The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-24 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair at twenty minutes
past five.
Sir E. KN AT C HBULL presented several peti-
tions from places in Kent, in support of the Esta-
blished Church.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
On the question that they do lie on the table—
Col. WILLIAMS rose and said he thought he was
perfectly in order, in bringing forward a complaint
of a breach of the privileges of that house, which had
occurred that morning. On coming down to the
house he had been interrupted, and prevented by troops
and police, who lined the different avenues to
the house. He had endeavoured to get through the
soldiers, but was prevented, and he had then pro-
ceeded beyond the door of the house, supposing there
would be no obstruction there, but not finding
that to be the case he had returned along the line at
the rear of the troops, and finding no other means of en-
tering the house he attempted to pass through the police.
In doing so he was told by the police that he should not
pass. He told them his name, and that he was a mem-
ber of the House of Commons ; the answer of the
police was, " It does not signify, you cannot pass
here." ( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") This created
some disturbance, and called the attention of one
of the superintendents, and on his (Colonel W.)
repeating what he was, he superintendent said, "___-
_cer-
tainly he must cross." He ( Colonel NV il
liams) could not help thinking that it was an
obstruction, which should not be allowed, that
the principal avenues to that house should
at any time be lined with' troops, or that the members
should be obliged to come to their duty through bristles
of bayonets ( Criesof " Oh, oh"), and in avoiding these,
to be stopt by the truncheons of the police. The occasion
for which this army of troops was drawn out was well
known ; he thought the troops were called out
much too often, and he would remind the

Lord HO WICK regretted that the )10. member
for Coventry had experienced any inconvenience,
but at the same time he thought that those persons
who were responsible for ,the management of the
police force had reason to complain. ( Hear, hear.)
If, instead of bringing forward such a formal
complaint, the hon. member had preferred his
complaint to those persons. (Loud cries of " No.")
Hon. members might say " No," but the house, he
was sure, would agree with him. ( Loud cries of" No.")
This might be a case of . individual misconduct,
and in so large and numerous a force, he was sure the
house would agree with him, and the members of the
committee upon that force would more particularly agree
with him, that there was every disposition on the part
of the inspectors of that force, as far as possible to
check, in the most decided manner, every possible
base of misconduct. When this case was brought
under the attention of the house, hon. members had
not the power of learning►, at the moment, what might
be said on the other side. If the hon. member for
Coventry had furnished him (Lord Howick) with the
particulars of his complaint, he (Lord Howick)
would have made a point of learning what might
have been alleged on the other side. ( Hear, hear.)
He thought it would save the time of the house, and
would be more satisfactory to the members of that house
if the hon. member had made his complaint to the
Commissioners of Police, by whom at the moment, it
would have been investigated, and if there had been
any misconduct, it would have been discovered,
and the individual who was guilty would be at once
dismissed. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Oh.") With
respect to any inconvenience that might have
been suffered today, he (Lord HOwick) had
been in the place alluded to by the hon. member
only a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes after the
King had arrived, and he (Lord Howick) had
not found the slightest difficulty in getting into
the house. He regretted that any hon. member had
suffered in consequence, and he should take care that
the matt& should be strictly inquired into.
Mr. H. BULWER, in explanation, said that he
was not the member who had brought this complaint
forwards, he had merely stated what he had himself
seen. He did not think it becoming the dignity
of a member of that house to go hunting after the
noble lord opposite when he had a complaint to make
which was not of a personal nature, but very nearly
touched the character and dignity of the house itself.
(Loud cries of " Hear.")

Mr. WARBURTON' said he came down to the
house about ten minutes before the King went to the
Abbey, but, like the noble lord, he met with no
opposition. However, the positive evidence of two
individuals would not contradict a negative. He
recollected that a noble lord on a levee day met with
interruption in Pall Mall, and made that a matter of
complaint to the house. In his opinion the proper
place to make such complaints was in that house,
and in the presence of the Speaker, who
was the proper guardian of the privileges of the house.
( Bear, hear. )
ott Mr. O'C 0 NNEL L did not think hon. members
should be sent to apply to public constables or any police
authorities. The Speaker was the fit person to appeal
to. ( Hear.) Were hon. members to be interrupted
in their duty because it was thought proper to open a
music shop over the way. (Laughter, and cries of
" Order.") _ .

