Sitting of 11 June 1841

Preamble
MINUTES.) Bills. Read a first time:—Election Petitions Trial.—Read a second time:—Appropriation; Militia Pay —Read a third time:—School Sites; Banks of Issue; Dog Carts.
Petitions presented, By Mr. Grote, Mr. Feilden, General Johnson, Mr. Ward, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Villiers, and Lord Elliot, from London, Westminster, Todmordon, Oldham, Rotherham, Yorkshire, Ramsgate, Cornwall, and a great many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—Bj Mr. Round, Colonel Rolleston, Viscount Ingestrie, Lord C. Manners, and others, from Essex, Nottinghamshire, Dorsetshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, and other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Dr. Lushington, from the Minor Canons of St. Paul's, against certain parts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill—By Mr. Pakington, from Nottinghamshire, In favour of Church Extension.

SITES FOR SCHOOLS—PRIVILEGE AND BUSINESS.
Sir George Greymoved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the School Sites Bill (No. 2.)
Mr. Freshfielddid not mean to oppose the order of the day, but begged to avail himself of that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a subject that he deemed of some importance to the general business transacted within these walls. He observed on the paper a notice given by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), "to move, before the orders of the day, 1. That a Committee of the House of Commons having reported, that the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the election for the borough of Cambridge,' Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute William Swan and Samuel Long, the principal agents of the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton for bribery. 2. That Mr. Attorney-general be also directed to prosecute the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton for bribery at the election for the borough of Cambridge," The hon. Member for Sheffield had, no doubt, given this notice under a supposition, that the matter to which it referred was a matter of privilege. He, however, contended, that it was not a matter of privilege, and, consequently, that it could have no claim whatever to take precedence of the orders of the day. It did not relate to the conduct of any Member of the House, nor was it a matter of such, recent occurrence as could in any degree tend to obstruct the functions of the House therefore it could not be regarded as a, matter of such urgent necessity as to entitle it to the precedence which the hon. Member for Sheffield sought to obtain for it. Perhaps Mr. Speaker would favour the House with

1461
his opinion as to whether it could be regarded as matter of privilege or not.
Mr. Wardhad only one fault to find with the objection of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and that was, that it was not made at the time that the notice was given. He contended, that this case of the Cambridge election which he now sought to bring forward, was exactly analogous to the case of the St. Alban's election, brought forward and discussed the other evening as a matter of privilege by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Williams Wynn). There was no pretence for saying that any objection that would be good against the one would not be equally good against the other. In the St. Alban's case, the transaction was a by-gone transaction, quite as much as the transaction in the Cambridge case. He (Mr. Ward), therefore, submitted to the House that the two eases stood in precisely the same position; and if Mr. Speaker should decide upon the question of privilege, that the one was as doubtful as the other was represented to be, he (Mr. Ward) should still put it to the House, whether, in fairness and justice, after the discussion of the other night, he could be denied the opportunity of submitting the motion of which he had given notice.
Mr. Freshfieldthought, that there was no parallel between the two cases of St. Alban's and Cambridge; the one was a recent, the other a remote transaction.
Sir E. Sugdenalso thought, that there was an essential distinction between the two cases, and that the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield could claim no precedence as a matter of privilege. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend would not persist in his objection, but allow the hon. Gentleman the same indulgence as was conceded a few evenings ago to the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
The Speaker,having been asked for his opinion as to whether the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) could come on as a matter of privilege, had no hesitation in declaring, that the subject was in no way a matter of privilege. The hon. Member had given notice that he would move it before the orders of the day. If the House did not interfere to prevent it, there could be no objection to his taking that course; but the hon. Member had no claim to precedence on the ground of privilege. With respect to the motion brought forward the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Mont-
1462
gomeryshire (Mr. W. Wynn), if that motion had been objected to, and the question put to him (the Speaker) as to whether it could be brought forward as a matter of privilege, he (the Speaker) should certainly have had great doubt upon the point. He did not think that it could have been brought on strictly as a matter of privilege. It had, however, been the general, though not the uniform custom of the House, to give precedence to matters growing out of Section committees.
Mr. Wardfelt, then, that he must throw himself entirely upon the kindness of the House. He asked whether, in common justice, after the motion of the other night, the House could now refuse him the opportunity of bringing forward the subject of the Cambridge election.
Bill read a third time and passed.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Sir R. Peelstated, that some time since the committee elections made some suggestions of a trifling and formal nature, for the amendment of some of the provisions of the Act for the trial of Controverted Elections. It would, of course, be matter of great importance that those amendments should be adopted prior to the meeting of a new Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that the House would give him leave to bring in a bill, to amend the act relating to the trial of Controverted Elections.
Leave given.

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.
Report of Committee on the Cambridge Election, 29th April, 1840, was on the motion of Mr. Ward, read as follows:—
"Sir Charles Lemon further reported, that the committee had agreed to the following resolutions:—
"That it appears to this committee, that the hon. John Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last election for the borough of Cambridge,
"That it appears, from the evidence taken before the committee, that an extensive and corrupt system of treating, prevailed on the part of many influential Members of the constituency, at the last election for the borough of Cambridge."
Mr. Wardrose, with, very great pain and reluctance, to undertake a duty which he should never have dreamed of saddling himself with, but for the new reading of his Parliamentary duties, as a Member of thud House which was given to him the other night, by

