Sitting of 22 May 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, an Account of all Grants of Crown Lands in the Canadas, without Purchase, from the 31st December, 1825, to the 1st of January, 1833: also of all the Monies received from the Canada Company, and the Application thereof: also of all Sales of Land in the Canadas, during the same period as above: also an Account of the Number of Persons who have Emigrated from Great Britain and Ireland to the British Colonies, and the United States of America, from the year 1825 to 1832: also of the Number of Families who have Emigrated to New South Wales, and Van Diemen's Land, since the Establishment of the Board of Emigration to the present time, having received Loans from Government to enable them to Emigrate; stating the Amount of the Grant, the Number of Persons in the Family, and the Name of the Colony: also the same of Unmarried Females, not included in the above.
Petitions presented. By Mr. JAMES OSWALD, from Glasgow, for Alterations in the Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill—By Sir S. GLYNNE, from Mourn and Caergwrle; and by Mr. TOWNLEY, from Beverley,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. H. CURTEIS, from several Places in Sussex, for a Repeal of the Duty on Tiles and Malt, and for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. TOWNLEY, from Cambridge County, fur an Alteration of the Currency and from the Agricultural Parishes in the same County, for an Alteration in the Labourers' Employment Act—By Sir S. GLYNNE, Captain G. FERGUSON, and Messrs. H. CURTEIS, J. OSWALD, and THICKNESSE, from several Places,—against Slavery.

DEFECTS IN THE REFORM Of PARLIAMENT ACT.
Mr. Tooke, in conformity with a notice some time since given, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, to consider of such Amendments in the Reform Act as, with reference to the contradictory decisions it had given rise to, might improve the machinery and facilitate the future working of that measure. The limit which he had prescribed to himself as to the nature of the Amendments being altogether confined to mere practical improvements in the working machinery of the Bill, without at all infringing on its principle, would divest the subject of any peculiar claim to the attention of Members, but that they were all interested, whatever might be their party or political views, in being spared at any future election much unnecessary trouble uncertainty, and expense. Feeling all gratitude to the original framers and promoters of the Reform Act, he must nevertheless say, that it necessarily happened that in the fierce collision which took place during its progress, opportunity could not be afforded for giving it the full benefit of deliberate arrangement in all its details; the great principle attained, the minor mechanism was to a certain extent sacrificed to that paramount object of solicitude. The experience of the late elections while it fully justified the general sufficiency of the Act, developed at the same time some of its imperfections. These together with the questions elicited in the course of the Election Committees during this Session, had afforded ample materials for the Amendments proposed, in addition to which, many valuable suggestions had been received from several of the revising barristers; still, however, comprising mere practical points, wholly divested of speculative improvements. He was happy to observe, for the credit of the Act, that the obvious and apparently undebateable Amendments were but few in number and simple in remedy, and might be comprised under the following heads, chiefly applying to borough elections—namely, to allow of

37
qualification for premises held partly as owner and partly as tenant, and of houses, &c., held jointly with other buildings; to allow the vote, if the taxes were satisfied, without requiring such payment on the part of the tenant, and to limit the period of payment of taxes in arrear; also, that opportunity should be given by two Sundays' notice on Church doors of persons in default; to define the prescribed distance of seven miles, which had on the late election received three different constructions, to one definite standard; to provide for the barristers having earlier knowledge of the lists, and entire copies of them, thus enabling them to apportion the period of holding their Courts at each place with more accuracy; the total abolition of the compulsory payment of 1s. both in counties and boroughs, in which latter it would be otherwise an annual charge; to give to outlying freeholders the privilege of voting at the nearest point to their residence in their division of a county, thus in several instances saving full seventy miles, as in the case of allowing such persons to vote at Axminster instead of Plymouth, for South Devon; and, not adverting to minor points, lastly, to dispense wholly with the third question at the poll, as to possessing the same identical qualification when registered, the effect of which was to disfranchise any person as to counties who might have sold any small part of a large estate, or who might have converted his leasehold into a freehold by purchase; and in boroughs the same disfranchisement would follow by moving to a better house in the same street, while the obvious intention of the Legislature was to fix the claim of franchise to the certain registry of it in July, subject only to annual revision at the same period. To repel any charge of precipitancy or presumption on his part in bringing forward this measure, he wished to observe that he had communicated his intention to the noble and right hon. Paymaster of the Forces, in deference to his peculiar claim upon the Bill, his Lordship, however, wholly declined the suggestion, and was adverse to any measure being taken during this Session. He thought otherwise, contemplating on the always possible, if not probable, event of a dissolution, and it would, therefore, be a dereliction of duty on his part not to submit his Motion to the House, however irksome it was personally to himself, as he could with truth aver rather than take this reluctant lead, he should have laboured with more satisfaction as a humble pioneer under the
38
auspices of the noble member for Devon; but his overture to that effect had been rejected. He made his appeal to the House in perfect submission to its dictates, reserving to himself the privilege of reply to such observations as might appear to him to require one. Before sitting down, however, he would observe, that he conceived the corrections would be best matured in a Select Committee to be appointed for the purpose on the second reading of the Bill, in which Committee the suggestions of the revising barristers and others best qualified to communicate information, would be considered, together with the proceedings and decisions of the several Election Committees, and which were calculated materially to facilitate the object. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Act 2nd Will. 4th, c. 45, for Amending the Representation of the people in England and Wales, and to report such amendments and alterations in the provisions thereof, as in the better opinion of such Committee, may contribute to the better, cheaper, and more convenient working of that Act."
Lord John Russellobjected to the Motion, and trusted that the House would not adopt it. The Government had entered into a consideration of the doubts said to arise upon the face of the Reform Bill, and after carefully considering those doubtful points, and the difficulties stated to be thrown in the way of easy and cheap registration, they had come to the opinion that no alteration of that measure ought to be introduced in the present Session. They thought it better to give men who had been taken by surprise before, the opportunity of registering their votes now, and they believed that many of the objections which at first sight appeared so formidable, would be found, upon trial, not to be so serious as was imagined. He wished the House to wait till the end of the next Session of Parliament, and see whether many of the objections now conjured up would not be found to be of no value or weight whatever.
Mr. Warburtonthought the inquiry proposed by the present Motion, might fairly be objected to because of its unlimited character; but it would be attended with great public advantage if the contradictory decisions not only of the Revising Barristers, but of the Committees of that House on the Reform Bill, were settled. If the disputed points on which contrary decisions were given in the Committees of that

