On Monday, the House of Commons threw out the Jewish

Emancipation Bill ; on Tuesday, the West India interests, and Irish First Fruits, underwent some consideration ; on Thursday, the state of Mexico, and a Birmingham Canal Bill, and on Friday, the 41 per cent, sugar-duties, and the Beer Bill, wer,. the leading topics.

The House of Lords maintained its accustomed state, and did nothing.

1. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Mr. ROBERT GRANT having moved the second reading of the Bill for removing the Disabilities of the Jews, observed, that an assent to the second reading of the bill did not pledge any member to the details of the measure.

General GASCOYNE should oppose the measure.

If any man had a few years ago asserted, that, in the course of two ses- sions, that House would repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, remove all the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics, and now entertain the question of relieving the Jews, he apprehended that his friends would have thought him a person it was necessary to keep a tight look after. For his part, he entertained no very favourable opinion of religious liberty. He thought it was little better than a mere union of sects—(Laugh)—a union of sects—(Continued laughter.) The member for Knaresborough had declared on a former occasion, on the debate on this subject, that "you ought to do unto others as you would that others should do unto you." Now, he would ask, if the Jews had the power to grant the Pro- testants what they now asked from them, what would they have obtained?

Lord BELGRAVE denied that a Jew could ever be considered an Englishman, or love our native land as, he thanked God, an Eng- lishman was wont to do.

Was the Jew, he asked, to be considered an Englishman because he bought a coat in Monmouth Street, or negotiated a loan upon the Stock Exchange for the benefit of this country, or that country, or any other country, provided it only squared with his own interest ? Or was there the slightest reason for presuming that in his speculations he would give any decided preference to the interests of England ? No ; the fact was, no man could be an Englishman so long as he remained a Jew.

Lord DARLINGTON opposed the motion.

Mr. MILDMAY supported it. Sir ROBERT WILSON gave the measure his most cordial support. He was opposed to a state religion.

In his opinion, there-was no class more deserving of favour, and of the concession of rights, than the Jews. He would remind the House, that therewas one man of the Jewish persuasionwho was at the head of no fewer than twenty-seven British charities, many of which were for the promo- tion of christianity.

Mr. O'CONNELL excited merriment by beginning with "Mr. Chairman."

He was proud of the opportunity of supporting the measure. He sup- ported it both on principle and sympathy. The time had but recently gone by, when the Catholics were assailed by clamours which he would refute that very evening by his conduct. They had been assailed by a cry which might be very satisfactory to some Christians, who thought that no others were right in argument or good sense but themselves. The cry then raised was Protestant—now it was Christian. To persons who [LATEST EDITION.]

now raised that cry against this measure, he would say the' 1)ey avoided or evaded the true principles of Christianity, which were eiierality and charity.

Mr. THANT said, that nothing could more strongly convince him of the unfitness of adopting this bill, than the fact that a petition had been presented in its &your from Mr. Robert Owen.

Who were they that claimed admission into a Christian Legislature ? Were they not the descendants of those who had-crucified the Saviour,.

and whose blood was to be upon them and their children ? (Laughter.) They were the bitter enemies of Christianity—they had once trampled the cross under foot, and they might live to do it again. (Groans.) Aye,

honourable members might groan ; but when they returned to their con- stituents, they would discover that the sentiments lie had uttered were not confined merely to such ignorant and stupid people as himself. Then

as to the details of the plan. What Jew could sit and transact business in the House on Friday night, for their Sabbath began on the evening of that day ? It might happen also, that a Jew, under the ne.v system, would be advanced to the Bench or Justice ; and how could he try such a man as Carlisle for blasphemy and irreligion?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the mejeriCes who had recently supported the cause of civil and religi,es liberty must vote in favour of this Bill : if they did not, it would prove that the late concession to the Roman Catholics was extolled by fear.

Mr.G.BANKEs thought the proposed measure a dangerous one. Mr. HusxissoN remarked, that if the Roman Catholics had any claim, on the score of the antiquity of their faith, surely the Jews had a stronger claim, and upon the same ground. Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the measure at great length.

