Sitting of 21 May 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Committed:—Justices of the Peace.
Petitions presented. By Lord VILLIERS, Sir OSWALD MOSLEY, Major WEYLAND, and Mr. LYALL, from a Number of Places,—against the Universities' Admission Bill.—By Messrs. PHILPOTTS, BLACKBURNE, RYLE, BAINES, and HARCOURT, from a Number of Places,—against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.—By Sir WILLIAM TRELAWNEY, Admiral ADAM, Colonel EDWARDS, Sir W. CHAYTOR, Major WEYLAND, Colonel LEITH HAY, Captains WEMYSS and BOSS, and Messrs. FREDERICK SHAW, GULLY, HOWARD, BAINES, and EWART, from a Number of Places,—for an Inquiry into the Causes of Drunkenness.—By Sir OSWALD MOSLEY and Mr. F. LEWIS, from two Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. F. SHAW, from Taney, against the Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill; from two Places, for an Inquiry into the State of the Irish Fisheries; from Clonmel, for extending the Lord's Day Observance Bill to Ireland.—By Mr. FITZSIMON, from two Places, for the Abolition of Tithes; from Leawnaghan, for the Repeal of the Union.—
1146
By Mr. TANCRED, Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, and Captain WEMYSS,—against Church Rates.—By Mr. GISBORNE, from Ashover, for the Protection of the Established Church; from Chesterfield, for a Mitigation of the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Mr. EWART, from the Shipowners of Liverpool, for an Inquiry into the Constitution of the Trinity Corporation.—By Lord NORREYS, from Bloxham, against the Statute Duties and County Rates.—By Mr. CARTWRIGHT, from several Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest—By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Banff and Macduff, in favour of the Leith Harbour Bill.—By Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, from the Schoolmasters of two Places, for an Increase of their Stipend.—By Sir CHARLES BURRELL, from Ash, for the Re-enactment of the Labour Rate Act.—By Captain WEMYSS and Mr. M'LEOD, from two Places,—for an Alteration in the Systnm of Church Patronage in Scotland—By Mr. VIVIAN, from the Coroners of Swansea and Neith, for an Allowance for attending Inquests.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S WIDOWS' BILL.
Mr. Lyallmoved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Merchant Seamen's Widows' Bill. He regretted, that a measure of such interest and magnitude should not have fallen into more able hands than his; and he would state, that the great object which he had in view was to transfer the 6d. per month now payable out of the wages of Merchant Seamen to the chest of Greenwich Hospital, to the Merchant Seamen's Institution. He proposed that, on the ground that it was most unjust to tax a small and helpless class of the community for an object that ought to be provided for by the nation. But if they were to be so taxed, they would have a right to the relief which that Hospital afforded, though that was now denied to them. When Greenwich Hospital was first established, the original intention, he believed, was, that every seaman, whether of the King's or of the merchant service, who paid his contribution to Greenwich Hospital, should be entitled to relief from that institution. This original intention, however, had been swerved from, and the result was, that whilst the seamen of the merchant service contributed each his 6d. per month to the chest of Greenwich Hospital, and whilst they were liable to be pressed into the King's service, they were excluded from any benefit from this institution. It was true, if a merchant seaman was impressed, and received a wound in the King's service, he had a pension or smart from the chest at Greenwich, but then he had that advantage as a seaman in the King's service, and not as a merchant seaman. As a proof that merchant seamen were most zealously excluded from benefit from the Greenwich chest, the hon. Member read a case in which a merchant seaman had lost his hand by the bursting of a gun; he being at the time acting under the direc-

1147
tion of a King's officer, the captain of a frigate, for the protection of British property in Jamaica, he had been disabled for life, and yet had been refused any benefit from the Greenwich chest. He had understood, indeed, from the right hon. Bayonet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, that a man having been in the merchant service, and being engaged in that of the King even for one day, became entitled to relief from Greenwich Hospital. Such, he had understood to be the case, but he could not find it stated in the regulations. The hon. Member read extracts from the Acts 7 and 8 William 3rd, and 1 and 2 Queen Anne, which stated the grounds upon which this fund was created, &c. In prosecuting this measure, he wished to declare distinctly, that his object was not to abstract one shilling from the objects of the Hospital. He did not wish to deduct 20,000 l. from the Hospital without an equivalent; and he felt sure that, even the hon. member for Middlesex, rigid as he was in his ideas of economy, would sanction the measure, the second reading of which he had moved. This was the general feeling of those persons whom he had conversed with on this subject. Now, as he proposed to transfer the 6d. per month, at present paid out of the wages of merchant seamen to Greenwich Hospital, to the Merchant Seamen's Fund for the relief of widows of men who should die in the service, become disabled, &c., he thought he was bound to show, whether the institution in which he proposed to vest these sums was of a description to afford sufficient guarantee of its being a safe and proper channel through which to grant this relief. This institution was founded in the year 1742, when it was incorporated. For a long period it had been conducted under the management chiefly of the merchants, shipowners, and others of the city of London; and he much doubted whether there was a single charge incurred by this institution in conducting its business, beyond those for an office, the secretary's salary, and apartments. With regard to the offices of the Committeemen and Treasurer, their services were rendered gratuitously. He did not, however, wish to create any opinion founded upon his own feelings and impressions, and would, therefore, read the Act under which the institution was first founded. The hon. Gentleman having done this, declared that there could not exist an institution more unobjectionable than that of the Merchant Seamen's. It appeared
1148
from various statements referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we believe at Bristol, London, and other ports, that the relief which had been afforded, taking different periods, far exceeded the contributions received from the seamen. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that the sole object which he had in view was, to benefit the merchant seamen generally, and he hoped the House would entertain, with favour, a question in which 120,000 were deeply concerned. Another proposition contained in the Bill was, to enable the payment of all wages due to merchant seamen, and to receive which there were no parties authorised, to make such wages payable to the Merchant Seamen's Society. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Hultseconded the Motion. He wished, particularly, to call the attention of the House, and more particularly that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) at the head of the Admiralty, to the improvident manner in which the large estates belonging to Greenwich Hospital were disposed of. He was glad to find, that the right hon. Baronet had not attempted any of his former grounds of defence, and that the Motion was now resisted on the single ground of the deficiency consenting to the Bill, would create in the funds of Greenwich. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, that an extravagant expenditure, to a large amount, had taken place in that establishment; and with economy, therefore, the 20,000 l. might be spared. He gave his cordial assent to the second reading of the Bill.
Sir James Grahambegged to assure the House, that he had considered this question with the greatest anxiety, as he was most anxious to afford every assistance to the shipping interest, which, he was ready to admit, laboured under considerable depression at the present moment. But, after the most serious attention which he had been able to give to the subject, he was bound to say (and in doing so he expressed also the opinions of his colleagues) that it was his duty to resist the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member, who seconded the Motion, had mentioned what he had said in a private conversation with the hon. Member. [Mr. Hutt said, it was not in a private conversation.] It did not, perhaps, much matter whether it was or was not in a private conversation, but he was led to imagine such conversations as that alluded to, to be

