The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-06-03 00:00:00

RAILWAY BILLS.

The amendments in the report of the Midland counties rail-
wav bill were taken into consideration and agreed to.
Tho report of the London and Dover south eastern railway
bill was agreed to.
The London and Cambridge railway bill, the Merthyr Tedvil
and Cardiff railway bill, London and ISTorwich railway bill, and
the Thames Haven railway and dock bill, were severally
reported.

IMPRISONMENT OF THE PRINCE POLIGNAC.
Mr. THOMAS DuNcomuE, for the purpose of affording the
House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject.
moved an address to his Majesty, requesting his Majesty to use
his good offices wits his ally the King of the French for the
liberation bf the Prince de Poligrnac, and Messrs. De Peyron-
net, Chantelause and Guernon de Ranville.
Lord PALMERSTON and several other members expessed
sympathy for the situation of these captives, but they submitted
th'atsit was a subject on which the ministers could not not advise
'his Majesty to interfere. In this opinion Mr. Vuncombe
acquiesced, and withdrew his motion.
THE IRISH CORPORATION Btu—
Lord JOHN Rtissam. said, as it was probable the debate on
the Irish tithe bill, which stood for to_morrow, would last more
than one day, he would not move on Thursday the consideration
Of the Irish municipal Act, went down from the Lords. Lt
Could not be proceeded with on Friday, or Monday, as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was to bring on the stamp act
bill on Friday, and the registration of marriage bill stood for
Monday. He. therefore, gave notice that on Thursday lie
should move that the consideration of the Irish municipal bill
be deferred for a week.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought it would not be doing justice to the
feelings of the Irish people to postpone the discussion of the
qustion. The petitions which had been already received, and
-those which were in progress, 'ought to induce the hawse to
proceed with the question immediately.
Mr. I-roma differed totally from the noble lord, and thought
it would be much better to postpone the stamp act bill, or any
English bill to give way to the discussion of a question so im-
portant to this country as well as Ireland. The postponement
would tend to excite suspicion.
Sir ROBERT Botts said there was no question before the
house.
Mr. Husiz begged to ask why the hon. member (Mr. S.
O'Brien) had been allowed to address the house?
The-SPEAKER said the hon. member hid not been interrupted
in malcing an observation on a queStion relating to his own
country.; but the hon. member for Middlesex must see that if
discussion was allowed, it would interrupt the regular business
before the house.
In atswePto a question from Mr. PRIED,
Lord' Jolla ItussEu. said the further consideration of the
dreagyi7)tration or Voters' bill would not come on to-morrow (this

Mr. BANN rrikiv AND NAVY VROMOTIONS. ,
ER Al.l' called the attention of the house to the si-
tuation lit
Whii,,
'any
bis Majesty's land atilt officers of various ranks belonging to
t sea forces were now placed, and whose
length of service en,
tlitihem to the consideration of parlia-
ment and the country,
of the number of qfficers di a
,concluded by moving for returns
paid h
bad died since the year 1;1 and
rank in each service who
country.
the
the consequent reduction in
the amount of half-nay
Lord How rcK anutted thZttha.teveta,..tlany. officers were in, a
situation, 'of which,
.perhaps,
vight to complain ;
; his loirn4ht•he subject
but at present, tnint,ters could neither
fur-
added, that if
ward nor advise a brevet promotion
, illi()•ould deem it
army uo4er the
be continued Secretary at War next Sessi,m
to bring the whole subject of the '
to be his diliV
consideration of the house.
' JENVISII DISABILITIES.
• .„,
~
The eItEVCEI.LOR • of the' Eli:I-MUER' brought forward his