39
House and by the Revising Barristers were collected and reported upon by a Select Committee, it would prevent a vast deal of trouble and litigation, and he hoped his Majesty's Government would consent to the appointment of such a Committee, limiting the inquiry as he had suggested.
The Solicitor Generaladmitted, that it might be found necessary to facilitate the working of the Reform Bill, but he contended that this was not the proper time, and the mode proposed was not the proper mode of effecting that object. He had himself made a register of the disputed points which had arisen, which he should use in good time, and he acknowledged that it would be extremely desirable that many of those points should be settled before a dissolution. He was not aware, however, that there was any immediate prospect of a dissolution, nor did he believe it was much desired. If a Committee were appointed, such as that proposed by the hon. member for Truro, every member on the Committee would have his own plan of Amendment, and he very much feared that the alterations suggested would only serve to increase confusion. At all events, he thought they should wait and have the experience of another registration.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there could be no doubt there were many defects in the wording of the Act. Ministers were afraid to consent to any Amendment in the Committee; for if they did, a whole week would be wasted by their opponents in taunts upon them, for not having produced a perfect measure. The consequence was, that many incongruities remained in the Bill which ought to be altered. The hon. and learned Solicitor General admitted the fact of the evil, and yet wished to postpone the cure—a piece of advice that seemed to be quite unintelligible. There were many contradictory decisions among the Registering Barristers, and among the Committees, and it was advisable that these points of difference should be at once settled.
Colonel Evanswas also against the postponement, and thought that a Committee ought to be appointed before the period of registration returned. If the Committee were to be refused, he hoped that Ministers were digesting some plan for the Amendment and perfecting of the existing law.
Mr. Robinsonwas disposed to leave the matter in the hands of Ministers, under the assurance that the best mode of reconciling the discrepancies between the decisions of Revising Barristers was under consideration.
Mr. Warburtonproposed, as an Amendment to the original Motion, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into, and report upon, the various points arising out of the Act 2nd Will. 4th, c. 45, and 88, on which contradictory decisions have been come to, whether by the Revising and Assistant Barristers, or by Returning Officers, or by Election Committees."
Mr. Jervisseconded the Amendment, and adverted to the practical defects in the working of the Reform Act, as regarded the duties of the Revising Barristers. He contended that some method should be adopted to ascertain how the measure had operated in different parts of the country.
Mr. Rigby Wasonreferred to several conflicting decisions by Election Committees, which rendered it necessary that some general system should be established before the Revising Barristers were again called upon to act. In his opinion, the moment a defect was discovered, a remedy ought to be applied to it.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that no inconvenience could result in this case from the postponement of the remedy; and that the recommendation of a Select Committee could not increase the certainty of that law, the uncertainty of which was now matter of complaint. The present Government, as the originators of the Reform Act, were pledged to introduce every practical remedy for established defects; and he apprehended, that next Session would be sufficiently early for the purpose,
Mr. Humeobserved, that the Select Committee was not to be appointed to decide any question of law, but merely to ascertain a matter of fact, which matter of fact would be material in governing the conduct of the Revising Barristers when they should next be called upon to act.
Mr. Bonham Carterdid not object to any real improvements that might be made in the Reform Bill, provided sufficient time were allowed to elapse for the purpose of ascertaining that the changes proposed were improvements. In his opinion sufficient time had not elapsed to show whether the Bill had worked well or ill; but after some experience they would be better prepared to legislate—they would be able to judge whether or not the alleged defects were so or otherwise. He admitted, that some inconvenience might arise from contradictory decisions; but as far as he could learn, the contradictory decisions were confined to the Irish Bill; that, however, formed no objection to the general measure, and he

