The Express. — London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 12, 1818. custody. Mr. V. SMITH (in continuatlon)—Then it seemed to him that there was no use in putting any question from the chair. A member moved at amend talent, and was told thst it could not be put. An other tried to speak, and was told that he could not be heard. What was the purpose then of putting a ques tion to the house ? He thought they should know what the precise law was, and in conformity with what system they were acting. The SPEAKER said the frith clause of the act declared that if any member chosen to serve on a committee was not in his place within one hour afar the meeting of the house, or departed from the house before being sworn, he should be ordered to be taken into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. According to the ancient usage of the house, not only under this but under previous acts, whenever a member was so ordered to be taxon into such custody. it was usual for the question to be put from the choir. 'He had thought it right upon this occasion to follow and adhere to the ancient cus tom, although certainly it might be a question whether it was neceso , re to put the questi in at all. Mr. HORSMAN said this really appeared to be a very bard case. A member was ordered to be Wien into the cus tody of the sergeant-at-arms for being absent when he did not know he was required. It wes the duty of the sereeant-st- arms to pursue him and s fleet his capture forthwith. If he was in So 'dant or in Ireland the sergeant-at-arms must go there, and all the exp.nses devolved upon the member; and this was done without any opportunity for that house to con sider the propriety of the act. A question was put, no amendment was permitted to he moved—the house was called upon to say " aye" or " no," and yet it appeared that they must say " eye." Surely if they were to be squired to say " aye" or " no" at all, it was open then to move an amendment. If not entitled to say "aye" or " no," where was the use of ceiling upon them to say either ? Mr. HUME ' , Omitted that it was imperative to take a member into custody under the act, and thought it desirable that it should not be in the power of the house to have any choice in the matter. He thought the order ought to issue without any question being put at all. With regard to the question of costa, that might be considered when the mem ber was brought up in custody. Mr. F. O'CONNOR, on the con.raty, thought there was a question to be put ; because the question of punishment was left to the house. Sir G. GREY soid the punishment was a matter to be disposed of after the member was in custody. The object of the act was to prevent the parties keing put to the inconveni ence of members being absent from the performance of their duties. With regard to what had been said by the hon. member for Cockermovith, he ape ired to have over looked the fact that a fortnieht's notice was given to s mem ber that tnere was to be a billet from the panel on which his name was insert. , d. Mr. MUNTZ thought it very desirable that members should be kept to their duty. The question was then put by the chair. Mr. HUME said it ought not to be put, but there were cries of " Order," and he sat down. The motion ft r arrest corned. AGRANCY. Mr. W. MILES wished to ask the hon. gentleman, the Chief Commissioner of Poor-laws, whether any measures were to be brought forward respecting tramping vagrants ? Mr. C. BULLEIt said this subject was a very serious one, and one to which his attention had been for some time pain fully called. He had taken some pains to obtain information from all parts of Eneland upon the subject, and he feared that the house would find that this system of tramping va grancy won a great and a very increasing evil. He did not pledge himself at present to the application of any remedy, but if the action of the house were required, he enured the hon. member that he should not shrink from the re• sponsibility of introducing a measure on the subject. NAVAL OFFICERS. Capt. PECIIELL inquired of the Secretary of the Admi ralty if it was intended to make provision in the estimates for completing the retired list of paymasters and pursers to the numbers re cemrcended in the report of the committee of flag officers iu 1842 ? And also, if the board of Admiralty had taken into consideration the Beyond memorials of the com manders and lieutenants with regard to a retired list, and of the masters with respect to the rank they hold in the service? Mr. WARD said that with regard to the paymasters and pursen, no further provision would be recommended, as he was prepared to show that they had already received a full equivalent fur what they had given up. With regard to the memorial of the musters, the subject had been under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and, in the opinion of all the naval lords, it was impossible that the suggestions of the meet , Ti could be aecoded to. As regarded the me moriel of the comamoders, he could only express the regret of the board that they did sot feel justified in proposing to parliament to make a further provision for that class by an augmentation of the retired list. THE SEE OF CANTERBURY. Mr. HORSMAN wished to give notice that on Monday he should ark an important question of the Firet Lord of the Treasury. Within the last few hours an event had occurred, which he Olt sure that every one in that house and without it would deeply deplore—he meant the death of 1 his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, Now, in the course of the di•cuesion which they had had some few weeks since upon the revenues of the archbishops end bishops, and the mode of paying them under the ecclesiastical com mission, it had been admin. el, loch by the noble lord at the head of the government and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that there were great defects in the existing system, and that it was advisable some change should take place. (Hear, hear.) Now, when the Bishop of Durham wes appointed to his see it was notified to him by the then government that he must consider himself subject to arrangements not then having the effect of law, hut which were then intended, and subsequently were made law. The question he should ask on Monday wan, if her Majesty's present government would contemplate filling up the archiepiscopal see subject to such changes and modifica tions as parliament ST mightEAM hereafterßOATS. determine I (Hear.) Mr. MUNTZ asked if it was the intention of her Majesty's governmene, in consequence of the explosion on board of the Cricket steamer in the rivet Thames, to take any mea sures for the riorulat:on of steam-boats ? Mr. LABOUCHERE 'aid he was scarcely prepared at once to answer that question. The board over which he presided had the power at present of regulating steam boats. They could oblige them to take out certificates, and could subject them to inapeetion. ADJOURNMENT. It was agreed that the house, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. The order of the day having been read, and questions haring been put upon this bill, Mr. C. PEARSON rose, and commenced by entreating the confederation of the house for a new member, and an orator widunit recent practice. He regretted that the sub ject was war which it was impossible to separate from reli gious topics unsuited to the atmosphere of a political amena bly. It behoved them, if the question must be so discussed, to deal wits great candour and kindness by the views of those opposed to them. lie felt it necessary to my at once, that th ough he should vote on the E 8.014; Aide with the hon. member for Buckingham, •, t he should de Ile so on perfectly different grounds. Ile held that the state had no right to coerce the consciences of men —to mould them into tonftstmity —by holding out to them the objects of political ambition. Ile held that no man ought to be disqualified for any office on account of his religious opinions. He did not from the extreme of that proposiion. It was said Earamobtoz Roy might be admitted upon such a principle. He did not hesitate to say that, if a son of Rammohun Roy, inheriting his father's talents and his father's virtues, had been re turned to that house by a large constituency, the parliament ought not to refuse him a place within their walls. It was said by the member for the university that the Jews ought not to complain because we did not " spit upon their gaber difte and call them Jew." But, if that conduct was consi dered a reflection upon the rsce, what were they to may to the imputations which fell from members of that hones in I the progrees of debate ? An hon. gentleman, whose speech the ether night would be glassed nmong the standard litera ture of the country, spoke of the tests to which they MOM now subjected upon election. But what was asked be the Jews was not election, but eligibility for election. Zs vindicated, for the first commercial city of the world the right to sleet, as it had elected, for its representative one of the most eminent merchants in the whole commercial weeM, a man of the highest honour, of the greatest moral wastilt. It was said that Jews could not be present at the .....!".Idered up at the sitting of the house without fearful y towards God. In the first place he denied that thiigree ov er, in word or deed, offered the slightest insult to tles mime or the creed of Christ, but, in point of fact, there misted se