1149
of a private nature. But be that as it might, he denied having ever made the assertion, that no less than one hundred and twenty thousand pounds of the money belonging to Greenwich Hospital had been jobbed away. He might, perhaps, have stated, that an improvident purchase had been made of property at Greenwich, with money belonging to the Hospital. But he had never charged his predecessors with a prodigal expenditure of that money, or with any thing like jobbing. It had been said, that the whole of the matter under discussion might be set at rest, and the object of the Bill attained, by making up the deficiency which it would cause from the Consolidated Fund. But, until the House came to such a decision (which he did not expect they would), he never could consent to take from the Hospital one-seventh of its annual revenue. The sum proposed to he taken away would amount to 22,000 l.; which sum, if the Motion were carried, must be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. He was of opinion, that the burthen, if such it was, at present rested where it ought to rest, because the merchant seamen who contributed to make up that sum were all likely to benefit by it in the long run. The hon. Baronet adverted to the Acts of the 7th and 8th William 3rd, and went on to observe, that here he would make use of the arguments of the hon. Member not in support of, but in opposition to, the Motion. The great object at that time, was to hold out an inducement to seafaring men to enter the King's service. He did not pretend to deny, that those who did not enter his Majesty's service were made liable to the tax, but it was part of the policy of the time to induce them by that liability to enter the service. The hon. Member, in introducing the subject, had made use of specious arguments, instead of placing it before the House in a true light. He had told them, that this Bill would afford relief to the merchant seamen. He joined issue with the hon. Member on that point, but denied his conclusion. The bill would give relief, not to the merchant seamen, but to the shipowners; for if the sixpence were to be remitted to-morrow, a corresponding reduction would be made in the wages of the men. But, taking it as a direct measure for the relief of the seamen, it imposed a tax upon those seamen. At present, merchant seamen paid sixpence a-month to the Merchant Seamen's Hospital, and sixpence a-month to Greenwich Hospital
1150
By the operation of the hon. Member's Bill, they were made to pay a shilling a-month to the Merchant Seamen's Hospital. They would, therefore, not be benefited by the fraction of a farthing. Now, certainly, if the merchant seamen were relieved from the payment to Greenwich Hospital, it ought to be left to them to say whether they would pay the 6d. a month, which they had been accustomed to pay to that institution, to the Merchant Seamen's Hospital. The whole sum paid by the merchant seamen to Greenwich Hospital was 22,000 l. a-year, and it must be remembered, that that sum was paid only when they were in full employment, and in active service. It was not true, that the merchant seamen did not receive any benefit from the sixpences which they paid to Greenwich Hospital. Of the 2,700 pensioners on Greenwich Hospital, 1,180 had served in the merchant service; 300 of them had served from thirty to fifty years each in the merchant service; and of the whole 1,180 who had served in the merchant service, the average rate of that service had been thirteen years. It was in the merchant service that they had been employed in the flower of their youth, and when they were most efficient; and it not unfrequently happened, that soon after entering the king's service, in consequence of rheumatism, or some other disease contracted in the merchant service, they were invalided, and obtained Greenwich Hospital. The measure which he (Sir James Graham) had introduced into the House for the registration of seamen, would, in his opinion, be attended with the most beneficial effects. It held out two inducements to merchant seamen to enter the King's service. In the first place, it provided that every seaman who produced certificates of good conduct, should be entitled to two tickets, admitting him, in the event of illness or accident, into any King's hospital in any part of the world. In the second place, it provided, that the merchant seaman should have a direct, not an indirect, interest in Greenwich Hospital; for it enacted, that if he should lose a limb, or suffer any equivalent injury in the merchant service, he should be admitted into Greenwich Hospital. This, he thought, would supersede the necessity of the hon. Member's Bill. It had been asked, why the 6d. per month had been continued to be taken from those who had only an indirect interest in the fund, while it was discontinued upon those who had a direct in-

1151
terest in it. His answer was, that it was held out as an inducement to enter the navy. It was said, that the revenues of Greenwich Hospital were sufficient to bear this reduction. The fact was, that 14,000 l. had been remitted to the merchant service, which the Hospital used to receive from light-houses. The sum remitted on the North Foreland lights was no less than 9,000 l. a-year. A reduction of 17,000 l. a-year in the expenditure had taken place in Greenwich Hospital since he had taken office, notwithstanding which, the income of the Hospital was only 3,000 l. beyond the ordinary expenditure. The income was 140,000 l. a-year, and the expenditure upwards of 136,000 l. a-year; and he believed that the House would not think a margin of between 3,000 l. and 4,000 l. on such an expenditure too much. If, however, the proposed Bill were carried, there would be no alternative but that of applying to his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to make up the deficiency of 22,000 l. from the Consolidated Fund. Notwithstanding the able manner in which the hon. member for London had supported the Bill, he could not assent to it until he saw how an equivalent for the one-seventh of the fund of the Hospital was to be made up. He must, therefore, oppose the Bill.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonthought it a hardship to impose this tax upon the most helpless, and, he might almost say, the most improvident, set of men, the merchant-seamen of this country. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had admitted, that the shipping interest was in a distressed state, and, therefore, supposing that they were to derive advantage from this Bill, it would be pro tanto a relief. But it would afford relief not to the shipowners, but the seamen. Besides, if those men were relieved from the tax of 6d. per month to a fund from which they expected no benefit, they would willingly volunteer to make up 1s. per month to the Merchant Seamen's Hospital. The right hon. Baronet contended, that the merchant seamen at present derived an advantage from Greenwich Hospital, but it was only the few who went into the King's service. The right hon. Baronet had also referred to a Bill of his, giving them the right to relief in the King's hospitals, when abroad, but, in fact, they had already that right; at least, such was the practice, though it might be difficult to find the Act of Parliament warranting it. Upwards of 900 l. a-year was taken from the port of Sunderland alone by the tax, and
1152
he hoped this Bill would pass without any injury to Greenwich Hospital.
Dr. Lushingtonadmitted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to reduce the general taxation of the country to the lowest possible amount; but he did not think that the existing mode of raising the sum of 22,000 l. for Greenwich Hospital equitable. His right hon. friend had said, that the payment of 6d. out of the wages of the merchant seamen was not a tax on the seamen themselves, but on the shipowners. If this argument were pushed to its full extent, it would be found that the shipowner did not pay the tax; it was the merchant, in the shape of an increased charge for freight, and eventually the consumer, who was obliged, in consequence, to pay more for the goods he purchased than he otherwise need do. Why, then, was this circuitous mode adopted, of taking the money out of the people's pockets? Why was it not at once taken out of the Consolidated Fund? His right hon. friend had opposed the Bill, on the ground that it would interfere with his plan to put an end to the system—the diabolical system, he (Dr. Lushington) must beg leave to call it—of impressment. His answer to that statement was, that the nation had no right to compel any portion of the King's subjects to perform services which it might obtain willingly by offering a fair remuneration; and he knew no object for which the people of this country ought more readily to pay their money, on the principles of interest and justice, than that of preserving the navy in an efficient state. His right hon. friend had said, that the merchant seamen derived advantage from Greenwich Hospital, and thought that if they were relieved from the payment of money to that Hospital, they should not be called on to subscribe to any other institution. The benefit, however, which they received from Greenwich Hospital was very partial, and not at all commensurate with the sums paid on their behalf; and with respect to the proposition of transferring the sixpenny payment to the Merchant Seamen's Hospital, he saw nothing unjust in it, because those who subscribed to that institution would exclusively derive advantage from it. For these reasons, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill under discussion.
Mr. George Frederick Youngcontended, that the right hon. Baronet had entirely failed in his argument against the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for the

