Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page



IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. '--'-,-'-.-'--',-...-----------........--


IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY. The House of Lords sat for a short time, but no business of any peculiar interest was brolight under discussion. FRIDAY. In the course of the conversation on the state of It-ehnd, Lord Stanley expressed the disappointment felt by the Go- vernment at the course pursued by the Orangemen in Ireland. The noble lord then introduced a Bill for regulating the pay- ment of costs in opposing Railway Bills, which was read a first time. Lord Beaumont moved for certain papers relating to affairs in Syria, and after a few words from the Earl of Aberdeen the motion was agreed to. The Australian Waste Lands Bill, and the Brazilian Slave Trade Bill, were respectively read a second time. On the motion of the third reading of the Foreign Lotteries Lord Montcagle asked an assurance from the Government that the law should be strictly enforced on the first appearance of an advertisement for a foreign lottery. Lord Stanley gave the required assurance, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS—THURSDAY. Sir R. Peel moved the second reading of the Jewish Dis- abilities Removal Bill, which bad come down to the bouse sanctioned by the almost unanimous ::pprohation of the House of Lords. The right hon. baronet, in advocating the justice of the policy he recommended in removing these disabilities, ad- verted to the fact that, under the existing law, Jews could fill the situations of county magistrates, and of deputy lieutenants and sheriffs of counties, and, in fact, such positions were a, this moment held by Sir Moses Montefiore, Mr. Rothschild, and others, although they were not permitted to hold muni- cipal offices, owing to a clause in the act for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. While that act was under con- sideration, he (Sir It Peel) proposed a form of declaration to be taken by all individuals elected to corporate offices, by which they were bound not to use the influence of such offices for the purpose of injuring, in any way, the Established Church. In that form there was nothing which could be faiily objected to by a Jew; but in the House of Lords their lordships had seen fit to introduce the words-" On the true faith of a Christian." The law, however, when passed, was so ambiguous on the point as to when the declaration should be made, that its operation was anvthing but uniform. It was decided by the Court of Queen's Bench in one case, that it was not obligatory that the declaration should be made on or before entering upon office, and acting upon this decision in Birmingham, Southampton, Portsmouth, and other places, Jews held municipal offices without having previously taken the declaration, and were subsequently held harmlessby the Annual Indemnity Act. In London, however, the law was construed more stric!ly, and the corporation required the declaration to be made before entering upon office. In this way it was that Mr. Solomons, who had filled the office of sherifl with so much credit to himself, had been deprived of the powerof filling that of alderman, to which he had been elected by his fe!low-cit zens. '7 The right hon. baronet then dwelt upon the high character maintained by the Jewish merchants of London—their social standing-theif liberality in contributing to public charities without distinction of crcpd-their wealth and influence and contended that all these considerations entitled tiiem to the liberality of the house, and to the abolitir.n of the existing anomalous state of the law respecting them. Sir R. H. Inglis said, he was by no means convinced by the reasoning of Sir R. I eel, clear as'he admitted it to have been. He could not admit it to he an historical fact, that the impedi- ment to Jews accepting office originated in the year 1828. The impediment was to be found in the distinctive character of the Jews. Thev regarded themselves, not as a sect, but as a na- tion, and as such they were the standing miracle of the world. The bill was therefore equivalent to one for the naturalisation of a nation. There was nothing in it to exclude a German Jew, for instance, from exercising a municipal office, without having previously taken the oaths of allegiance. The bill was, in fact, but the precursor of a much larger measure, the ultimate effect of which would be to des'roy the Christian character of this country. He therefore moved that the bill be read that day six months. Mr. Plumptre seconded the amendment, contending that the house was bringing down the displeasure of the Most High by the measures they had passed and were passing, during the last and the present session. Lord J. lliissell thought that the legislature in doing its utmost to remove religious strife and animosities was pursuing a course more likely to draw down the blessing, than to incur the displeasure of the Most High. The University of Oxford had been compared to a ship moored in the stream, whose only use was to mark the rapidity of the current and the right hon and learned member for the university might also be considered as the index by which to denote the rapidity of movement in the House of Commons. Former opponents of the present measure, the Chancellor of lie Exchequer and Mr. Gladstone, were now in its favour, which was a gratifying evidence of the progress of opinion. He was himself in favour of a much larger concession, but as it was, he would give his hearty support to the bill. After some observations from Mr. It. Milnes. Mr. Trelawney, and another hon. member, the house divided, and the second reading was carried by a majority of 91 to 81. The house then went into committee on the Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill, the discussion of which occupied nearly the whole of the remainder cf the evening. FRIDAY. The Lunatics Bill was reported, as was the Dublin Jury Presentments Bill, and the Drainage of Lands Bill, and the Poor-law (Scotland) Bill The House then went into Committee on the Valuation (1 reland) Bill, and notwithstanding a vigorous opposition from Lord Clements and Mr. S. Crawford, the Bill passed through Committee at the morning sitting. At the evening sitting the Small Debts Bill, No. 3, was read a second time, and committed, pro forma, for the purpose of introducing several amendments. Mr. T. Duncombe then drew the attention of the House to the case of Eliza Price, who had, while in custody on a charge of stealing a halfpennyworth of coals, been chained for four days to a grate. Sir J. Graham promised to inquire into the matter. Mr. Sidney Herbert, in answer to Mr. Wakley,admitted that the accounts which bad appeared of the flogging of two soldiers at Windsor were substantially correct. The men had been flogged for disobedience to the orders of the officer in refusing to march to the black- hole. Captain Berkeley then moved that the House do resolve itself into Committee, to consider the propriety of an address to her Majesty, humbly requesting that she would be graciously pleased to grant a pecuniary recompense to the officers, seamen, soldiers, and marines, engaged III the operations against the Chinese Empire, in the years 1S40, 1841, and IS42. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the motion on the ground that it was an infringement of the power which had been always jealously reserved to the Crown. Sir 8. Napier, who supported the motion, complained of the special pleading of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of his denial of justice. Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. H. Berkeley, and Captain Pechell, also supported the motion. Sir R. Peel admitted the value, of the services rendered in China. It was a most disagreeable duty to refuse these c aims, but he felt bound to oppooe the motion. Mr. Wil iams thought that ample remuneration tor the ser- vices in China had been made already. Lord l'almerston quoted the ca-c of Navanno as a precedent for the present motion. He thought the Government had made a very ni^gaidly allowance to the brave men who had been engaged in China, and lie hoped the matter would be taken into serious consideration. The motion, which was supported by Captain Harris and Captain Plumridge, and opposed by Sir James Duke, was nega- tived on a division. The numbers being, for the motion, 27 against it, 68; majority 41. Ihe House then went into Committee of Supply.






[No title]