"""An HON. MEMBER—It is a ceremony.
mos
Mr. O'CONNELL—I don't care for that. It was
no ceremony necessary to tae State. It was no royal
prerogative ; if it had been, they would readily have
honoured it, while they preserved their own privileges at
the same time. Hon. members were not to be running
after police commissioners, however well paid, to make
their complaints. If the privileges of the house had
been broken in upon, they were to be vindicated,by;the
Speaker, and hon. members were not to turn round
to any body else, whatever their office or rank.
The SPEAKER rose and said, that as he
had been appealed to, he felt it necessary
to make a few observations to the house. He would
premise that he was quite sure the hon, and learned
gentleman did not wish him to give an opinion on his
case. The hon. and learned member had distinctly
stated what every one would subscribe to, that the
privileges of the house should be maintained by the
house. The Speaker was the servant of the house,
and if the honourable member did not choose
to take a different course in making his appeal to
the house, it would certainly have become his
duty as the Speaker to bring the matter before
the house ; but as to preserving their own
privileges, it had never yet been the practice to throw
so heavy a burden upon the Speaker in addition to his
other duties. The hon. member, no doubt,adverted to the
sessional order for keeping the avenues of the house clear,
and that was the duty of the high constable. ( Hear.)
With respect to anv act by which the liberty
and privileges of the hon. members were infringed,
upon, either accidentally or intentionally, it seemed to
be certainly a fit subject for inquiry, which no doubt
the hon. member would be able to effect.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there could be no
doubt that if any member's privilege had been in-
fringed, he had a full right to bring it before the house.
The only question was, what course thehon. gentleman
would think it right to pursue. From what had been
stated no doubt some police officers had interrupted
the progress of some members of the house. The
inquiry then would probably have to be, whether
that had been done by officers totally unacquainted
with their duties, or from an intention gravely to in-
fringe on the privileges of the house. Whatever
course might be adopted he thought the ho-
nourable gentleman would in all probability refrain
from making any motion until a statement could be
made of what the circumstances attending the
obstruction were. (Hear, hear.) If it arose from
mere ignorance, the hon. gentleman would take
the course which would seem right to him against
those who had ignorantly offended. If, on the other
hand, the obstruction had arisen from intention, it
would certainly be right that the house should take
some step on the occasion.
Mr. ROBINSON did not think the house had
entertained the question as it ought. He him-
self had experienced great obstruction on his
way to the house, not by the police, but by the ,
soldiery. The police he had found on this, as on
all other occasions, most respectful. ( Hear, hear.)
There was, however, a file of soldiers on each side
of the road opposite the House of Commons, which
was impenetrable. If the way from Bridge-street
had been left entirely to the police, he was sure
that no grounds of complaint would have existed.
When he applied to the police to assist him they ex-
pressed their willingness to do so, but neither they
nor he had been able to penetrate through the soldiery.
Mr. BULWER did not think there had been any
intentional obstruction, but he thought that steps
ought to be taken to prevent intentional obstruction
hereafter. He felt disposed to withdraw his motion.
An HON. MEMBER stated that on coming down to
the house in his carriage he had experienced obstruc-
struction, but, on stating that he was a member of
Parliament, and on his way to the house, an opening
was made, and he was allowed to pass along without
further obstruction.
Colonel WILLIAMS said that as hon. members
had stated they had experienced no obstruction,
it seemed it was to be inferred that he had
not been obstructed. He had stated minutely
the facts. He had stated the progress upwards and
downwards, and detailed the outrage that had been
committed upon him. He saw no occasion whatever
for having any street in this town or country, much
less the great avenues leading to Parliament, lined
with bayonets. ( Loud cheers.)
Lord HOWICK acknowledged the truth of what
had been said by the hon. and gallant colonel, for he
had paid some attention to the complaint of