1463
the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire. The opinion of that right hon. Gentleman carried great weight with it in all matters relating to the laws, customs, and privileges of the House; and there was no man to whose judgment he (Mr. Ward), would more willingly bow upon all such subjects. How was the law which ought to govern the House, in cases where bribery was alleged against individuals at elections for Members to serve in Parliament, expounded by the right hon. Gentleman the other evening? The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"Even where the evidence of bribery was incomplete, the House would not discharge its duty properly if it did not send the case into a court of justice—that a prima facie case was all that the House required—that the House stood in the position of a grand jury in such cases, and that it was its bounden duty to take care that the law did not sleep and become a dead letter. If they did not, all their debating upon bills relating to bribery would be mere idle talk and waste of time."
On these grounds the right hon. Gentleman moved—
"That the Attorney-general be directed to prosecute Richard Webster, for bribery at the last St. Alban's election."
The hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale), in the course of the discussion which took place upon that motion, said:—
"He thought it desirable that special notice should be taken of the present case, particularly before the general election, in order that the borough of St. Alban's might have the opportunity of wiping out the stain that rested upon it."
St. Alban's did not stand alone in this respect; there were other boroughs to which a similar stain was attached, and it was highly desirable that all these boroughs, as well as the borough of St. Alban's should, have the opportunity of wiping out the stains that were so discreditable to them, before they were again called upon to exercise their elective rights. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, (Mr. Dugdale) said, that
"If Dr. Webster were not guilty of the offence alleged against him, in the report of the election committee, it would in fact be an act of kindness on the part of the House to direct the prosecution, as it would furnish him the opportunity of proving his innocence."
And the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), said; that the House, in assenting to the
1464
motion of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. W. Wynn), did not dream of punishing Dr. Webster, but was merely going to put him on his trial (The resolution), said the hon. Baronet,
"Was not condemnatory of Dr. Webster; but it was intended to send him to trial. And was there, or was there not, sufficient evidence in the Blue Book, to subject him to the ordeal of a tribunal of his country."
Such were the grounds upon which the motion of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was supported on Tuesday last. Now, St. Alban's, as he had already stated, was not singular in the vice of bribery. Many other boroughs had incurred a similar stain; so many, that the only difficulty when a case was looked for was the difficulty of choice. There was the Evesham case, where Mr. Borthwick was dispossessed of his seat for an act of bribery committed by his own hands; and there were many others to which he might refer, but he preferred to take the most recent case, and therefore had chosen the case of Cambridge. In that case they had many things which were wanting to complete the case of St. Alban's. In the Cambridge case the evidence of the witnesses was sifted, and the accused party had an opportunity of making his defence. None of these things were to be found in the St. Alban's case; and in the Cambridge case they had a one-sided decision; for the noble Lord opposite (Earl Darlington) and an hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for Kent, voted in the majority. The only individual who opposed the resolution of the Cambridge committee was the hon. Baronet, the Member for Radnorshire. It was a case which had been too long overlooked; and, after what had been stated on Monday night, could be overlooked no longer. It was stated, that bribery was greatly on the increase; that it had become a trade, and was conducted with so much dexterity, that it was almost impossible to be proved. In the Cambridge case bribery had been proved to the satisfaction of a Committee of that House, then why not make an example? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire, said, the other night that the situation in life of Dr. Webster greatly aggravated the offence with which he was charged, and that his example as a member of a liberal profession was likely to be doubly pernicious. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gen-

1465
tleman in that sentiment; but in the present instance he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that he was flying at higher game. In the Cambridge case they had to deal with a Gentleman who had' a sort of hereditary claim to a knowledge of the rules and practice of that House. He hoped, therefore, that he should have the honour of the right hon. Gentleman's support on the present occasion, although he found that principle and practice did not always go hand in hand. He thought there could be no better proof of the nature of the bribery that was carried on at Cambridge, than the report of the committee appointed by that House to try the merits of the petition. They reported, that the hon. Henry Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last Cambridge election; and that an extensive and corrupt system of bribery and treating was carried on among many of the influential members of the constituency. These resolutions were carried by majorities of five and six to one of the Members of the committee. It appeared, that the agents of the hon. Candidate were William Swan and Samuel Long, and the latter appeared to be one of those individuals who came within the description of the gallant Member for Donegal (Colonel Conolly); one of those who
"Had learnt to bribe without being discovered, and how to destroy the links of evidence between the briber and the candidate, thus defeating Parliament, frustrating justice, and leaving the delinquency unpunished."
Samuel Long was proved to have been an instrument in the bribing of two electors, the one George Smith, and the other William Marsh. The case of George Smith was to be found towards the close of the report, and it seemed to have been conducted with much cleverness and ingenuity on the part of Mr. Samuel Long. Smith was a shoemaker, and Long went to him and ordered a pair of shoes. On that occasion he gave him some advice as to the duty of a poor man to disregard politics, and to vote as his own interests might require; adding that he could put a few pounds in his pocket if he voted for Mr. Manners Sutton. At a subsequent interview he tried not only advice but wine; he gave wine to the voter, and then told him to cut the matter short about the election, that he would give him 10 l. for his vote. He could give him 9l. then, and he
1466
would receive the remaining pound when he brought home the shoes. He afterwards changed his mind, under an apprehension, perhaps, of the consequences, and told the man not to come himself, but to send his wife for the money. As to bribery, he said it was all nonsense and stuff. "I suppose," said the counsel," you washed that down with another glass of wine?" to which the witness answered, that he believed there was another glass. The evidence of Smith was confirmed by that of his wife, who stated, that she had received the money, and took it home to her husband. He marked the sovereigns with a file, and afterwards carried them to Mr. Francis Eden, who produced them before the committee. The committee was of opinion, from the evidence adduced, that Long, against whom the charge had been proved, was the agent of Mr. Manners Sutton. He would next come to the case of W. March. The case of March was different from the case of Smith in one respect only. March was a watchmaker, and a different mode of action was adopted. The agent went to March and purchased a brooch, but precisely the same mode of argument was used as had been used in the case of Smith. March was told that a poor man like himself had little to do with the election, that he had best look out for his own interest; he gave him wine, and he (Mr. Ward) supposed, deducting a per centage from the bribe on account of his cleverness in bribing, he gave March nine sovereigns instead often. March had a conversation with Cooper on the subject, and when Long accused him of having betrayed March, said, that he had no wish to injure Long, but that he hoped, that those who had employed him would be punished. If they really wished to put an end to this system of corruption, they should not merely prosecute the agents, but the persons from whom the corruption originated. It was sometimes difficult to trace the corruption up to its source, but in the present instance the links in the chain were more than usually complete; so complete, that they traced their agents as canvassing with Mr. Manners Sutton, and as in constant communication with Mr. Manners Sutton's known; and recognised agent, as ordering beer for the refreshment of Mr. Manners Sutton's voters, which were all paid for to the amount of 800 l., by Mr. Fiske, Mr. Manners Sutton's known and recognised agent.