" I will not say that it is a bill for unchristianieing the Legislature, but

I will say that one of the unavoidable consequences of this measure will be, that every one of the forms and ceremonies which give us assurance

of Christianity must be abolished. I take that that follows as a legiti- mate consequence of this measure—that every man, to whatever sect or

persuasion he may belong, will be entitled to prescribe the form of affirma- tion by which he may give assurance to the State. The session before the last, we were called on to give our support to a measure for the relief of the Protestant Dissenters; and last session we passed a Bill for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects : therefore it is said that we are bound, in consistency, to follow up these measures by adopting the pre- sent. I hear this with regret, because I hear it for the first time. In the discussions respecting either the Catholics or the Protestant Dissenters, nothing of the sort was ever intimated—it was never stated to us, that be- cause we admitted our fellow Christians to a participation of power, that therefore, as an unavoidable and necessary consequence, we were bound to admit to all the privileges of the Constitution men who reject Christi- anity altogether."

And why, asked Sir Robert, should we depart from the first principles of the Constitution ? We were asked to do so for the., sake of thirty thousand or forty thousand persons.

" For fifteen years, in France and the Netherlands, have the Jews been entitled to all privileges, and during forty years have they possessed those advantages in the United States ; yet during the entire of those periods not one of them has obtained a seat in the Legislatures of thosecountries—only one has been appointed to a high situation at Amsterdam, and one has been made Mayor of New York ; and that convinces me that the exclu-

sion of Jews does not arise from their political incapacities, but from their own peculiar institutions and usages. (Hear, hear !) I think I understand

that cheer. I understand it to mean, that since so few have been ad- mitted, there is no danger in admitting the English Jews to political power. Now the inference I draw from it is, that if the Jews expect to derive so little advantage from the removal of disabilities, the practical benefit to them must be very small ; and only for such a trifle are we to depart from what, for centuries, has formed the fundamental principles of the British Constitution."

Sir Robert Peel then proceeded to argue, that if Jews were ad- mitted, Quakers must be admitted ; and every year would bring in bills to disturb the religious feelings of the public.

Mr. BROUGHAM wished to know what was the benefit derived from the words " on the true faith of a Christian ?"

They were not sufficient to keep out the Mahometan, the Jew, the Atheist, or the Infidel. If to the sentiments which they held—and which ought to excite contempt, or rather pity, they chose to add that of hypo- crisy, then they would be entitled to a seat in the Legislature ; then they 'would be privileged to vote on laws among Christian men, on Christian subjects—to govern a Christian community. Let the Jew, then, do like- wise ; let him pretend that he was a Christian, and then they would be unable to shut the door in his face. But his honourable and learned friend, the Cursitor Baron (Mr. G. Bankes), would say, " Oh, but a man

under such circumstances ,could have no weight." (Hear, hear ! from Mr. G. Banker.) Just so. (Laughter.) But let them look a little to ex- ample, and see if that defence was borne out. What was the case with the celebrated Mr. Gibbon ? llow did the circumstance work with him ? That gentleman had coolly walked up to the table of that House, and took the oath against transubstantiation and idolatry, though he had once been a Catholic himself ; then he abjured the Pretender and the whole family, and all this in the true faith of a Christian; and yet the Government of that time did not see any objection to his being a Lord of Trade ; nor was there any thing against it, for just as orthodox an officer was he as any of his predecessors or successors, and just as regularly, he warranted, did he draw his salary. (Laughter.) He. would not say that Mr. Gibbdil„ however, had any great weight in that House. (Hear, hear ! from Mr G. Banker.). Ah ! he thought so ; and no doubt his honourable and learned friend was ready to contend that all this was owing to the breach of Pagan . morality he had committed, by pretending himself to be more a Christian' than he was. But Mr. Brougham would rather contend that the cause was in the malformation of the law, which meant a thing which it could not en- force; and probably Mr. Gibbon was prevented from rising to address the House from a fear that cries of "Spoke ! spoke! Atheist ! Infidel !" and other equally inharmonious sounds, would be used to put him down, and render his efforts nugatory ; so that what with apprehended noise, and unjust law, he waslost as a speaker. But if a still stronger case were wanted, what would be said to the case of Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke ? In all his writings, and in all his conversations, he was an infidel and a scoffer ; and yet, beyond all example, he was the most brilliant, the most powerful, ate had almost said the most all powerful orator that ever opened his mouth. The severest judges, the most acute critics, had, in their account of his eloquence, described it as all but perfect and superhuman. It was an anecdote related of Mr. Pitt, that where one person was wishing to recover the lost books of Livy, another an ancient style of comedy very ranch talked of at that time, Mr. Pitt said, that what he would wish to see -Would be a speech of Lord Bolingbroke ; and the effect produced by that orator was equal to his merit ; for in his office of Secretary of State for