1153
City of London. As to the Act of William 3rd, on which the right hon. Baronet had so strongly relied, he (Mr. Young) maintained, that the Act was an unjust one, and that it was the duty of this House to redress the wrong committed under its sanction. It had been frequently admitted by many members of his Majesty's Government, that the unpopularity of a tax was always a valid reason for repealing it; and he would assure them, that with the merchant service this tax was obnoxious in the extreme, and therefore, on their own admitted principles, ought to be revised. Had it been a proper opportunity he should have presented a petition, signed by 2,000 seamen of North Shields, in which they prayed the House to relieve them from a tax which they stated to be most obnoxious to their feelings and inimical to their interests. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the repeal asked for would not be a boon to the seamen, inasmuch as they would pay the same amount to their own hospital. So much the better if they did—in that they had a substantial interest, whilst in Greenwich Hospital they had no interest at all. The other night the right hon. Gentleman, in his Civil Pensions' Bill, brought forward clauses which compelled the individuals affected by it to make some provision for the necessities of old age; and yet he met a proposition, which might have the effect of inducing the most improvident class in the world to provide for the future, in a totally different spirit. In the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman had made allusion, though he certainly had not closely examined its provisions, he believed the privilege proposed to be given to the merchant sailors, in reference to Greenwich Hospital, was of a very narrow character—that it did not confer a title, but merely allowed them to be admissible. [Sir James Graham: It puts them precisely on the same footing as the King's seamen]. What, however, according to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, would be the situation of the seafaring men of England, in case of a war? For, according to him, the funds were barely sufficient for present expenses, and the outlay must necessarily be tremendously increased by the casualties consequent on hostilities. In case of a war, the claimants for succour and relief would be much augmented; and how would their prayer be met? By the answer, that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were already sufficiently bur-
1154
thened—that they were not equal to any greater pressure. Why, these claimants would at once be provided for out of the common funds of the State; and any Government would form a very erroneous idea—he would not say of the sympathies of that House, but of its sense of justice—which supposed there would be a moment's hesitation in voting whatever was just and right for such a purpose. He believed this impost on the merchant seamen had its origin in injustice, and that the House would not do its duty if it did not at once repeal it.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonhad come down to the House for the purpose of advocating the continuance of this payment, knowing that it was absolutely necessary for the support of the Hospital; but to his surprise he found, that there was no question as to subtracting the sum actually from the funds, but that the point urged was merely that this 22,000 l. should not be taken from that identical interest which had hitherto been burthened with it. And glad was he to observe the tone of virtuous indignation with which the promoters of the Bill then before the House scouted the bare mention of a proposition for cutting off such an amount from one of the noblest of our institutions. Not one farthing did they wish to deduct from its means. So far, then, the question was satisfactory enough, but then it came to the point of arrangement between that House and his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He really thought, that hon. Gentlemen opposite were, to say the least, premature in their proceedings, in proposing the actual lopping-off of 22,000 l. of income, without being prepared with a substitute. True, several of the advocates of abolition had expressed themselves willing to consent to a vote in a Committee of Supply equivalent to the amount of the sum which would be deducted, and for that he gave them credit; but still it would not induce him to consent to the Bill, which went much beyond the principle of reduction, inasmuch as it allocated this very amount of 22,000 l. now paid to Greenwich Hospital to the Merchant Seamen's Hospital. But it was said, that the merchant seamen were not benefited by the payments they made—that they never had anything in return. [Mr. Lyall: Not as merchant seamen, certainly.] Why, what quibbling on words was that, after the statement of his right hon. friend, that even one day's service in his Majesty's navy gave a man a

1155
title to Greenwich Hospital! He really had very strong doubts in his own mind whether the merchant seamen would look on the abolition of the tax as any boon at all. If they liked to belong to the Merchant Seamen's Hospital, well and good; but he certainly was not in favour of forcing them. If the present plan were to be abandoned, in his opinion the most advisable course would be, to relieve the sailors at once from any payment whatever. Another objection he had to the Bill, was one in point of time, as he wished to see the Bill passed and in operation which had been introduced by his right hon. friend, and which gave the merchant seamen a title to the benefits of Greenwich Hospital before being called upon to assent to this measure. This, however, was thought by many to be of no great benefit to them. Was it no benefit, that by this Bill a merchant, seaman, if in sickness, might at any port abroad where his Majesty had an hospital, demand succour and relief as his right? By agreeing to the Bill, the House would not only not relieve the merchant seamen from the amount now paid by them, but, what was worse, it might defeat those efforts to mitigate that which they all so naturally and so strongly disliked—the compulsory impressment of British sailors. He hoped, therefore, that the House would pause before assenting to the present measure.
Mr. Ewartcould not see any reason for discussing the question longer when so little of argument was brought against the Bill. It would prove equally advantageous to the merchant and the seaman, and, being founded in right and justice, should have his heartiest support.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, a promise had been held out, that the sixpenny payment would not be insisted on, whenever the expenditure of Greenwich Hospital should be sufficiently diminished, and its revenue derived from estates sufficiently increased to enable the hospital to do without it. The time had at length arrived, he thought, for carrying that promise into effect, and, looking to the condition of the hospital funds, he saw no reason for opposing the Motion of his hon. friend, the member for the City of London. The seamen of the town (Newcastle) which he had the honour to represent paid 2,000 l. a-year to the Greenwich fund, and they paid 1,800 l. to their own fund. Now, would it not he an immense advantage to those men to have this 2,000 l. a-year paid
1156
to increase the fund in which they had so direct an interest, rather than give it to an hospital in which they had no interest? Under these circumstances, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to go to the Committee, when any part of it which might be deemed objectionable could be modified.
Mr. Patrick Stewartwould support the second reading of the Bill, on the grounds that it would not create any material loss to Greenwich Hospital, and it would be an immense advantage to the merchant seamen. The funds of Greenwich were from 120,000 l. to 130,000 l. a-year, and that, he thought, was more than ample for 2,700 men. Why not do with Greenwich as with Chelsea—let the grant for it come annually before Parliament. We should then know the exact state of the funds provided for it.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that considerable sums had been given up by Greenwich Hospital, amounting to nearly 20,000 l. which it used to receive as dues for certain beacon lights.
Lord Sandonsaid, the question was, whether the merchant seamen should pay this tax for their own benefit, or for that of Greenwich Hospital. He considered it a hardship on the merchant seamen to be called upon to contribute to a fund in which they had no interest, or at best so remote an interest that they could not comprehend it. There was abundant evidence to show, that seamen would much rather pay this sum to an hospital fund from which they were sure to derive an immediate benefit.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the proposition before the House was simply this—to take 20,000 l. from Greenwich Hospital and give it to the Hospital for Merchant Seamen, and then to supply the deficiency thus created to Greenwich Hospital by a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Now, would it not be a more simple and easy way at once to propose a charge of that amount from the Consolidated Fund for the merchant seamen? If such a proposition should be made, he was not prepared to consent to it. He was required day after day by hon. Members to reduce taxation, some wanting the remission of one tax and some of another. But how could the House expect him to consent to the remission of taxation, while it burthened the Consolidated Fund by fresh charges such as this Bill would create? Let the House recollect, that this Bill did not propose to relieve the merchant seamen from any deduction

1157
now made from their pay; it only gave a different application to what they paid. The merchant seamen had an indirect interest in Greenwich Hospital. On the whole he saw no case made out for the Bill, and he would, therefore, oppose it, and he hoped that the House would not consent to make this deduction from the funds of Greenwich Hospital until some provision was made to replace it.
Mr. Lyall, in reply, said, it could not be denied that the merchant seamen were called upon to contribute to a fund from which they obtained, as merchant seamen, no relief, while they were not allowed to contribute to a fund which they knew held out a prospect of relief to themselves or their families. As a proof of the benefits which might be derived from a merchant seaman's fund, he might mention a fact which he had heard since he came into that House—that, in the course of the last winter, 430 claims had been made on the Seamen's Widows' Fund, at Newcastle, in consequence of wrecks on our coast.
The House divided: Ayes 94; Noes 57—Majority 37.
The Bill was read a second time.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Guest, J. J.

Anson, Hon. G.

Gully, J.

Attwood, T.

Halcomb, J.

Attwood, M.

Halford, H.

Baines, E.

Hall, B.

Barnard, E. G.

Hardy, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Harland, W. C.

Bell, M.

Hill, M. D.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hodgson, J.

Bernal, R.

Hutt, W.

Bethell, R.

Ingham, R.

Blackburn, J.

James, W.

Blake, M. J.

Jervis, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Lister, E. C.

Buckingham, J. S.

Lushington, Dr.

Byng, Sir John

Marjoribanks, S.

Callaghan, D.

Marryatt, J.

Cayley, Sir G.

O'Connell, D.

Cayley, E. S.

O'Reilly, W.

Chapman, A.

Parrott, J.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Pease, J.

Copeland, Alderman

Philpotts, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Duncombe, W.

Poulter, J.

Ewart, W.

Ridley, Sir W.

Ewing, J.

Rippon, C.

Faithfull, G.

Robinson, G. R.

Fenton, J.

Roche, W.

Fielding, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Fleetwood, H.

Rolfe, R. M.

Gaskell, D.

Romilly, E.

Grote, G.

Romilly, J.

1158

Rotch, B.

Vincent, Sir F.

Rumbold, C. E.

Vivian, J. H.

Ruthven, E.

Walker, C. A.