1467
The House having laid down the broad line the other night, that it would proceed; against the parties in all cases of bribery, he thought it was bound to proceed in the; present case, where a primâ facie case of bribery had been made out, and the House if it wished really to put down bribery ought not to proceed merely against humble individuals like Mr. Webster, who was now declining into the vale of years, and who had no longer the energy of youth about him, but against individuals who, like Mr. Manners Sutton, had had the honour of a seat in that House. The parties who lodged three or four thousand pounds in the hands of their bankers, for the purpose of corrupting the electors, were the really guilty parties, and ought rather to be prosecuted than those who were detected in dealing out a fractional portion of that corruption to the electors. The House, therefore, having taken the line that it did the other night; he did not say whether it was a prudent line or not; were bound to follow up that course, and"e greater and higher the personages were against whom the prosecution was instituted, the greater would be the effect of the example, and the more effectually would they put an end to those practices to which they were desirous of putting an end. They would more effectually arrest the crime of bribery, than by merely proceeding against obscure individuals, such ail William Swan and Samuel Long; He might be told, that a person who had not committed bribery in his own person, but by; an agent, was not guilty of bribery. He said, that such a man was morally guilty; but he did not mean to risk his motion on such a question as that, and he had, therefore, in addition to the first resolution relative to the prosecution of Swan and Long, introduced a second resolution, for which he would certainly vote himself, whether largely supported or not and by which further proceedings Were directed to be taken against the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, believing as he (Mr. Ward) did, that the links connecting Mr. Sutton with his agents, Swan and Long, were complete. He should therefore put his motion with confidence td the House, and leave it with hon. members to deal with it as they thought fit.
Sir C. Lemonsaid, as chairman of the committee on the Cambridge election, he thought it was important that the House
1468
should understand on what grounds the committee adopted their report. The committee first came to the conclusion that the agents of Mr. Manners Sutton had been guilty of bribery, it was suggested to them afterwards that they departed in some measure from the usual form adopted by, the House, and they then altered their resolutions to the form of the second resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman. They thought that the question which they had to try was hot whether Mr. Manners Sutton, in his own person, had been guilty of bribery, but whether his agents had been guilty of it, and they came to the conclusion upon the evidence that they had been and Were connected with him. But he would remind the hon. Gentleman of the distinction drawn by the Chief Justice Abbott between this case and a prosecution in the Courts of Law. With respect to Mr. Long, the evidence was as clear as it possibly could be. He not only gave the bribe, but he explained to the party for what purpose it was given—namely with the view of influencing his Vote and there was not the smallest doubt that if Mr. Long had been prosecuted at that time conviction would have followed. The question, however, for the House td consider was, whether after this' matter had been allowed to rest for a year and a half, it would be proper to commence a prosecution. If hot vindictive the proceeding would at least be retaliation. After a twelvemonth had elapsed, it was too late to commence a prosecution, and if the motion, therefore, was persisted ill, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
The Earl of Darlingtonconcurred in the remarks which hid fallen from the hon. Baronet. It was needless to say that, whoever might be the individual concerned —whether of high or low station, whether friend or foe—in any act of delinquency he would give his verdict impartially. He was not present when his right hon. Friend brought forward his motion with respect to Dr. Webster, but he certainly was astonished when he found that a number of hon. Gentlemen who profess the greatest horror of bribery had done all in their power to shelter him. He believed a more flagrant case than that had never come before the House of Commons. He would now address himself to the subject before the House. Mr. Long had undoubtedly been guilty of bribery, but he

1469
ought to have been prosecuted at the time. With regard to Mr. Swan, there had been a good deal of discussion as to whether he could be proved to have been connected with Mr. Manners Sutton. So Far as his (Lord Darlington's) memory served him, there was no evidence to show that Mr. Swan had any personal communication whatever with Mr. Sutton. There was a good deal of difference of opinion upon the subject among the Members of the committee, and, for his part, he had voted that Mr. Swan's agency had not been proved; but the committee having come to a contrary decision, he afterwards voted that the case of bribery had been made Out. He would also add, that though Mr. Swan had been subpoenaed by the counsel for the prosecution, they never brought him, and for no other reason, as appeared to him (Lord Darlington) than that his evidence upon a cross-examination might militate against them. He would leave the House, after a statement of these facts, to judge for itself upon the case of Mr. Swan. He would next come to Mr. Manners Sutton, against whom he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite had not established one single charge. Let him be allowed to add, that so hard did the committee think the case of Mr. Manners Sutton that though he should not retain his seat, so guiltless did they consider him of any kind Of bribery, that fin the resolution they had passed in the first instance, they had omitted his name altogether. It was only in the second resolution they had come to after the objection of Mr. Austin to the first as illegal and unprecedented, that it had been decided that Mr. Manners Sutton had been guilty of bribery through his agents at the election. Mr. Sutton took no part in the election whatever. He was applied to by the Conservaties to stand for the borough, and he was required to pay 300 l towards the expenses of the election. It was the only pan Mr. Sutton took in the election, and he did not think a sufficient cage had been made out to warrant the House in giving its assent to the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Protheroesaid, it had been distinctly proved before the committee that the agents of Mr. Sutton had contributed to a fund, the avowed object of which was the corruption arid bribery of the electors. He believed however, that, as far as Mr. Sutton was concerned individually, he
1470
stood as clear as any man could who represented one of those old and corrupt constituencies. It certainly appeared to him, that much more blame ought to be attributed to the electors than the candidates, for it was impossible to exercise any influence over the constituencies without falling into the corrupt practices that prevailed in these boroughs; and on those grounds he objected to the prosecution of Mr. Sutton, but he should certainly vote for the first resolution.
Mr. Thesigerwas of opinion, that it would neither be creditable nor desirable for the House to institute a prosecution with the certain prospect of defeat before it; nor was it at all consistent with the dignity of the House to institute such proceedings in a spirit of retaliation. What he would ask, had the present case to do with the case of Dr. Webster? Were the merits of the present case involved in that? Why not take each case and rest it on its own merits? He repeated, that it was neither expedient nor desirable, to institute the proposed proceedings; it was no light matter for that House to direct a prosecution, as in doing so, the individual about to take his trial would have a prejudice excited against him, inasmuch as it would be assumed that the House had good grounds for sending the case for trial, and the party would, therefore, labour under a prejudice from the commencement. The House should therefore, be careful how it proceeded. He would not refer to the case of St. Alban's. That case had nothing to do with the She then under consideration. It was Clear, from the evidence of the Chairman of the committee, which sat upon the Cambridge petition, that nothing was elicited which could implicate Mr. Manners Sutton, and the hon. Member for Halifax bore testimony to the same effect. Neither did there appear in the evidence anything which could implicate Swan. He regretted, that the hon. and learned Attorney-general was not present, as he should have wished to appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether in the administration of criminal justice arty person was held responsible for the conduct of his agent, unless that person were himself in some degree personally connected with the act. In Civil cases, the principal was responsible for the conduct of the agents but, with the exception already made, such was not the case in the administration of criminal