In answer to questions by Sir C. BURRELL,
Mr. SPRING RICE said that Mr. Walker was at
present collector of customs at that port. With re-
spect -to the second question, he understood that
charges had been brought against that gentleman in
1825, he thought, in conclusion, thas no objection
would be made to the production of the Treasury mi-
nute, or any other papers called for.
Sir CH ARLES BU RR EL L said that the charges
against that gentleman had been of a very serious
nature; and he begged to give notice, that on Wednes-
day next he should move for a copy of the Treasury
Minute of December 1825, containing the charges
against Mr. Walker when acting as Government agent
at Berbice. -
The ATTORNEY-GENELAL in answer to a
question, said that he intended that the bill for the al-
teration of the law of real and copyhold property should
be printed and circulated this session, and would be
proceded with as early as possible next session.
Sir J. SCA RLEtT, at the suggestion of Mr. S.
Rice, postponed his motion respecting the affair of
Tripoli.

Mr. LITTLETON, in answer to a question
from Mr. Herries said that he was extremely anxious
to proeed with the Irish Tithe Commutation Bill
that night, if honourable members who had prece-
dence tyould allow him to do so.

Mr. WART said he did not think he would be
justified in postponing his motion.
DISTRESS IN IRELAND.

Mr. SIIE IL asked the Secretary for Ireland whether
he was' aware that in the South of Ireland, particu-
larly in the county of Tipperary, there was extreme
distress. He could state that in several districts of
that county the distress approached to actual famine.

Mr. LITTLETON said he was not aware that dis-
tress existed to the- extreme stated. He was aware
that a considefahle increase had taken place in the
price of food ; but he did not Clink there
was any reason to dread a general famine.
Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. O'REILLY bore testimony
to the extreme distress that existed in various parts of
Ireland.

Mr. ENVART then rose to bring forward his /no-
thin, and was speaking when we went to press.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE (THIS I3AY.)

(FTIOM IVIYS )
DEAL, JUNE 23.—Wind S.W., light breeze.—Passed
by Eliza, from the westward, for London. Arrived from
river and remains the Faith, Jackson, for St. Kitt's.
PORTSMOUTH, JUNE 23.—Wind W.—Passed by the
Alexander, Waugh, from Calcutta.
PLYMOUTH, JUNE 22.—Wind W.—Passed by the
Louise, Duhantilly, from Mauritius ' • and Charles Kers-
well, Wells, from the Cape of Good Hope. Off port the
Esther, Clarkson, from Sydney ; and Surrey, Veale, from
Van Diemen's Land.
FALMOUTH, JUNE 22. —Wind W. N. W. , fresh breezes.
—Arrived the Betsey, Knelm, from Pernambuco ; and
Minerva, Kechler, from Jacmel.
DARTMOUTH, JUNE 23.—Arrived off port the Min-
dingo, Burgess, from Jamaica.
from,
Sydney; from Van Diemen's Land ; Royal Admiral,
PoRTLAND, JUNE 23.—Arrived off port the Louisa,
Seraud, from Trieste.
HASTINGS, JUNE 23.—Arrived off port the William,
Hodnett, from St. Vincent's; and Charles, Milne, from
Tobago.
ISLE OF WIGHT, JUNE 23.—Arrived the Sir John Rae
and Cuxhaven, Windt, from Savannah.
Cowls, JUNE 23.—Arrived the Emperor Alexander,
Hurst, from Batavia ; Jones, Ingersoll, from Rio Janeiro ;
and Nordlvsits, Haaseroop, from Rio Grande.
DOVER, JU NE 23. —Arrived off port the Frederick Huth,
Turner, from Lima.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, June 23.
JEWS' RELIEF BILL.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER then rose to move
r the second reading of the Jews' Relief Bill. The noble
marquis prefaced his motion with several remarks ; but,
owing to the indistinct manner in which he spoke, we were
rarely able to catch their purport. Nothing but the vexa-
tion and disappointment he had felt at his noble friend
having declined to bring forward the question had induced
him to undertake it. The object of the bill was to give to
the Jews the same civil privileges as were enjoyed by other
subjects. One objection to the bill was that Jews ought
not to be- allowed to legislate for Christians, but that was
surely a chimerical objection, there being so few Jews.
Ile quarrelled with no man for his• religious opinions; ,he
hoped he never should, and he thought the principle ought
to be generally adopted. lie contended that the Jews
were not inimical either to the' established religion or the
government of the country, and in support of his assertion
he quoted from the writings of a Jewish rabbi declaring
that such conduct and proselytism were foreign to the
Jewish doctrines. As the law at present stood it presented
an obstacle to the conversion of the Jews, whereas were
they emancipated that difficulty, and an important one it
was, would be removed. The noble lord, after a few fur-
ther observations, in which he introduced a quotation from
Jeremy Taylor in support of his motion, all of which were
inaudible, concluded by moving that the bill be read a
second time.

