill. lie could
not understand the exclusion of the Jews from an assem-
bly to which Dissenters of every possible description
were admitted.
Sir W. VERNER could not assent to the argument of
the last speaker, which went to prove that, because
Roman Catholics had bern admitted to Parliament, the
Jews ought not to be excluded from it. The qualifica-
tion required for a Member of Parliament was, that he
must be a Christian. The law had formerly excluded
some classes of persons, notwithstanding they were
Christians ; it had, however, been relaxed in their case.
He was of opinion that no further relaxation ought to
take place, more particularly in the case of the Jews.
The proposition to admit Jews into the House was
guarded by the declaration that they were to take the
oaths on the same footing that the Roman Catholics did
—namely, that they were to stand engaged to do nothing
to injure the established religion of the country. Now,
could it be pretended that, ever since the Roman Catho-
lics had been admitted into Parliament, they had not
done all in their power to injure the Church of England
—and would the Jews observe their engagements any
better than the Roman Catholics had done? He felt it
to be his duty strenuously to oppose the Bill.
Lord D. STUART said that the question before the
House was whether they were to pursue those principles
of toleration which were advocated by so large a propor-
tion of the people, and the universal acknowledgment of
which had been so advantageous to the best interests of
mankind. To those who snapped their fingers at the
expression of popular feeling which had been manifested
in favour of the emancipation of the Jews, he would
only say, let them remember their own appeal to the
same authority, which they bad made on the same
subject before Christmas. They theta pointed to the
disparity of numbers in favour of and against the ad-
mission of the Jews to Parliament, and, certainly, he
(Lord D. Stuart) admitted that the number of persons
who petitioned Parliament before Christmas against the
admission of the Jews to Parliament was as 13,700 com-
pared with 6,600 in favour of their admission, or, as
nearly as possible two to one against the present Bill.
But 'abet bad been the result of the appeal that had
since that period been made to the people on the present
question ? There were 56,000 persons signing petitions
adverse to the Jews, whilst no fewer than 300,000 had
signed petitions since Christmas in favour of the eman-
cipation of the Jews, and the counter. petitions had been
got up at hole-and-corner meetings, whereas the friends
of the Jews bad agitated openly in favour of their
views. All the important towns in the kingdom had
shown decided feelings in favour of the measure. Lon-
don, Dublin, Manchester, Bristol—all the great consti-
tuencies of the empire—had publicly avowed their
opinions to be for the emancipation of the Jews, and
only two places had petitioned against the measure,
namely, Jedburgh and Sudbury. One of the argu-
ments against the Bill urged by the Hon. Member
for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) was, that though the Jew's
were few in number, they might by their wealth
influence many constituencies to return them to Parlia-
ment. That was a strange argument to hear from the
Hon. Baronet, who he recollected had always in the un-
reformed Parliament advocated the rights of wealth to
influence constituencies in returning Members to that
House to protect property. He denied that there was
anv feeling throughout the country against complete
toleration; on the contrary, he believed that.the great
and growing feeling was in a directly contrary direction.
He should give his most earnest and hearty support to
the measure before the House.
Mr. HORNBY, in opposing the measure, denied that
the recent election for the City of London was to be
taken as a conclusive test of public opinion on the subject.
He believed that never on any occasion of a similar kind
had greater bribery or intimidation been practised.
—(lleac, hear.) He should not be at all surprised if at
the next election four Jews were returned for the City
of London. He would oppose this or any other measure
which tended to increase the number of the enemies of
the Established Church in that House.
Sir R. INGLIS, in reviewing the opinions of the
speakers who had preceded him in debate, complained
strongly of the hostility which the lion. Member for
Leicester had displayed towards the Established
Church. The sentiments which that lion. Member
had expressed gave the House a very fair sample of
what they might expect front him when he got his new
allies into Parliament. For his (Sir H. Inglis's) part

Canadas.
Lord STANLEY said, that in the case of emigrants
who were deaf or blind, or affected with any disease that
might incapacitate them from working or supporting
themselves, the Custom-house officers were, by the Act
to which he alluded, obliged to investigate whether they
had relatives capable of supporting them, else the master
of the ship was liable to a penalty of 51. for having taken
them out. lie thought this a hardship, because the
master of the ship could not know the peculiar affections
of each passenger, nor whether they had relatives able to

support them.