1471
justice. If he was right in this opinion, the consequence of a prosecution being directed by the House would be, that those who administered the criminal laws in our courts of justice, seeing not the slightest pretence for a prosecution, would direct an acquittal, and then the House would suffer in the eyes of the country for having, at the same time that several of its Members were members of the legal profession also, not only sanctioned, but directed a prosecution which it would be impossible to maintain. He would appeal, therefore, to the good sense of the House, and ask whether it would be right to institute a prosecution, when there was no evidence whatsoever to connect Mr. Manners Sutton with Swan, whilst at the same time no act of bribery could be proved against Swan. With respect to Long, he was not prepared to defend him. There was no doubt, that a case of personal bribery had been made out against Long, for which he was liable to a prosecution. The House, however, did not seem to be aware that a prosecution had already been commenced against Long. It was instituted in January, 1840, at the borough sessions of Cambridge. He was taken on a warrant issued by Professor Henslow, who was an ardent friend and partizan of Mr. Gibson, and who proposed that gentleman as a candidate. The case was heard in the first instance before four magistrates, who were also partizans of Mr. Gibson, and at certain portions of the evidence which appeared to make against Long, one of the magistrates expressed applause. Long was held to bail by those magistrates, himself in 500 l., and two sureties of 250 l. each, though he was only a poor harness-maker earning 3l. a-week. The case was moved by certiorari to the Court of Queen's Bench, and was ripe for trial, which was to come on at the spring assizes of 1840. The attornies for the prosecution, who were also the agents for the petitioners against Mr. Manners Sutton, came to town, and met Long by appointment at the Craven Hotel, or some hotel in Craven-street, where he was told, that the prosecution against him would be foregone if he would give evidence against Mr. Manners Sutton. This person made a statement that he was present at, he (Mr. Thesiger) thought, the Eagle, when one Mitchell, in the presence of Mr. Fisher, a leading Conservative in Cambridge, handed over to him forty sove-
1472
reigns, for the purposes of bribery. When, however, he came before the committee of the House of Commons, this man, on his oath, positively denied that that statement was true, and declared that he had only made it for the purpose of getting an abandonment of the prosecution. Certainly he (Mr. Thesiger) was not there to defend such a person as this, but he submitted that it was more likely that the truth should come out when the man was before the committee, than when be was making a statement to the opposing party. He wished to ask the Attorney-general whether he ever had known an instance in which an ex officio information against a party had been filed when an indictment for the same offence was already depending. He could not think, that the Attorney-general could be induced to enter upon such a prosecution, and for the reasons he had given, he trusted the House would negative all the resolutions.
The Attorney-Generalwas rather surprised, considering the situation in which he was placed, that his hon. and learned Friend should have appealed to him on this occasion. Having in the case of the St. Alban's election, which was before the House very recently, declined giving any opinion on its merits, it was his intention to pursue the same course on the present occasion. If he were to depart from that line, it was possible it might be quoted against him, before a jury, that he was prosecuting a case on which he had already delivered an opinion as a judge in the House of Commons.
Sir E. Sugdenwas of opinion, that there was no ground whatever for instituting a prosecution against Mr. Manners Sutton. That Gentleman's name was most reluctantly introduced into the report of the committee, it being the opinion of that committee, that Mr. Sutton was in no way proved to be cognizant of the acts of bribery alleged to have been committed in his name, and it was only on the representation of Mr. Austen, the petitioner's counsel, who stated that he feared the finding of the committee would be inoperative unless that gentleman's name was mentioned, that the committee introduced the name of Mr. Sutton at all. There was nothing to implicate that Gentleman, and if he should be indicted he must be acquitted: he would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member for Sheffield to withdraw the resolution against Mr. Sutton.
Mr. Wardsaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, he was perfectly willing to abandon the resolution against Mr. Manners Sutton, who, although he might be morally guilty, was not, he was inclined to think, after the opinions which had been expressed, legally guilty of bribery.
Lord J. Russellfelt himself relieved from the necessity of considering the question in respect to the charge against Mr. Manners Sutton by the course which the hon. Member for Sheffield had just taken. In the second resolution he (Lord John Russell) could not have concurred, because he did not see anything im the evidence which at all implicated Mr. Manners Sutton. With regard to the first resolution, he thought it desirable, that it should be divided into two resolutions, because it related to two different cases. With respect to Mr. Swan, he (Lord John Russell) should certainly require more evidence than he had yet obtained, before he could assent to a prosecution on the part of the House against him; but with respect to Long, it was admitted generally, by both sides of the House, as far as the opinion of the House was concerned, that he had been guilty personally of several acts of bribery, and that it was just such a case in which the House might properly interfere.
Mr. Williams Wynnwould be sorry to see the idea of instituting a prosecution for bribery entertained where the act was done by agency only, without any proof of knowledge on the part of the principal, because such a course would interfere with the conduct of election committees, and deter them from doing that with respect to the seat of the sitting Member which they could legally do, although there might be no ground for a prosecution. He therefore acquiesced in the withdrawal of the resolution as far as respected Mr. Manners Sutton.
Mr. T. Hobhousehoped, as it appeared that hon. Gentlemen on both sides were agreed as to the substance of the resolution, at least against Long, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, would put it into that technical shape which would make it agree with the wishes of the House.
Mr. Plumptrehad no objection to continue the prosecution against Long, but he did not think a case had been made out against Swan.
Mr. Wardsaid, that the finding of the committee was, that the agency of William Swan, jun., was proved, and that they considered Long to be the instrument of Swan, for the purpose of this election. Now, as the committee regarded Long to be the instrument of Swan, for the purpose of bribery, Swan certainly ought to be considered as one link in the chain of agency. He had no objection to divide the resolution into two parts, making the first a direction to the Attorney-general to proceed against Long, and the next a direction to the Attorney-general to proceed against Swan, but he could not withdraw the resolution against Swan, because he thought him to be one of the instruments in the work of bribery. Mr. Ward concluded by moving,
"That a committee of the House of Commons having reported, that the hon, Henry Thomas Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the election for the borough of Cambridge. Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute Samuel Long, a principal agent of the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, for bribery."
Agreed to.
The hon. Member then moved,
"That a committee of the House of Commons having reported ' That the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the election for the borough of Cambridge,' Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute William Swan, a principal agent of the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, for bribery."
The House divided: Ayes 78; Noes 46: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Hawes, B.

Armstrong, A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Heathcoat, J.

Baines, E.

Hector, C. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hume, J.

Bernal, R.

Humphery, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Hutt, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Hutton, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Langdale, hon. C.

Brotherton, J.

Leader, J. T.

Busfeild, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Clay, W.

Morris, D.

Collier, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Collins, W.

Muskett, G. A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

O'Brien, C.

Currie, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Duncombe, T.

Parker, J.

Evans, W.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Ferguson, Colonel

Pattison, J.

Goddard, A.

Pechell, Captain

1475

Phillpotts, J.

Strutt, E.

Power, J.

Style, Sir C.

Price, Sir R.

Surrey, Earl of

Protheroe, E.

Thorneley, T.

Pryse, P.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ramsbottom, J.

Tuffnell, H.

Rice, E. R.

Turner, E.