Ou the motion having been put from the woolsack,
The Earl of MALMESBURY rose to oppose the
second reading. He opposed the bill because of the great
inconveniences that would result from it, and of the vio-
lence it would offer to the scruples of many, of himself
among others. He thought that the present bill would,
while it conferred no benefit on the Jews, or tended to the
better discharge of the business of the Parliament, have a
tendency to alarm the apprehensions of many supporters of
the Protestant establishment throughout the country.
There were two strong objections to the measure. The
first was, that it would be thought extraordinary by the
country if the legislature, to whom the people were accus-
tomed.to look up with deference and esteem, were to admit
within their body a class of men who considered the
Saviour as an imposter, especially when that legislature
was considered a Christian assembly, taking the gospel for
the basis of all their legislative measures. The arguments
advanced in favour of the Catholics and Dissenters could
not be advanced in support of the present bill. The
Catholics and Dissenters were placed in a materially dif-
ferent position from the Jews, for, though they did not
exactly assent to the professed doctrines, formalities, and
discipline of the Established Church, yet they were Chris-
tians, believing. in most of the great essentials of Chris-
tianity, and in a divine mission. He could not, then, give
his sanction to a measure that would tend to strip the legis-
lature of -its Christian character, and make if a medley of
belieVers and unbelievers. He had a second objection.
The faith of the Christians was confirmed by the existence
of that extraordinary people, cut away froul the rest of