Earl GREY said that he knew nothing more respect-
ing Canada than that he had received a dispatch from
Lord Ebrington that this Act, to which the Noble Lord
(Lord Stanley) alluded, had passed the House of As-
sembly, and that it was likely it would pass the Legisla
tive Council. He, for his part, thought that it was a very
unjust and injudicious Act, especially as far as it related
in the fifth section to the masters of ships. He was well
aware that the sum of 70,000/. had been contributed by
this country, through the income-tax, for defraying
the expenses incurred by the Canadians for the relict
of emigrants. He admitted that there were many
sufferers in the persons of the clergy, the officers of
customs, and the mayors of different tos ns; and that,
tht refure, it was natural they should protect themselves
against a recurrence of such diseases; yet lie did not
agree that under such circumstances, so heavy a tax
should be imposed on emigrants. He certainly con,i-
dered that this Act is beyond what it should be, but
was satisfied that it would not continue more than one
year. lie should say in reply to the Noble Lord (Lord
Stanley) that the Government would recommend to alter
those objectionable clauses. He considered that if the
British Legislature would be efficient in altering that
law, that it would be of the greatest benefit to the
Canadas, because emigrants carried with them a con-
siderable share of wealth on their leaving this country.
He regretted to see that the Canadians were adopting
much more restrictive measures than any of the States,
not even excepting New York, and he therefore hoped
that the Canadas would make the necessary alterations.
Ho should also add, that the information as yet received
relative to this question, is so imperfect that he would
not make any allusion to it at present; but he assured
the House that as soon as the dispatch arrived that he
would lay on the table every particular respecting it, for
the consideration of the House.
Lord MONTEAGLE said, though he strongly depre-
cated such an act, yet he felt confident that her Ma-
jesty's Government would do all in their power to con•
travene its evil effect, and should they prove inefficient,
he was pleased to be assured by the Noble Earl (Earl
Grey) that it would not operate more than for one year.
DERBY SWEEPS.
Lord LYTTELTON asked the Government whether
they intended to take any steps to prevent lotteries,
called " Racing Sweeps," being held in public-houses?
He considered them contrary to the law, and he was
supported in that impression by the opinions entertained
by some eminent lawyers. He wished to know whether
the Government intended to introduce any measure for
the suppression of those " Racing Sweeps."
Lord EGLINTOUN said that a more honourable and
punctilious system of betting did not exist in the highest
circle of society than was observed by the proprietors of
those public-houses where such sweeps were held. lie
was authentically informed that 30,000/. had been de-
posited as bets in those houses, and that the people,
whether winners or losers, were always satisfied that
they bad been dealt fairly with, lie knew that if they
met with any injustice that they bad their own resource,
namely, to go to another house ; but such never occur-
red, except in one case,:where the proprietor of the house
withheld the money deposited, and was soon obliged to
leave his establishment in consequence of such an act.
He did not think that the Government should interfere
with the people in such a case, lest they might exaspe•
rate them; nor did he see why the middle classes of
society should not have their places and opportunities
for betting as well as the aristocracy.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he was not
prepared to answer the question of the Noble Lord
(Lord Lyttelton). He, however, mainly agreed in the
observations made by the Noble Lord (Lord Eglintoun).
He added, that the Government had no intention to take
such steps as those required by the Noble Lord.
Their Lordships then adjourned shortly before seven
.ock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 3.
NAVIGATION LAWS.
Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE said that it was with ex
treme regret that he had heard the Right Hon. the
President of the Board of Trade make the statement he
had with respect to the navigation-laws. This measure
had been announced with others in the Speech from
the Throne ; all, with the exception of the navigation-
laws, had been brought under the considheration
heard
of
the House, and of that they ad
nothing until within the last few days.
It was now announced that the Act for the amend-
ment of those laws would not be introduced until
after Easter ; the non-introduction of this measure
until after Easter meant that the question would
not be disposed of during the present session.
He did not think that the country would be satisfied
with that proceeding upon the part of her Majesty's
Government. Any measure introduced early in May
could not possibly be passed during the present
session, and he thought that the Bill now before
the House might even be made to give way to the
more important subject of the navigation-laws.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he did not
think that the complaint of the Right Honourable
Gentleman were well founded, considering what
were the means which the Government hap at their
disposal for the consideration of public business.