Richards, R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Rundle, J.

Wakley, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Walker, R.

Scholefield, J.

Wemyss, Captain

Seale, Sir J. H.

Williams, W.

Sheil, right hon. R.L.

Wood, G. W.

Smith, J. A.

Wood, B.

Smith, B.

Wyse, T.

Smith, R. V.

Yates, J. A.

Somers, J. P.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

TELLERS.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Ward, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hobhouse, T.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Baring, rt, hon. F. T.

Mackenzie, T.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blackstone, W, S.

Neeld, J.

Boiling, W.

Nicholl, J.

Buck, L. W.

Pakington, J. S.

Burr, H.

Parker, M.

Burrell, Sir C.

Pigot, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Drummond, H. H.

Price, R.

Du Pre, G.

Pringle, A.

Eaton, R. J.

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Fellowes, E.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gladstone, J. N.

Russell, Lord J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sanderson, R.

Hale, R. B.

Seymour, Lord

Hayes, Sir E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Henniker, Lord

Thesiger, F.

Hodgson, R.

Thornhill, G.

Holmes, W.

Verner, Colonel

Ingestre, Viscount

Wood, Colonel T.

Jackson, Mr. Serjeant

Jones, J.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Darlington, Earl of

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Walsh, Sir J.

Resolution agreed to.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord John Russell(on the further consideration of the report on the Bribery at Elections Bill) observed, that as it had been supposed, that he had proceeded with the bill yesterday, after I he right hon. Member for Tamworth had retired from the House, he had taken pains to-day to ascertain whether the right hon. Baronet had any objection to the measure as it stood, and had good ground for believing that the right hon. Baronet approved of it in its present shape.
Bill to be engrossed.

DEBTS OF PARISHES.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Debts of Parishes Bill in committee having been read,
Mr. B. Woodexpressed a hope, that the bill would be postponed till next Session. Parliament ought to be in possession of more information than it at present possessed on the subject, before it proceeded to legislate with reference to it, and there would be no difficulty in obtaining that information before the next Session. He (Mr. Wood) intended to move for a return of those debts, with a classification, which return would afford very valuable information to the House on the subject of the bill, and there would be no difficulty in obtaining the return in the recess.
Mr. Ricehoped, that the bill would be postponed till next Session.
Mr. Wakleyalso expressed his opinion that the House ought to have more information before they proceeded to legislate on the subject.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would not then press the bill.
Debate further adjourned.

REGISTRY OF ELECTORS.
Mr. T. Duncombemoved for leave to bring in a bill more effectually to enforce the printing, and the speedy delivery, at a reasonable price, of copies of the registry of electors in England and Wales; and to make provision for the printing of the registry of the present year of the electors of the county of Hertford.
The motion agreed to.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Dublin Wide Streets; Municipal Corporations; School Sites; Banks of Issue; Dog Carts; Loan Societies.—-Read a second time:— Administration of Justice; Punishment of Death; Sewers Read a third time:—Sugar Duties; Tithe Compositions (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Lord Redesdale, Lord Rayleigh, the Earl of Yarborough, and Lord Beaumont, from Cornwall, Essex, Lincolnshire, and places in Yorkshire, against a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of Rosebery, and Earl Fitzwilliam, from Edinburghshire, Palsley, and other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Bishop of Winchester, from Peckham, against the Jews' Declaration Bill.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from places in Scotland, for the Suppression of Idolatry in India, and for the Suppression of Sunday Travelling; and from the Corporation of Edinburgh, against any Alteration of the Banking system of Scotland.

BRITISH AUXILIARY LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderrywould take the liberty of asking the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, whether he was prepared to give any reply to the question which he put to him the other night, respecting the failure of the payment of the

1447
half-yearly instalment due from the Spanish Government to the British Legion; and which question the noble Viscount said, he would answer after he had made some inquiries on the subject?
Viscount Melbournewas understood to say, that instructions had been sent out to the English Ambassador at the Court of Madrid, to press these claims, and that he anticipated a favourable result from his interference. It was true that the instalment had not been paid.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished to know what instructions had been sent out to the British Ambassador at Madrid. He was surprised that Sir De Lacy Evans, placed in the situation in which he was, had not insisted before this on knowing what those instructions were. It must be particularly remarked that Sir De Lacy Evans, in his letter to George Service, Esq., the chairman of the committee of officers, stated,
"That, as an additional guarantee, the Spanish Government, also deposits in the National Bank of St. Fernando, the sum of 30,000,000 of reals vellon, in 5 per cent, stock, bonds for 300,000 l., at the disposal of her Britannic Majesty's Minister at Madrid, in the event, however, of the non-payment at the proper time of any half year's instalment, the British Minister at Madrid is empowered to direct the sale of the above guarantee, in order to cover the amount of such unpaid instalment, giving fifteen days' notice of such sale to the Spanish Government."
Now, it would be a satisfaction to him to know if the British Minister at Madrid, had received instructions to give this notice of sale, and what were the precise steps which had been taken by the British Government to prevent these unfortunate individuals from being again thrown over and deceived by the delusive promises of Spain. He thought, that the hon. and gallant Officer who had written that letter, and who was party to this solemn negotiation and compact, was bound himself to force the question upon the attention of her Majesty's Government, unless some very good reasons to the contrary existed. He knew of none. He would not neglect his duty to these brave and unfortunate men, however others might think proper to remain silent, and if, before the dissolution, he did not receive complete satisfaction on this most important point, he should undoubtedly bring the case formally before the House.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the in-
1448
structions which had been sent out to our Ambassador were, to press in the strongest manner for the fulfilment of the engagements which the Spanish Government had contracted.
Subject at an end.