Sandon, Lord

Wason, R.

Scholefield, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Stewart, P. M.

Wilks, John

Strutt, E.

Williams, Colonel

Thicknesse, R.

Yelverton, Hon. W.

Thompson, Alderman

Young, G. F.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

TELLERS.

Trowbridge, Sir E.

Lyall, G.

Tullamore, Lord

Thompson, Alderman

Turner, W.

PAIRED OFF.

Tyrell, C.

Wigney, N.

Vigors, N. A.

DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS.
Mr. Robert Grant moved the second reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.
Major Cumming Brucesaid. When a similar motion was made to this House last year, I felt it my duty to oppose it, and nothing which I have since heard has induced me to change the opinion I then expressed. The right hon. Gentleman has not condescended to state a single reason in its favour; and no consideration which I have been enabled to give the subject induces me to regard with less regret this renewed attempt of my right hon. friend to inscribe his name among the Dii Minores of liberalism. I shall not seek to occupy the time of the House by going over those grounds of objection which, on that occasion, I took the liberty of stating. My objections may be summed up in a single sentence. The Motion goes to unchristianise the Legislature of the country—to sweep away, as far as this House is concerned, everything like a national recognition of our highest allegiance—an allegiance to God, as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and the principle of infidel recklessness which it involves, appears to me so very mischievous—so pregnant with danger and with evil—that, if I stood alone, I should certainly divide the House against it. Last year, Sir, I took upon me to predict that, whatever might be the fate of this measure in this House, the Crown would be saved, in its capacity of head of a Christian Church, from the insult of having such a Bill offered for its assent. I relied with confidence on the calmer wisdom, on the more grave deliberation, on the considerations of higher Christian principles by which, in another place, this measure would be weighed and found wanting. That reliance, Sir, I still entertain. In that other place, fortunately for the best interests of religion and of the country, the presence of

1159
the dignified clergy of the Church of England ensures to questions of this nature a more anxious and—I say it without any the most remote intention of disrespect towards any Member of this House—a more fitting consideration, than they are likely to receive in a purely popular assembly, composed of individuals of all modifications of religion, or of none. Such consideration is ensured, not merely from their being actually present, and from the part which they may be expected to take in the discussion of such questions, but also from that general higher tone of respect for Christianity as part and parcel of the Constitution, which their presence is calculated to maintain, even among the lay members of the other branch of the Legislature. In producing such effect, they fulfil the object of those great men by whom the Constitution was restored and perfected; who, in determining that the Bishops should sit and vote in the House of Lords, did not seek to render the Church political, as the prejudices of some, and the ill designs of others, may suggest, but to render the State religious, and, in so doing, to place our legislation on the only sure basis on which legislation can permanently rest—its intimate union with true religion. On that intimate union, on the force which it must exercise while it continues to exist, I rely for the rejection of this monstrous proposal—a proposal which goes to invest with power to legislate on the highest objects of legislation—the best means of upholding and promoting true Christianity—a sect, not of persons indifferent to its interests—that were bad enough—but a sect avowedly hostile to its very name, and the continued existence of whose religion depends on the success of their efforts to prevent that which it is the first duty of all Christian states to promote—the advancement and universal acceptance of the truth as it is in Jesus, when prophecy shall have its full and certain accomplishment—when every knee shall bow to him whom the Jews reject as an impostor, and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. I say, Sir, if the subject were not one of the deepest seriousness, there would be, to my apprehension, something irresistibly ludicrous in this repeated folly of the right hon. Gentleman, by which he desires to associate with us in the duties of Christian legislation, a sect, whose very existence amongst us, as the professors of their peculiar creed, depends on the imperfect and inefficient discharge of our highest ob-
1160
ligations. This measure so obnoxious to many conscientious men, has never been called for, or sanctioned, by any considerable portion of the people. I am aware that it is recommended to us by the representative of a great popular constituency, and that he was chosen by that constituency after he had declared his intentions respecting it. At the period, however, of his election, any thing which held out the promise of an extension of popular rights was received by such constituencies without much examination. The official duties of my right hon. friend have prevented him from seeing that great popular constituencies are again coming to their senses—that they are awaking to a sense of their duties as Christian men, and are no longer desirous of sacrificing all other considerations to the promotion of any innovation which might deck itself out in the colours of universal and irrespective liberalism. He thinks, doubtless, that he is acting in the sense, and according to the wishes of his constituents, while he thus keeps his hand in, if I may so express myself, by the continued cultivation of this little remaining corner of the ground of the old constitution of parliament, which still remains to be broken up. He has, indeed, been sanctioned and supported by the Government, and by a majority of this House; but when I look to the general results of those elections which have taken place since the general election, it does not appear to me that the support of the Government and of the majority by which it is usually upheld, affords any very certain indication of the general approval of the nation. I should be almost inclined to consider it as an indication of the very reverse; and if the feelings of the public, as far as I have been enabled to judge of them as relating to this question, did indeed influence the ministerial majorities, I should expect many conversions to be attested by the vote of this night; but it would, perhaps, be unreasonable to expect that the right hon. Gentleman should abandon the cultivation of the little barren and worthless corner,—barren and worthless, I am sure it will be, however skilfully cultivated, of any practical good result,—which he had almost succeeded in appropriating to himself,—on which he had almost effected a settlement; and if those whose duty it is to watch over the interests of the community, had not considered it of value as the last remaining proof of the right of that community to a tract of incalculable value and

1161
extent, they too might have allowed him, as far as practical results were to be apprehended, to go on undisturbed in his paltry encroachments. Fortunately they were aware of its importance; and whatever he may think of the wisdom of their consequent resistance of his appropriation, my own conviction is, that the great majority of the enlightened and reflecting portions of the community has approved and sanctioned their proceeding. Some petitions in favour of this measure have, I admit, been presented to the House, but they can be taken as expressing the opinions of only a very small minority of the country. I am ready to allow, that a minority of the British nation has, of late, raised the cry that religion and civil rights have, and ought to have, no necessary connexion; that a man's civil and social rights are altogether irrespective of his religious obligations; that the individual may, if so it please him,—if he will condescend so far,—in private recognise the force of those obligations, his dependence on his Creator, and the duties which that dependence suggests; but that nations,—the aggregate of individuals—are necessarily atheist, and that a vulgar error alone has recognized the title of King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I say a small minority has raised this cry, and faction and party have, for their own ends, echoed it, till the isle is frightened from her propriety. I very much doubt, however, whether even this minority,—among whom are many conscientious men—would consent to declare, by an act of direct legislation, that there was no difference between truth and falsehood, and that they were ready to dispense with Christianity as a necessary qualification for legislating for a Christian country. I very much doubt this even of that minority; but sure I am, that the great majority of the nation does utterly repudiate so monstrous a doctrine. Were it otherwise, then indeed I should despair of my country—then indeed I should fear that the glory was departing from her—then indeed I should apprehend that we might say of her what was said of an empire whose greatness has been trodden under the foot of the misbeliever—
Spent art thou, proud, imperial Queen of Nations,
And thy last accents are upon the wind—
Thou hast but one voice more to utter—one
Loud, dreadful, terrible,—and then art heard
No more among the nations.
But, Sir, I have brighter and better hopes. The Christian people of these kingdoms know, that by the Divine bless-
1162
ing alone nations prosper—that by the Divine forbearance alone, national calamities are averted—they know that it is written, "the nation which honoureth me I will honour"—and they refuse to recognise as nationally beneficial a principle which rests on a fallacy so monstrous as that a rational being can by possibility be placed in any circumstances or condition, can by possibility lay just claim to the enjoyment of any right, irrespective of the power by which all circumstances are controlled, and from which all rights emanate. The Motion of my right hon. friend rests, if it rests on anything, on the propriety of separating religion from civil rights, in so far as those rights involve the possession of political power. As wel may you endeavour to separate the moral from the physical nature of humanity—as well expect the body to continue in the exercise of the reasoning powers, if parted from the soul. There is the madness of individuals, when the chain and the straight-waistcoat must bind down the unhappy maniac—when, under the most mysterious of individual dispensations, the soul seems to have fled before its time from the still animated tenement of the body, and when that ray of Divine light by which man may look up to the throne of God, seems quenched in a darkness more terrible than that of death. There is also the madness of nations,—and few of us are so young as not to remember the example of such dire calamity,—when a maniac nation,—too strong to be held by human fetters,—burst its bonds, and spread ruin and desolation around it. There, too, was broken the tie which connects the civil rights with the religious obligations of society. There, too, was quenched that ray of Divine light by which the nations might read the law of the great governor of nations; and, in the madness of her irreligion, France performed,—if I may be permitted to quote the words of an eminent Dissenter,—as on a darkened theatre, the first part of that fierce and fearful tragedy, of which we have but lately seen another and another act; and now, holding up to us the mockery of a constitutional Government,—that phantom of a mob-begotten sovereignty,
Which wears the likeness of a kingly crown,
But bears a blood-stained sceptre in its hand.
a power which tolerates, if it does not encourage the national irreligion,—she prepares for herself future, and still recurring calamities. I may be, and I dare say I shall