reason why a Jewish member of the house should be peacoat at prayers at ell ; there were, certabily, very few days ea which even twenty Christien members considered it necegoary to attend them. The authority of Lord Coke had bees referred to, but this authority was by no means inefragable in cases where thiology was 'hied up with law. He had carefully searched the rolls of our early parliaments, and he had found no exception to any max, a. member of parliament, on the ground of hi . cr eed. U p to the period of James 1. Jews in this couutry might have been admitted to the house on taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy on the Pentateuch, net was it until 16 William and Mary that the words "on the true faith of a Christian," were in troduced even into the oath of abjuration. lie contended that these words, on the true faith of a Christian," were no essential part of the oath, end he quoted the opinion of I Mr. Serjeant Heywood, that Jews are entitled to vote at elections, leavir g out these words from their oath. He denied that the country was opposed to the passing of the bill. The mere fact of the election of Mr. Rothschild by the votes of 7,000 electors, was in itself a sufficient proof of the opinion of the city of London on the subject, were not that opinion further evinced by the repeated admission of Jewish gentlemen to sheriffdom', to alcisrmanthipe, and to other places of high trust. As to the petitions on the other side, they were utterly insignificant as compared with those which bad besieged the house against the admission of catholic', or against the Ma) pooch grant. As to the church of England, he believed it had much lass to fear from the Jews than from many of the mete, whose representatives had seat, in that house. lie referred to the great disadvantages which not only the city of London, but the country at large experienced from Mr. Rothschild's nut being entitled to sit upon the committee appointed to inquire into the eau/es of the public distress. The SPEAKER here summoned the deputy terjeant to the bar, and asked if Sir Robert Price was in the custody of the serjeant. The DEPUTY SERJEANT, having made the inquiry outside, returned and reported that the bon. member was not in custody. The SPEAKER.—Nor Mr. Cumming Bruce The DEPUTY SERJEANT.—No, Whereupon the committees upon the West Gloucester and Great Marlow electionowtitions were adjourned, by hove of the house, to Monday. Mr. PEARSON sontinued, and terminated his remarks by quoting the old fable of " The Traveller and the Sun" in illustration of the views he hail developed. Lord DRUMLANRIO asked whether it was to be argued because such men as Gihl,on and Lord Bolingbroke had sat is the house, that was to form a ground for breaking down the barriers of Christianity, with which the institutions of the country were surrounded ? Was England to be called I on to follow the example of France, where, within the last sixty years, the existence of God had been denied, and the people had worshipped the goddeu of reason ? Oh" and I, thear.") He felt justified in giving his vote against the bill. Mr. W. COWPER said that the noble lord had not rated one single argument against the bill, which met the ques tion on its menu , . If the bill were au isolated measure he would admit it was startling. But it was only the natural consecotence of the various stet* taken of late years towards removing civil disabilities, founded on religious differences. The Jew* were freemen and citizens of the state, and being subject to no disabilities as such, they were entitled to all the privileges of freemen. According to his view of the subject, the best way was to leave the quettion of moral qualification of members to the electors, and to throw upon them the responsibility of having mode the choice of a Jew, of a Christian, or of any other religious sectarian. It would be far wiser to throw open the doer of the house to all classes of persons, rather than for them to assume the task act in quiring into and reproving the creeds of those seat there. Mr. K. SEYMER did not concur in the principles which had been laid down by the noble lora the member foe London, in opening this question. He did not think ths with the settlement of this question the edifice of toleration would be considered by its advocates to be complete. But is the concessions which had been quoted as precedents. more especially those to the Romeo catholies, distinctions had been preserved. (Rear, hear.) The noble lord had slid that they could hardly maintain a great principle by fair words at the fig-end of an oath. Granted. They could not make all men Christians by imposing a declarationneither could they make all men moral by a code, and still they were constantly legislating for moral ob jects. (Hear, hear.) lie dirt not see any analogy between the cases of the Roman catholies end dis senters and that of the Jews. He believed that the citi zens of London, who arc fond of speculation, hail elected Baron Rothschild on speculation. They had drawn a hill on the Lords and Commons, taking their chance of its being accepted. Too much fencing in might be bad for the church, but that was no reason why they should rev: its defences altogether. He feared that if t:ie privileges of the church were taken away she would soon cease to be an established church, and that being his opinion he must oppose the present bill. Mr. HORSMAN said he should support the bill, but not on the grounds that it involved merely a political question. He denied that politics and religion could properly be 'cps , rated. It appeared incomprehensible to him how any man could disclaim religion in public matters without also repu -1 dieting its influence in the affairs sf private life. (Cheers.) The question was, in fact, partly a political and partly a religious one. It was political and constitutional as touching the rights of a portion of oar fel• low subjects, and it must be decided on the maxims of jus • tiee and sound policy. It appeared to him that with respect to it the house was called upon to assume the judicial cha racter. The question was none of their seeking, it had been forced upon them by the citizens of London. (Hear, hear.) They had elected a man as their representative, unit he now waited at the door of the house for admission. Constitu tionally. he was their repreeentative, but • legal objection had been raised to his admission into parliament. He (Mr. Hem men) would decide the question upon high grouads. A mat fallacy had run through all the arguments which had been urged against it, more roped illy that of the hon. mem ber for Midhurot. It was asserted that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of England, and that in the present bill it was thought to annul that law. The plain English of such an assertion was, that for the purpose of better securing Christianity we had weed a statute expressly excluding the Jews from parliament. Why, there was no law of the kind in the statute book, and therefore there was none to be annulled. (Hear, hear.) Formerly there bad been such laws, but those having been it pealed there was little reason in seeking , to exe'ude the Jews by laws enacted heart) he exclusion entirely different set of men. (Hear, The question was, whether parliament, having repealed every direct statute against the Jews, a member of that body was to be deprived of his seat its that house under a statute having no reference whatever to him or hie reli gion. (Hear, hear.) The Jews were made to bear their port of the national burdens ; we compelled them to carry arms, or to give us money when we wanted it; in fact, im posed upon them all the responsibilities of subjects ; but when they asked for the privileges of citizens, we denied them, wish the answer that they were only Jews. (Cheers.) Al the law stood at present they might be magistrates, , sheriffs, or aldermen, but the moment it was sough , to admit them into parliament a cry was rained that Christianity was et an end He felt that such fears on he part of Christians were more degrading toChristianity than would be the incur sion of a whole tribe of Jews. (Hear, hear.) Such was not the weak faith of the devoted men, who had braved the dungeon and the rack in support of that bele f which they knew would one day overspread the world. Was the church, which in the time of i.er adversity had been a fear. ING martyr, to become in the day of her exaltation and pride a trembling tyrant ? (Hear, hear.) Could not Caristians in the per eent day enter into the contest without anticipating defeat? (Hear, hear.) lie asked that question to hon. gentlemen opposite, of the hon. barn let below him (Sir R. Inglis), than whom no man had a higher place in the esti tuition of the house or the country. (Hear, hear.) That hon. baronet would forgive him if he said that a great part of his life had been spent in proclaiming the weakness of his religion, and its possible, if not probable, downfall. (Cries of "oh, oh," from the opposition.) He was speaking pto 'Richly, and he asserted that on every occasion of concession, the hon. baronet had predicted that the nun of proteatantism had set for ever. And now, it was feared that if but one Jew were admitted into parliament, the faith of six hundred and fifty-five Christians would make itself wings and fly off to Jerusalem or Jericho. (A laugh.) Was Christianity a thing which would not bear shaking, imposing when unassailed, but liable