Foreign Affairs, which he was not thought unworthy of holding, he made as powerful and brilliant essays as ever emanated from Lord Aberdeen, his

successor. (Loud laughter.) Bolingbroke, perhaps, might not be so good a Christian as his Lor■Lhip ; but as to weight in council, and in support of the dignity of the country in all negotiations with Foreign Powers, Mr. Brougham should only be laughing at the noble lord if he attempted for an instant to institute a comparison between them.

The House divided. For the second reading, 165 ; against it,

228. •

2. TRADE WITH MEXICO. Mr. HUSKISSON, on presenting a petition from the merchants of Liverpool engaged in tradir", to ILlexico, hoped the House would adopt measures to protect the interests of the petitioners, and induce the Spanish Government to desist from expeditions to Cuba ; which would only terminate Zisgracefully for Spain, mid injuriously- for Mexico. Great Britain had, tinder the circumstances, a right to demand of Spain that she should forego hostilities. Our merchants had a right to expect that their trade should be rendered secure ; while, by preventing the present growth of Mexican independence, we should at last be able to insure them only such independence as the Indian tribes enjoyed—independence, that is to say, at the pleasure of the United States.

SIR ROBERT PEEL contended, that whatever might be the right of this country to interfere, there was no obligation upon her to do so. He was not disposed to Mieve that the United States medi- tated any act of aggression against Mexico. He admitted, however, that it was for the general interest of this country to seek the re- establishment of tranquillity in every part of the world. Without entering upon any abstract question, the Government of this country was disposed to speak in the language of friendship to Spain ; and never did more cordial relations subsist between the two countries than at present — never was there a period at which the earnest advice of England could be heard with more effect. For the interest of Spain herself—for the interest of Mexico—for the interest of the whole commercial world—he de- precated the continuance of hostilities. Sir ROBERT WILSON spoke of the urgent necessity that existed for putting an end to the war. While civil dissensions were rend- ing South America, the United States were quietly acquiring the coasts on both sides of the Gulf of Mexico, and by and by our ships would be unable to enter that gulf, without passing under the guns of the United States.

Mr. BARING held the question of Mexican independence to be one of the deepest importance.

He would not trouble the House with figures, but gentlemen might consult the returns. He would only observe that the new States of America, as was evident from these returns, took 9,000,0001. of our goods, official value, annually, or three times as much as Russia, Prussia, Swe- den, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and France, which, all together, only took from us 3,350,0001., official value of exports. The United States of America —which we had long looked upon as the great source of our wealth, whose tariffs we dreaded as taking bread from our people—the United States of America only took from us in exports a sum not exceeding 6,500,0001. ; while the New States of America took 9,000,0001. For us,_ then, it was of great importance that these countries should become prosperous, should increase their consumption, and should receive no check in the acquisition of wealth and power. With them we carried on a most profitable trade, and there was no fear of their ever becoming the rivals of our naval power, or even rivalling the manufacturing industry of this country, for at least a century. With all other countries there might be some rivals. Even our own colonies, when they grew into wealth in America—in Australasia, became manufacturers themselves, and passed regulations excluding the products of others, and encouraging their own industry.

