The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-01 00:00:00

place, neither the Attorney nor the Solicitor-General
were present either during the debate or the division.
They had characters as lawyers to lose, and they
did not like to risk those characters by arguing against
the legality of these claims ; although the Judge-Advo-
cate, Mr. STUART WORTLEY, was present and voted in
the minority, he, too, felt that it would not be quite
safe to argue against Mr. WATSON'S view of inter-
national law, and therefore it was left to the Secretary of
the Treasury, Mr. CARDWELL, to reply to Mr. WATSON.
Mr. CARDWELL made the best fight he could, but in
order to support anything like a show of argument, he
was obliged to assume many things contrary to fact
(such, for instance, as that the claimants had suffered
their claims to remain dormant for thirty
years, when a reference to the records of his
own office would have shown him that, year
after year, these unfortunate persons had urged this
claim at the Treasury from the time when it first ac-
crued up to the present moment) to leave out of view
entirely many known and public transactions (such, for
instance, as the convention with Denmark of September
over-riding, as it does, the previous declaration of Den-
mark in August), and after all it was evident
he argued the question solely as a point of
official duty, and that he would have been glad to have
been spared the task imposed upon him. Not so, how-
ever, Mr. F. BARING, the only Member not connected
with office, who, in the course of the debate, spoke
against the claims. It was evident from the eager manner
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, that he had not
forgotten that the prelude to the downfal of his Ad-
ministration was the majority against him on this very
question in 1841, and it appeared almost as if he had
never forgiven the claimants for having beaten him
on that occasion. Mr. F. BARING came for-
ward as a volunteer to the assistance of Mr. CARD-
WELL, and officiating as a sort of amateur and very un-
learned Solicitor-General, by his argument—

if Made that darker
Which was dark enough without."

When it is recollected that both the ATTORNEY and
SOLICITOR-GENERAL had, on former occasions, given
opinions favourable to the claimants, and that
they were both absent on the present occa-
sion, we think it must be admitted that the silence
of the law officers of the Crown is much more effective
than the eloquence of Mr. F. BARING, and that there
can be no doubt that these claims are as wall
founded in law as they are in equity and in
justice The last Ministry refused to carry into
effect the clearly expressed opinions of the
last House of Commons in favour of these claimants.
In three months that Ministry was out of office. We
hope the present Ministry will not follow their example.