to be shaken to pieces by every wind that blew upon it? (Hear, hear.) He had no sympathy with thole who doubted the stability of the religion which they professed, nor would he take Christianity on their statements. She did not require enactments to en able her to prevail. Locke had wisely mid, that the Riven. tions of men required the inventions of men to sustain them, bat that the religion of God required not the aid of human inventions. (Hear, bear.) That was his doctrine. He believed that it was the function of religion to interfere with politics, but in a greet, and gracious, and progreesive spirit ; and in that belief he felt himself justified in support. in g the present bill. (Hear, heir.) Idr. SPOONER said that one part of the hon. member for Cockermouth's speech had completely contradisted the other. (A laugh.) He had begun by stating broadly that religion should influence both public and private conduct, and yet had come to the conclusion that Jews should be ad mitted to mats in that house. The hon. member had talked of the fears of those who opposed the bill. Fears ! They had no fears for Christianity. their conviction wos,that tenth would triumph, no matter whit attempts might he made to put it down. Bat they feared lest &Christian net ton, which had for so many centuries been blessed with Chri , tort privileges, should now prove thenrelees so unworthy of them as to ad- salt these to make laws for that maim who denied the law as laid down by oar Savionr ; who denied the dity of I Chriet, and treated the great author of Christianity so II rifled impostor. (Hear, hear.) The bon. member for Cockernsouth had called upon the opponents of the message Wshow re h how the constitution was en endangered by its What we im the words of the compact tered into betweme the sovereign and the people at the coronation ? The nom I reign was sworn to maintain the true profession of the gospel and the pr.testant reformed religion u establiehed in chisel realms. How could they expect that gospel and that religion' to be maintained, if they admitted persons to make laws and I a d e j a e her Majesty, whose religion told them there WS2 ar truth in that gospel ? (Hear, tear.) Here, then, was the con stitutional danger, and a g reat constitutional danger It was. (Hear.) Mr. HOIRSMAN—But how as to the Roman catholic*? Mr. SPOONER was speaking of the Jews. (" Hear," and a laugh.) But if they admitted Roman catholic., they had at 1. sat so far preserved the Christian character of the house as to require the profession of Christianity on the part of its members; but now it was proposed to abolish even that test, and permit any man to take his seat es a member of the legislature, though openly avowing that he was not a Ch r i s ti a n. It they were not to insist on the profession of Christianity, what was there to prevent the admission, not only of Musaulmen or Hindoos, as some had argued, hut even infidels? Depend epee it, if this demand were con- I ceded, it would not be the last sacrifice that would be re quired. The noble lord the member for Bath had alluded to membe r psis which bail been . put forth in print by • I of the cabinet nut now in the house in which he stated that this question was merely one of police, and eons- pared it with cooks and cookery. Though Mr. Macaulay looked on this as a mere police question, the terms of the coronation oath showed that it was not so regarded in the compact entered into between the sovereign and the people, neither did the practice of the house justify such au opinion, for their business was each day preceded by a prayer to Almighty God to direct their deliberations for the advancement of true religion and piety. But taking the question on :he principle of a police measure, which he did merely for the sake of argument—how were we to pre serve the property, liberty, and lives of our fellow subjects but by termite; and adhering to a code of morals; and which code of morality equalled that of Christianity ? In conclusion, he called upon hen. members to remember the responsibility . which attached to them on this question, and to give their yams irrespective of party feeling. ex pressing, at the same time, his own determination to suppoit the amendment. Mr. COCKBURN—As a general proposition, it war im possible to deny the principle on which this measure was eabmitted to the house, that every subject of the realm bound by the obligations incidental to that character, paying allegiance to the sovereign and contributing to the gene-al hardens of the state, bound also in case of national danger, to defend the country at the risk of his life, and discharging all the ordinary obligations of a citizen, was also entitled to participate in all the reeky., privileges, honours, and advan incidenial to that position, independent of religious Opinion. (Hear, hear.) lie admitted that proposition must be taken with certain modifications—as, for instance, if the admission of any person, or clas. of persons, to those rights should be detrimental to the constitution, or that religion which it should be their first and primary object to up hold to the utmost of their ability—(hear, hear)—that case would be an exception to the general principle. (Hear.) And when the proposition was stated with this qualification, much of the argument which had been advanced by the ether side was totally inapplicable. He denied that those who advocated this measure were justly chargeable with any abandonment of the principles of the Christian religion. They conceded that it the admission of Jews to parliament should be attended with danger to the state or to the church, that the oppention to the measure would be just ; but he denied that the bill was fraught with any such dangerous conseqoences. Those who would deny to 40,000 of her Ma jetty', subje cm, not now only, but in time to come, their rights and privileges as Englishmen, were bound to make out their proposition that this was a case in which the exception to the general rule should apply. (Hear.) The hon. and learned membnuer fur on th hlidhunit and those who opposed the bill took their eid e law and constitution. He denied that the law or the constitution was as his learned friead (Mr. Walpole) had stated it to be. Nor would the argument be worth much if it were—for if the law or the constitution sanctioned injustics, or what wasp. chaps worse, lolly, the only conclusion he should draw would be that it required amendment. (Hear, hear.) Having admitted the Roman catholic claims in violation of the constitution now to refuse to admit the Jews, against whom there had been no law of exclusion passed, appeared to him very like swal lowing the camel and straining at the gnat. (Hear, hear.) Since parliament was first constituted there had never been any law, either in the constitu tion or the statute book that had hail for its end or design the excluaiou of the Jews. Their exclusions had been the result, not of legislative design, but of legisla tive accident. All the laws of exclusion passed by perils meet had been directed against parliament, none against the Jews. According to the aigiuul constitution of parliament, the eligibility of the representative depended solely on the ' choice of the electors—there was no other qualification ; neither was there, until the reign of Elisabeth, any religious test In that reign when the great struggl between protestantism and leomiunism was still going on, e and when protestantiem had again obtained the ascendancy, the pro teataut party naturally adopted all the means acid engine. I eircumetances placed in their power to secure thatascendancy and keep down their opponents. The oath of supremacy was thus introduced for the obvious and avowed purpose of excluding Roman catholic , no all rticipation in political power. This was the only a ct pa of exclusion in that reign. In the 3rd of King James came the oath, which was the model of the present oath, and in which teethe first time the words " on the true faith of a Christian" Isere intro duced. Tbis, too, was for the sole purpose of excluding Roman cathihns, and was entitled an " Act for the sup premien ot Popish recusants." And these words were in troduced in this way. The act was passed immediately after the discovery of the gunpowder plot, of which the Jesues were believed to have been at the bottom ; and as it was known that the joules countenanced the dangerous mo rality that they might avoid the obligations of an oath by a mental reservation at the time of taking it—a doctrine which was admi ted by Garnett, the Jesuit chief, as one to which that body subscribed—the legislature introduced a form of words which should prevent any Roman catholic obtaining power by talkies an oath in terms which in his heart he did not hold to be binding. This was the oath which continued till the celebrated oath against transub stantiation in the 30 Charles 11. No one could doubt that that was directed against Homes catholics only; and in fact it was expressly declared in the act itselt that its object was to protect the King's person and Isaias, by excluding Roman esthetics from power. So stood matters till the reign of William end Mary. In that reign all these oaths and sta tutes acre abolished, and the oaths of allegiance and supre macy were substituted as in the term. they now were. The op ponents of this hill alleged that according to the constitution no Jew could be admitted iuto parliament. He asserted that there