DISTURBANCE AT MANCHESTER.
The Earl of Wiltonbegged to call the attention of the noble Secretary for the Home Department, to a transaction of a very disgraceful character, which had recently occurred in St. Stephen's-square, Manchester. He was informed that the mayor of the town having refused—and in so doing exercised, as he thought, a wise discretion— to call an open-air meeting to take into consideration the repeal of the Corn-laws, the repeal of the Union, and various other matters. Three county magistrates headed a tumultuous assemblage of persons who paraded the streets, carrying flags bearing most inflammatory inscriptions. They then formed themselves into a meeting in St. Stephen's-square, and the three county magistrates stood upon the hustings, and witnessed the whole proceedings. A riot of a serious nature occurred, during which eleven individuals were wounded and carried to the infirmary. It appeared also, that although this took place in the presence of a large body of police, they did not interfere in any way to prevent the riot, and not a single individual was taken into custody. At the close of the proceedings, the three magistrates again headed the assemblage, and returned home parading the streets as before, to the great terror of the peaceable inhabitants of Manchester.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, from what he already knew of the case, he was satisfied that the noble Earl was misinformed upon almost all points. He supposed the noble Earl alluded to a transaction which occurred on Wednesday week. He had received a report upon the subject from Sir C. Shaw, who was in command of the constabulary force at Manchester, and he had reason to think that that officer exercised a sound discretion in not interfering on the occasion until the proper time arrived. The disturbance at one time was likely to have been of a serious character, and it was owing to the prudence and vigilance of Sir C. Shaw, and the admirable conduct of the men under his command that serious damage was not committed The riot, he believed, occurred between two parties who were violently excited against each other, but the result had been

1449
much exaggerated. There were one or two points referred to by the noble Earl upon which he was not informed, and with respect to them he would make further inquires.
The Earl of Wiltonsaid, that the circumstance of eleven persons having been sent to the infirmary was a sufficient proof that the riot was of a serious character; but what he particularly wished to direct the noble Marquess's attention to was, the conduct of the three county magistrates.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he had no information upon that point—it might naturally be supposed that it was not likely to form the subject of any part of Sir C. Shaw's report. He would inquire into the matter. The persons taken to the infirmary were not much hurt; they left it very soon.

JEWS' DECLARATION.
The Marquess of Butemoved, that the Jews' Declaration Bill be read a third time.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that as he had a very strong opinion on this subject, he could not let this opportunity pass without troubling their Lordships with a few observations. In the first place, he trusted, that the House would not in a covert and insidious way pass a measure of this kind, the object of which was, under the pretext of extending an indulgence to a particular class of religionists, to abandon the principle of regarding religion as a matter of importance in the persons who were to exercise civil authority amongst us. He knew that there were many wise, even religious men, who thought that religion was no concern of the State; but then he said, let a measure be brought fairly forward on that principle. The indulgence given by the repeal of the Test Act was to Christians, but this bill proposed to extend the indulgence which was subsequently granted by another act to Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, to the Jewish community, provided they made a certain declaration. The repeal of the Test Act, to which he was himself a party, expressly declared, that no other test should be required except a single declaration of belief in Christianity—"in the presence of God, on the true faith of a Christian." The Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, conscientiously objected to take that declaration; and by an act of her present Majesty a declaration was substituted, by which they declared, that they would not exercise any authority or power in virtue of any office
1450
to injure the Protestant Church as by law established. Now, the Jews denied the very foundation of the Christian religion. They declared its Divine Founder to be an impostor—a blasphemer. He did not say this with any feeling of reproach towards the Jews, but to demonstrate that this was an ill-framed measure. If it were intended to be said, that no man ought to be excluded from office on account of religion, then that principle should be asserted in a substantive measure; but to tack it on to the former measures which had granted indulgence to fellow-Christians, was almost, he might say, a fraud upon the Legislature. It had been asked, what danger would ensue from this alteration of the law? He did not apprehend any actual danger to the State, but the danger which he apprehended was, that the exclusively Christian character of the State would be lost, and encouragement would be given to the notion, already too prevalent, that religion was a matter of indifference in statesmen and men in office. For these reasons, he should move, that the bill be read a third time that day three months.
Lord Lyttletonsaid, that if he did not view this measure as a stepping-stone to the admission of Jews to Parliament he should not oppose it. It was said, that the law as it at present stood was easily evaded; but he imagined, that it could not be said, that the law could not be made so as to prevent its being evaded. He should imagine, that the persons who would be desirous of obtaining municipal offices would be in a station of life to have the common honesty not to evade the law.
The Earl of Winchilseaviewed this measure as one deeply fraught with danger to the religion of this country. If they granted this measure, in consistency they must subsequently grant any ulterior measure which might be brought forward to admit Jews into Parliament. Some people thought, that religion was merely a matter between a man and his God; but the Bible and New Testament both, showed that that was an untenable position. A Jew, at any rate a religious Jew, would not admit Christians to legislate for him, and why should the Christian admit the Jew? He respected that body, and recollected the position which they had held under the Mosaic dispensation, and if the film were taken from their eyes he would consent to the motion; but on religious grounds he felt himself compelled to support the right rev. Prelate.
The Earl of Wicklowdid not consider, that in supporting the bill he was in the slightest degree pledged, or liable to be called upon hereafter, to open the walls of Parliament to persons of the Jewish persuasion. He had always opposed bills for that purpose, and should continue to do so, considering it improper that persons not being Christians should be legislators in a Christian country. But the bill then before their Lordships was a measure of a very different character. It was a measure which he was almost disposed to think did not confer upon the Jews by law, any privilege which they did not already possess. That Jews were eligible to offices in corporations was evident from the fact, that Jews were to be found in three of the corporations of this kingdom. Those municipal bodies possessed the discretionary power of admitting Jews or not, and the object of the present measure was to remove that anomaly. If Jews ought not to be admitted, the law should be altered so as to exclude them; and if they ought to be admitted, that admission should take place under the sanction of a general legislative measure. He contended, that the Legislature should decide whether or not Jews should be admissible to the corporate bodies of this country, without reference to any other question; because there was not the slightest shadow of reason for supposing that a measure for their admission into corporations would be followed up by a measure for admitting them into Parliament. No less than thirty-eight of the largest towns of the country had petitioned Parliament to pass the present bill, while no petitions had been presented against it. He at least had heard of none. The principle contained in the bill had been already established by the removal of those disabilities which prevented Jews from being elected sheriffs. And it was certainly throwing the law into ridicule to argue that Jews might be elected sheriffs, but must not be allowed to exercise the functions which belonged to the other members of a corporation. Jews had been elected sheriffs in London, in a county in which his noble Friend possessed property, and in Sussex; and he was therefore somewhat surprised to hear his noble Friend oppose this measure upon religious grounds. The grounds upon which he supported the bill were—first, because it would remove an absurdity in the law which he had already pointed out; secondly, because if Jews were to be admitted to civil offices, those
1452
for which they were best fitted were connected with corporate bodies; and thirdly, because he conceived that no injury could follow upon their admission to those benefits which the constitution bestowed upon persons who were born British subjects.
The Bishop of St. David's: My Lords, in rising to offer myself for a few minutes to your Lordships' attention, I feel how much I shall stand in need of your indulgence, not only because it is the first time I have had the honour of addressing you, but because I find myself placed in a delicate and truly painful situation. I have the misfortune to differ from the most rev. Prelate who last week opposed the second reading of this bill, and, of course, from the right rev. Prelate who opened the debate upon it to-night, and probably from the majority of my right rev. brethren, I had not the advantage of hearing the arguments adduced by the most rev. Prelate on the former occasion, and know nothing of them but what I could collect from what was probably a very imperfect and incorrect report. Those which I saw certainly did not convince me. One of the observations attributed to the most rev. Prelate was, I think, that the Jewish community, as a body, was not at all interested in the measure now before your Lordships, and that it could only serve to gratify the pride and ambition of a few eminent individuals of that persuasion. Now, this is an opinion from which I must entirely dissent. My own view of the subject is grounded not on any personal experience—for which of course I have had no opportunities—but on the general principles of human nature. And, judging from these, I conceive, that it is highly probable, or rather I might say, absolutely certain, that every member of the Jewish community would feel gratified and raised in self-esteem by the honours and privileges which may be thrown open to it, though in the nature of things they are such as can only be enjoyed by a few of its most distinguished members. And this leads me to observe, that the advantage which may be expected to result from this measure is one of great importance. Its object is to conciliate the affections of a very large and powerful body of men to the land of their birth, to which they are attached by many ties, though to a certain extent, they must always remain foreigners and aliens. It appears to me, that this is a consideration which ought to operate as an inducement to the passing of this measure, unless there be some very strong objection