mankind by the fiat of heaven, and scattered over the earth
without a locality or a home. ( Hear, hear.) People so
marked out by the Almighty as evidence of the truth of
Christianity he did not think fit to be admitted within the
legislature of a Christian country. The Jews, too, from
{ their habits and their peculiar predilections, should be held
inadmissible. Their singular appetency for the acquisifon
of money, and the harsh use they made of the power that
acquisition gave them, should in the estimation of every
• fair and deliberate reasoner on questions of legislative ex-
pediency operate as a strong -disqualification. (Hear. 1
To use a solitary illustration out of many, in Poland they
contrived to secure mortgages on most of the property of the
country, and, by the facilities those gave them, to buyupin
times of scarcity most of the corn of the country, and so,
by shipping it off to foreign ports, to aggravate the distress
of the people, while they were realizing large properties
for themselves. Most of the calamities that for a long
series of years had fallen on that country were attributable
to the Jews, who had contrived to possess themselves of
the greatest pertion o' the property of the country. (Hear,
hear.) Poland was, no doubt, a wretched country ; but
its wretchedness could be ultimately traced to the influence
of the Jews. They were not a class of people whose oc-
cupations were similar to those of other people ; and
neither should their claims be taken into the same ac-
count. They were never seen at the plough or the loom,
or ascending the ladder, or engaged iu any laborious
mechanical occupation. They were, too, a people,
and that fact was worthy of- the consideration of an
assembly of Christian legislators," especially marked
out by Providence as deprived of the: privileges and
p;iwer of other people.. The Jews were not no* suf-
fering the same persecutions or deprivations that they
formerly suffered; there were now no burnings, no muti-
lations, no proscriptions; they enjoyed the same privi-
leges and immunitiesas other British subjects, so far as
regarded the security of life and property. Besides all
that, they did not in a body demand further concession.
On the contrary, they were generally contented with their
present privileges. -Ninety-nine out of every hundred
would, he was persuaded, prefer` to be left as they were.
(Hear.) If the bill passed there would be Jews in Par-
liament. Suppose there were among them men of talent.,
erudition, and ambition, as it. was likely there would be,
and that by concert among themselves or a junction with
other parties they might procure the election of a Jewish
Speaker, then let their lordships look at the consequences
of that event. Not to speak of the influence that event
would give them, suppose, as was lately the case, that the
House of Commons sat on Saturday, the Speaker would
be prevented by the doctrines of his. religion from pre-
siding. He could not, in fact, act.. Their lordships had
heard much of late of the observance of the Sabbath Bill
(though on that point he would incidentally observe that
it was one which it would be much better to leave to
every man's own conscience), and, if it were introduced
into the House of Commons containing an intermixture
of Jews, those persons would be bound by their religious
scruples to oppose any interference on the subject : they
could not have two Sabbaths. (Hear, hear.) But he
would.go farther, for the present principle had necessarily
an ulterior .tendency, and ask how, if they admitted Jews,
could they refuse Mahoinetans? (Hear, hear.) Once
unchristianize Parliament, and there was no limit to con-
cession. (Cheers.) If they admitted the Jews, in com-
mon justice and consistency they should admit Mahometans.
The Earl of WINCHIL SEA felt bound as a Christian
and a member of that house to oppose the bill. He re-
gretted that the noble marquis took so narrow and isolated
a view of the measure, and did not consider the character,
the situation, and the aim of the parties who were the ac-
tive moverseaf the question. If the noble marquis looked
to the real designs of those partieS.--if he considered that
they had other views than an 'abstract love of toleration or
of justice—he would no doubt pause before he lent himself
to those designs. (Cheers.) That was not a question
purely Jewish, for it did not emanate from the great body
of that, people. The fact was, that the really religious
portion of that community were utterly indifferent ; and
he stated a notorious truth, about the question. (Loud,
cries of " Hear.") The question was got up and pushed
forward by individuals of different religions, and for ul-
terior aims, beyond the simple act of extending toleration.
The noble marquis said that he had heard no argument
against the measure. But he (Lord Winchilsea)
would confidently say ,thatt,he
.heard no argument for it,
either from the noble marquis now, or from- any other
at any. other time. (Hear, and a laugh.) The noble
marquis said there were but few Jews in the country, and
that no apprehension could be entertained from the ex-
tension of further privilege to them. But their number
was not what was to be taken into consideration so much
as their influence, and the consequences that would flow
from it, together with the precedent that would be.
laid down for further inroads on the constitution. Chris-
tianity was a part of the law of the country, for the law
