The Sun. — London, England, 1848-05-26 00:00:00

. As , IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF iIORDS, May 25. The LORD CHANCELLOR , took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'clock. The Earl of ERNE presented a petition from the Protestant inhabitants 41 Balieborough against the National system of education in Ireland ; also from the guardians of Lenniskea against the mode of • assessment to the poor-rate in Ireland. Lord RE DESD ALE presented several petitions against Jewish emancipation. The Earl of FORTESCUE presented several petition in favour of Jewish emancipation. The Earl of RADNOR and Earl GREY presented several petitions with a similar prayer. Lord STANLEY presented several petitions from the clergy of various dioceses against Jewish emu ; eipation. The. Earl of GALLOWAY presented a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scot land apinst the Jewish Emancipation Bill. He cor dially concurred in the prayer of the petition, and he believed that the Bill was uncalled for. The Earl of ROSEBERRY presented a petition in favour of the Bill fur altering the law of entail in Scotland. SPAIN. Lord STANLEY asked whether it was the in tention of her Majesty's Ministers to submit to Par liament a full account of the circumstances under which our Minister at Madrid had had his passports furnished to him, and been ordered to leave that Court ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said those papers were in course of preparation, and it was the anxious desire of the Foreign Secretary to lay them before Parliament to-morrow if possible, or at all events at the next sitting of the House. FRANCE. . . Lord BROUGHAV;Wed to draw attention to a late pretended speech of M. Larnartine, which stated that the principle of the French Govern ment was to assist and help any people to attain what they called their rights, and that an army of 30,000 men was assembled, to be increased to 60,000 men, to assist the rebels of Italy against Austria. Had his Noble Friend received any account of that speech? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no know ledge of the speech alluded to, except what he had derived from the pgblic papers. A dispatch had been received from our Ambassador in France this morning in which no mention was made of the speech alluded to. THE JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. . _ the order of the day for the second reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill having been read, The Marquis of LANDSDOWNE (who was occa sionally inaudible in the gallery, owing to bis turning round to address the bench of Bishops) then rose and said:—My Lords, I beg leave, in pursuance of the notice • I previously gave, to move the second reading of this Bill, a motion which has been delayed a considerable. time, not from any indifference to the importance of the tatleject to which it relates, but from an anxious desire to meet the convenience of many of those of your Lord shins' House who were desirou s t o take part in the dis cuseion uppon it.' In the outs et I must confess to your Lordships, this Bill, important a s it is as affecting the interests of many of her Majesty's most. loyal subjects, is, nevertheless not of a nature to excite that degree of interess which has attended other measures for the removal of civil disabilities. lam aware it does not, and cannot be expected to excite the same amount of interest and attention, nor can it be urged that its acceptance will prevent danger and ap prehension. It is but a small voice that en deavours to make itself heard at your doors, but the question is, whether that voice is the voice of justice?— (Hear. hear.) I think I cannot do better, in the outset of the observations with which I shall feel it necessary, as briefly as possible, to trouble your Lordship; than call your attention to the state of the law on this sub ject. It is always convenient, as well as important, when you- are about to make a change, or to consider the propriety, of making a change, that you should well know what is the state of the law which it is proposed to alter. You do not, in this instance, intend to make any change in the constitutional law of the country. That law prescribed that there shall be no distinctions what ever. That was the character of your constitution at the best time, and I hope it will continue to be the dis tinguishing character of it. For a long period of English history there was no exclusion what ever. Take your great constitutional Acts, take your great constitutional proceedings from the very birth of that constitution, from Magna Charts a downwards, you will find no Act dis qualifying any of the Kung's liege subjects from being elected and appointed to all situations which they were capable of. But the time did come when, not with the character of a permanent Ace, not under any pretence of making a permanent law, but fur temporary purposes, Parliament thought fit to enact a temporary exclusion of a certain class of people. In the reign of Elizabeth this finst took place, and certain oaths were prescribed, there having been, up to that time, no oaths required to be taken by Members of Parliament. At that time, how ever, certain oaths wese prescribed, which persons elected to serve in Parliament were obliged to take. In the reign of James L other oaths were prescribed by an Act of Parliament, but in that Act there was not only no mention of the Jews, but it was even a distinct and specific, and on the face of the Act of Parliament avowed purpose, namely, to put down the Popish recusants.