41
therefore recommended, that the House should avoid anything like precipitate legislation.
Mr. Wynnadmitted, that that part of the Reform Bill which provided, that the poll should he taken in districts, and that the duration of elections should he shortened, had worked most admirably. He could not, however, make the same admission with respect to the machinery for the formation of the registry and the electoral lists. He thought, that it would he advantageous to wait till the different Election Committees had all made their decisions, because, when that was done, the anomalies and irregularities of the Bill would be better known, and therefore more easily remedied. The lists were to be made out in June, and there would be great difficulty, if a Committee were appointed, in preparing a remedial Bill, and in passing it through both Houses of Parliament before that time. A bill formed in haste upon such a subject would produce in its working greater difficulties than any which were felt at present. There were one or two points, however, which might be altered immediately without inconvenience; for instance, the names of Peers and others who were disqualified by Act of Parliament from voting, might now he placed in the lists, and if no objections were made to them, would be inserted in the Registry. This ought not to be permitted, and the Revising Barrister ought to have the power of erasing them. Again, fraudulent votes might be objected to by those persons who had an interest in supporting them. At the revision the objections might be withdrawn, and then, as no other person would have a right to press them, and as in all probability those who would have objected would have given up their opposition, on finding that there were other objectors besides themselves in the field, the Barrister would be obliged to pass votes which he suspected or even which he knew to be bad. He should, therefore, wish, that provision should be made, that when an objection was once entered to a vote, any elector should be at liberty to press it before the Revising Barrister. He could not help wishing, that the Solicitor-General would bring in a bill to settle these three points—first, how far the removal of a voter from his residence in a borough after his registration vitiated his vote; secondly, how far the Revising Barristers could themselves enter upon objections to votes, after those who had originated
42
had withdrawn them and, thirdly, how far the House, which was the ultimate judge in all questions appertaining to elections, should be prevented from noticing any objections to vote, however strong they might be, unless those objections had been previously decided upon by the Revising Barristers. As to the other questions relating to the overseers, and constables, he had only to say, that when the noble Lord, in defending the Reform Bill, called on the House to give overseers and constables credit for common sense, he had called on the House for one of the most extraordinary votes of credit that he had ever heard of; for a long experience of the conduct of overseers and constables had convinced him, that of all men in the world they had the least to do with that necessary article.
Mr. Halcombsaid, that as a Revising Barrister, he knew something of the difficulties of the Reform Bill; and, knowing something respecting them, he thought, that the House ought to bring in a Declaratory Bill on the subject this Session.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that not a word had been said in this Debate respecting the working of the Irish Reform Bill. He wished it, therefore, to be remarked, that in Ireland, the people had not that part of the English Bill which was now universally acknowledged to work most admirably here. There was also a doubt in Ireland whether 10 l. or 20 l. was the qualification in counties—a doubt which arose from a variation in the Reform Act from the Act of 1829, abolishing the 40 s. freeholders. He thought, that if a Committee were appointed that night, its report might be ready a few days after the adjournment.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, if the hon. member for Dublin thought that this matter could be so easily settled, why did he not himself bring in a bill to settle it His opinion was, that the House ought not to resort to hasty legislation upon such a subject, inasmuch as nothing was so prejudicial as the unnecessary multiplication of Acts of Parliament. It was not a sufficient reason to introduce a new Reform Bill merely because there had been conflicting decisions upon the construction of the present Bill. He thought, that when a Bill was brought in to remedy the anomalies in the working of the Reform Bill, it should, after the second reading, be referred to a Committee up-stairs, in order that they might hear the opinions on it of the different Revising Barristers.
Mr. Jervissaid, that as a Revising Barrister he had been compelled, contrary to his conscience, and contrary to his conviction, to keep upon the Register votes, which of his personal knowledge he knew to be bad, merely because they were not objected to. He thought, that a Committee might make a report on this subject in a few days, for he was certain that the Revising Barristers, who had most of them been extravagantly paid, would have no objection to return forthwith a written statement of the difficulties which they had encountered in forming the electoral lists throughout the country.
Mr. Abercrombyput it to the House, whether, if a Committee were appointed now, the House could legislate upon its Report during the present Session? If the right hon. member for Montgomery-shire should produce a Bill amended on the three points to which he alluded, he would find other Gentlemen inclined to introduce into it other points which they considered requiring amendment. He thought, that the House would act unwisely in taking a measure of this kind out of the hands of the Government.
Mr. Lloydwas favourable to the Amendment moved by his hon. friend who sat near him. As to the objection which had been put forward with respect to time, he thought it had no weight whatever. That there were some gross errors in the law as it now stood was evident, and it was their duty to remedy it as soon as possible.
Mr. Peaseobserved, that Gentlemen acquainted with counties must know, that sufficient time had expired to enable churchwardens to become cognizant of the duties which they had to perform, and to direct them in the mode which, under this Bill, they were bound to pursue. If, in the performance of those duties, they found that the Bill offered impediments or incumbrances, the sooner those impediments or incumbrances were removed the better.
Mr. Charles Grantdemanded what was the Committee, the appointment of which was now called for, to do? Why, it was to collect facts for the information of the House. Now, the greater part of the argument of those who were favourable to the appointment of a Committee was founded on the uncertainty of the law as it at present stood; that being the case, he should like to know in what way the collection of those facts was calculated to remove the
44
uncertainty complained of? It was easy to arrive at the object required, by calling on the different Barristers for their particular opinions on certain points. He did not think that it was at all necessary to go into a Committee on this subject. If, in the first instance, when the measure of Reform was introduced, they had acted with caution and with prudence, he thought they ought, when called upon to make any alteration or Amendment in the Bill, still to proceed with caution and with prudence.
Mr. Tooke, in replying, observed, that he should perhaps have been content to accept the pledge of his Majesty's Ministers, but that the events of this Session had greatly impaired his confidence in them, for in fact they had originated nothing, and thwarted every thing, that promised further Reform. He had entered the House with greater buoyancy of expectation than his age might justify, but his soul now sickened at time misspent and duties unperformed. Ministers had not redeemed any one pledge they had given, they claimed much merit for obtaining the Reform Bill, by which, however, hitherto they had been the only gainers, and now they even refused the opportunity of amending the provisions of that Act, though they fully admitted its numerous imperfections; with wonted inconsistency they alleged the great labour of the undertaking, and yet would defer the period of commencing it to their more convenient season, and rejected the proffered aid of a Committee. Not a shadow of an argument had been adduced against his Motion, he had established the fact, that many technical errors existed in the Act, and as by a singular coincidence they had this day balloted for the last Election Committee arising out of the general election, ample means and time would be afforded for benefitting by the decisions of all the Election Committees of the Session, no less than by the evidence of the conflicting determinations of the Revising Barristers and Returning Officers.
Mr. Ayshford Sanfordwas anxious, that the improvement of the Bill should be left to Ministers. He did not think it would be prudent to place the question in the hands of others. He wished the measure of Reform to be brought to perfection by the exertions of those who, in the last Parliament, had laboured so steadily, and so successfully, in carrying a measure which had given great satisfaction to the country. He, therefore, would call on the noble Lord, and on the Government generally,