1163
be, taunted as illiberal,—laughed at as superstitious,—but my own entire conviction is, that her long years of disorganization,—her wars leading the stranger in triumph to her capital,—her revolutions driving away a despotism of imbecility, to establish a despotism of iron—her streets drenched with the blood of her citizens, who have sought,—ay, and will seek again, through all the atrocities of civil conflict, to use the power which raised, for the purpose of putting down her best of republics—I say my entire conviction is, that all these calamities flow from one source—the casting off her national recognition of God. We have but to follow the example of her liberality in matters of religion to share in its certain consequences. The Bill of my right hon. friend would, as it appears to me, be a very important step in the same direction, and I have not yet been able to discover such advantages in our existing close alliance with the monkey-tiger, as should induce me to be anxious that in this respect we should seek to draw more closely the ties of our present fraternization. Look, Sir, at the state of religion in France, and tell me the religion of individuals needs not the support and sanction of true religion by the State. I say of true religion, because that careless and indifferent system introduced, I believe, into that unhappy country by the Mahometan Buonaparte, which sinks all difference between truth and falsehood, and accords the support of the State to all sects alike, is, in my opinion, if possible, worse than no support at all. But I will not detain the House by entering on the discussion of that argument. We are told, that we have opened the doors of this House to men of all modifications of religion, and of none—that the Socinian and the infidel are already admitted within the portals of the Legislature, and that any danger to be apprehended from the few Jews who might find their way into this House would be as nothing compared to that instinct of destructiveness by which the former persons may be supposed to be actuated. Sir, I deeply deplore the fact of their admission. If any test could be invented which could reach and exclude them, it should have my cordial support; but it does not appear to me that, because we are already exposed to certain dangers and inconveniences, therefore we should be indifferent to their increase. That was, indeed, the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice Presi-
1164
dent of the Board of Trade, in discussing the question of the Corn-laws, who, when the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his able and masterly speech on that occasion, insisted on the danger to a great nation of allowing itself to become dependent on foreign, and perhaps hostile, nations for the supply of an article of primary necessity, replied, that such a ground might have been tenable and good while we were altogether independent of foreign supply, but that we had passed that point; that, to a certain extent, we actually were dependent; and therefore, that we were no longer in a condition—in fact, that we were precluded from considering the value of a condition—of absolute or even comparative independence. I say, the House will remember the tone of exultation and confidence which he assumed, when he announced to us this refutation of his right hon. colleague's argument. The House, however, did not go along with him in the adoption of a principle of such utter recklessness, and which, I am sure, can never be safely admitted as a principle which should be allowed to influence the legislation of a great country. If, then, Sir, we are in a condition, from circumstances difficult of control—and I admit, that they were full of difficulty—of having persons eligible to be returned to this House who it were better and more safe to have excluded—I can see in that no reason for extending the same eligibility to others, especially where, as in the present instance, a much greater sacrifice of principle is involved. But there is, in the case of the Jews, another ground of exclusion, and one on which, fortunately, we can act without raising any question affecting the rights of the natural-born subjects of the Crown. The ground to which I allude, is the fact of their being strangers and aliens amongst us. On a former occasion, last year, I endeavoured to state this ground of resistance to the present Motion, and I shall not now detain the House by going over, in other words, the same argument; but it does seem to me, that certain honours thrust on my right hon. friend—"some achieve greatness, others have honours thrust upon them"—in the shape of addresses of thanks from various bodies of foreign Jews for his exertions in favour of their nation, go far to prove that, with them, the lesser considerations of locality are altogether merged in the sympathies of an extended nationality. It was, doubtless, very gratifying to him to find himself

1165
be-praised and extolled in indifferent German or classical Hebrew, for the enlarged spirit of his comprehensive philanthropy; but it certainly showed, that, as far as the Jews were concerned, they would never be influenced by that exclusively British patriotism which—you may call it confined and narrow if you will—but which, as a qualification to legislate on British interests, above all on British religious interests, is, in my view, the only patriotism worth having. I say of the Jews, that their best energies—their warmest affections—their strong, abiding, undying love of country, in its highest sense, are away from this and every other land of their dispersion—that they look to the distant country of their past and promised glory—to the land of their sires—the inheritance reserved for themselves or their posterity—and that in our cold climes they remain submissive, but unwilling exiles. We are told, indeed, that they have fought in our armies—have bled in our defence. The Jews of Poland are cited as having been among the first ranks of her patriot armies. Why, doubtless, Sir, a noble and a warlike people—(and such their whole mysterious history proves them to have been)—would not sit still when the cry of resistance to oppression, and the trumpet of desperate contest sounded in their ears; but I am at a loss to find, in this, a title to participate in our legislative power. The Germans have fought for us—the Swiss have poured out their blood with desperate fidelity, in defence of the Governments which employed them—they have fought against numbers, and against hope; but was it ever pretended, on this account, to confer on the Christian German a right to participate in our legislative power? Did the Pope ever think of conferring on his heretic and faithful defenders, all the rights and privileges of the Catholic Italian? Never, in either case. The facts alluded to prove, that the Jews are brave and faithful, and actuated by the same feelings of gratitude, and neighbourhood, and friendship, as other men: they establish no pre-eminence. I, Sir, am proud and anxious to acknowledge their many excellent qualities; but I cannot show my appreciation of them by the sacrifice of the highest principle. If there be inconvenience, or loss, or oppression, to which they are subjected by the operation of any existing law—remove it. God forbid that I should seek to perpetuate, much less to aggravate, the weight of those mysterious sufferings by which they, as a
1166
nation, are surrounded as with a halo of calamity. In his own good time, the power which has afflicted will console and comfort. The promise of their restoration will have its sure accomplishment; but it needs not the trifling of this godless legislation to accelerate the period of its fulfilment. If my right hon. friend had come to ask for justice, I should join with him in the demand. I should say, "Give them all justice—ay, twice the sum;" but he is not content with justice—like "a second Daniel come to judgment," he pleads also for the forfeiture—and here I would beseech you let not—I will not say malice against this Christian Constitution—but let not a false liberality bear down truth. This bond of justice contains "no jot of blood"—but the forfeiture is for a pound of flesh to be cut off "nearest the merchant's heart"—and as it seems to me that the life-blood of the Constitution must be shed in its excision, I shall continue, by every means, and on every occasion, to resist the Motion now before the House. I will conclude, Sir, by moving, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Halcombe seconded the Motion.
Mr. Petresaid, that he should be ashamed of himself, and unworthy of a seat in that House, if he did not lend his warmest wishes, and give his cordial and best support, to such a measure as this. He supported it on the broad ground, that the religious opinions of every man, or set of men, should not be used as the means for his or their civil disqualification. The arguments which had been adduced by his hon. friend who had moved the Amendment against the measure appeared to him convincing reasons in its favour. The time was come when religious opinions should no longer constitute the principle of civil disqualification. Every one should be allowed to worship God as he thought best, and, provided his opinions did not detract from that loyalty which he owed to his sovereign, or militate against the interests of the State, there was no reason why he should be debarred from the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which were possessed by the rest of the community. We had no right to interfere with a man's religious opinions—to God alone he was accountable for them; and when coercion was employed, or civil disqualification was resorted to, on such grounds, it was neither more nor less than odious and unjustifiable intolerance.
Mr. Poulteragreed entirely with those

