The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-07-03 00:00:00

\

i '~ .`1 ,

roreellings in parliament.

HOUSE OF COZIONS.-MONDAY.

On the third reading of the Transportation for Treason Bill,
Mr. NAPIER moved its third reading that day three months.
He deemed the bill utterly unconstitutional. If there was no
doubt in the minds of the law officers of the Crown they
should act upon their own responsibility, and not seek to de-
part one hair's breadth from the letter of the law by means of
ex post facto legislation.
After some oter speeches the bill passed by a majority of
150 to 27.
The House then went for the second time into committ^ -
the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. and was

rest of the evens-- vconred during the I
ritn tlitell§StOn Of th first (or maxi-
tta) gittlie., after diViding oN,o. an atnen ment ,posed
by Mr: Stafford, which viei4 (l'estroi, tU vitality of the
`clause, and which was negatived by I`7B against 51, the
~chairman, on the motion of Lord J. Russell, reported pro-
gress.
Mr. HAWES withdrew the Australian Colonies Bill (which
stood for second reading) on account of an informality, and
obtained leave to introduce another.
The Juvenile Offenders and Small Larcenies Rill was reari
second time, after objections made by Mr Pearson and Mr.
Henley, the consideration of which was deferred until the
cortutattee.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
The royal assent was given to a number of bil'4,:tticluding
the Transportation for Treason Bill.
The Earl of CARLISLE then moved the second reeding of the
Parliamentary Oaths Bill, declaring that the Jtws, though
adtaitted to municipal privileges, were the only -religious com-
munity debarred of political rights; and there was not, as far
he could see, a single valid reason upon whiCh 'they could be
refused .a seat in the House of Commons.
The Earl of F.ELINTOUN moved that the till be a second
time that day three months.

The Archbishop of ANTS:RW(7IY said -thee he was justified
in taking into consideration the peculiar season when they
were called 'on to sanction suds a measure.' England, at the
present moment, stood in a peculiar position as contrasted with
the rest Of Europe—a monument and-example of freedom and
social ctrder—a column standing amongst others which had
fallen,-but which, but. a short time since, seemed as firm as
herself—a proof that her foundations were not the same. But
this was not all. She had enjoyed peculiar privileges and re-
ceived many mercies. Their lordships could not have forgot-
'mutt, 4.1 t far the fate of their fellow-countrymen in
Intila during the interval winch min entir.,11..4-0.0 the news
orthe first great battle and the intelligence of the overthrow
and dispersion or submission of a dangerous and insidious
enemy. It would he a poor return for the mercies vouchsafed
lo.their nation if she regarded with the same eyes those to
whom the Diviee favour had been granted and those from
whom it had been judicially withdrawn, or to regard ihein
eanally een.ble of tegislating on the affairs of a Christian
country. He should he'content to atop here were it not that
he felt compelled to advert in a few words to the argument that
notwithstancKng their oath they had persons within the walls
of parliament not less hostile to religion than the Jews. He
hoped such was not the case ; but granting for argument's
sake that such was the case ; thy were not accountable for it.
It was one thing to admit within the city walls one who came
as an enemy, but still under the name of a friend ; and-another
thing, to open the gates wide to friend and foe without distinc-
tion. (aear, hear.) Let them not commit the solecism in
legislation of lowering their principles to their practice instead
of raising their practice to their principles.
The Archbishop of Dublin, the Duke of Argyll, the Earls of
Wicklow, and Shrewsbury, supported the bill ; the Earls Nel-
son, Desart, and Winchelsea, and the Bishops of Exeter and
Oxford opposed it. The latter prelate said :—One of the argu-
ments used in favour of the bill was, that inasmuch as we had
admitted Jews to social and political privileges, we were bound
in consistency to admit them to parliament. There was a fun-
damental difference,not in degrees bat in kind, between these
two steps. A Jew might be entrusted as a magistrate with the
administration of the laws, but it did not follow that he was to
be entrusted with the making of them. Precisely in the same
way might they employ a man to measure out goods according
to a certain weight or standard, and yet not allow him, he not
being capable of making just weights and measures. If ad-
mitted into parliament, the Jew would he called on to make
laws relating to the moral, political, and religions interests of
the people; and it'was precisely in su;h a case that his reli-
gions principles would come in and influence him. It was no
more a stigma on the Jews to be excluded from parliament,
than it -was on the clergy that they were excluded from sitting
as-members of the other house. He maintained that the bill
was, dangerous on these grounds., There being no Jewish con-
stituencies in this country, there was great danger in opening
the doors of parliament to a mere money power, apart from all
other considerations. They should neither measure the inter-
est which Jews had in seeking admission to the Legislature,
nor the means they had at command to obtain•seats in Parlia-
ment. If they destroyed the groundwork of Christianity upon
which their legislation was based in order to gratify for a time
a handful of ambitious men, they wou!d•lestroy Christian En-
gland, and ruin the asylum of the scattered Jews.
After a protracted debate the bill was rejected by a majority
of 20, the numbers being for, 75, against, 95.
In the majority against the bill were the Archbishop of Can-
terbury, the Dukes of Wellington, Buckingham, Newcastle,
Buscleuch, and Montrose. the Marquises of Salisbury, Down-
shire, and Exeter, Earls Powis, Roden, Lonsdale, Harewood,
and Eglinton, the Bishops of Bath and Welts, Bangor, Carlisle,
Chichester, Exeter, Gloucester, Oxford, Rochester, and Salis-
bury, and Lords Ahinger, Kenyon, Stanley, Delamere, and
Skelmersdale. The Earl of Harrowby, the Dukeof Cambridge,
and the Bishops of 'London and Lichfield, paired off against the
bill.