motion on the question of the disabilities, of the Jews, ou which
he moved that the house should go into committee.
Sir R. INGLis opposed' the motion. He believed that a sin-
gle petition had not been presented from any number of Jews
assembled together as a religious body on this subject. No
petition had' emanated from any synagogue, nor had it ever
been debated in that house that any chief priest or rabbi had
countenanced or given their support to any bill for their eman-
cipation, as it was termed. That fact alone, he thought, was a
reason, regarding the matter as a religions question affecting
our duties, as well as their (the Jews) rights, which was de-
serving of more attention than it had received. He believed
that riot not only had no great body of the Jewish people of this
country forwarded to the house any prayers for the concession
of that object, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer then
proposed to grant, but, on the contrary, that he was correct in
stating that some of them, on other than civil grounds, objected
to the notion itself. He believed that mans of the Jews felt
that the concession which was sought, to be forced upon them
was one which they could not receive consistently with their
own religious character. The Jews were not a creed but a na-
tion—they' still called themselves a nation, and there existed a
great distinction between the two. They were not Germans or
Emglish, but they were Jews. and in that character, and in that
sense only, they wished to be recognised Now he would not
quote Christian authorities upon that subject, he would quote
the authority of one of the Jews themselves; he would quote
from aJew who was known to his right hon. friend, because he
resided in the borough which' he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) represented. He alluded to the Rabbi Cruz; a per-
son eminent for his learning. fie would quote from this au-
thority especially, as a witness to be received before others,
because he was a witness to•lbe wishes and obligations of those
whose conduct he superintended. What was the language
adopted by this eminent person to one of his brethren bn
the subject of emancipation, as it was called, in a pamphlet
published at Cambridge, entitled "An Answer to a Person
signing by an initial, for the Emancipation of the Jews, by
the Rabbi Cruz, Professor of Hebrew, at Cambridge? (Hear.)
This'author declared that any one desiring emancipation acted
against the Almighty, and that he was entitled to think so of
his own community : whilst others, by granting it, gave the
highest praise to God ! The hon. baronet here quoted some
further passages in support of his opinion. The right hon.
baronet then referred to the authority of a person of the Jewish
. persuasion,: who, addressing another of the same creed, had
told hinaritiat, in spite Of his professions to the contrary, he was
no Englishman; that he had no house in this or any other
country; that he was a foreigner; that the people to which he
belonged were 'a separate and distinct people. He denied the
principle, then, that as Englishmen they were entitled to every
benefit which could be granted to them without positive injury
to others. He: presumed that the object of his right hon. friend
was the same as that of Sir Robert Grant—to erase those words
Which alone secured that the legislature should be Christian,
namely, the words "on the true faith of a christian." This
was the only security which remained against the granting of
power to those who not only were not christian, but who regard-
ed our Saviour as a blasphemer. When they had once admitted
a Jew, they would open the door for the admission of every
other individual. The question, however, was one•which ought
not to be decided at this late• boric of the night—when many
members had left the house under the impression that no
lengthened discussion would- take place on the subject. He
would further ask whether a community of Jews would admit
christians to legislate for them? Was it then a necessary part
of the liberality of this age that we should admit them to legis-
' late for us who would not allow us to legislate-for them, and
who differed from us not only in respect to church government
but even as to christianity itself ? It had been said, indeed,
that there could be but few admitted if the measure were grant-
' -ed. He had been too long in parliament to trust to any such
argument. He was not one who wished to add another risk to
• the dangers of the established church, which he believed to be
' the true external profession of Christianity. However un-
' fashionable such a doctrine might be, he fur one iwould not
' shrink from raising his voice in asserting it. He, was con-
' vinced that if this,. measure was acceded to, little by little, all
' the security which we had for the maintenance of our christian
profession externally would be frittered away, and that it would
become of no importance whether a man was of any religion or
! none.

The house divided, The numbers were—ayes, 70; noes, 19;
majority in.favour of the motion, M.
The house then went into the committees. •

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved a resolution de-
claratory of the expediency of introducing a bill to remove the
civil disabilities to which't he Jews are at present exposed.
The resolution was agreed to.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

The Deptford Pier Junction Railway Bill, the Midland Coun-
ties Railway Bill, the Waste Lands (Ireland) Company's Bill,
and the Bristol and Huddersfield Road Bill, were severally read
a third time, and passed.
A number of petitions on various subjects were presented.
The London and Dover (South-Eastern) Railway Bill was
read a third time, and passed.
On the motion of Sir C. B. VERE the London and Norwich
RailwaY Bill was read a third time, and passed.