was founded on Christianity, said emanated from it,
while at the same time it was calculated to support it.
He should be sorry to see the house deviate from the
principles of Christianity. What respect could the coun-
try have for the house if it swerved from Christianity,
and disregarded that power and that institution for which
the people offered up their prayers? Ile was not in-
fluenced by any hostile feeling to 'the Jews, for if they
had not the full enjoyment of property and liberty, no
one would be more disposed to give them the fullest
toleration on that head than he would. But it was a
very different thing to support a measure that would
unchristianize the country. (Hear, hear.) He for one
would not lend himself to a pirty (and he was sure the
noble marquis, if he were aware of the real objecti of
that party, would not lend himself to them) whose de-
sign was to impose on well-meaning- men. Considering
that the objects of that party were sinister and decep-
tive—that the present bill was not called for by the
great body of the Jews in this country—that it was
calculated to sap those Christian foundations on which
our institutions and our whole system of legislation
rested, he would give it his decided opposition.
Lord BEXLEY, who spoke from the cross benches,
in a tone quite inaudible in the gallery, supported the bill.
The Earl of MALMESBURY explained. He said
that Poland was a Jew-ridden country, and that the
power of the Jews there was exercised to its detriment.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY rose to oppose
the bill. He was sorry that the present bill was brought
on after the decision so lately" come to on the question.
The house having negatived a similarproposition, he hoped
the question would be suffered to rest for years. The noble
marquis dwelt much on certain objections raised against
the bill. But many of those objections had no weight with
him. He objected to the bill on a principle of conscience,
and on the ground of religious scruples. (Cheers.) This
was a Christian country ; the legislature was Christian,
and it would bedegraded in the eyes of the country if the
people saw measures relating to the vital interests of our in-
stitutions and of the church, one of the Most venerated and
essential of our institutions, passed by persons who were
not Christians. Persons who were not Christians were not
fit to pass laws for a Christian country. The laws of the
country were founded on Christianity ; all acts of 'the le-
gislature should be regulated by that principle ; and no act
should be opposed to it. Those who supported the admis-
sion of the Jews to the Parliament of the country could
not understand Christianity, at least they could not be said
to support Chri4ianity. (Hear, hear.) Parliament be-
fore removed the disabilities of the Dissenters and the Ca-
tholics, and by the removal of those disabilities the legisla-
ture ceased to be Protestant. But it did not follow that
because the disabilities of certain sects of- Christians were
abolished the house should now consider (and 'during the
discussion on those claims it was never said that Pasha-.
ment should consider) that it was to go forth and make
men who were not Christians participators in the privileges
extended to those Christian sects. ( Hear.) The arguments
advanced in support of the Catholics and Dissenters were
not at all applicable to the Jews. (Hear, hear.) When
the Jews conscientiously disbelieved Christianity, and ac-
cording as they were conscientious unbelievers they were
the more determined enemies, he (the Archbishop of Can.
terbury) could not conceive on what principle of expedi-
ency or justice they could be admitte&into a Christian le-
gislature. The Catholics might have scruples, the Dissen-
ters might have scruples, on certain points of doctrine or
discipline ; but the arguments "founded on the admission of
the Catholics and Dissenters into a Protestant Legislature,
notwithstanding these scruples, could not apply to the ad-
mission of the Jews, who did not entertain scruples of that
nature, but disbelieved the great essentials of Christianity
and were hostile to our whole scheme of religion. (Hear,
hear.) The noble marquis had failed to bring forward
one tangible or solid argument in favour of his motion.
On what grounds could noble lords justify the advocacy of the
bill. If they could show that it was an'act of justice there
was an end of the proceedings. Could they maintain their
advocacy by any law of the land—by any proceeding of
Parliament? Could they rest it on any necessity, or even
expediency? 'Where was the advantage—where the "Cui
bono?" (Cheers.) It was said as a reason for granting
the claims of the Catholics that from the numbers, the in-
telligence, the unanimity, and determination of that body,
it would be dangerous to refuse the concession of their
claims, and many supported that concession on the ground
of State expediency, if not necessity. But could that ar-
gument be advanced in the present case? Surely there
was no danger in refusing the claims of the Jews, and
no good was pointed out by conceding them. Their
number was not great, and- they _Were not united in
seeking for this new privilege. = ear.) Believing, as
he firmly did, that the blessing of heaven rested on this
country while it continued Christian;he could not be sup-
posed bigotted or superstitious if he' opposed the admission