1453
to counterbalance it, and I think none such have been shown. I have listened with all the attention in my power to the speech of the right rev. Prelate who opened the debate, but his arguments have not altered my view of the question. I do not know, whether I shall be able to recollect them all, so as to place them before your Lordships, but, if I can do so, I believe there is not one which I shall not be able to answer. And, in the first place, I would meet the right rev. Prelate on the purport and meaning of the bill. The right rev. Prelate considers it as amounting to a declaration on the part of the Legislature, that religion is a matter of indifference. Perhaps that may be one view which may be taken of the import of the measure. But I submit that there is another, which is at least quite as just and reasonable. It appears to me, that it may be interpreted in a very different manner. Possibly, the view I take of it may appear to some right rev. Prelates and noble Lords very common place, superficial, and even absurd; but it is one which I at least am able to comprehend. I conceive, that this measure, if passed, will simply amount to a declaration of the Legislature, that in its judgment no other qualities are requisite for the due discharge of the municipal offices referred to in the bill, than that degree of probity and integrity which may be found in persons of every religious persuasion. And certainly, I see no reason why an exception should be made to this maxim in the case of the Jews. There is one little fact relating to this part of the subject, which has been passed over in the course of this debate, but which appears to me to deserve a share of your Lordships' attention, especially when an attempt is made to sink the Jews below the Mahometans in the religious scale, and this is, that the Jews are believers in the Old Testament. And I would ask your Lordships, whether there are not to be found in that part of the word of God precepts and rules, sufficient to ensure the performance of the duties of those municipal offices, on the part of those who acknowledge its authority. The right rev. Prelate also argued, and, if I am not mistaken, this is one of the arguments attributed to the most rev. Prelate in the discussion of last week, that this measure would alter the Christian character of our institutions. I may be thought to be taking a bold line, but I venture to assert, that the effect of the measure will not be to alter that character in the slightest degree. I conceive, that the utmost it
1454
will do, will be to take away one slight indication of that character. I do not say, that I would pare even with that, unless I saw some prospect of advantage to compensate for it; but I think in the present case, there is a great and substantial gain to counterbalance that insignificant loss. But, in fact, I have not heard it contended, that the immediate effect of the measure was such as need excite much alarm. The main objection brought against it was of quite another kind, and pointed to the future, to a danger much more distant and undefined. We are told, that if we take this step, we do not know what it may lead to, we shall not know where to stop or how to draw the line. This is an argument which never fails to be used when concessions of this kind are called for. It is one which from its vagueness it is not easy to answer. It reminds me of a fallacy which, as your Lordships may know, was in considerable vogue among the sophists of antiquity, who pretended to be able to prove that there was no difference between a mountain and a mole-hill; because if you continually added or subtracted a single grain of dust, you would at last swell the mole-hill to a mountain, or reduce the mountain to a mole-hill, and yet if at each step of the process you were asked what the thing was, you would call it by the same name. But I do not know, that any one ever carried this so far as to say, that by taking away a single grain of dust you changed the mountain into a mole-hill, because that would be the effect if the operation should be repeated often enough. The right rev. Prelate also took a glance at the history of the Jews. He adverted to the various changes which had taken place in their condition, and I am glad to find, that he contemplates those changes with approbation and satisfaction. But it appears, that the right rev. Prelate has been led by his historical retrospect to a very different conclusion from that which I should have expected him to draw from it. It seems, that he approved of everything that has been done up to this moment to improve the condition of the Jews, but he thinks that we have now reached the precise point where we ought to stop. I must say, that my own historical retrospect suggests the opposite inference. When I review the history of the Jewish people, I see that there was a time—in ages of darkness and barbarism — when they were outraged and degraded, and oppressed, both by the law, and beside the law, and against the law. Their condition

1455
has been gradually ameliorated. And I find, that in proportion as the treatment they have received has become milder, civilization and humanity have been making progress, and Christianity itself has been growing purer and purer, and I must own, that this is a consideration which tends to prepossess me in favour of this measure, and which ought, I think, to recommend it to your Lordships. The right rev. Prelate also made an objection to the form in which this measure has been introduced. He complained with all the precautions against the possibility of a suspicion, that he meant anything personally offensive, that his amiable nature could suggest—that there was something covert and insidious in the framing of the bill, because it couples the members of the Jewish community with those Christian sects for whose relief the declaration required from persons elected to municipal offices was modified, I confess I can see no ground for this charge. It is expressly provided, that all persons who would take advantage of the relief provided by this bill, must profess themselves to be of the Jewish religion. There seems, therefore, to be no room for any mistake in persons of ordinary information on the subject. But I would say, that even if the form of the measure were not the best that could have been devised, this would not be a sufficient reason to induce your Lordships to reject the substance. This measure may not, perhaps, be one of strict justice; but I conceive it to be one of liberal policy, or of politic liberality. I am not yet ashamed of that word, and I hope it will not prejudice your Lordships against the measure now before you.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that as their Lordships evinced considerable impatience to divide upon this Bill, he would make only a few observations. He had heard with great mortification the speech of the right rev. Prelate. He intended nothing unkind in the expression, but it could not but be mortifying to him, knowing the weight necessarily attached to the great learning and powerful eloquence of the right rev. Prelate, when he exerted those talents and employed that eloquence in the cause of error. The right rev. Prelate had used in his speech not a little of that sophistry of which he had himself spoken—of unintentional sophistry. He had omitted the real point at issue. The right rev. Prelate had taken up certain detached points of the arguments of his adversaries, and those he had
1456
attempted, and perhaps successfully, to overthrow; but he had, at the same time, skilfully glided over the chief points of those arguments. The important principle involved in this bill was this—whether the State should pay that homage to the Christian religion which it had hitherto paid. He would pass over the question, whether this bill would lead to the admission of the Jews into the Houses of Parliament. It was confessed by the right rev. Prelate himself, that the consent to this measure would be, if not a change itself, at any rate, an indication of a change in the religious feeling of the country, but there could be no indiscretion if there were no changes. There could not be one without the other. This was the simple point on which he would look, at the question. It had always been the wise policy of this country to pay homage to the Christian religion in the doctrines of the Established Church. It was deemed expedient to extend the limits beyond which no one could find admission into the councils of the empire. It was deemed expedient to admit the Christian Dissenters of all persuasions. But still, the Legislature of the country was paying homage to Christianity — though those were admitted who were members of. a church which they thought was not the Church of Christ. Were they now to do away with that homage? for that was the ultimate object of the present bill. It had been said, that even now there were in the councils of the empire unbelievers and heretics. God forbid, that there should be! But enough was done to uphold the Christian character of the country, for none were admitted into Parliament or the Government, who did not pretend to be Christians. But now men claimed to be admitted (first they merely asked admission into municipal bodies, but they would, if that were granted, claim admission into legislative assemblies) who were not only not Christians, but who were the strongest and fiercest opponents of Christianity—those who contemned, despised, and reviled the Christian religion and its founder. This was the single point on which he rested his opposition. He professed and entertained the most sincere respect for many individuals of the Jewish persuasion. There were amongst them men of the most unbounded liberality of the most indiscriminate charity—and on that point they set an example which it