was nothing in the law or constitution, down to the lastyear of William HI , which could prevent a Jew from hiking his seat if elected In that year, when there was some danger of the claims of a popish successor to the crown, the oath of abjuration WO pasaffi. That, however, was passed as against Roman catholic', and against the house of Stuart in parti cular, and that oath continued to be taken to the present hour. That it was directed against Roman catholics was clear by the subaequent act ul George 1., which enabled the erown to s ize upon t.e estates of Roman esthetics who were guilty of treason, as against the state, in supporting the claims of the Pretender. The whole course of legialation, so far as it had reference to any religious test or opinion as a qualification fur admission to parliament, was directed nut against the Jews, or in sup- ' port of Christianity, but solely and exclusively against our fellow Cbriatians the Roman catholic'. (Hear.) He would point out a still mare striking anomaly. Parliament had thought it right to change the state of the law in respect to RIM= catholics, and that per ion of our fellow-sabjects who I for two centuries and a half had bees excluded were at , length admitted to their privileges as citizens. But to do that it was found necessary to modify the oath, by leaving out the denial of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, but by ! retaining the words "on the true faith of a Christian.' An oath framed to exclude one class of persons, and who by the alteration in that oath had been admitted, was made to oper ite as against soother clam in reference to whom it was never directed. The Jew could take the oath of allegiance without hesitation, (or no man was more loyal or attached to the sovereign. He could take the oath of supremacy, for he did not amen that any person had any authority over the resist but the Queen. lie could also subecribe to the oath of abjuration, so far as its substance went, for he did nut admit the claims of any pretender to the crown. All that he objected to wart the form, not the substance, of an oath denying the claims of a l'reteuder, who had been dead nearly two centuries. (Hear, and a laugh.) It was really an insult to the loyalty of the subject and the dignity of the crone, to require an oath to be taken which implied that the sovereign needed the mockery of such pro tection aga.nst the unknown race of a pretender who was upwards of a century in his grave. But were the Jews ex eluded from that house upon the merits of the question ? If they were it mattered not how they were excluded, whether by such an oath or by direct legislation. Now if, when they admitted the Roman esthetics, they had so altered the oath as that it might be taken " by the rest of her Majesty's sub jects," they would have been under the necessity of bring ing forward a measure directly to exclude the Jews, and in the present state of the House of Commons they must know that it would be impossible to pus such a measure. (Hear, hear.) Ha, therefore, submitted that, upon the merits of the question, the Jews were entitled to the rights and privileges of British subjects. But were they British subjects ? They were certainly amenable to all the obligations incidental to such. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put his hands as willingly into the pocket sit the Jew as that of the most orthodox Christian Non okt. The tax paid by the Jew was in quite as good odour at her Majesty's Exchequer IS that paid by any other inhabitant o the realm. But it waa said by hia hon. and learned friend the member for Midhurst that the Jew warn only a naturalised alien. What were men whose fathers had been established in this country for two centuries to be only regarded as naturalised aliens Had not the Jew the same interest as ourselves in all that related to the welfare of the state, in good legislation, and in the proper administration of the laws? Had he not the same inducements—the same sensibilities—to attach him to the country personally, politi cally, and domestically ? and looking at the conduct of the Jews as a body, who could say that they were not animated by the same degree of patriotism ? If the countre , were invaded, they would be equally interested in repelling the invades_ * and he who doubted that they would assist in do' so, bed only to look at the active part taken by the Jews of Germany in the war of liberation to which that country had recionnes when seeking to throw off the yoke of France. His Ma. and learned friend said that they had not the same ma detainr as us; that their thoughts and affections were ilzad upon the land of their tethers, to which they hoped one day to be recast& That such formed part of the poetry and aspitatioss of the Jewish people might be tree ; but to suppose that it could have the slightest prac deal effect arm their conduct as citizens or subjects istmginative. Asunting, then, as he was "Gihalreieedtellpynrllioytidathaird ;Wrotthihmeeltiocnomtowaepereonrso4riehnitiidshopfrossupuebbjetrts; ?.butnwtheereayt was not the eonstitution of the country afforded to free subjects. It was not only for the bene fi t of the subject, but of the state itself, to increase as far as possible the number of pemons eligible to offices in the state. In the case of minors, of persons of inadequate property, of ecclesiastics, and of jades, there might oe remonable grounds for exclu sion. It might be unadvisable to mix up the sacred calling of the ecclesiastic or the impartial character of the judge with party strife ; but in these cases exclusion was justified solely upon considerations of public policy and advantage to the lame. (Hear, hear.) But we had no right, arbitra rily and without specific reasons, to exclude from a full rticipation in the honours and privileges of the state any y of her Majesty's subjects. What would his hon. and teemed friend think if it were suggested that all the mem bers of the legal profession should be excluded from that house. (Much cheering.) lie inferred from the cheers that each a proposition would not be altogether unpopular. (Renewed cheering, and laughter ) It bad been tried and effected ie one perliament. The lawyers had been excluded, but they had their revenge, for they christened it the parlia mention iiuloctOMS, sad not without realion, for a 000 d law had bees made by it. (Leughtera Now, if such a course were pursued again, would not his hon. and learned friend have much reason to complain. The general body of lawyers might be unpopular. but the great 'minting, the eloquence, and the high character of hie hon. friend might he referred to as sufficient to redeem them from the disgrace and injustice of such an exclusion. Surely it would not be a tufficient answer to say, that, as British subjects, they had ao political rights, and that, therefore, parliament was justified in excluding them. The evils or danger ap prehended from the admission of the Jews could only be of two kinds, political or religious. All the zeal of the oppo nents of the measure had not enabled them to suggest the slightest political mischief likely to accrue from its adoption. Political wisdom rather suggested that they should crown their conduct towards the Jews by this additional act of conoeesion. In having granted them civil rights the legia. lature had either gone too far or not far enough if not too far, teen should they be admitted to the fullest political rights as well as civil. In order to justify their exclusion from parliament upon religious gunds, they must chow some positive and tengible re misehief likely or possible to anise from their admission. Mere vague apprehension and surmise would not suffice. What did they fete ? Did they anticipate danger to the established church, or the religion of Christ, from the legislative acts of the Jews ? Even supposing the Jews had the power, what interest had they in doing anything detrimental to that re ligion ? Did the house suppose that it entered even remotely into their thoughts to cor.vert tie all to Judaism? Why, it was contrary to the very spirit of the Jewish !elision to en deavour to proselytise. Its very character was in its exclu siveness; for the Jew looked upon it as a sacred inheritance derived from his fathers, and to which he slid not want to admit the rest of the world. Besides, the house was not asked to give to the Jewish people the right of a Jewish representation. It was asked only ti give to a Christian constituency the power, it it chose, of returning a Jew as their iepresentative. And was there anyone inthathouse who had so little confidence in the religious feelings of the Christian electors of this counts, as to suppose that if they tound that the Jews were using their position to subvert the Christian religion, they would continuo to elect them? He thought not. Well, then, were they apprehensive that the Jews would pollute that house by their presence; or did they imagine that the piety or religious feelings of the hon. baronet, the member for Oxford University, would be en dangered, if a Jew happened to sit beside him? In the time of the Henrys and Edwards they thought right to expel the Jew., because as the descendants of those who crucified the God whom they adored, they saw pollution in their presence ; and unless the question were put upon a similar ground now, he could fee no reason for refusing ad mis.ion to a few Jews into that house. It was said that deing