45
to declare whether they would not state that it was their decided determination to bring forward those Amendments, and that, too, without any delay, which might be deemed necessary to render the measure in every respect unobjectionable?
The Solicitor Generalassured the House, that Government had paid the deepest attention to every suggestion that had been thrown out for the improvement of the Bill. Every proposed Amendment had received due consideration. Ministers wished to do every thing that would be conducive to the public benefit; and they hoped that they would be able, in the next Session of Parliament, to bring forward such Amendments as would give general satisfaction.
Mr. Wallacewas of opinion that there was no necessity for putting off, even for an hour, any projected Amendments in the Bill. There was not a Gentleman in the House who must not be ware, that in consequence of the ambiguity of a portion of the Bill, much misconstruction had taken place. It was not yet settled whether the decision of the revising barrister was to be considered final or not. That was a most important point, and ought forthwith to be set at rest.
Mr. Charles Bullerhoped, that this Motion would be pressed to a division. They had, it was true, heard from the Solicitor General, that Government would, in the next Session of Parliament, 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; 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 burthens; third, because they had managed so badly almost every thing which they had taken in hand, that he was not inclined to give them much credit for their future efforts; and, fourth, because he conceived that any alteration in the measure should rather proceed from that House than from his Majesty's Ministers. 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. Ellicehad not expected such animadversions on the Government from the hon. Member who had just sat down, especially
46
as in general the hon. Member placed confidence in the measures of Government. He thought, that they should not have been subject to such remarks, if they had had no other merit than that of having made so great and successful an experiment as the Reform Bill was admitted on all hands to be. If the subject of the hon. Member's Motion were as simple as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who spoke on the other side, he saw no occasion for the appointment of a Committee. He (Mr. Ellice) did not, however, consider it of little importance. He would only ask the House to give the Government a little time—to consider the multiplicity of business in which they were already engaged. He hoped that the House would not force them to the immediate appointment of a Committee to inquire into a subject which the Government were pledged to take into their consideration as speedily as possible. He had no doubt, that if a Committee were appointed, it would be expected that some Member of the Government would be a member of it; but he would beg the House to observe, that the time of every member of the Government was already so much occupied with the consideration of the momentous questions to come shortly before the House, or on the Committees already appointed and then sitting, that it was impossible for them to attend to this subject at present. He repeated, however, that all that was wished for, was a little delay till such time as the present pressure of business would be disposed of.
The original Motion was withdrawn, and the House divided on Mr. Warburton's Amendment.—Ayes 68; Noes 94: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Godson, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Grote, G.

Beauclerk, Major

Harvey, D. W.

Bewes, T.

Hawes, B.

Bish, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Humphery, J.

Bowes, J.

Hutt, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hughes, H.

Buckingham, J. S.

Jervis, J.

Buller, C.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Clay, W.

Lloyd, J. H.

Collier, J.

Nicholl, J.

Dawson, E.

Parrot, J.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Pease, J.

Ewart, W.

Philips M.

Evans, Colonel

Romilly, J.

Faithfull, G.

Romilly, E.

Gaskell, J. M.

Strutt, E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stuart, Lord D. C.

47

Tennyson, rt. hon. C.

Fitzsimon, N.

Tooke, W.

Lalor, P.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Lynch, A. H.

Turner, W.

Nagle, Sir R.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

O'Connell, D.

Williams, Colonel

O'Connell, J.

Wason, R.

Roche, D.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Roe, J.

SCOTLAND.

Ronayne, D.

Arbuthnot, Gn. H.

Ruthven, E. S.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Ruthven, E.

Sinclair, G.

Shaw, F.

IRELAND.

Vigors, N. A.

Butler, hon. P.

Wallace, T.

Blake, J.

Evans, W.

TEILERS.

Finn, W.

Hume, J.

Fitzgerald, T.

Warburton, H.

Fitzsimon, C.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.
Mr. Robert Grantmoved the second reading of the Jews' Civil Disabilities Bill.
Sir Robert Inglisopposed the Motion. This subject was one of the greatest importance, and he believed there was none against which an appeal could be made to the country with more certainty of success; but that was not the way in which he wished to see this or any other great question decided. He would oppose it in every stage, because he looked upon it as bad in principle and pregnant with the worst consequences. The question reduced itself to this: was the supreme legislative authority of the country to be Christian, professing one common faith and one common hope, or was it to consist of those who denied Christianity, who regarded the Christ himself and the most sacred characters of our religion as blasphemers, as idolaters, as persons hateful to God and accursed among men? The present was not a light or trivial question, and he regretted that none of his Majesty's Ministers were present, with the exception of the right hon. President of the Board of Control, who probably attended because the subject had been brought forward by his right hon. relative. In his opinion, the members of the Government should have been in their places, and if 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. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robert Grant) had not proposed the second reading in a speech to which he might have replied; but as that had not been done, it only remained for him to answer some of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman on a former evening. On
48
that occasion the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into one or two misstatements as to the precedents to be found in the treatment of the Jews by other nations; not that he (Sir Robert Inglis) admitted, that we were to be governed by such precedents, but, precedents having been referred to, it would be as well that they should be stated correctly. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that in Hamburgh and Prussia, the condition of the Jews was very different from what it ever had been in this country, and that he wished to raise British. Jews to the same level as the Jews of Prussia. Now, it appeared from the appendix to the Commons Report of 1816, that, according to the constitution of Hamburgh, no person not of the Lutheran persuasion was eligible to civil office; so that there existed the best evidence to prove, that up to 1816, the eligibility of the Jews to civil office, which the right hon. Gentleman had assumed, did not exist in Hamburgh. The result also of some inquiries which he had made, and of some trustworthy communications which he had received, enabled him to state, that in Prussia, in the years 1811–12, the. Jews were permitted to purchase land, to exercise trades and callings, and to take academic honours; but the question of eligibility to civil office was reserved, and had never since been decided, while the admission of Jews to academic honours which formerly was the law, was repealed. But, admitting the entire facts as originally stated, what did they prove more than this—that in a country with an absolute government at the time, and which was still without a liberal constitution, the Jews had been admitted to certain privileges, which under an absolute or quasi absolute government, might be extended and withdrawn in the same breath? What example was this for a government such as ours, supposing the facts to be precisely as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, which, however, he denied? The right hon. Gentleman had also instanced the cases of France and America; and he would then take the opportunity to correct a mistake into which he had himself fallen, in reference to one of those countries. He had said on a former occasion, that although Jews were legally admissible to civil office in France and the United States, yet that the law had never been carried into effect, and that no Jew had ever sat in the French Chambers or the American Congress. He was not satisfied, that he had misstated the fact as regarded America. It had been stated that

