The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-28 00:00:00

REFORM BILL.

Mr. Theme moved for the appointment of a select committee
to consider and report what alterations and amendments might
be made to the act passed in the last Parliament "to amend
the representation of the people in England and Wales," with
the view of facilitating the working and lessening the expense
of its operations. The hon. and learned gentleman said his ob-
ject was not to infringe on any of the great principles of the
ad, but to get rid of those objectionable parts which had led to
such enormous expense at the late registration. Unless some
amendment was made to the Reform Bill, he was afraid it would
not be found to work so well at an ensuing election as at the
last, because its defects would be more known, and persons
would be found to take advantage of them for electioneering
purposes.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the motion, on the ground that
it would he highly inexpedient to effect any alterations in the
Reform Act, like those contemplated by the hon. member, till
they had the experience of the further working of the bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL admitted that there were many de-
fects and many points open to much litigation in the Reform
Bill, but contended that the experience of one session was not
sufficient to warrant a remedy being adopted. Besides, the
hon. member's motion was so vague that it would open the
daor to the endless conundrums of Reformers. If necessary,
Government would take up the subject uext session.
Mr. C. BULLER hoped that this motion would be pressed to
a division. They had, it was true, heard front the Solicitor-
General that government would, in the next session of Parlia-
ment, take up the subject,. Now, he objected to this delay for
four reasons_, —first, because his Majesty's ministers might not
perhaps be his Majesty's ministers next session, (hear, hear)
and therefore they might not have it in their power to redeem
the pledge which they had hastened to give; second, because
they had quite enough to do without adding this task to their
burdens third, because they had managed so badly almost
every thing which they had taken in hand, that he was not in-
clined to give them much credit for their future efforts (hear,
hear); and, fourth, because he conceived that any alteration in
the measure should rather proceed from that house than from
his Majesty's ministers. (Hear, hear.) He was of opinion
that the defects pointed out called for immediate revision; and
he therefore was not willing to allow the present session to pass
over without amending the bill, merely because the Solicitor-
General had stated that something would be done in the course
of the ensuing session.
Mr. ELLicE said that his Majesty's ministers having
.made,
with respect to the Reform Bill, a most successful experiment,
—having carried a measure which, with the exception of one
hon. member, was admitted to have worked in a manner equal
to the expectations of all who had given them their supports—
having done this he did think that they were entitled to some
credit for an inteution to deal honestly with such points of
reform as might hereafter be proposed, in order to perfect their
work. (Hear, hear.) Now, he should be glad to learn why,
when evident defects were pointed out, defects which unques-
tionably called for alteration—he should be glad to learn, why,
under these circumstances, a committee should be appointed to
inquire into defects that were admitted? (Hear, bear.) Minis-
ters were anxious to remedy these defects as soon as possible,
but they were called upon to do every thing in a moment.
(Hear, bear.) Whv not give them a little tune? why not
allow them to get through a portion at least of that multiplicity
of business which pressed so heavily upon them? He the more
confidently called for an extension of time, because ministers
had pledged themselves in the ensuing session seriously to
entertain this question. Let gentlemen consider the number
of subjects which ministers had yet to meet. There was the
Bank charter, the East India charter, the West India question,
and many others of great importance. Thus pressed with
business on all sides, he thought it was not at all unreasonable
for ministers to call on the house to extend towards them a
little patience and forbearance.
Ayes GEt
Noes
Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
The report on the Soap-duties Bill having been brou&ht up
Mr. S. RICE, in answer to questions from Sir R. 'vv au
and mr. Lalor, stated that the drawback had been adjusted in
a manner to satisfy the manufacturers—it bore precisely the
same proportion to the new as to the old duty, Steps had been
taken to remedy, as far as was at present possible, the inconve-
niences felt in the trade in Ireland.
Mr. HAWES observed, that the soap-manufacturers generally
felt satisfied with the bill.
Report read and agreed to.
Mr. BERN AL brought up the report of the committee on the
Assessed Taxes Acts.
In answer to a question from Sir R. Vvvvan
Mr. S. Rica stated that government w.a.s.chsPosed to give the
case of the licensed victuallers not only its serious, but most fa-
vourable consideration. It would be better, however,' not to
press the subject at present—meanwhile ministers would be
engaged between this and the bringing in of the bill in ascer-
taining how far they could go in the way of exemption or re-
mission.

JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
The LORD ADVOCATE begged to be allowed to present a pe-
tition in favour of it from inhabitants of Edinburgh; the peti-
tion was respectably and numerously signed, having appended
to it the signatures of a number of clergymen and university
students.