1167
who thought that no religious belief which was not inconsistent with the preservation, order, and peace of civil society, was a justifiable cause of exclusion from civil privileges, and that those who were favourable to the continuance of civil disabilities had the burthen cast on them of proving the absolute necessity of such further continuance. In the entire absence of what he considered any such proof, he should always give his humble support to this measure. All political ground of objection seemed wholly destroyed by historical evidence; and if history were indeed philosophy teaching by examples, we had only to follow with confidence its undoubted and assured experience. Hon. Members who opposed the Bill, complained of a want of nationality in the Jewish character, which was, in truth, solely attributable to our own degrading treatment of them. The instances of France, Holland, and the United States had exhibited and established the perfect competency of the Jews to perform the functions of either civil or military officers, and of becoming, to all intents and purposes, complete subjects of those States into which they were fully and honourably admitted. The objection which was more than any other urged against the proposed emancipation, and which was dwelt upon most forcibly by those who admitted the moral and social excellence of the Jewish people, was, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that this, as a constitutional principle, prohibited the removal of their disabilities. In looking at the true nature of this supposed principle, which was, strictly speaking, certainly nowhere to be found as a part either of the written or unwritten law of this country, it was observable, that the instances in which it had been referred to and relied on in modern times had been almost exclusively occasions in which the question had been raised by persons under prosecution,—whether insulting and disgraceful libels upon Christianity could be brought under the cognizance of Courts of Justice, and such attacks upon the religion of the country had been universally held to be punishable by the law. It might be therefore pretty confidently affirmed, that the modern familiarity and use of this expression had mainly been founded upon judicial dicta. It might also be practically true, as it was to be hoped that the institutions of a people almost universally Christian naturally partook of
1168
a character of Christianity. But on looking at the political history of this country, it was impossible not to see, that for a long period of years, and till very lately, the great object was to connect all participation in the Civil Government, not with the profession of general Christianity, but with the principles of the Established Church. This was the real union which was the theory and the object of the ancient system. The spirit of toleration, the diffusion of education, and more enlarged views, and an abhorrence of persecution, had annihilated this system for ever. The old cry was Church and State. It now was Christianity and the State. If all the Members of a Legislature could have agreed in religious opinions, it would undoubtedly have been a happy coincidence; but it was a good unattainable. There might be an anomaly in confiding the protection of institutions to those who were hostile to them, hut the Legislature had determined most wisely to submit to that anomaly rather than incur a much greater evil. It was very easy now to say, that the sole objection was against those who were not Christians. It was a very politic argument; it suited the actual state of things. All other objections had been tried, and almost all had totally failed. This formed a species of support in the doubtful and divided feelings of the country on this subject. The arguments against those professing a different form of Christianity from ourselves were urged as forcibly and as anxiously as against the Jews themselves. What hostility could exceed that which once prevailed between different denominations of Christians? Indeed, it must have exceeded any other, if it were true that an approximation in religious belief increased the bitterness of religious animosity. What was the exclusion of the Jews, but the last remnant of an expiring intolerance? The best interests and precepts of Christianity were in conformity with this measure. To exclude from civil privileges without an absolute necessity, and for self-protection, was a species of indirect persecution, which was abhorrent from the spirit of the religion we professed. As friends of religion they were bound to abstain from that miscalled support and assistance which the religion itself utterly disavowed and disclaimed. It was of the essence of that religion to commend itself solely by its own intrinsic purity and excellence to the good feelings of the human mind. It would have been well for man-

1169
kind if what had been called Christianity-had been so in spirit as well as in name. In some countries it had borne a much greater resemblance to Paganism than to the mild principles of its divine founder. They might rejoice, that notwithstanding much error, it had not been so with them. It would be no excuse for moral crime that it had been committed in promoting the fulfilment of a Christian prophecy. They might leave Providence to the accomplishment of its own inscrutable purposes. Let them be content to follow the precepts of charity and of mercy—let them hope that an act of grace, by gradually removing that stubborn pride which was the most powerful motive that could reign in the human heart, even in matters supposed to depend upon mere abstract belief, might be the first step towards the ultimate conversion of the Jews to Christianity.
Sir Daniel K. Sandfordsaid, that not having seen the Bill for the better Observance of the Sabbath, about to be introduced by the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Poulter), he would not say, whether there was anything about it of that Judaical character, which would account for the congenial feeling with which the hon. Gentleman advocated the pretensions of the Jews. But when that hon. Gentleman, and the hon. member for York, referred him to France, to Poland, and to America, for an example of religious toleration, he (Sir D. Sandford) must tell them that he would not turn to these countries, nor to any other as a model for Great Britain in legislative measures connected with religion. He would not resort to France, for she had too often held herself forth as the enemy of all religious principle; he would not go to Poland, for she, alas! had neither will nor constitution of her own; and he would not go to America, for he should ever contend that America, of all lands beneath the sun, afforded the worst, the most fatal example, on every subject that concerned the cause of Christianity. [Cries of "Oh, oh," from Mr. O'Connell.] He wished that the learned member for Dublin, who cheered that remark with so peculiar an emphasis, would give him a fair and speedy opportunity of meeting him upon the question, and he pledged himself to show, if America were to be adduced as the great argument for destroying all the safeguards of a National Church—he would prove from history, from experience, from the statistics of the Americans themselves, that they had little title to be blazoned forth as a pattern to
1170
the Christian world. It was no pleasing duty, especially in the present temper of the House, to rise there as the opponent of a measure which bore the semblance of religious toleration—but there was as wide a difference between the spirit of true toleration, and the false liberality of which this Bill was the offspring, as between the spirit of political freedom, of which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had been so often the able and successful defenders, and that spirit of anarchy and political license, of which they were the declared, and he hoped would long continue, the decided enemies. He would resist the further progress of this Bill on the broad and simple principle, that this was a Christian country, that we had Christian institutions, that we had a Christian Legislature, that the sanctions of our laws were Christian, and that it became the Members of that House as the Representatives of a Christian people attached to those laws and institutions to do nothing to unconsecrate their character. Oh! but he was told that if he put the question upon the ground of Christianity, charity was a Christian virtue, and that charity called for the removal of the Jewish disabilities. He was not there to impeach the comprehensive nature of Christian charity; he recollected with a sensation of delight that exquisite enumeration of its gracious and beautiful conditions, which formed the most overwhelming passage in all the pages of inspired eloquence, and placed charity, as she deserved to stand, at the head of the whole catalogue of virtues. But charity had done her part towards the objects of the Motion before the House. The Penal Statutes had disappeared—the fires of persecution were extinguished—the chains of feudal tyranny were broken—and the Jew held his property, and enjoyed the protection of the laws, by as secure a tenure as the Christian. But he could not admit, that charity demanded the concession of political privileges—of political privileges involving danger to the character of our civil institutions. Why, could hon. Gentlemen deny, that whole classes of men were debarred, by the Constitution of this country, from a participation in political privileges? Was not the elective franchise restricted? Were not members of the sacred profession, if they belonged to the Established Church, men who made up their minds to enter holy orders—as the Jew, when arrived at years of discretion, made up his mind to abide by the creed of his forefathers—were