49
Jews were members of some of the local legislative assemblies, but it did not appear that they ever sat in Congress. With respect to France, he bad been informed, that five Jews had sat in the Chamber of Deputies; he could not say whether the statement was correct or not, but, having no reason to suspect the motives of his informant, be supposed that the fact was so, and that he had been betrayed into a mistake on the subject. He argued, however, that the House ought to look at the question, not in reference to the precedents established by other states, differently circumstanced, but with reference to the spirit and practice of the British Constitution and the principles of the Christian religion. We should not be governed by the example of a latitudinarian republic on the one hand, nor by that of a worse than latitudinarian monarchy on the other. In Prussia, he believed, there were colleges exclusively for the education of the Jews, and perhaps it was to such establishments his hon. friend (Mr. Grant) alluded. In one of the states of America, Pennsylvania, there was this remarkable principle of legislation, that if a person believed in a Supreme Ruler no further question was to be asked as to his religion, but that no person could be admissible to civil office who did not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. This excluded the principle of latitudinarian indifference upon which the present Bill proceeded, which he feared was based on a disregard for their common Christianity. He did not mean to charge his right hon. friend who brought in the Bill with this kind of indifference, but such as actually felt it, would proceed exactly in the same manner as his right hon. friend had proceeded. If the argument for the admissibility of the Jews were good for anything, it applied with equal force to every natural-born subject of the King, whether Turk, heathen, or infidel. There were peculiarities in the planners and customs of the Jews which incapacitated them for incorporation with the people of any other country. This appeared even in the common article of food. He remarked, that during the war application was made from Brighton (as we understood) to have a person sent down there to prepare meat in the peculiar way required by this people. They never did, and never could, consider themselves in any other light than as strangers and sojourners in the land. This, however, was a question which ought to be decided, not upon trivial, but upon
50
the highest grounds of policy. The fact was, that a Jew could never be made an Englishman, even though he be born here. So long as he looked forward to another kingdom, his sympathies would be given more to a Jew in Paris or in Warsaw, than to a person residing in the same or in the next country to him. It had been said, that if they were deprived of civil power they ought not to be subjected to civil duties. The performance of civil duties was only a just return for the protection they received from the State, and gave them no just claim to civil power. He had heard it said by one of the most eloquent men who adorned that House, the hon. member for Leeds, that the denial of political power was persecution, and that the principle of such denial would carry victims to an auto da fe. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman's own friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, as stated this evening, prevented the agents of candidates from voting; was he therefore prepared to burn such agents; or any exciseman, whom he equally deprived of the elective franchise? If the present boon was not a fit one for a Christian legislature to grant, it was not a fit one for the Jewish people to receive. There were two great divisions of the Jews, and the Jews who yet preserved their Scriptural character did not desire the boon proposed to them by his right hon. friend. Had any synagogue petitioned in favour of the measure? While the Catholic question was under consideration, the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy expressed an opinion on it, and sent in petitions as well as the laity. There was nothing of the kind in the present case. The Jews, as a religious body, had sent in no petitions. There were Jews who, on conscientious grounds, were averse to any such concession; and he had received a communication to that effect from one of them, the Rabbi Crool, a learned man, teacher of Hebrew in one of our universities. He said in his letter, "The start for emancipation, as it is called, was got up by a few obscure persons of the Jewish persuasion who thirsted for worldly honours. Remember this," said he to his brethren, "you can be no freemen except ill the land of Canaan. One Jew, indeed, in Egypt, and three or four in Babylon, were admitted to places of trust and honour, but this happened by reason of inspiration and a mission from above. Jews," said he, "whether they spend two days, or two months, or twenty years in a country, are equally strangers and sojourners. They

51
must look to another home and another country." The right hon. Gentleman had not shown that the Jews desired this change; and if he had done so, still he never could show that the change ought to be made. The effect of the change would be to unchristianise the land, and it would be impossible, upon similar principles, to resist the claims of admission to the Legislature of any sect, whatever its colour or creed, so that the Members of it were subjects of the King. The Jews viewed Christ as an impostor, and a blasphemer: they spoke of him always as "the hanged one;" and with such opinions how could they be admitted to the British Legislature without Unchristianising it? The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Sinclairsaid, that in seconding the Motion of his hon. friend, he should not detain the House above a very few minutes. In fact, it appeared to him that this question resolved itself into the narrowest possible compass. He had only one single argument to advance in support of his opinion—namely, that this was a Christian country and a Christian Legislature, and that it was inconsistent with their duty and allegiance towards the God whom they worshipped, to admit those persons to occupy the highest station, or to become Members of this House, by whom he, whom we acknowledged as over all, God blessed for ever, was denounced as a crucified impostor. They would desecrate the religion of the country by such a course, and obliterate that Christian character which had hitherto distinguished our legislative assemblies, and which was recognized in the very prayers by which the proceedings of that House were daily ushered in. He knew, that in these days of religious liberalism, he should be denounced as a fanatic, on account of the sentiments which he now ventured to express; but for this he was fully prepared. Being convinced that he was discharging his duty conscientiously towards his country and towards his God, and that he was not actuated by any feeling of unkindness or disrespect towards the Jews, whose respectability and moral conduct he did not presume to disparage, he should offer his decided opposition to this Bill, and rejoice to be counted worthy to suffer shame in such a cause.
Mr. Buckingham, said, that when he entered the House, he had no intention to take part in the Debate, though he should on this as on a former occasion, give the
52
measure the support of his vote. Some of the observations, however, that had fallen from the hon. mover and seconder of the Amendment, appeared to him so extraordinary that he felt it his duty to oppose them. The hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, had objected to the principle of the Bill, because it would admit Hindoos, Mahommedans, and parsees, equally with Jews, to a seat in the British Legislature. In practice, he did not conceive there would be anything to apprehend on that score—as it was exceedingly improbable that such persons would become candidates for that honour. But in principle, he saw no objection whatever, to the admission of any British subject, who should be freely chosen, by a legally qualified constituency, to a seat in that House, whatever might be his peculiar views on religious subjects. The qualities required for a good legislator, were, intelligence, experience, and integrity; and these were possessed by Jews in as large a degree as by Christians. Of their intelligence few would doubt; indeed, the general impression was, that in matters of business they were so much more clever and penetrating than ourselves, that it required no ordinary care to match them in skilful negotiation. In experience they were quite our equals, as their range of observation and their sphere of transactions was generally more enlarged than our own. And in integrity, they stood as high in all pecuniary and mercantile obligations, as any sect or class of people that could be named. In all political and moral qualities, they were, therefore, fit to be Representatives; and whatever might be their religious opinions, they were answerable for these, not to any human tribunal, but to the great Judge of all. The same arguments which had so triumphantly carried the Catholic Relief Bill, applied equally to this measure of Emancipation for the Jews, as they were founded on one grand principle of toleration—that no peculiarity of opinion on religious matters, no singularity of speculative but conscientious belief, ought to deprive any British subject of an equal participation with all other British subjects of any civil right and privilege of the State. It had been contended, that the Jews were so exclusive a people, that they were not to be trusted on that account. He confessed that his acquaintance with the Jewish nation in various countries of the earth, induced him to believe that they were no more exclusive that the people of any other sect. Like