An hon. Member presented a petition to the same effect from
Canterbury.
Sir B. bloats rose to state the reasons which compelled him
to oppose in every stage a bill pregnant with mischief in its
principle, and in its effects certain to be attended by disastrous
consequences. The question was, whether the legislature was
to continue Christian, at least in name and form, or to consist,
in part, of individuals who regarded the most sacred characters
of our religion as plasphemers and idolaters, hateful to God
and accursed amongst men. The present was not a light or tri-
vial question, and he regretted that none of his Majesty's Mi-
nisters were present, with the exception of the right hon. Pre-
sident of the Board of Control, who probably attended because
the subject had been brought forward by his right hon. relative;
the members of the government should have attended, and it
they were not prepared to take a decided course in relation to
a bill so important, they ought, at least, to condescend to listen
to what could be urged on the question.—(Hear, hear.)--
One great, and in his mind one fatal objection to a measure
of this kind, was the exclusiveness of the Jews. They were
exclusive in every thing. During the war it was necessary to
send a Jew butcher down to Brighton, as the Jews there would
not use the meat killed by a Christian purveyor. The Jews
were, in fact, so exclusive in their principles, that they were
complete strangers in whatever land they sojourned, and they
never could be made Englishmen so long as they possessed a
greater sympathy for the Jews in Paris or in Warsaw than
for Englishmen in their next county town. Until, therefore,
they relinquished their exclusive character, they should not be
admitted to the rights of Englishmen. The Jews were not
entitled to such rights, as they did not comply with the condi-
tions required by a Christian country. He would deny that the
imposition of civil disabilities was peisecution. If the p resent boon
was not a fit one for a Christian legislature to grant, it was not a
tit one for the Jewish people to receive. There were two great
divisions of the Jews, and the Jews of a Scripture character did
not desire the boon proposed to them by his right hon. friend.
Had any synagoguepetitioned in favour of the measure? Was
the there any thing on table of the house to show that the Jews
expressed any interest with regard to this subject? There
were conscientious Jews who, on conscientious grounds, ob-
jected to this measure. lie would refer in proof of that state-
ment to a pamphlet on the subject by a learned Rabbi who was
settled in one of our Universities. The hon. baronet here read
an extract from the pamphlet in question (the production, we
believe, of Rabbi Jacob), in which it was stated that it would
be contrary to the will of the Almighty for the Jews to ask for
such a measure, and that Christians in granting it would be
acting against the ordinances of the Creator of the universe.
The writer also called on the Jews to remember that no Jews
could be freemen except in the land of Canaan. The hon.
baronet proceeded to say that the right hon. gentleman had
shown no demands on the part of the Jews for such a measure,
and that even, had he done so, he had established no grounds
for a Christian legislature to pass such a bill. There had
been no examples of Jews being employed in high public
stations in foreign countries, except the cases of Joseph and
Daniel, where they possessed and manifested miraculous
powers. The house was bound to resist the attempt of his
right hon. friend to unchristianize the country. The hon.
baronet concluded by moving as an amendment, that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Siiacaa tit seconded the amendment. He contended
that if they consented to admit the Jews to the privileges this
bill 'sent to confer on them, it would be virtually admitting
that Christ was an impostor. He felt it his duty as a Christian,
whatever obloquy it might expose him to, to resist this measure.
Mr. FINCH was entirely opposed to the bill. It hail been ad-
mit:ed by the right hon. gentleman who had proposed the bill
that few or no petitions had been presented from the parties in-
terested in favour of the bill, which he (Mr. Finch) could not
but regard as an innovation of the British constitution. The
real question for the consideration of the house was not one as
to the degradation, but of the exaltation, of the Jewish nation.
In matters of right the Jews were already placed on the same
footing as the rest of his Majesty's subjects; and. unless he as as
greatly mistaken, they enjoyed the privileges of other subjects
with reference to the protection of their lives and properties and
the right of speech, and, indeed, all other rights that were en-
joyed by all other classes, with the exception only of certain
conventional rights, in which respect they were only similarly
circumstanced to many individuals who did not even vet enjoy
the right to vote fur representatives in Parliament. "He must
maintain that no man was a fit and proper person to fill the irn-
portant office of a judge in this country who denied a most im-
portant portion of the common law of the land. (Hear.) The
proposition tended to the overthrow of the church establishment,
and lie was inclined to believe that it was on this account that
the bill had obtained the support of many individuals. How-
ever, he was convinced that the great body of the Protestants
of this country were decidedly opposed to the proposition, and
he should feel it his duty to vote against it.
Dr. LuSIIINGTON could not hut think that the opponents of
the bill, though professing christiauity, were forgetful of one
of its first principles—that of doing by others as they would be
done by; inasmuch us they seemed 'determined to continue a
system of privation and exclusion from just rights toward a
particular class of men, though, if they suffered in their onn
proper persons one twentieth part of that exclusion, they would
be the first to cry out that the system was intolerant and tnalig-
nant.—(l-lear.) Ile was of opinion that those who would not
deny to a number of His Majesty's subjects the possession of
the capability of being elected to seats in that house, were bound
to show that the exclusion was justified by some misconduct en
the part of the Jews, or that mischiefs would arise from their
admission to those rights aura privileges which were conceded
by the constitution to other members of the same nation; no
such allegations had been made, but it had been urged that the
legislature ought to be wholly Christian. lie denied this ne-
cessity, and maintained that such a doctrine had never vet been
laid duress by any constitutional authority or writer. If such,
then, was not the case, where, he would ask, could be the evil of
the present bill? True, it had been said that it would open the
doors of Parliament to Mahometans and the followers of Zo-
roaster, but he, for one, would erase from the statute hook all
disqualifications with regard to oaths, except cases of individu-
als holding offices in another country, and would leave it to the
discrimination of the electors of this country, whose interests