1171
not they prevented from throwing off their sacred garb, from entering at the bar, or rising to the judicial bench, or becoming Members of the House of Commons? And had not the Catholic subjects of his Majesty, for a long space of years, been excluded from a share in some of these political privileges. They had been shut out from such privileges as long as danger to the State could arise from their enjoying them. While the succession to the Throne was disputed, while the very independence of the nation was threatened, they had been justly so excluded; and had he (Sir D. Sandford) lived at the period when those dangers menaced the kingdom, he would have opposed the admission of the Catholics to political power, as vehemently as he had, in a humbler sphere than that in which he now stood, favoured and promoted it, when the changes to which he had alluded had disappeared. But the dangers to the fundamental character of our institutions, which were to be apprehended from the present proposal, were of a permanent nature, and could not be removed. He had no objection to rest the main force of his opposition to the Bill upon the eventual difference between these two cases—rthe case for the repeal of Catholic disabilities, and the case for the relief of the Jews. He perceived by the clauses of the Bill itself, and he had gathered from former speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, that they relied almost entirely on the pretended analogy between the claims of the Roman Catholics and those of these new Candidates for political privilege. But he would maintain, that there was no substantial analogy between them. This measure was a mere travestie upon the great measure to which it was represented as parallel. Jewish emancipation, as it was called, was nothing better than a parody upon the Emancipation of the Catholics. Look at the inherent, the irremovable distinction between the one case and the other. It was not true to say, that ours was a Protestant Constitution. There were, indeed, Protestant points, and those of great value and importance in the Constitution—a Protestant Monarch—Protestants in certain high offices around the Throne—but the chief glories of the British Constitution were anterior to the separation between Catholics and Protestants. Its foundations were laid deep and broad by the hands of our Catholic ancestors in some of the remotest periods of British history. By a Catholic nobility and a Catholic
1172
priesthood was wrung, from the hands of a despot the great charter of our liberties; and they must remount to still more distant times for the origin of its strongest bulwarks—trial by Jury, and the Representative system. He could not assent, therefore, to the proposition that our Constitution was essentially Protestant. But it was essentially Christian. Christianity was intertwined with the whole fabric of our institutions, giving to them stability and dignity, and to our laws a sanction and authority which nothing else could bestow. Now into the support of that principle, and into the veneration of that sanction, the Catholic could enter as heartily and warmly as the Protestant:—he adored the same God under the same attributes; he hoped for pardon through the same Redeemer; he looked for the same retribution; and he felt, notwithstanding some differences that need not then be particularised, the weight and influence of the same religious principles. But could all this be affirmed in like manner of the Jew? Did he view the Deity under the same relations, or trust in the same atonements—or derive the sanction of laws and government from the articles of a similar faith? Was it fair, then; was it common justice to the Catholic to set him, even in argument, upon the same level with the Jew? But, after all, what had been the strongest reason urged in favour of the Catholic Emancipation? Was it not political expediency? The illustrious Duke in the other House—the right hon. Baronet in the House of Commons—who had carried the measure of Catholic relief, gave great prominence to the argument of political expediency. But where was the expediency in the case before them? Where was the Jewish association, acting in defiance of law, assuming a power beyond the reach of control, and coercing the Legislature into a compliance with its sovereign decrees? Where was the Hebrew agitator? Where were the combined millions of exasperated Israelites thundering for admission at their doors? How often, in furtherance of the Catholic claims, had the numerical argument been employed? How often had they heard of seven millions of the finest peasantry on the face of the earth, and of their being fourteen to one in relation to the Protestants of Ireland? What! was he to hear of a similar proportion now between the Jews and the Christians of Great Britain? Then they must not have seven millions, but 196 millions of Jews, arrayed

1173
against the Christian population. But he believed that there were not 196 Jews in the country, who cared a farthing about the privileges proffered by this Bill. His hon. friend behind him was quite right in the distinction he had drawn between the devout, sincere Jews, and those Jews to whom this Bill would open an avenue to political honours. For the devout Jews, he (Sir D. Sandford) would acknowledge feelings of profound respect and sympathy. He sympathised with them in their pride of ancestry—an ancestry that laughed to scorn the proudest Christian genealogies—in their fond recollections of departed glory—in their bright hopes of its future restoration. But he had no sympathy with the Jewish worldling—the nominal Jew, who remained so in externals, for the sake, perhaps, of some financial advantage, or to maintain the credit of a commercial firm, the home of whose heart was not, like that of his religious countrymen, amid the hallowed scenes of Palestine; but in the prospects of professional advancement, or amid those benches, to which from beneath the gallery he might be casting the longing eyes of political ambition. He could have no confidence in a Jew of that description—dead to the hopes and aspirations of his better and nobler countrymen, and alive only to his own ambitious desires. Such a Jew was too likely to join, within that House, the ranks of the enemies of the Church—and, in his opinion, the Church had enemies there already more than enough. He was told, why not admit the Jew into that House, into which the infidel found an easy entrance. There might be infidels in that House—he hoped they were not many; but it was a curious argument to advance, "Here are already those who, upon principle, or from the want of it, must be inimical to the Christian cause, and therefore, by all means, let us increase their number." But if they had infidels within these walls, at least they were not open and avowed. There were none there who, on approaching that Table, had not come under obligations which they might indeed forget and abandon, but which they could not openly renounce without bringing on themselves the inevitable stigma of degradation and dishonour. Show him the man that would dare to rise in that House and proclaim himself a declared unbeliever. In that House did he say? Let him go to the last and lowest scene of disgrace and misery—where trembling guilt awaited the announcement of its doom—let him go
1174
among felons, and the companions of felons, where prisoners, and witnesses, and auditory, were too often marked with the foulest stains of contamination and crime, and even in such a presence as that let him try the effect of such a declaration. Let him go to the Old Bailey and avow himself an infidel. He (Sir D. Sandford) was conjuring up no imaginary vision; he was describing what had actually occurred; and even in that place of crime, and infamy, and punishment, the wretch who ventured upon an open avowal of infidelity, was driven forth amidst a storm of execration. Now, he would not assist to place upon the bench of that court a man who could not sympathise in such a burst of irrepressible honest indignation. He would not place there one who could have no respect for the sanction of the oaths administered before him—it would be an impious mockery to make a judge preside over the hourly administration of oaths, whose sanction he was bound, by his own tenets, to treat with abhorrence and disdain. And how, he might ask, would the effect be less revolting, if that House were to be opened to the avowed foes of Christianity? It was not often, perhaps, that an appeal was made within those walls, to the awful names, and the tremendous sanctions of a Christian's faith; but such occasions did sometimes intervene, and then it was felt, that the most sovereign of all arguments was urged, and the most resistless of all claims, to acquiescence. He could not endure to think that now, by the introduction of a monstrous novelty, the harmony of such impressions must be for ever destroyed, the unanimity of the feeling broken, and the glow of a high and just enthusiasm, if for a moment it lighted up the countenances of that assembly, must be slackened by the contemptuous sneer of Jewish unbelief. He saw indeed that, as far as that House was concerned, the minds of the majority were made up in favour of the measure; but he remembered with satisfaction, that it had to pass through the ordeal of another House, where he hoped that its final doom might be confidently anticipated. If, unfortunately, the verdict of that other House should not be against it, he should say, that the addition of that Bill, in the shape of a law to the Statute Book of England, would be the worst, the most uncalled for, and the most irrevocable blot that was ever cast upon her legislative annals.
Mr. Buckinghamdeprecated the allusion which the hon. and learned Gentleman,