53
all other men they were the creatures of circumstances, and of the legislation under which they lived. In countries where they were most severely persecuted, there they associated more closely together for consolation. In countries where they were most liberally treated, there their affections became more and more expanded beyond their narrow circle. Throughout the Eastern world their degradation was extreme, because the treatment they received was cruelly unjust. In Europe they were a more enlightened and a more elevated race, because their persecutions were less severe; and whatever of inferiority or disqualification remained to adhere to them, it was in our power to remove: as by placing them on a level with ourselves in the enjoyment of every civil and political right, they would soon become our equals in every moral and intellectual virtue. This principle was to him so clear—that man was the creature of circumstance and legislation, that good men were made bad by coercion and oppression, and bad men converted into good by conciliation and by freedom—that he should deem it unnecessary to enlarge upon it, by way of argument or proof: but with the permission of the House, he would mention one striking historical fact, connected with the history of the parsees in India, in illustration of the truth of the sentiment here professed. It was this:—At the period of the Mohammedan conquest of Persia, the inhabitants of that country were chiefly fire-worshippers, or followers of Zoroaster. The proselytizing spirit of Mohammedanism made the great bulk of the people converts to that religion. A small remnant remained, however, faithful to the doctrines of their fathers, and immovable in their attachment to their opinions. These became the objects of especial persecution; and, by a long series of oppressions, they ultimately became so poor, so vicious, and so degraded, that the earth perhaps hardly contained upon its surface a more truly contemptible class of men. A portion of them were led by circumstances to emigrate to Guzerat, one of the provinces of India, where, meeting with somewhat better treatment, they greatly improved. Soon after, they proceeded further south, and settled in the Island of Bombay, then under the government of the Portuguese, where they were admitted to the equal enjoyment of all the civil privileges enjoyed by the Portuguese themselves. From that period they began to improve in every respect; and at the present moment, while
54
the Guebrs, or fire-worshippers of the original race, now remaining in Persia, are still among the most ignorant and depraved of the inhabitants of that country, the Parsees in India, a part of the self-same stock, have advanced so rapidly in improvement, that they are among the most intelligent and virtuous of all the Indian tribes—well acquainted with the English language—versed in European sciences—forming partners in some of the first English houses of business (a distinguished Parsee, at Bombay, having been a partner in the firm of Sir Charles Forbes, lately a Member of that House); and though originally the inhabitants of an inland country, Persia, without any maritime fleet, and where a ship was scarcely ever seen, they had now become the finest ship-builders in the world; constructing in the arsenals of Bombay, ships of war of the largest class, for the British navy, which were drafted, moulded, built, and launched entirely by Parsees; and, on their arrival in this country, were the envy of the British builder in the dock-yards of Plymouth, Portsmouth, Deptford, and Sheerness; and the admiration of British seamen, wherever they were seen. One word more, and he would conclude the few observations which he had felt it his duty to offer to the House. The hon. Member who had seconded the Amendment had said, that the very circumstance of our commencing the proceedings of each day with Christian prayer offered up in the name of the Saviour, was with him a sufficient reason for the exclusion of the Jews. Now, he begged to say, that though this might be a reason that might operate upon the Jews themselves, so as to prevent their attending the House while such prayers were offering up, it could be no possible reason why we should not admit them if they chose to attend. The public worship in every Christian Church commenced with prayers, and the name of the Saviour was invoked throughout. But would any one contend that this was a reason why we should by law exclude all Jews from entering such Churches? That was surely their affair, and not ours. Nay, so contrary was our conduct to the principles thus avowed, that we had religious societies expressly formed to promote the conversion of the Jews, and we did all in our power to persuade them to attend places of Christian worship, and become believers in the faith that we ourselves professed. After all, however, the question whether Jews should find admission into the