so would lower the tone of the house. He could notsee how it would, any mere than admitting them to the magistracy and the administration of justice had lowered the toue of Christianity—(hmer, hear)—and to say so would be casting a serious imputation upon the Christian character of these realms. In whatever aspect then they viewed the question, whether p htically or religiously, it was impossible to say that there was any real or substantial danger to be appre hended from the admission of Jews '.o parliament. Fortu nately, this country was not called upon to make the experi ment in the first instance. Other countries had done so. Ile would not say anything of France, because France was not regarded as eminently religious. But in Holland, where the people were fully as religious as in 'Lis country, the Jews bad been admitted to all the offices of the state, and had worked in perfect hermeny with their tellowoubjecta. Take Roman catholic Belgium, or the Vnited Stare* of America, in both of which countries strong religious feelings I existed and were exhibited, and there the Jews had been ad mitted to political power. What were the examples to the contrary—what the examples on the other side i They were Austria and Russia ; and the question now was, whether I this country would take its stand with the enlightened nations of Europe or give its countenance to the principles and views of bigots and barbarians? (Hear, hear.) Again, he might instance that the experiment hail been tried, and ' bad been attended with singular success, in two of the British ooloeics. In Jamaica and in Canada Jews had been ad milted to seats in the legislature ; and it woo well known that in the Canadian rebellion the Jews had taken a promi- went part in its suppression, and in upholding the authority and nghta of the sovereign of this roam. ( Hear.) But was there nothing to be gained by the adoption of a measure the effect of which would be to conciliate this class of the subject of the crown lie would take the liberty of asking those who supported the church whether they did not teed that by granting this concession they would not take the first great step towards bricking the Jews to • sense of the value and blessings of Christianity? How was it that Jr vs had lived so lung among Christians, end yet so late progress had been made in bringing them to the study of that which made Christians believe their religion to be the r Upon of God Why, because churchmen and Chris tians bad raised an insurmountable barrier, and had taught them that they, as Christiana, were th it bitter and im placable enemies. (Hear, hear.) Let them destroy the barrier—remove the obstacles—let there treat the Jews as brethren in humanity—let the Jew learn all that mercy that there was in the purity of the faith the Christian pro fessed—let them bring him within the sphere of its hole in fluence—and in time to come he would he brought within the pale of that holy salvation for the maintenance of which Christians were so anxious, and fur the extension of which they professed so much to desire. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BANKER said that while he did not claim for him self or those with whom he acted on thin question any mo nopoly of true religious feeling, he disclaimed the applica tion to them of the terms bigots and barbarians. Notwith standing that the hon. and learned member for South ampton (Mr. Cockburn) had bestowed so much historical and legal lore on this question, he (Mr. Baukes) must say that hie research did not bear upon the sub(ect, and that his speech, able and eloquent as it had been, afforded no answer to that of the hon. and learned member for ?dislhurst (Mr. Walpole), which on a former evening made an Rupees*w on the house which would not easily he obliterated. (Hear.) The honourable and learned member who had just' spoken had inquired what danger* would arise from the proposed concession to the Jew. He at once es- I plied, that from them dangers would arise in the church itself, and that dangers foss without the pale Of that church would follow. The danger was of this *oars ; There had been circulated within the lest few days a reprint of • very important speech I eta most reverend prelate—still a dignitary of the church— dei present Archbishop of Dublin. It was obvious that those I who entertained views in accordance with those stated by the hon. and learned member for Southampton (Mr. Cockburn) considered this speech a very valuable document, OT they would not have reprinted it and circulated it gene , rally. Able as the speech wee, it carried a warning to those I who belonged to the church, and ought to open their eyes to the dangers which were hanging over them. The Arch bishop of Dublin then supported the measure, and it was to be presumed that he did so still. Oa the occasion when the speech was delivered the right rev. prelste said, " I will say nothing on the political part of the question, because I consider it desirable to avoid as far as possible touching upon politics; but the second part of the question is of a religious na ture. It has been urged that persons who not only do not acknowledge, but who renounce, deny, and even vituperate the great author of the Christian religion ought not to have a voice in the legislature of a Christian country. 011 this point there arises a clues , tick, which I own I fled it very difficult answer." And what was the answer given by the right rev. prelate to that difficult question ? He said, • I admit that the Jews ought not to have legislative powers with regard to mestere regu lating or affecting the Christian protestant church, but I also think there is an incongruity in admitting any one, whe ther Christian or not, to have a share in affairs strictly et:de -1 siastical, or in the government of the church, and I take this opportunity of declaring my opinion on that point to be that the purely ecclesiastical concerns of the church, apart from secular matters, ought to be entrusted to some persons, whe ther called commissioners or by any other name, to be ex pired, appointed for that purpose, they being members of the elosech," Thwathe right rev. prelate would withdraw front this and the other house of parliament every motion relating to the church, and this he would do as a necessary consequence upon admitting Jews to seats in parliament. (Hear, hear.) Was the house prepared to adopt this preliminary stipulation for bother concessions—a stipulation which formed one of the charges brought against James II , and was declared by the Bill of Rights to be illegal and pernicious ? This was then a part of the danger and mischief to be apprehended from the proposition now under the consideration of the house. A schism within the church was more fearful than anything that could result from the admission of • few Jews into that house. He spoke not as a tractarian or retractarian ; be presumed not to give an opinion en such delicate points ; but the house, seeing that they might encourage schisms such as had arisen in the church from a recent unhappy appointment made by the noble lord at the he u n de rs to od government, ought to pause in its course. lie that the right hon. gentleman the member for the university of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), on a former evening, had incidentally touched upon a point which he (Mr. Banker) considered to be of the highest im portance, but so slightly and delicately as to render it elan cult a understand his right hon. friend's meaning. His right hon. friend had alluded to the petition from Archdeacon Wilberforce, who took the same grounds as those adopted ten years before by the Archbishop of Dublin. True his right hon. friend said he did not go the length of agreeing with Archdeacon Wilberforce as to the appointment of a commission to deal with all ecclesiastical matters, yet he could not hesitate to say that the general course of events and the objects now proposed greatly increased the degree arisen es early in the proceedings of the session, he was bound to say that he thought it had oorurred tithe ant of attention on the part of members to the state panels. If the hon. member had looked at the lists he would have seen that his presence was likely to be required. The motion having been seconded, and the question put, Sir it. H. INOLIS said that he thought it very desirable that the notices on members should be personally and actually served by an officer of the house. If case such would n bad beeot n done in the present instance probably this have ootureed. Lord H. VANE thought four or five days' notice should be given. Mr. AOLION BY thought the suggestion of the right on. gentleman who strived the committal was insufficient. Merely looking at the panel would give little information. In the present cow very short notice had been given. lie himself did not get his notice until late last night. Sir W. HEATHCOTE said, if there was any hardship in the matter it arose from the fault tat the act of parliament, and not from the proceedings of the general committee. The latter body had no voice in the matter. Dr. BO W RING thought the hardship might be very con siderable. In another ease likely to occur to-night, an hon. member was at Hereford, and it was impossible for him to have received his notice. Mr. FORBES hoped the house would have some conside ration for the ease of his hon. friend who was absent. He was sure it was not by his own fault. lie moved that the debate br adjourned. The SPEAKER did not know whether the question on this amendment could be put; fur the act of parliament was imperative that if the member aumnioned to be sworn was not preterit, he mast be taken into custody. Mr HORSMAN thought the case was undoubtedly one of great hardsht p; but the house seemed then have no power in the matter. fie would suggest that the amendment be withdrawn now, and that on Monday the hon. member for Stirling do move that the fees charge .ble upon the absent member be remitted. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that they were wasting time. It was clear the hon. member must be taken into euetcely. Mr. HORSMAN —ls the hon. member, then, to be kept in custody all to-morrow, Sunday, and Monday ? (Cries of "Yea.") The question was then put. There were some cries of "Aye," end a cry of " No" from Mr. FUUBES and other members. The SI'E 1K ER repeated the question, when the cries of " Aye " were more g e neral ; but there were numerous excla mations of ' 4 No." The SPEAKER decided that the " ayes" had it. An Hoy. 1 1 / 4 i RYMER The " noes" have it. The SPEAKER: Strangers must withdraw. Mr. FORBES rose to .peak, but The SPEAKER said that the question before the house was not one in which an boo. memo , r would be in order in addressing the house at that stage. Sir ft 11. INGLIS essayed to speak, but there were cries of " order," and strangers were again ordered to withdraw, Strangers withdrew, and during our absence the motion was agreed to without a division. GREAT MARLOW ELECTION COMMITTEE. The members of this committee were then again called to the table. On the name of Sir Robert Price, Bart., being called, thet hon. member did not answer. Mr. FOX MAULE then moved that this hon. member be also taken into the custody of the sergeant-at.arms. On the question being put, Mr. V. SNI ITII begg‘d to ask the chair how the law stood about this maitre: if the act was that a member should be taken lute co to ly ? Mr. AGLION BY—Should be ordered to be taken into of delicacy which applied to the established church. These were very ambiguous phrases, and he trusted that his right hon. friend would explain his very delicate speech, which nobody . had plainly understood. When they recollected that ministries had been kept in their laces by majorities of three or four, it should not be said that the admission of four or five Jews could be of little importance. The right hon. bonnet the member for Tam worth had not yet declared why he bad changed his opinions with respect to this question. The speech which that right hon. gentleman made in 1830 on this very subject appeared to him meet convincing, and he did not believe that any one but the right hon. gentleman himself could answer it. If they made this concession to the Jews, they could not stop there. (Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped the house would pause before they consented to the second reading. (Hear.) Sir R. PEEL.—It was with great reluctance that I gave a silent vote on the hest occasion when this subject was Crider the consideration of the Imam, but the peculiar cir cumstances under which the debate arose before the Christ mas recess, and my unwillingness to delay the house from coming to a practical conc'usion, induced me to be silent. I now wish to state the grounds on which I have come to a conclusion, at variance certainly with my first impressions —(ironical cheering, and counter cheers)—and the reasons which have induced me to come into collision with many of those with whom I have almost invariably acted—(renewed ironical cheering)—with some from whom I have never come to a different conclusion , on questions of equal im portance. At any rate, every rdinary motive would induce am to vote with them on the present occasion also—(hear) —/ will now state why, after mature con-ideration, I have COM to the conclusion of voting for the proposition before the kern. And in the first place I with to state, that no pert of my resolution has been influenced by the opinion that religion is a matter of indifference, (Hear, hear.) I am deeply impressed with the con viction that it is our paramount duty to promote the interests of religion, and that the precepts and doctrines of Christianity ought to influence our deliberations. (Hear, hear.) lam impressed with the belief that if our legislation be at variance with its precepts and doctrines, we cannot expect the blessings of heaven. Be that decision right or wrong, my judgni. nt is influenced much leas by considers thins of politic a expediency than by a deep sense of reli gious obligation. I admit that, between the tenets of the Jews and the Christians, there is a marked and decided dif ference—nay, more, that they stand in the relation of com plete antagonism. (Hear, hear.) I consider that no con currence we to historical truth or the moral obligations of the New Testament is sufficient to reconcile them with respect to that which is with us a vital principle. (Hear.) And if I had any authority to determine religious error by ' the imputation of penalties, if I had the duty of imposing penalties for religious error, it would be my duty to muds's. the Jew. But I have no such commission. (Hear, hear ) If the Jews committed an inexpiable crime some 2,000 yens, ago, 1 have not the awful power given me, after determining who are the descendants of those by whom that crime was committed, to punish the sins of the father on the children — not for the third or fourth generation, but for 300 or 400 generations. (Hear, hear.) " Vengeance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord." Neither I, nor this house, has the duty or authority to punish religious error ; and I con-1 cider that civil disabilities do partake of the na ture and character of a penalty. (Hear, bear.) I speak of pure religious error—because, if you could inter from the maintenance of religious error dangerous political opinions, you may possibly have the right to punish religious error. In the case of the Roman catholics you did not inflict penal- ties because they maintain the doctri ,e of transubstantia tion but because you thought they were dangerous eulijects, and because they acknowledged the supremacy of a fereign power. If you can show that the maintenance of relierbus opinions by the J. we is a proof of civil unworthiness you may on that ground have a right to exclude, hut the onus of dis proof lies on you. The claim of the Jew as a British born sub ject is far entire and complete qualification for offices and privileges of every kind, and you do not answer his claim by partial concessions. After admitting him to mu nicipal offices, and to the elective franchise, the responsibility of assigning a reason for withholding him other privileges remains the same—nay, it then becomes more incumbent on you to admit him to them. My noble friend the mem ber for li nth in his able speech quoted a passage from Dr. Arnold which made a great impression on the house. Dr. Arnold said, " For the Jews I see no plea of justice what. ever—they are voluntary strangers here, and have no claims to become citizens " I say that is rather presuming lan guage for a subject of the British crown. If the demendunts of the Ancient Britons, of pure and unmixed blood, could be made out, they might, perhaps, taunt the ' Jews witn being " voluntary strangers," but in any inter. mixture of the Danish, Boman, or Norman blood, it would be rather presumptuous to tell the Jews " you can I.ave no citizenship because you are voluntary strangers," the more so esthete strangers had been desirous et upeetting the laws and institutions ut the country, while the Jew obeyed them. (Hear, hear.) Dr. Arnold went on to say that he would give the Jews se hat the Romans called the jars connubi , and the jar rommertii, but not the public rights, the fosse/raga and the fess Aoesorium. But the British law and constitu tion recognises no such distinction, and by giving the Jew the jeer coreitibii and the jos commereii, you do not relieve yourselves from the onus of assigning a reason for withholding from him the other privileges which other citizens enjoy, unless indeed you can show tram past history that there would be reason to apprehend disloyalty or died fection to the stet, on his part. To the opinion of Dr. Arnold I would °open the opinion of a greater man, that of Lord Bacon, who in a writing of his on the question of the " post nate in Scotland, said that the distinctions of the jos suf. frafii and the jos petition is were the devices of free states which were jealous with regard to the persons whom they would admit to the full rights of citizenship, but that by the law of England " all natural born subjects had the capacity of all benefits whatsoever." ( Hear, hear.) I have heard sonic very nice distinctions and analogies drawn to show that exclusion was not a punishment. Some have contended that there was no hardship in excluding the Jews, because copyholde re were excluded from privileges which freeholders had ; that minors were excluded from pri vileges which persons of full age had; and the hon. and learned gentleman behind him (Mr. Walpole), who gave hopes that he would revive the lustre of a name which in this house of parliament must he held an honour, contended that there was a material distinction between the elective franchise and the right of legislation. All these are ingenious fallacies, for the purpose of