were at stake, to select those for their representatives whom
they might consider most competent to protect and defend their
rights and interests. It was impossible to narrow and limit the
market for talent, for no country was so superabundant of ta-
lent and industry as to be able to narrow its market for either
by a system of exclusion; that exclusion was iniquitous, be-
cause it would neither benefit the country nor gratify that ho-
nourable ambition which was more or less the characteristic of
every man.—( Hear.) He must again deny that the passing of
this bill would place the christian religion in danger, and he
would entreat the house to complete the great work commenced
by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and by the
emancipation of the Roman Catholics, by removing the Jewish
disabilities ; and that they would not be led aside by those who
had before denominated one sect idolaters, and now proclaimed
another sect blasphemers.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He trusted
the house would no longer allow the degradation to which
the existing iniquitous laws had reduced the Jewish subjects
of his Majesty; and if so, he was satisfied (if there was truth
in human nature) that body would justify the concession.
Mr. R. GRANT replied.
The house then divided, and the numbers were,
For the motion 159
Against it 52

Majority lO7
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Friday week.
On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GEENERAL, the house then
resolved itself into a committee on the privy council bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proposed a clause empowering his
Majesty to grant £4(10 a-year each to four retired judges, in ad-
dition to their retired allowances, as compensation for services
to be rendered by theta in the hearing of appeals before the
privy council.
Mr. JERVIS objected to the honourable and learned gentle-
man's proposition, on the ground that the retired allowance of
English judges was already sufficiently large; and because the
clause woulsl give to the government the power of getting rid of
a judge whom they might wish to see out of the way, by pro-
mising him £4OO a-year in addition to his pension, to induce
him to retire. There was a puisne judge on the bench who had
served fifteen years, and was entitled to a retired allowance, but
who refused to resign his situation unless some addition was
made to that allowance. There was also a learned gentleman in
that house, attached to the government, who was understood to
be desirous of being elevated to the bench. What connexion
these circumstances had with the introduction of the present
bill, he did not pretend to say. He should not oppose the pro-
position if it were limited to retired colonial judges, whose re-
tired allowance was very small compared with that received by
English judges.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL defended the proposition, on the
ground that it would enable his Majesty to secure the assist-
ance of learned and able judges in the hearing of appeals before
the Privy Council. If, however, it was the feeling of the
committee that the proposition should be limited to colonial
judges, he had no objection so to limit it.
Mr. G. YOUNG ,recommepcled the hon. and learned gentle-
man to withdraw his proposition altogether for the present.
Mr. RUTHVEN objected to the /public money being voted
away at that time in the morning. (It was pasttwo o'clock.)
After some further conversation on the subject,
Mr. Fl. HunnEs rose and moved that the committee be
counted.

The committee was accordingly counted, and there being
only 29 members present, the house adjourned at a quarter
past two o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, MAY 23.
Lord Willoughby and Lord Dynevor took the oaths and
their seats.

The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from the medical
students of the University of Aberdeen, praying for an altera-
tion of the Apothecaries' Act.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from certain Baptists,
praying for an alteration in the law relative to births and bap-
tisms another from Penzance, praying for the removal of the
disabilities affecting the Jews; and a third from au individual,
praying for the abolition of tithes.
Petitions, praying for the adoption of measures for the better
observance of the Sabbath, were presented by the Earl of Car-
bery, Lord Lyttleton, and the Earl of Roden.