The British Government, Mr. Baring thought, was bound to in- terfere, and he could furnish a precedent for interference. In 1779, the Court of Spain remonstrated with us on the propriety of continuing our contest with our colonies of North America. She stated, that there was no chance of recovering them, that we ought to give them Sip with a good grace. Did she content herself with giving us this advice ? —No. In the interest of her people, she followed up this advice by ac- tually making war against us. England had ten times as good reason for tendering that advice to Spain as Spain had for giving it to England. . Lord Jowl- RUSSELL apprehended that it would be no good reason for our going to war with Spain, to tell her that we must do so because this country sent a great quantity of its manufac- tures to Mexico. In his opinion we had no ground for that inter- Terence, but there was just ground for strong remonstrance ; and as Spain had now a Government the most reasonable that country lad seen for years, there was a great probability of those remon- strances proving successful. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON and Mr. BRIGHT having said a few words on the importance of the Mexican trade, the petition was mead, and ordered to be printed.

3. THE FOUR-AND-A HALF PER CENT. SUGAR DUTIES. On a motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Sup- ply, Mr. HUME called the attention of the House to a matter of great importance connected with the' revenue. The sugar, which since the time of Charles the Second had been remitted from the West Indies in payment of certain duties, had been till very lately liable like all other sugar to the payment of customs. Within two years, however, this sugar had been exempted from duty, and the public revenue lessened by 30,0001., without the consent or know- ledge of the House. Formerly the amount had been paid away in pensions. More recently it had been declared that it should be appropriated to the payment of the Bishop and Church establish- ment of the `Vest Indies. Now, however, Ministers had obtained an opinion•from the Law Officers of the Crown, that the sugar in question was not liable in payment of the usual duties ; the cus- toms had not been paid, and the produce of the duties had been raised last year from about 30,0001. to 61,000/. Ministers had not only altered the law, but they had done so secretly and clan- destinely. Mr. Hume therefore moved, " that a copy of the opi- nion of the Attorney-General upon the subject :be laid before the House."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied that the country was robbed to the extent of 30,0001. or 40,0001. a-year. The fact was, that within a few years the 4?, per cent. duties had been ap- plied to purposes different from their original uses. They had been applied in payment of the salaries of the Bishops and clergy of the West Indies ; and those salaries amounted to 25,0001. a. year. The late opinion of the Law Officers had not enabled Minis- ters to extend their patronage beyond what it was before the passing of the 6th of George IV. He objected to the production of that opinion. Mr. BARING observed, that it was odd that two centuries should have elapsed before the error which the Attorney-General's opi- nion would seem to have rectified, was discovered. If that opinion were well founded, there was nothing to prevent the Crown from importing every other commodity as well as sugar, duty free, and selling each for profit. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that it was unnecessary to produce the opinion in question. He did not deem the House the best judges of legal opinions. Mr. A. BARING asked whether the Crown might import for sale ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Said, that if a particular case were submitted to him, he might give an opinion on it. In the time of the Henries, the Crown did impodgoods, duty free, and sell them.

Mr. BRIGHT held that the House were entitled to have the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown produced. Sir C. 'WETHERE LL (who had given the. opinion in question) de- clared that no Minister had a right to produce the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown for the purpose of its being reviewed and discussed in that House. He would not have accepted office on the servile and submissive condition of having every one of his opinions laid upon the table of that House. Sir ROBERT PEEL contended, on public grounds, against the production of the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown. It must be evident that it would be extremely convenient for Govern- ment to have such opinions frequently called for, that they might appeal to them as justifications of their acts. Mr. Hums —" That is the case now."

Sir JOHN NEWPORT took the liberty of telling Sir Charles Wetherell, that he was unfit to hold the office which he had for- merly held. Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that a Court of Equity would com- pel the production of both case and opinion, where the parties were interested in it. ("No,no" from Sir C. Wetherell.) He was ready to maintain it. The House then divided. For the motion, 32 ; against it, 78.