concealing from our selves the real character of a harsh exclusion. (Hear, hear.) How did the elective franchise differ from the right to legis late. It is not by the common law attached to property. The elective franchise is the creature of the legislature. If it belonged to property, why did it not belong to the 91. householder as well as to the 101. householdei i So with re gard to the exclusion of the clergy and minors. The Jew was subject to all the exclusions to which other citizens were exposed from want of property, want of age, and other dis- qualifying causes. But in the case of tne Jew you superadd another disqualitimtion, which makes his posi tion different from that of all others. ( Hear, hear.) Bat it is also a disqualification of a different cheese ter and nature. Many of the other disqualifications are voluntary, as in the case of the clergy, who know that they are entering a state which will disqualify I them, You disqualify the Jew on account of opinion, where the di,qualilioation is neither voluntary - nor temporary. The exclusion of the Jews, therefore, is both an additional disqualification and a disqualification different in character from that to which others are subjected. I conceive, there fore, that there is no analogy between disqualifi, sr ions on account of age, profession, or property, and a disqualification which implies suspicion and inflicts a stigma. (Hear, hear.) With regard to political opinions, can I assign any reason for their exclusion on this account ? The whole ten rof the debate has convinced me that as far as political tendencies are concerned, the harsh exclusion of the Jews would be still more harsh oar this accouut. Almost every speaker had admitted the moral conduct of the Jews, and that in point of talent, loyalty, and property, in proportion to their numbers, they are entitled to every privilege and right that belongs to other natural-born subjects. There is no po tiniest reason therefore, as far as the past conduct of the Jews and our expectations with regard to the future lead us to infer, to justify the house in excludiog them on that ground. Nei thee therefore on the ground of religious error or political misconduct ought they to be excluded. But there are two other reasons assigned for their exclusion, to which I am disposed to allow great weight. One of these is that you have had for 300 years a distinct recognition that the pro fessiou of the Christian faith wee a necessary qualification for legislating; and then that if you abandoned it you would imply that you were indifferent to the Christian reli gion, and would thereby relax the energies and paralyse the exertions of men in this and other countries who were anxious to propagate the truth. The right hon. baronet said he would fairly consider the weight of these two objections. If it were admitted that purely religious error ought not to exclude the Jew, and that there was nothing of political objection to him, the whole of the ohjectioas resolved themselves into this. Pain and offence might be given 'o many sincere Coristians, but upon a deep consideration of the object he was firmly con vinced that the popular impression as to the object of in serting in the oath those words, "on the true faith of a ' Christian," and the circumstances under which they were bilierted, was erroneous ; that they never were inserted to require the profession of Christian testa from those I who were admitted to the legislature, and that, therefore, It would be unfair to subject the Jew to this I continued disqualification. Up to the reign of Queen Eliza beth no oath was required of members of parliament. The principle of the British constitution before that was, that the will of the electivebody should alone determine the right to a seat in parliament. It was not until the .sth year of Elizabeth 1 that the oath of supremacy, and that alone, was ad- ministered. That oath, but for the form declaring it to be ' taken " on the contents of this book " (the Old and New Testaments), the Jew would have been able to take. Then the principle of the oonstitution was that every man should conform to the protestant faith ; for, in the same act which Imposed the oath of supremacy, every British subject was required to appear at church once on Sundays, on • penalty et 12d. per absence. (Laughter.) No doubt the presumption I then was that every subject conformed to the protestant faith ; and accordingly an oath was administered imposing ' • form which none but a member of the protestant religion could take. But to the terms of the oath of supremacy the Jew made no objection. It was not imposed for the purpose of excluding him; it was imposed against professors of Christianity from whom danger was apprehended. From the sth of Elizabeth to the 7th of James I. no oath of abroga tion was ri quired from members of parliament. In the latter year it was imposed, and it contained the words " on the true faith of a Christian." The reason for administering that oath was given in the preamble to the act—namely, "that there hsa been a meet abominable and terrible plot, by which it was intend.ol to blow up the King, the Prince, the Queen, and the Mouses of Lords and Commons." But this had no reference whatever to the Jew, nor was the olniet to secure the profession of Christianity by memo hers of parliament. (Hear, hear.) The exclusion, there fore, so far as it turned upon those words, was an incidental and collateral ooeurrenee. Had importance been attach 4 to those words, as securing the protrusion o! Ckristianity. wan it not remarkable that, at the time of the revolution, almost the first act pawed sheald have repealed that seta The oath of abrogation of King James seas utterly repms4 and done away, and this simple form snbetituted: promise and swear that I will be M thful and bear true all a, giance to my sovereign lord the Kinj." In the year 1701 Louis XIV. having proclaimed the Priem of Wales as pr e tender, the oath of abrogation again became necessity, sad was re enacted. It was only revived on account of the claim let up by the son of the Premnder, sad the recognition of that claim by Louie XIV. it had continued up to this time ; and if the oath of abrogation had been thought unuecenary for warm iog off political dangers, 7nd it had been re pealed , _ the J ew wo uld then he admmaible to parlisrai nt. But it was said, Tnough we have ceased to be a protestant, or a church of England parliament, still one bond unites us, the bond of our common Christiaoity." To this the Jew might answer that all the teats which precluded him were tests that guazdea against dangers from Chrotians, and if Christians were blued together by this bond, and had confidence in etch other'. good intentions let them do away the teats that implied sue pinion of each ether, and which had been established, not 61 precautions against Jews, heretics, or infidels, but smarm professing Christians; and the Jew would then be entitled to sit in parliament. (Hear) But was not the allegation that they were united by the common bond of a Christian MAG. clout me rely an allegation lbr the purpose at excluding the Jew? The lion. and learned member Mr Midhurst said it was in. poeniole to admit the Jew, because, by an socket form el summons ti anal - neat WAS CZISti on to consult for the wet fare of the church. What was the answer of the Jew to this ? " Surely, 1 am as well qualified to give advice SOS camang the church of England as the quaker. 1 pay tithes, and du not require the law to be enforced to compel me to do so ; I have uu scruples about cat ; I am not disqualifi e s from serving in the militia " (" lieu," and laughter.) Why was the unitarian admitted to legislate for the chetah, who differed on acute essential principles of Christianity? Why was the quaker admitted Would the house be con. tent to take the saute declaration from the Jew as from the quaker, who was not ri quired to make his declaration "on the true faith of a Christian." Every word of tea declaration made by the Quaker, the Jew WAS ready toe*. Moravian', Quakers, Separatists, had all been admitted; me Jew was lett where he was. Was it a suffice nt answer te say that the Jew should not be admitted, lest, as a matter of logical deduction, hlueaulm n and others might claim the same right ? Surely not. Tneposition of the Jew wu net yet understood. It was said he was entitled to ; municipal utfice • he might be therili ; and there were two esteems— Sir Moses Moneefiore and Sir Lionel Moldier:Li i--of hes being created baronets. (Hear, hear.) At this momenttlis Jew wile eligible for any executive office to which the cm= might appoint him, with duties however important, mina he were precluded by the privy e nincillorM oath. Therewsa nothing but this oath to prevent him being a secretary of slate; and there wee nothing in the oath itself to which be would object, if allowed to take it on the Old Testament, Save by the indirect operation of that oath, there was net an office within the gilt of the crown irons which the Jew we practically excluded. In 1828 a declaration, "on the true faith of a Christian," was substituted for the declare. Mon against traneubstantiation. The bill, as it lilt that house, did not contain those w. rds ; they bad been content to admit all mrtie s to municipal and executive latices with. out rt quiriag the profession of the Christian faith. The words had been ingeited in the House of Lords; ar.d,rather than lose the b - 