1457
would be well for Christians to follow. There were amongst them men of honour —men of veracity—of devout and zealous religion. But here he must be allowed to say, that their real religion was frequently concealed from their people — that the Jews were too often taught, not the religion of Moses, but the religion of the Talmud—not the true word of God, but the doctrines of human tradition. This led him to a topic which had been alluded to by the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of St. David's, in answer to the speech made a few evenings ago, by the most rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The most rev. Prelate had said, that this measure would alone gratify the vanity and ambition of a few individuals; and the right rev. Prelate replied, that the honour conferred on a few, would reflect on the whole body. Now, though it was true as a general principle, that an honour conferred on certain individuals, was reflected on the body to which they belonged, yet he believed that would not be the case in the present instance. He had made many inquiries on the subject, and had found that few, very few of the great body of the Jewish people cared anything at all about the success of this measure. The lower classes of their society it did not in the least degree affect, and many of the higher and more religious Jews entertained most serious doubts whether they could receive the privilege thus to be conferred upon them. They doubted, and he, looking at the commands of the Old Testament, especially of the prophetical writings, entertained a similar doubt; they doubted the propriety of such a step. That, however, was, for them to decide, not for him. The sole view of the question was this, whether their Lordships would consent to do anything by which the national homage of this great people, should hereafter not be exclusively paid to the Christian religion:
The Earl of Gallowaysaid, that he partook warmly of the mortification which the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, had expressed at the speech made that night by the right rev. Prelate above him, the Bishop of St. David's.
The Marquess of Butewould trouble their Lordships with but few observations. It was utterly impossible that anything could be covert or concealed in this measure. Its object was simply to admit Jews into municipal corporations, and the ar-
1458
guments which had been brought forward were directed against something which was in no degree connected with the bill. The Christianity of the State would not, could not, be affected by the bill. The law was at present in a most anomalous condition, the majority of the members of a corporation being able so to carry out the act of Parliament, as even now to admit Jews. This was a state of things which ought not to continue, and the difficulty and anomaly should be at once removed. As Christian, he considered it his duty to support the measure, the third reading of which he now begged to move.
Their Lordships divided:—Content 64; Not-content 98: Majority 34.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Melbourne.

Leeds

LORDS.

Somerset.

Ashburton

MARQUESSES.

Beaumont

Bute

Belhaven

Breadalbane

Bexley

Clanricarde

Calthorp

Headfort

Cloncurry

Lansdowne

Cottenham

Normanby

Colborne

Westminster.

Dacre

EARLS.

De Freyne

Bruce

Denman

Clarendon

Dinorben

Chichester

Gardner

Coventry

Hastings

Effingham

Hatherton

Fitzwilliam

Howden

Harrowby

Langdale

Lichester

Leigh

Lovelace

Mostyn

Lucan

Montfort

Minto

Monteagle

Morley

Portman

Radnor

Stanley

Rosebery

Stuart de Rothsay

Scarborough

Sudeley

Suffolk

Talbot de Malahide

Tankerville

Wrottesley.

Thanet

BISHOPS.

Wicklow

Durham

Yarborough

Ely

Zetland.

Lichfield

VISCOUNTS.

Norwich

Duncannon

St. David's.

Paired off. Contents.

DUKE.

Bedford.

LORDS.

MARQUESSES.

Bateman

Anglesey

Crewe

Londonderry.

Wenlock.

Bill thrown out.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Lord Brougham,in moving the second reading of the Punishment of Death Bill, said, that its object was to abolish the capital punishment for certain offences which had been left, punishable with death by a recent act of Parliament, which mitigated the severity of the law in many other cases. Amongst the offences which that act left capital, but which it was now proposed to subject to a milder punishment, were those of embezzling by clerks of the Bank, and other companies, by fabrication of stamps, rape, and one or two other offences. He would not enter into any general arguments on the subject on the present occasion, but would simply mention a fact, which he was sure would be heard with very great satisfaction by their Lordships —namely, that the mitigation of punishments which their Lordships had some years ago sanctioned, had not been attended with any increase to the offences they referred to, but, on the contrary, rather to their diminution. In burglary, robbery, and horse-stealing, the committals within a certain period before the. mitigation of the law, either in its letter or practical application, had been 8,774; whilst in the same period, since the application of more lenient punishments, they had been 7,820, being a decrease of 954, or about one ninth of the whole. He believed, moreover, that when it was considered, that there was not now the same repugnance to prosecute as under the more severe law, it would appear, that the amount of actual offences had decreased even in a greater proportion than shown by the number of committals. In the crime of forgery, also, there had been a diminution of offences though not so considerable, perhaps, as in the other offences he had before mentioned. With these few remarks, he begged to move, that this bill be now read a second time.
The Marquess of Westmeathwould not oppose the second reading of the bill; but if he stood alone, he would in committee oppose the clause which took away the punishment of death for rape with violence. Parliament had no right to pass such a measure, without consulting, if it were possible, the feelings of the female portion of the community.
Adjourned.