•
,‘,o‘iV/
itiiinlste;gati,t,;go;tlo4,iniaitgiesuttitei(d:l:lljonttala,iyvr3the,.7tiht.:o7relar4r,:t..! / 2 t
were,tretye dd did not
tseyn
possessed
o m the
pl 5' o fthe of
vanoi :thfr
, antieocno
junleditsslrsepeodsna'utrhtlaltoiatn:tinChoPentrnrh:it;P:m-tenigwaesnohitLfcr
oar ystray'
The Jews did not labour under ally 'Cc - 'al or:At_sltio
of property or liberty. They we • oaq :iwed to"46.ett
their attention .to any one pursui rtis 10dgfillt ex-
posed to the severities they were formerly exposed to in
this coun‘ry, and were new exposed to in other countries.
The bill then could be no advantage to them. (Mar.)
If then the bill were no gain to them—if they were no
unanimous in taking this boon—and that was a considera-
tion their lordships should never lose sight of—it was much
,setter to leave them to their quiet occupations, and, under
the tari;jngs of that Providence which extended its pro-
tection over tiitarri, better leave them to their peculiar desti-
nies, and that condition in which Heaven placed them.
That VVis a course which would involve no disregard for
religion, and french on none of our existing institutional
and one that ittinld not affect the principles of civil free,
dom. (Cheers.) If emincipatie;.• of tha- Jews conveyed
the idea of slavery, that 'vas not a fair assumption. They'
laboured under no more disabilities than the clergy of the
kingdoin, They were perfectly fret, and there was neit&zr
reason nor pcilicy in granting them new power. (rfear.l
The right reverend prelate expressed, in conclusion, his
decided opposition to the bill.
The Earl of RADNOR said the right rev. prelate asked
what good could it do to grant the claims of the. Jews, and
said, that if they were numerous and powerful, he would
;rive way. The answer was, that the good was in doing
justice to a loyal body of men; and as they were neither
numerous nor powerful, no danger could result from grant-
:Jig their claims. He (Lord Radnor) would grant these
elaimS on the principle of Christian charity, for he read
'the gospel with different feelings from his noble friend op-
posite, though he gave him credit for his religious scruples.
His noble friend should recollect the parable of the good
Samaritan, and the injunction of our Saviour, " Go thou
and do likewise." Thev would not surely be less Chrktian
by admitting Jews to Peliatamt. The Babylonians were
not less Babylonians latte 4-. Daniel held a high office
among theta, Hit noble :IChend aid the Jews were &
standing miracle, and he would theiefore exclude them ;
but their admission to the legislature would not render
them less a standing miracle-. It was said Christianity was
a part of the law of the land. ,No doubt there were acts
of Parliament about the church ail the liturgy ; but how
was Christianity connected with laits relating to the army
and navy ? was said the Jews were already io, possession
of legislative
privileges.legiisnlatk-reliamt.ntabo hpaetticremnsinidnedAhinimeriocaf ancornmpbleaiinngt
represented. An hon. membet got up andssaid that, they
were represented by the member for Kent, for they were
a part of the parish of Greenwich. (hear, and-a laugh. )
If there was any danger to the church tube apprehended
from giving power to the Jews, that danger existed al-
ready, for they could now vote for parish aces, and-even
for a Christian vicar.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY explained.
The Marquis of WESTMEATiI said he had net in,
tended to say a word on this subject, and he should now
only trouble their lordships with one or two observations.
He did not think that there was much of Christian charity
about which so much had been said by the supporters of
this measure, in doing any thing that would have the ef-
fect of unchristianizing parliament. In opposing the pre-
sent bill, he wished it to be understood that' he did not
do so from any unkindly feeling towards .the class of per-
sons to whom it referred, and indeed in the vote he should •
give he felt that he should only be acting in accordance
with the wish of all orthodox Jews; for he was convinced
that they themselves did not desire the advantages which
this bill intended-for them. -
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER having shortly re-
plied, a division took place, when the numbers were—
Contents—Present 24
Proxies
—36
50
—l3O
Majority against the second reading of the bill --92
The house then adjourned.
•