4. BEER BILL. In a Committee on the Sale of Beer Bill, upon the resolution that " persons desirous of retailing beer might take out licences," &c., Mr. MONK moved as an amendment,—" Provided that licences granted under this Act should not authorize those who obtained such licences to allow the beer to be drunk in the places where it was sold."

The old arguments in favour of monopoly followed. Sir T. GoocH observed, that if all men were now to be allowed to sell beer, and it were to be consumed on the premises, England would be one alehouse from one end of it to the other. (Much laughter.) He wanted perfect freedom in the sale of beer ; but let them have some control over the sale of it. (Loud laughter.) Sir Thomas added, that he was not surprised that gentlemen should laugh. (Hear.) Mr. BARCLAY and Mr. MABERLY contended that the publicans ought not to be sacrificed by introducing all the proposed changes in regard to the sale of beer at once. In the division which followed, 142 voted in favour of the amendment ; 180 against it.

5. LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM CANAL. Mr. BENSON moved "That Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee, the solicitor to the London and Birming- ham Junction Canal Bill, having given in a list of the subscribers to the undertaking, and having afterwards attested the truth of that list before the Committee on the Bill ; and it appearing by evidence taken before the Committee to whom the several petitions complaining that the Standing Orders of the House had not been complied with respecting that Bill, that the said list of subscribers was false and fictitious, and had been culpably deposited by the said Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee, that the said Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee had thereby been guilty of a breach of the privileges of

he House, and ,:hat for that offence he should be called to the bar and reprimanded."

Mr. Lee having been called to the bar, was allowed to read his petition. He denied that he had been guilty of fraud in the busi- ness ; if fictitious names had been used, he was but the dupe of designing persons. The whole case against him rested on the evi- dence of a person of the name of Stokes, whom he had never seen, and who, in his evidence; had described. Subscribers as unable to pay their subscription::; Who were highly respectable

and substantial persons.

Mr. Lee having withdrawn, Mr. Bz:esoN observed, that the defence did not, in his opinidn, mend the miter Mr . . L fe ee had attested a list which was false. He moved, therefore, that Mr. L.e be called to the bar and re- primanded. Lord Ceivz. did not see the necessity of pressing a vote of censure.

Mr. Alderman WAITI1?.IAN would not call this the most atro- cious ca-:e of the spit for he had known a hundred as bad ; and had his motion been successful, lie could have implicated in simi- lar transactions some scores of members of Parliament, who could not afterwards have kept their seats. Mr. IIenvEy thought it was impossible to doulet, that the question of knowledge, on which Mr. Lee had put the assertion of his innocence, must be decided against him.

Sir J. WROTTESLEY defended Mr. Lee with great warmth. Some interruption having occurred, Sir John observed, that he had hoped he was in the society of gentlemen. Mr. SLANEY, Mr. FYLER, Sir HENRY PARNELL, Mr. W. WYNN, Mr. BROUGHAM, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, were disposed to acquit Mr. Lee of every imputation deeper than culpable negli- gence. At last the following resolutions were agreed to

" That it appears by the minutes of evidence before the Committee to which this subject was referred, that the subscription list was a false and fictitious list. That Thomas Eyre Lee, though warned as to the suspicious character of the said list, did nevertheless, as agent to the Bill, attest its truth, without due inquiry into the circumstances to which his attention had been specially directed. That the said Thomas Eyre Lee, for the said offence, be called to the bar of this House, and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker."