55
British Senate, was one which depended rather upon the electors of England, than upon the Jews themselves. In an un-reformed Parliament, when seats for boroughs were bought and sold openly in the market, there might be great facility in a wealthy Jew becoming a Member of the House of Commons, by the purchase of a seat from a patron or a peer. But under the present constitution of Parliament, he would have to present himself to some independent constituency, and must obtain the preference of the majority of the electors before he could be returned as duly chosen. There was no one who knew the prejudices still lingering among the uneducated classes against the Jews, that could conceive this an easy task, or a very probable event. But if it should be so, if a free constituency should choose for their Representative an able an intelligent a liberal and an upright man, without considering his religious opinions to be a disqualification, why should the law interpose to prevent their choice being carried into effect, as freely as the choice of any other body of electors in the kingdom? The portals of the Senate should be thrown open to talent and to integrity, in whatever class it might be found. Religious belief should he held too sacred to be violated or disturbed by man except in the way of persuasion and of prayer. Christianity was of too noble, too exalted, and too divine a character, to require such unworthy aids as persecution and oppression; and they who dreaded lest the admission of a single Jew into the Senate of the land, should Un-christianize the country, and destroy the religion of the Gospel, passed, themselves, the severest censure of condemnation on that very faith, in which they professed to believe, but the foundations of which they thought so unstable as to be thus easily overthrown! For these, and for other reasons, which, had time permitted, he would have stated more in detail, but from which, at the present late hour, he would abstain, he should give this liberal measure of his Majesty's Government his very humble but sincere and cordial support.
Mr. Finchwas entirely opposed to the Bill. It had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who had proposed the Bill, that few or no petitions had been presented from the parties interested in its favour, 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
56
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 was 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 enjoyed 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 yet enjoy the right to vote for Representatives in Parliament. He must maintain, that no man was a fit and proper person to fill the important office of a Judge in this country who denied a most important portion of the Common Law of the land. The proposition tended to the overthrow of the Church establishment, and he was inclined to believe, that it was on this account that the Bill had obtained the support of many individuals. However, 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.
Sir Oswald Mosleysaid, that if the Bill now before the House were permitted to pass into a law, the Legislature would no longer deserve the name of Christians. He should oppose the measure for the removal of the disabilities of Jews, whose case bore no analogy, as had been argued, to that of Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics though many errors might have crept into their Church, were Christians, and he believed, that among them there were as many pious and conscientious communicants as belonged to any other Christian body or sect. Any concessions which had been made to the Roman Catholics afforded no precedent for putting upon the same par with them a class of men who blasphemed the sacred name of Jesus. [Cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members might express their dissent from this statement, but he should be glad to hear the sentiments of the Jews themselves. He did not wish to speak ill of the Jews as a body, but he believed his statement was correct. If the proposed Bill was permitted to pass, it was on the verge of possibility—nay, it was not unlikely—that a Jew might be called upon to fill the Speaker's Chair. In such a case could he be present during prayers; or, if so, would not it be a solemn mockery of Christianity? In short, he for one hoped never to see such a Bill carried,

57
for he thought such an event would open the Hood-gates of ultra-toleration upon the Legislature of the land. By passing such a Bill the House would be Christian only nominally and not in reality, and would inflict an irreparable injury upon the institutions of the country.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, some of the hon. Members, who were the loudest and most vehement in their professions of Christianity, seemed at the very moment of making these professions, to overlook the chiefest Christian doctrine, inasmuch as they imputed intentions, and ascribed motives to an intelligent and upright race of men, with a view to fix on them deprivations, degradations, and exclusions, against which, if the suffered one-twentieth part of them in their own proper persons, they would cry out as a grievous injustice, and as the offspring of the most malignant intentions. He would send them back to their Bible, he would tell them to study it with greater advantage, and they would learn from it, that one of its great doctrines was to do unto others as they would be done unto. Those who opposed this Bill were hound to show, that mischief to the State would ensue from removing the disqualifications, which, as the general rule, were, by the Constitution, not to be imposed on any class without some great necessity. Much reliance had been placed on the doctrines, that Parliament was exclusively Christian; he denied that there was any foundation for making that assertion. He wished to know in which of our great Constitutional Authorities, that far-famed doctrine was laid down? If he had found it, he would not be contented with any authorities; he would have gone to the foundation of the doctrine itself; and if he had found, that the doctrine was productive of evil, or produced injustice to any class of men, he would have been one of the first to erase such a law from the Statute-book. The complaint was, that the Jews were unsocial; and were they to be made butter by being kept excluded from society? He could not anticipate any of those great evils which had been mentioned as likely to result from qualifying Jews to sit in that House. It was a matter which he thought might be fairly left to the discrimination of electors, who would not fail to select the most competent individuals. He really thought the electors did not require the nursing care of the hon. Baronet. In a politico-economical point of view, it was a great folly to limit the market for virtue
58
and talent—which would be the case if this Bill were rejected. The opposition to it appeared to him to spring from the cloister. He did not mean in saying that, to allude to the old ladies who resided there. He denied that the Christian religion could be at all endangered by such a concession. Every objection which had been brought forward on the present occasion had been also advanced in opposition to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and of the Catholic disabilities. The one set of men had been denounced as idolaters, and the other as blasphemers; but where had been the injury? He agreed with the hon. member for Sheffield, that if the natural course of human motives were to be consulted, there would be little doubt that the conduct of the Jews, if emancipated, would redound to their honour and to our benefit.
Mr. Edward Bulleropposed the Bill. He was of opinion that on the same principle that a qualification in respect of property was necessary for a seat in the legislature, a qualification with reference to religion might be demanded. He had heard no argument yet advanced in support of the measure which would not equally apply to the concession of universal suffrage. The present measure was calculated to favour the notion which he had seen maintained, that religion had no influence on daily conduct, which was regulated by a conventional morality.
Mr. Plumptreobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) had referred the House to the Bible, and he found there that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." Those for whose benefit this Bill was intended rejected that name, and on that ground he opposed the Bill.
Mr. Finndefied the hon. Member to show that our Saviour had intended to leave any stigma on the Jews. It would be well if those who talked of Christianity practised charity, which was torn up by the roots by persons who called themselves Christians. The proof lay on those who opposed the introduction of the Jews into the House.
Mr. Petreobserved, that if he believed this Bill was dangerous to the constitution, he should be ready to resist it; but believing that difference of religious sentiments was not a sufficient ground for exclusion from civil rights, he supported the second reading in order to prove that he was not actuated by any of the sordid motives imputed to Roman Catholics. He considered

59
that every one had a right to worship God without being liable to civil incapacity.
Lord John Russellwas unwilling to lose the opportunity of declaring his approbation of the principle of this Bill. As a question of practice, he could not understand how the Constitution could be exposed to danger by the Bill. The number of Jews in England was 27,000; three or four out of them might be called to the Bar, live or six to inferior offices of State, and one or two to seats in that House; but they might be sure they would never hear from these latter any sentiments which would lead to the opposition of the peculiar tenets of the Christian and the Jewish religions. But although it was of no great importance as a question of practice, yet it was of great importance as a question of principle; for if differences in religious opinions were to lead to civil disabilities, they ought not to stop at exclusion from Parliament, but ought to go the fullest extent—even to banishment and death. They should either adopt the principle in its complete application, or not at all. He had never seen any reason why a Jew should not fulfil all the duties of a citizen: why he should not act as honestly, bravely, and patriotically as any other English subject.
The House divided on the Motion that the Bill be read a second time—Ayes 159; Noes 52—Majority 107.
Bill read a second time.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Clay, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clayton, Col. W. R.