11, he had thought proper to permit them to stand. The declaration, in toe case of municipal attire', was precedent to being admitted to the office—in mecums offices, a certain time was given tor teeing the oaths. During the whole of the preseut and the lust reign a full year had been given, under the armload indemnity act; and before the year expired another indemnity act passed. Therefore, at this moment, except by the indirect operation of the privy councillor's oath, there Was not au office titmice the cruwu which the Jew might not hold. Atter these important changes the Jew baring the elective franchise, haying municird office (he might be Lord Mayor of London next year), ring every office under the crown except those to which the privy councillor's oath applied—was it pueoble permanently to maintain his excho emu from parliament? (Hear.) litre was a certain non which he could ouly exercise through the electors, the great majority of whom professed imauity ; and yet he was to be excluded by fear, atter quakers, separatist', and moravims had been admitted to paritameutary ittniCtiODS. Would de house exhibit such jealouey of the Christian electors? His firm belief was that the disqualificatio e could nut perinea , ntic be maintained. (Hear.) He believed that the church of England was now stronger than at any former period cf its himory. (Hear.) The disposition shown by the church to supply timely and salutary reforms, the religious feeling that had been awakened throughout tee country, showed that the strength of the church and of religion WAS not dependent ea the having a few votes more or lees in thambouse. (Hear.) He believed the church was strong enough to be inde pendent almost, in all essential matters, et the decision of the house. It was rooted in me affectioug of toe people. A religious spirit was daily increasing; and it woo an no. necessary daparagernant of religion and the church to make their safety depend oar the continued exchmion of Baron Rothschild, or any man professing the Jewish religion. (Hear, hear ) Were it not for internal dimensions, is itself the church would be stronger at this tom meut, alter all these relaxations of disabling laws, than ever it was, even when conformity to the protestant faith was required from every member of that house. (Cheers.) Though he should deeply regret to shock the feelings of any man sincerely attached to his reliaion and to the protestant faith, yet—believing that an uuduc weight was attached to words introduced into the oath for a tempo nary purpose, which had not been uniform in their operation, having been repealed, and then re-introduced, in conatqueuce of the pretensions of a Stuart to the throne—he did not thine it just towards the Jew to continue his exclusion, because those words had existed for some time. lie rejoiced that he was able toe one to the coot lusion that, by Term:Meg these disabilities, be did not endanger the church or the constitution of this country. (Hear, hear.) If ever there was a class of our fellow-beings to whoa every Christian state in Europe owed reparation for centuries of unjust persecution and oppression, that reali sation was owing to the Jews. (Cheers.) It was impossi ble to read the early history of this people, as narrated by the most popular Cnristisn historians, without shuddering at the outragea that had been committed upon them. Hume gave an account of King John extorting 10,000 marks from a Jew of Bristol, and extracting from hint a tooth for every day's delay in the payment of the money. (Hear.) The Jews were then the victims of an irrational and unjust pre judice ; and was it certain that a prejudice, not equal in extent, but similar in character, did not prompt the opposition to this measure? (Hear, hear.) Such pre judice had undoubtedly iefluenced the legislature on the lest occasion of this eubject being seriously dis. aimed, in 1756. The most disgraceful day in the annals of parliament was the day on which the Duke of Newcastle hail come down to the house and moved the repeal of the bill for the naturalisation of the Jews, passed but the year before. That was a mere concession to popular prejudice. There was a great ferment in the country, so great that the member for nectar was denounced as Ming a Jew, and he was obliged to make this defence to his consti tuents, that he was in the habit of travelling on a Saturday. Another himorian, Mr. Sharon Turner, recorded various in stances of wholesale cruelties to the Jews at home and abroad. Under these persecutions, did they or did they not show patience? Suppose them a degraded race; could the opponents of this measure plead that degradation in op potation to it ? Who must be responsible for it ? Not the Jew' (Hear, hear.) If the Jew had been degraded, could it he attributed to anything elm hut the spirit of prreecution on the part dl the Christiana ? Could they be sure rased, after such per« cution, if the flame of patriotism did not burn very strongly among , the Jewishpeople; if they did net feel much of affection for the insti tutions of them amongst whom they lived ; if they sat down by the waters of a strange land, and wept when they remora , bered Zion? (Cheers.) That would be the natural COD. sequence of treating the Jews as aliens. Admit them se equals, an I, if the degradation existed , t h ey would, at least, have done their duty to remove it. But did the de gradation exist Ile (Sir H. Peel) answered—No. (Cheers.) It was admitted that in their mural character—in their be nevolence—in their charities—and in their wealth, they were on an equality with every other class of their fellow-subjects. It such were the case, and if the Jews, nevertheless, were exposed to cruel wrongs, that was an element teat entered into his consideration when digenuing the removal of the die abilities under which they laboured. But he had still an other argument to urge. There were states in which the Jews were still impressed, In Poland they were at this me (mein subject to great lardahipe. In Syria, very lately, they had been subjected to persecutions of i a severe character on account of the removal of an infamous calumny that they slaughtered Christian children to celebrate the remover. Within the last two or three years that min so distinguished for his benevolence, Sir Moses Montetiore, had repaired to Poland and to Syria to rescue his people, and endeavour to effect some imprevemest of their rosition. He carried with him strong letters °Me i commendation front this country. But how much more strong would these recommendations have been—how much more forcible would have been his appeal—had he been able to say that in Great Britain Jews stood entirely upon an equality with Christians ! (Hear, bear.) Depend upon it, if this measure was paned, their authority in this respect would extend beyond the limits within which their legal power war prescribed. If the Jews were put upon an equality with the Christians here, it was utterly impossible, not only that any foreign power would suffer persecution of them under the influence of British example ; but also it i was, in his opinion, opinion, impossible but that their act would promote nquiry on the part of foreign states, which would lead to consequences calculated to carry balm and consolation to the wounded Jews. (Cheers.) It would not be merely that they !mould clear the Jews from their disabilities the in fluence of their example would rescue them from oppression lend degradation in every country in the world. (Loud cheers.) On th ese grounds, without impairing the fehittin t of the constitution of the country, the British parliament might, in his opinion, properly admit the Jews to an equality of rights. He had only further to refer to an argument which had been somewhat strongly pressed by his hon. friend the member for the University. There were, he said, parties in this country occupied zealously in endeavouring to reclaim the ignersht and the heathen, whose feelings would be grievously-hurt by any laxity of C hristian principle on the part of a Chrirtian parliament. Now he (Sir R. Peel) agreed that the occur rence of such a circumstance as that would runsc l ad a be deplored. This country had a duty to perform beythe aggrandisement of territory and the accumulation of wealth by the extension of commerce. It was their duty to ha theve regard to the consideration that through their measures spread of Christianity might be promoted and that the iiiyspring from on high,' might visit mate lands. If, therefore, there was an. danger of injury to the mule of iainioaary efforts, it might be a serious reason. for exc e lusion. as it seemed to him„ no such consequence to Ise The bill n Sir T. I). Robert Pr serjeant-m -been from hie t and having the feet wa that the ho of the fem. The mnt i to be dieehi Sir turn, of Mr. Stv payment of Mr. F. a hope that in referring Mr. LAI "to make sea to Allll the 'trine , number of Canadian in the pro were Cram restricting of the ye Lion on b of emigre duty wou provision , grants ha they negl thrown u be taken need, foi desirable sible, bet fore begs read a Leave was read The ( absence begged t comidtr works of parlianu that a made to deemed porary (Lord .1 commit! to the h 4 pimp of made. The c were 11 Mr. Mr. Ch . Granby Smith, The/ The /fondue includio Magee.. Niotrag will be Then f. 1 2 1:,: 1 — ille n Zealand — The Egypt, 76171 State& Thel up on t The r boon, V eveninl Tx by thi was: Tb ionic, Mort .16;1 THI