Mr. Lee was accordingly called to the bar, and the SPEAKER reprimanded him with great solemnity, in the following words ; which we extract from the Journals of the House, as a warning to all unprivileged jobbers in private bills. "Thomas Eyre Lee, the House, after lengthened and mature consi- deration of the case in which you are involved, and having given every attention to the petition which you have presented, have come to the conclusion that the offence which you have committed is of a grave and serious nature, as affecting the dignity and character of this Lionse, and of the most dangerous consequences to the property of individuals who may be concerned in the passing of private hills. It has been proved, to the conviction of the House, that the subscription list which you de- posited, was false and fictitious in itself; and that you, though warned as to the suspicious character of the said list, did nevertheless, as agent for the Bill, attest its truth without due inquiry into the circumstances to which your attention has been specially directed; and, however severe a censure it must be to every honourable, mind to receive such reprimand from the House, this House, in justice to the parties concerned in the case to which their attention has been particularly directed, as well as with a view to prevent the recurrence of any fraud of a similar nature, and to give security to those whose interests may be concerned in private bills, and further to vindicate the honour and dignity of the House, do direct that you be reprimanded for this offence. I have, in obedience to the command of the House, communicated this reprimand to you, and I have now to acquaint you that you are discharged.'

6. TITHES. Mr. Humz presented a petition from the inhabi- tants of Rochester against tithes.

Every body now was pretty well convinced that the tithes were the great cause of the want of employment for the poor, and that if they were removed, many parts of the country which were now barren would be cultivated, but the fear of the tithes prevented people from bringing these places into cultivation. The tithes were the most oppressive tax that existed in England, and some commutation of them ought to take place. The petitioners prayed for this; but they did not object to afford a-compensation to those who were now in possession of them, and who would suffer by the change. The time had-now arrived when it ought to be considered, whether great part, if not the whole of the security which was now given for the payment of the clergy, ought not to be dispensed with. (Hear !) The petitioners stated this opinion; and they added, that there was no authority in Scripture for having enormously paid Archbishops and Bishops, while the people at large were suffering all the miseries of poverty, privation, and want. The tithes were a greater enemy to the Church than the Jews, of whom the right honourable gen- tleman seemed so much afraid last night. The tithes alienated the minds of the people from the Church ; and if the Government really wished to preserve and maintain the Church, they must alter the present system of tithes.

Sir R. Irrcias said, that the parallel drawn between the holders of sinecures in the State and in the Church, was by no means just. When Mr. Hume lately purchased an estate in Norfolk, he had bought only nine-tenths of the soil, for the other tenth most indisputably be- longed-to the Church. Every landed proprietor in England held his pro- perty on that tenure. It ought to be recollected, also, that one-third of the whole tithes of the-country was in the hands of lay impropriators. Sir E. EN-Amy:um. bore testimony- to the general merits of the Clergy. Mr. F. PALMER said that the , Clergy instead of taking only one-

,

tenth of the produce of the soil, took much more. He knew an instance of a farm, which, feur years ago, paid a rent of '6001: to the landlord, and a tithe of 1401. to thetlergyman at that date it was considerably-more-than a-tenth, but-since, owiagto circumstances, Solvent had been reduced to 5001., but the clergymairstill insisted upon. his-full amount of tithe,:140/., on the grotmd.thatthe more relieved -the tenant was by his landlord, the better able he was to pay the full tithe.

ADDITIONAL JUDGES.—The CIFANCEI.T.OR of the Exclts:rivr-s.

moved that his .Majosty be empowered to grant a salary not ing 5000/. a year as a salary for the three additinctl judges to Mr. Hu ME moved -10 00/. as all amendment ; but :Ireed to I,.

and the original motion passed. busts NI:WrOnT moved for a Co!..,, .• to inquire into the merits of the valuations of the Irish first 1, •-'1;els were made in the reign a Quev:i Anne. and into the gener: I ' •:.:,;- tration of the produce of the fund. The motion was nPg•tt: • hyJf to (15.

'rle

TRIM POLICE.—On the rnw or IF-. y • been ordered of the nnmh, r n• , tile: in in Ireland, since the e.rabtt. of

the number of i 1! : • • !.

WEST INDIA 1NTi:• - • '

that Government shall ;■:• ward some measure on the suh.: Tue. PnEss.—The Attornev-c--, newspapers, he shall r,...:uire inn!. • of those already in 11(' for the repressi.on p!'11!t!' it. in...

• Cn,t .1 ),•.7.7 omit!: than ..::u re to be •.