Non-Ccintents--Present
Proxies

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 23.
IRISH TITHE BILL.

. .
Mr. O'CONNELL'S speech, concluded from our Second
Edition of last night.
Government is now turning out with its land tax, and call-
ing upon horse and foot, artillery, and marines, to sup-
port it. Why does it advance in this -way to the aid of-the
church ? Has it not done enough already for the church ?
Prior to the reformation there did not exist a single statute
for the collection of tithes. The temporal power never in-
terposed. In the reign of Henry- the Eighth, acts-were
passed on the subject l and in the whole, before the uniou,
there were thirty-one statutes to enforce the payment of
tithes. From the union to the present day, there have been
eleven making a total of forty-twolitatute-s on behalf .or
the church. Ought not the fact that, after the passing of
forty-two statutes, tithes are not as well paid as when no
statute at all existed to make some impression ? Looking
at the history of our country, and at the nature of man,
ought not that single fact to be decisive of the question?
You have forty-two statutes to compel the payment of
tithes, and tithes are still unpaid. Before the reign of
Henry VIII. there was a combination and a union between
the people and the clergy : -the clergy were the clergy of
the people ; the people got a value for their tithes, and
they paid them freely as wages for services rendered. Is
that so now? I ask any man is that so now ? You have
issued a commission--a sort of roving, cruising commission,
to obtain information, to inquire into the Lord knows
what, and to obtain answers the Lord knows when. Dis-
turbances have prevailed, and will continue to prevail, and
this servile war will rage with more and more intensity until
we have arrived at the dull and sullen period when the de-
termination to resist the payment of them shall become fixed.
I do not like to be recounting these things, but it is my
duty to do so ; and there is a great deal more which it is
my duty to say that I do not choose to allude to even
in passing, lest may be thought to entertain a wish to re-
vive the feuds between the different sects ; but this I am
bound to say that the dreary stories of blood and crime
which blot the annals of Ireland arc mainly owing to the
forcing the Established Church upon the people of Ireland.
I will concede that the Protestant religion is better than
the Catholic--I will concede it by way of argument—God
knows, I do not think it so, for if I did I should not be t
Roman Catholic—but I will concede it for the sake of ar-
gument, and I ask every one who hears- me whether the
Protestant Church in Ireland was not mixed with blood
and crime, and fed with the tears and misery of the people
during a struggle of 300 years ? haying now conceded
for the sake of, argument that the Protestant Church is
better than the Catholic, I look only to the temporalities of
that church--and without going through it stage by stage,
one hurries through it more quickly. But let me ask why
the treaty of Limerick was not complied with ? But I will
not ask such questions, for I have one fact to state—and let
it be said or not that the Irish are carried away by the
miserable deception of juggling priests. I have this fact—
that it was the attempt to establish Protestantism in Ire-
land, which has created the misery and wretchedness of
that miserable country. I come now to the house, and
I implore the rational and thinking portion of the English
and .Scotch gentry to take into - their real and serious
consideration the state of the Irish Church. I im-
plore them to consider if it ought not to be shorn-of
the powers which it so long has held of scrambling for
property—a power which has had such disastrous conse-
quences. I call upon them to say whether the people of
Ireland should not at last beconsidered, and measures taken
to procure them peace and contentment • When the sub-
ject was before the house on a former occasion, the right
hon. gentleman who lately filled the office of Secretary for
the Colonies and I commenced the discussion of it with
feelings of asperity. If he had remained in office I should
not now allude to that,.but I will now ask him if I did not
then lay aside all feelings of a personal nature ? ( Hear,
hear.) I will ask him if I did not throw myself upon the
house with the view, the sole object, of getting a sound
and practicable measure for the pacification of Ireland? I
then stated, as I now state, that the legislature had
pledged itself, by its address to the throne on the occa-
sion of the rejection of my motion for the repeal of the
union, to do something for Ireland by way of compensa-
tion for the loss of that motion. I then said that the
house was pledged to listen to the great complaints of
Ireland, and to give them a practical relief. (Hear, hear. )
No one was more ready at that time than the noble
lord to acknowledge that tithes were in Ireland a sub-
ject of great complaint. I took that admission, and I .
then threw myself on the consideration of the house,
and I called on you to put that pledge practically into
effect. (Hear.) I called on you to show that your
pledge was not merely the verbiage of triumph—that it was
garbage thrown to slaves by the anti-repealers. ( Hear.) I
called for a diminution of the amount to be levied as tithes,
and how am I now answered ? There is not one word
said in this bill of diminution—no ! five years must elapse
before one farthing will be taken off. At this time, when
Ireland is in a state of agitation—when her political fever
is hot upon her—the remedy is to be postponed—five years
are to elapse before the slightest application is to be made
for her relief. (Cheers.) I did at that time venture to
mention a plan, suggested to me by an hon. friend behind
me, for the reduction of the amount of tithes, which I
thought would be available. I will not repeat- it at pre-
sent, for it is needless to do so ; suffice it to say, that the
King's ministers have rejected it. They have brought
forward their own plan, and, alas ! for Ireland, no reduc-
tion is to be made ; and now the people of Ireland are dis-
contented with us, whose plan is rejected for allowing
tithes at all. (Hear, hear.) You say we are the agitators
in Ireland—l deny it. It is not our breath that gives vi-
tality to the discontents in Ireland. The -fire there burns
within itself; and the convulsion conies from the feeling of
that volcanic matter which is engendered by causes of just
complaint. (Hear, hear.) No. We have fallen into dis-
repute for what we have done. We are assailed for allow-
ing the continuance of even.a rortion of the tithes. Do we,
the representatives of Ireland, say that the people are right
in thus wishing for the total abolition of tithes? No, I
say the landlord should have no bonus (Cheers); but