1175
who had spoken last, had made to the ease of the infidel who had been discarded from the witness box in a court of justice, upon the avowal of his principles; for, in his judgment, there did not exist the slightest analogy between such a case and that of a professor of the Jewish faith; on the contrary, the Jew was constantly received as a witness in both civil and criminal cases. He contended, that while the Jews in this country were not freed from taxation and other liabilities to national risks, they ought at least to be admitted to an equal participation in the rights and privileges enjoyed by their fellow-citizens.
Mr. William Rochesaid: I should consider myself either violating or forgetting that supreme and proud precept of Christianity, "Doing unto others as we would wish they should do unto us," were I not to give my sincere support to the measure now before the House, for relief of the Jewish people from the Civil Disabilities under which they labour, because of adhering (however erroneously, yet conscientiously) to the spiritual doctrines of their creed. Sir, as a Roman Catholic, so long kept in thraldom, so long oppressed by a cruel injustice because of respecting the dictates of conscience, I should consider myself doubly guilty and ungenerous, did I not hasten to strike off the chains of intolerance from every sect, and view civil rights as the meed of civil services; leaving the mind of man free and unshackled to adore and conciliate his God in the manner he may sincerely and purely believe to be most congenial with the will of the Deity. And, Sir, the more free the mind is left in this respect, the more easily relieved is it from preconceived prejudices, and therefore the more capable and willing to examine into and arrive at sounder and more sustainable doctrines. Persecution perpetuates error, and doctrines the most absurd, may be called into life and vigor, which, if left to their own weakness and instability, would soon die a natural death. Sir, I shall only add, that of all sublunary means (for we must leave the rest to God's own will and Providence), nothing is more likely to wear down the prejudices and pertinacity of the Jews, than permitting them to enjoy and intermingle with us in all the social and civil relations of life. With these sentiments, Sir, I shall give my cordial support to the Motion.
Mr. Robert Grantrose and said, that he hoped he should not be thought guilty of disrespect to the House, or to manifest
1176
any disregard to the subject under its consideration, if he declined to enter into any reply or argument upon it. He thought, that the House, at least the majority of the House, would have already perceived, that all that had been said on the opposite side of the House had done very little harm to the measure he had introduced. On the contrary, he thought (and he assured the House that he said it with profound and sincere regret), that such arguments as had been advanced against the Bill did no good to the cause of Christianity.
The House divided—Ayes 123; Noes 32: Majority 91.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Martin, T.

Ashley, Lord

Maxwell, J. W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Mosley, Sir O.

Blackstone, W. S.

Norreys, Lord

Bulkeley, Sir R.

Palmer, R.

Burrell, Sir C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Campbell, Sir H.

Rickford, W.

Duffield, T.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Dugdale, W. S.

Stormont, Lord

Fleetwood, H.

Villiers, Lord

Forster, C.

Verney, Sir H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Gladstone, T.

Halcombe, J.

TELLERS.

Halford, H.

Bruce, C.

Hardy, J.

Sandford, Sir D. K.

Hurst, R. H.

Paired off.

Lennox, Lord A.

Hughes, H.

Lowther, Colonel

Sinclair, G.

Manners, Lord R.

Verner, Colonel

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. (BILL, No. 1).
Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodmoved the second reading of his Lord's Day Observance Bill. The hon. Member said, that as the subject had so recently been discussed on the occasion of another Bill being before the House, it would be unnecessary for him to enter into any lengthened detail of the measure which he had introduced. The principles contained in the Bill, and for which he contended, were simply three,—namely, to prevent all process of manufacture on the Sabbath; the opening of public-houses during certain hours on that day; and lastly, to put a stop to all Sunday trading. The Bill would, however, leave every man to observe the Sabbath in any manner he might think fit; and would not, by any of its provisions, prevent any individual, should he so think fit, from spending it irreligiously. He repeated, that it would permit every man to dispose of the Sunday as suited himself, The objections which had been raised in another place against a Bill

1177
having a similar object could only apply to one clause of the present Bill,—a clause regulating the payment of wages, and make such payments void and recoverable by the workman from his master. He did not, however, stand upon that clause, though it contained nothing which would prevent the advance by a master of a trifling sum as a loan to his workman on Sundays, in cases of urgent necessity. The anxiety pervading the public mind for some legislative measure for the promotion of the observance of the Lord's Day was fully evinced by the number of petitions with which the Tables of both Houses of Parliament had been crowded,—a number greater than had ever been presented on any subject, excepting the question of West-India slavery. During the present Session (as we understood) no less than 1,273 petitions, bearing upwards of 277,000 signatures, had been presented on the subject to the House; thus showing a demand by the people which it was the duty of the Legislature to comply with. Under these circumstances, coupled also with the fact, that the Bill contained no provisions of compulsion as to the mode in which the Sabbath was to be observed, he trusted the House would consent to its second reading, after which he was prepared to propose, that it should be referred to a Select Committee should such be the wish of the majority of the House. At the same time, he must say, that the objections to the details of the Bill would be so few, that they could be well disposed of in a Committee of the whole House. He should, however, add, that he did not seek in any degree by this Bill to interfere with travelling or innocent amusements and recreations on the Lord's Day. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it appeared to him, that the hon. Member did not really understand his own Bill, which, on the hon. Member's own admission, contained the very Christian principle, that no man need observe the Sabbath at all, though its title was, a Bill for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. A man might, under this Bill, pass the Sabbath in entire idleness, though hitherto it had always been said, that idleness was the mother of all vice, and was consequently mischievous. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that he did not, in his Bill, interfere with travelling. Surely the hon. Gentleman had not read the second and third clauses of his own Bill,
1178
which went to prevent every man from doing anything in his ordinary calling, business, and occupation, on the Sabbath Day. So that though it was said travelling was not interfered with, it would be impossible for a coachman to drive his horse without being amenable to punishment under the Bill. He (Mr. O'Connell) deprecated the regulations proposed by this Bill, in respect to the payment of wages, and was surprised, when the hon. Member proposed to repeal a whole mass of existing Statutes in a cluster, he had not afforded the House some explanation, or shown some grounds for the adoption of such a course. This, surely, was the fury of legislation, and not the mode to be pursued by an assembly, which, if not Christian, was, at least, an assembly where common sense ought to prevail. Again, this Bill made, like its predecessors, a distinction between the rich and poor man. The coffee-shops were to be shut up on Sundays, but there was nothing to prevent the club-houses from being open. He wished the hon. Member would postpone the second reading of his Bill till that which was now in progress in the other House came down to them, and then the House might decide at once on the whole batch. He asked the hon. Member, was his Bill necessary? Had the hon. Member not shown himself that it was quite unnecessary? There prevailed a greater feeling of reverence for the Sabbath than had formerly subsisted. The reason was this,—that the more you had of statute law, the less you had of practical observance. The details of the Bill were absurd; the provisions were so framed that a man must go unshaved unless he could shave himself; and if he shaved himself, he must warm his own water. He should, therefore, move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Poulterseconded the Amendment. He took it for granted, that the House meant to legislate on this question; and he thought, therefore, it was time to agree on the principle of the measure. But to the principle of this Bill he strongly objected, as by the 4th and 7th clauses it was evident that the hon. Member contemplated an aggravation of penalties. Now, he (Mr. Poulter) proposed to effect the same object by collateral and ancillary means. The mode he would adopt was founded on the great statute of Charles 2nd, and would prevent the gross evasions which were practised in contravention of it. The decision of Lord Mansfield, in the case of

1179
"Cripps v. Durden," that there could be but one offence committed on the same day, had annihilated the fair interpretation to be put upon that statute. But it would be idle to attempt to hinder Sunday marketing, unless the poor had secured to them the means of purchasing on a Saturday; otherwise Sunday marketing would be not merely justifiable, but it would be an act of charity to promote it. He believed that there was a great deal of indifference to religion, and a great deal of mistaken religion in the country; but he hoped that, with the extension of education, a feeling of true religion would spring up, equally removed from superstition and fanaticism, indifference and infidelity.
The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 45; Noes 77: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Maxwell, H.

Ashley, Lord

Mosley, Sir O.

Baines, E.

Nicholl, J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Pease, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Perceval, Colonel

Chaytor, Sir W.

Peter, W.

Egerton, W. T.

Phillpotts, J.

Ewing, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fenton, J.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

Forster, C. S.

Richards, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Rotch, B.

Gladstone, W. E.

Ryle, J.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Sandon, Viscount

Grey, Sir G.

Seale, Colonel

Halcombe, J.

Shaw, F.

Hardy, J.

Sinclair, G.

Hughes, W. H.

Stanley, Hon. H. T.

Jermyn, Earl

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Jervis, J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Lennox, Lord A.

Wilbraham, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wynn, Right Hon. C.

Madocks, J.

TELLERS.

Marsland, T.

Bateson, Sir R.

Maxwell J. W.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Bill put off for six months.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH (BILL No. 2).
Mr. Poulter moved the second reading of this Bill.
Sir William Molesworthmoved, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time this day six months.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 12; Noes 52: Majority 40.
The Bill read a second time.