This is indeed a remarkable session of Parliament,
distinguished for the sound principles of commercial
policy, which, broughtforward by the Government, have
been received with the greatest delight by the large
majority of our legislators, and of the country at large,
distinguished too for the enlightened spirit of liberality
and tolerance which has directed the attention of Mem-
bers of our Senate to the removal of the last remnants of
intolerance, the abominable and vexatious penal
laws by which our statute-book has so long
been defaced, and the existence of which
has even been the great blot on the British
escutcheon, and also for the impious spirit manifested
by the general body in the reception of, and the tone in
which, the several measures have been discussed on their
introduction. The LORD CHANCELLOR last night moved
the second reading of the Religious Opinions Relief Bill,
a measure which may be termed an Act of universal
toleration, sweeping away no less than thirty different
statutes, by which persons of every shade,
variety, and sect were oppressed, by which
the member of the Established Church, the
Dissenter, the Roman Catholic, and the Jew, is
affected, and it is impossible to say which is deserving of
the highest praise—the intrinsic excellence of the mea-
sure itself, or the tone of high-minded liberality which
ran through the entire speech in which it was intro-
duced to the notice of the House. The existence of such
atrocious and pernicious enactments in the nineteenth
century is scarcely credible ; true it is, that they had
been suffered to slumber for many years, and might
be considered as almost obsolete. Yet, as Lord
BROUGHAM well remarked, " they were not with-
out a pernicious vitality, and might be put
into activity at any moment."; A remarkable in-
stance of this was mentioned as having occurred so
late as the year 1841, and in which we are at a loss to
express our wonder at the audacity of the magistrates
by whom such a law was attempted to be enforced, and
how they contrived to escape the consequences of the
overwhelming flood of popular indignation to which the
outrage on every principle of justice, of which they had
been guilty, must have given rise. According to the
statement of the Noble and Learned Lord (Baoticuem),
in that year, certain persons were taken up and
brought before those most excellent justices on a charge
of poaching, which could not be substantiated; the men
were therefore acquitted, and about to be discharged,
when a brilliant thought flashed on the mind of one of
their judges. He asks, Were you at church last Sunday?
No, answered the defendants, or the Sunday be fore that
either, and forthwith they are convicted on their own
admission, and punished, not for the crime for which
they had been apprehended, and with which they were
charged, not as poachers, but as recusants. The
case is scarcely conceivable, and yet, were it
not the fact, it would hardly be mentioned
gravely in the House of Lords as one which had
actually occurred. Most assuredly truth is stronger
than fiction ; the only parallel we have heard is a story,
some time since facetiously told by Mr. O'CONNELL, of
an Irish jury, who, shortly after the insurrection of
1798, and when an amnesty had been proclaimed for
every offence, save that of murder, were trying
a prisoner charged with that offence ; a strong
case had been made out, and all were look-
ing for a conviction, when the prisoner pro-
duced, as his witness, the man alleged to have been
murdered, and for whose assassination he was then
actually on. trial. The proceeding was, of course, in-
stantly stopped. The judge said it is unnecessary to
say one word ; the prisoner has rebutted the charge in
the most satisfactory manner; the issue paper was handed
up, and, to the astonishment of all, a verdict of guilty
was returned. The judge was astounded, asked was it
possible they could understand the decision they had
come to—was it not a mistake ? No, my Lord,
said the foreman, with a self-satisfied smile, it is quite
correct ; he might not have murdered that particular
man, but I can assure your Lordship that he stole a
very handsome bay mare from myself, and we all knew
that he most richly deserved to be hanged, and we,
therefore, find him guilty. And this good story, at
which many a hearty laugh was provoked at the ex-
pense of the blundering of our Irish brethren, is
actually equalled, if not surpassed, by educated gentle.
men magistrates in England, who more than forty
years afterwards adopted a similar course, and with this
in addition, that they were filling the situation both of
judge and jury, and that there was no presiding officer to
correct their error.

The earliest of these statutes now proposed to be re-
pealed was passed so far back as the reign of HENRY
and, as well as other of the earlier enactments, was
levied exclusively against the Jews. By it no mem-
ber of the Jewish persuasion was permitted to
hold lands within the realm. It is true that
doubts existed, that many eminent lawyers con-
ceived that there was nothing in the law which in •
capacitated Jews from holding land ; but why should
any obscurity exist on such a subject ? The law should
ever be clear and explicit, to be understood by the
meanest capacity, that "he who runs may read ;" and
no question should be permitted for the refinement of
legal subtleties,where the same could so easily be amended;
above
all, no remnant of bigotry and intolerance should
be permitted to remain a part of our law. Another sta-
tute requires the wearing of a badge denoting Judaism,
and prescribes the form of that badge for males as well
as females. Such an Act might suit the times when a
Jew could not appear in public without being subjected
to the grossest indignities—being spat upon, and buf-
feted, and his beard plucked—but is not suited to the
present era. By some statutes any person attending
any place of worship different from the Established
Church was subjected, for the first offence, to six months'
imprisonment, and for the second to twelve months',
and for the third, to imprisonment for life. Any mem-
ber even of the Eastablished Church, who attended any
other form of religious worship, was subjected to severe
pecuniary penalties and to ecclesiastical censure; nay,
though his parish clergyman was a man of a character
so depraved that he could not conscientiously sit under
his ministry—although he attended religious worship
according to the forms of the Established religion
twice, nay thrice, on every Sunday, if he did not
,
attend his own parish church, he was liable to the
Penalty. Again, see the penalties to which our Roman
Catholic brethren are subjected. Whoever maintains
the spiritual authority of the see of Rome, forfeits for
the first offence his entire personal property ; for the
second, incurs the penalties of preeminure, shall be
placed out of the protection of the law ; and for
the third is
wilt of hi treason ! ! They most
conscientiouslyg h this gh
opinion. A declaration,
OT y
old
rather an oath, against it, has been long
abolished, in order to permit them to sit in Parliament,
and yet the penalties are still permitted to remain to