from my gallant colleague, and from a noble lord, in reference to a petition which I had the honour of presenting, on a former evening, from the town of Liverpool, in favour of this bill. On that occasion, my gallant colleague admitted, that it was both numerously and respectably signed; but he now says, that some of the signatures to it were obtained through the great influence possessed by the Jews in Liverpool; and the noble lord who has adverted to the petition, seems to think, that the Jews can dispose of the feelings of the trading classes of society as they please. Now, Sir, I happen to know something of Liverpool, and I really believe there is scarcely a part of the country in which the Jews possess less influence. They are principally retail traders, and are therefore not likely to possess great influence in that town. The sentiments contained in the petition are the genuine opinion of the individuals who signed it, and they should be taken as the genuine sentiments of the Christians of Liverpool, in favour of the great principle, asserted by the House in the instance of the Catholics and of the Dissenters. My gallant friend has, indeed, confessed, that the Roman Catholics were entitled to some favour, because their religion was an ancient one. But if the Roman Catholics have any claim, on account of the antiquity of their faith, he will not surely consider the Jews less entitled to favour on the same score. And when my gallant friend tells us, that our ancestors were opposed to all innovation, he seems to have forgotten, that they brought about the Reformation, which changed the religion of the country-that they effected a Revolution, which altered the succession to the throne-and that they expelled a King, because he endeavoured to destroy the liberties of the country.

With regard to what has fallen from the noble lord, respecting my opposition to the bill for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, I am sure that every gentle

man who heard me upon that occasion will bear me out in the statement, that I did not oppose it from any desire to exclude the Dissenters, but because I was apprehensive that partial concession might be injurious to the success of the great and general measure of Catholic emancipation, which was then about to be brought forward, and has since been happily accomplished.

I am ready to admit, that the present question is not one of paramount importance, or of absolute necessity: but upon principle, the concession ought to be made; and as a uniform supporter of the claims of the Catholics, I cannot refuse my assent to it.. The arguments which I have heard this night against the emancipation of the Jews, are precisely the same, mutatis mutandis, as those which, for the last thirty years, I have been in the habit of hearing urged against the emancipation of the Catholics. But, while I admit that no such over-ruling necessity is apparent in this case, I maintain that the last blot of this kind ought to be removed from the statutebook. When this measure shall have passed, the great principle of general toleration will be completed, and the Jews in this country will be placed on the same footing as those in France and the Netherlands.

The honourable member for Wexford, who has spoken so well that I hope to hear him often, admitted the propriety of admitting the Jews to all other stations, civil and military; but he would exclude them from seats in Parliament. Now this, Sir, is a sort of liberality which I cannot understand. The honourable member would give them the power of the sword, and the power of instructing youth; but he would make them, by his exclusion, the enemy of that legislature, which it is necessary for the safety of the state that youth should be taught to respect, and soldiers implicitly to obey.

Something has been said as to the manner in which my

honourable friend has framed his measure.

And it is true,

that it purports to be a relief to the Jews from all their disabilities, and to put them on the same footing with the Protestant Dissenters and the Roman Catholics. But does

it follow, that if the House shall go into a committee, it must necessarily adopt all that has been proposed by my honourable friend? For myself, I am prepared to support my honourable friend's views to their full extent. If, however, the House should go into the committee, and a proviso be introduced, not to allow the Jews the privilege of admis sion into Parliament, however undesirable, and uncalled for, that proviso might, in my opinion, be, yet still I am not one of those who would think that the bill ought not to be persevered in, on account of such an objection. Honourable gentlemen may ask, why should I agree to this? But I would ask them, do they recollect the year 1812, when a bill was brought in to grant the Roman Catholics all that they have since obtained? That bill was read a first and a second time. It went to a committee, and an amendment was then agreed to, to exclude them from sitting in Parliament, and on that amendment having been carried, the bill was, as I thought, very unwisely withdrawn. The better course would have been, for the friends of the measure, to have taken what they could have obtained. If a proviso to the same effect should be now introduced, I should deprecate it, and think it unwise; but, considering this bill as a measure of justice, and of relief to all the parties who are suffering from having their rights withheld, I would still proceed to pass it.

I therefore trust, Sir, that the bill will be allowed to be read a second time. It is most certain, that it has attracted considerable notice; and honourable gentlemen have been told, that they will rue the support they are giving it, when they return to their constituents; but I will, nevertheless, support it, as I did the measure of Catholic emancipation,

without any other consideration than that which guided my decision upon that question. Again, then, I will express á hope that the bill will pass, and form the consummation of that course of liberality, which will immortalize the present Parliament.

The house divided: For the second reading, 165. Against it, 228.

MR. HUSKISSON'S EXPOSITION OF THE STATE OF OUR POLITICAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.

May 20.

In pursuance of his notice, that he would this day present a Petition from Liverpool, respecting the present state of our political and commercial relations with Mexico,

Mr. HUSKISSON rose and said :—

The petition, Sir, which I now rise to present, is one which, in my judgment, connects itself with interests and considerations of the highest importance to this country. I trust that this will afford some apology for me, if I venture upon this occasion to detain the House longer than is usual, or, generally speaking, acceptable, upon the presentation of petitions. The petitioners are that portion of the merchants of Liverpool, who are engaged in dealings and commercial intercourse with the State of Mexico. In substance, their petition is entirely in accordance with the representations which have been made to this House by other great trading and manufacturing communities-Glasgow, Manchester, London, and other places, whose pursuits give them an equal interest in the condition of the New States of America. The petition states that, since Mexico became independent, its trade with this country has increased; that it now forms a very important item of our foreign commerce, and that it is sus

ceptible, under favourable circumstances, of a still greater increase; that it has, however, unfortunately been exposed to various interruptions, losses, and uncertainties, in consequence of occasional enterprises undertaken against Mexico from Cuba, and that these enterprises have been the cause of considerable disorders in Mexico, and of expense and losses, which fall mainly upon neutral commerce. The petitioners/further state that, last summer, an expedition was despatched from Cuba, which entailed great losses upon British subjects, and they add, that they have reason to believe that other expeditions of a similar nature are fitting out. Such are some of the statements contained in the petition.

1

1

Of the magnitude and importance of the objects at stake there cannot be two opinions. When we look at the extent and peculiar productions of the Mexican territory at its actual population-a population now amounting to nearly seven millions, and capable of being greatly increased—a population, not our rivals in shipping or manufactures, but able and willing to afford us the mineral productions of their country, in return for our goods, to the great encouragement of our trading and shipping interests-it will appear to all that we are deeply interested in the tranquillity, welfare, and prosperity of Mexico. Upon the value of our political connexion with that country-upon the importance of its being able to maintain itself in a state of entire and secure independence I will not now expatiate, though I shall have occasion to notice this consideration before I sit down. The petitioners pray the House, "to adopt measures to protect their interests, and induce Spain to desist from such expeditions, or else to prevent them, as they can only terminate in disgrace and loss to herself, and injury to other parties, connected with Mexico." There are two questions which naturally arise from considering this prayer. First, have we the right, or rather have we