He (Lord John Russell) certainly could not
have allowed the Income-tax Act or the Mutiny
Act to expire, in order to bring the subject of the
navigation-laws forward. There might also be other
urgent measures required with respect to the state
of Ireland, and he did not wish to be precluded by
the navigation-laws from considering that subject.
The Government had but a few days at their disposal
and the press of public business was very great.
Sir IL INGLIS said that if the Government
required more days in the week, the House ought to
grant them that indulgence immediately after the
Easter recess.
Mr. HUME said that he thought it most im-
portant that the question of the navigation
laws should be speedily settled.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. RICARDO deprecated the delay that had
taken place in bringing forward the measure.
Mr. WAWN did not think it fair to press the
measure at the present moment, considering that there
was a Committee then sitting on the shipping interest.
Mr. ROBINSON was of the same opinion. Ile
thought the Government had exercised a wise dis•
cretion in not touching the navigation-laws at
present.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE felt convinced they would do
no good by bringing on the measure before Easter ; but
he trusted that shortly after the reeess the Govern-
ment would be enabled to bring in a measure on the
subject of the navigation-laws which would meet
with the approbation of the House, and be productive
of great good.
Mr. HUDSON trusted, whenever the Bill was
brought in, it would not be allowed to pass into a law
in the course of the present session.
Mr. BRIGHT asked if it had not been the custom in
time of war, &c., to grant licenses to introduce cargoes
which, under the navigation laws, could not be intro-
duced at other times? He asked this question specially
with reference to the cargoes of cotton at Havre. Gen-
tlemen opposite, he was sure, would not oppose the
issuing of such licenses, as they would afford employ-
ment for British shipping.
Mr. LABOUCHEIiE knew very well that there was
cotton in llavre which was not wanted there, and which
could not be brought here under the present law. But,
inasmuch as that law existed, he held that it would be
quite impossible, and far from just, to evade its pro-
visions by the issue of licenses.
Mr. CAItDWELL said the state of affairs was this :
we were in want of cotton; there was at llavre a con•
siderable surplus supply. Now all that was asked was,
that our merchants might import that cotton to England
in British ships. British workmen would be employed
in its manufacture when brought here. Those were the
facts. They also had before them the Queen's speech,
in which a revision of the navigation-laws was advised;
but when her Majesty's Ministers were asked whether
they intended to follow up that recommendation, the
tone of their answer was such as to afford great reason
for doubt. And yet, in the face of these facts, the Go-
vernment refused to permit our import of cotton, which
was clearly shown to be so likely to prove baiificial to
the country.
Mr. BRIGHT said the cotton he referred to had never
been unshipped at llavre, in consequence of there being
no one there willing at present to receive it.
Lord H. VANE hoped the Government would intro-
duce a very short Bill suspending the navigation-laws,
so as to permit the importation of that cotton.
Mr. P. SCROPE said such a measure as the Noble
Lord advised might be properly compa.red.with the
.mea-
sure of last year suspending the navigation-laws in re-
spect of the admission of corn. There was a dearth of
cotton now, as there was a dearth of corn then.
Mr. H. BAILLIE said a great deal of virtuous indig-
nation appeared to be expressed about nothing, for if we
were to pass such a law as that recommended by the two
last speakers, we might depend on it that the Provisional
Government of Irance would prohibit the exportation of
the cotton referred to, in order to prevent their own
artisans from being thrown out of employment by a want
of the raw material.
Alderman THOMPSON thought such a Bill as that
referred to would be a very bad and unsafe precedent.
He thought her Majesty's Government ought at once to
take some decisive step respecting the navigation- laws.
Either they should give up their intended proposal alto-
gether, or else introduce a Bill at once.
Mr. KERSHAW pressed on the earnest considera-
ation of the Government the desirability of doing some-
thing for British cotton-spinners.
Mr. EWART thought the Government ought to
settle the question one way or another. To leave our
colonial interests in a state of doubt was exceedingly

unjust.
Mr. T. BARING said if the necessity of repealing or
relaxing the navigation-laws was to be tested by prices,
be could only remark that the price of cotton was at
present very low in England. He felt that to admit the
Havre cotton in the mode proposed would only be to get
rid of the navigation-laws by a side wind.—(Hear.)