Attwood, T.

Collier, J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Curteis, H. B.

Baring, F.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Barnett, C. J.

Dundas, Hon. Sir R.

Beauclerk, Major

Dykes, F. B.

Bernal, R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Biddulph, R. M.

Evans, W.

Bish, T.

Evans, Colonel

Blake, Sir F.

Ewart, W.

Blamire, W.

Fenton, Captain L.

Bowes, J.

Ferguson, Gen. Sir R.

Briggs, R.

Fordwich, Visct.

Brougham, J.

Fox, S. L.

Buckingham, J. S.

Fox, Lieut. Col.

Buller, J. W.

Gaskell, D.

Buller, C.

Godson, R.

Bulwer, H. L.

Goring, H. D.

Burdett, Sir F.

Grote, G.

Byng, G.

Hall, B.

Campbell, Sir J.

Handley, B.

Carter, J. B.

Handley, H.

Cayley, Sir G.

Hawkins, J. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Heathcote, J. J.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Heron, Sir R.

Childers, J. W.

Hill, M. D.

60

Hodgson, J.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Horne, Sir W.

Vivian, J. H.

Hoskins, K.

Wigney, I. N.

Howard, P. H.

Wilbraham, G.

Hume, J.

Williams, Colonel G.

Hutt, W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

James, W.

Wood, G. W.

Jerningham, Hon. H. V. S.

Wood, Alderman

Wall, C. B.

Johnstone, Sir J. V.

Walter, J.

Kemp, T. R.

Warburton, H.

Lee, J. Lee

Ward, H. G.

Labouchere, H.

Watson, Hon. R.

Lambton, H.

Young, G. F.

Leech, J.

Lester, B. L.

SCOTLAND.

Lloyd, J. H.

Abercromby, Rt. Hn. J.

Lumley, Visct.

Adam, Admiral C.

Maberly, C.

Bannerman, A.

Macaulay, T. B.

Dunlop, Capt. J.

Mangles, J.

Ewing, J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Fergusson, R.

Marshall, J.

Fleming, Hn. Adm.

Martin, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Molyneux, Lord

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Hay, Col. A. L.

Morpeth, V.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Mostyn, Hon. E. M. L.

Kennedy, T. F.

Ord, W. H.

Macleod, R.

Palmer, General

Marjoribanks, C.

Palmer, C. F.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Oliphant, L.

Parrott J.

Ormelie, Earl of

Pease, J.

Oswald, R. A.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Parnell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Peter, W.

Traill, G.

Petre, Hon. E.

Philips, M.

IRELAND.

Pinney, J.

Acheson, Visct.

Ponsonby, Hon. W.

Barron, W.

Potter, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Poulter, J.

Blake, M.

Pryme, G.

Butler, Hon. P.

Penleaze, J.

Evans, G.

Ramsbottom, J.

Finn, W. F.

Rider, T.

Fitzgerald, T.

Robinson, G. R.

Fitzsimon, C.

Rolfe, R. M.

Fitzsimon, N.

Romilly, J.

Grattan, H.

Romilly, E.

Howard, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Russell, W. C.

Lalor, P.

Sanford, E.

Lambert, H.

Scott, Sir E.

Lynch, A. H.

Seale, Colonel

Macnamara, Major W.

Sebright, Sir J.

Macnamara, F.

Smith, J. A.

Nagle, Sir R.

Smith, J.

O'Brien, C.

Strickland, G.

O'Connell, D.

Strutt, E.

O'Connell, M.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Connell, J.

Thicknesse, R.

O'Connell, C.

Throckmorton, R. G.

O'Connell, M.

Tooke, W.

O'Connor, D.

Torrens, Col. R.

O'Connor, F.

Townley, R. G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

O'Grady, Col. S.

61

Roche, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Roche, D.

Walker, C. A.

Roe, J.

Wallace, T.

Ronayne, D.

Ruthven, E. S.

TEILERS.

Ruthven, E.

Grant, R.

Talbot, J.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Tennent, J. E.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Stormont, Visct.

Ashley, Lord

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Bankes, W. J.

Verney, Sir H.

Bell, M.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Blankstone, W. S.

Williams, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

SCOTLAND.

Buller, E.

Arbuthnot, Hon. H.

Burrell, Sir C.

Gordon, Capt. W.

Calley, T.

Hay, Sir J.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Johnston, J. J. H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

oos, H.

Fancourt, Major

Stuart, Captain C.

Finch, G.

Forster, G. S.

IRELAND.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Cooper, E. J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Corry, Hon. H. L.

Gronow, Capt. R. H.

Gladstone, T.

Grosvenor, Earl

Hayes, Sir E.

Hughes, H.

Hill, Lord M.

Halford, H.

Lefroy, A.

Henniker, Lord

Martin, T.

Irton, J.

Maxwell, H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Perceval, Colonel

Lowther, Hon. Col.

Shaw, F.

Mosley, Sir O.

Verner, Col. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Pollock, F.

TEILERS.

Rickford, W.

Inglis, Sir R.

Stanley, E.

Sinclair, G.

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Divett, E.

Archdall, G.

Duncannon, Lord

Chaplin, Colonel

Dundas, Captain

Cooper, Hon. A.

Hudson, Thomas

Dare, R. W. Hall

Humphery, J.

Eastnor, Lord

Key, Sir J.

Hardy, J.

Oswald, J.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Lamont, N.

Wood, Charles

Lennox, Lord A.

Milton, Lord

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of MEATH, from a Parish in Dublin, for a proper Valuation of that City.—By the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from several places in his Diocese, for the Better observance of the Sabbath.—By Earls CAWDOR, GOSFORD, and FIFE, and by the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from several Places,—against Slavery.