—(Haar, hear.) That was the object for which that Act was passed, the effect of which has since, but not uniformly since, been to exclude persons of the Jewish persuasion from Parlia ment. That Act was passed under these circumstances, that there had rueently been machinations discovered of an alarming character, aimed at the subversion of the Crown and Government of these realms. Ia all • these conspiracies persons of the Roman Catholic reli gion were included, and it was then known that many persons of that religion were not bound by any common oath, and an Act was passed excluding them from Parlia ment, unless they swore adherence to the Throne and the Protestant constitution. And it is without any mention of a Jew that these words were introduced in an oath . through which no equivocation could creep, the object of which was not to exclude bad- religionists, but bad subjects from any participation in the Govern ment of these realms. The first Act of Parliament, or the establishment of William and Mary, involved the consideration of this subject, and the result • , was, that the oaths were in the language of the . A - it, " repealed, abrogated, and made void." That is to say, that those oaths which were contended by many to he a peeteliar security for that which those persons held to be a principle of the constitution, namely, the • exclusion of Jews from Parliament, were in full consi • desation at the very first time of your constitution dis tinctly, and in terms annulled and made void, not by • accident, not in the heat of the moment. not at a time • when party slept, or church division slept, or at the time of any of those que<tiuns which were calculated to divert men!s attentions, and lead them to acquiesce in that which was dangerous, from the absence of that precaution and vigilance. which would point out &sneer, but at a time when every constitutional and religious question wa s care f u lly we i g h e d a nd balanced, when there existed great differences of political opinion and ecelesi astical opinion, when the divisions of high and low • church were at their height,—it was at that time Par liament came to a resolution that these oaths should be ibrogated, and no man was found to say, " If you abro gate these oaths, persons o , irreligious opinions will get into Parliament." For thirteen years, being those in which the principles of the Constitution were most weighed and valued, Jews were admissible into Parlia ment. Undoubtedly this did not continuo butwhy? of William, At the close of th e re i gn ; and on the com mencement of the rei gn of Queen Anne, cal period, it was tho ug h t expedient to arteavimseostthcoroitlid oath's. But is there the least vestige ,ir of the object of that Act being to exclude Jews or any other per sons but those against whom it was immediatelytittahte monarch's directed, the Roman Catholic non-jurors, wh o at th at were considered dangerous, owing tol.r e lender , ear thosec h's being recognised by Louis, and avowed intention to support him. Accordingly, oaths were revived, and the same words, On the faith of a Christian" introduced. Although that Act was only intended to meet a temporary evil, yet its p rise . ' tical effect had been ever since to exclude a whole class of her Majesty's subjects from Parliament. The Noble Marquis then proceeded to detail the various Acts which had been introduced into Parliament for the purpose of doing away with that exclusion, but which had been re jected. He then urged the injustice of denying J ews admission to Parliament. In heathen times these were monuments of pride and ambition, but nothing had been done for the poor. It was reserved for the spirit of • Christianity to proclaim " Blessed are the merciful, for - theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." If he was told that • the Jews were indebted to the Christians for the • virtues which they practised, he would ask, were they not entitled to the credit of having adopted them ? Jews had filled the office of High Sheriffs, and if they were dangerous or mischievous, they had greater op portunities of being so in those positions, in packing , juries, than they could be as members of an assembly in which the greater and predominating members were • Christians; it was impossible for a few Jews to do any injury in such au assembly. They had much greater ' • danger to fear from infidels who had found their way into Parliament—(Hear, hear)—and from persons, who, believing themselves to be Christians, did not know the maxim ; of their religion, and by their conduct, belied them , war with Holland by the persecution of the Jews. In the last Holland there were officers Jews in the army of that country, yet that was the Christian army, and no one believed'it was deprived of that character by the fact of Jews being employed in it, and even now, in many parts of her • Majesty's v dominions Jews were sitting as members of Istesisla tive Assemblies—in Canada, in Jamaica, and, by the last post, he had received the intelligence that a Jew had been elected to a similar office in the island s tandinss it was held here thata of Ceylon—notwith admissisosrnb admission of a Jew would contaminate a Christian legislative e a w a s of opinion that every man should be admittedl'. He who could establish his claim. He would not further -tres pass on their time than to ask them to look to the cha racter of their religion. That it was lowly at its birth, and that its founder had declared " th at his kingdom w as • slot of this world, that their religion prevailed, not by force, but by persuasion, And brought t h e nations under the shadow of its i nfluence, b y the then, he would efficienc yo f 'that ask, sho u ld . principle. Why , no t th a t b e pgplied in the hour of its strength and maturity, and ,r; s lll*r. hiareeke within the pale of the Constitution all those,who sare ee se '-'"-- iia4l it by their conduct, and had the ambition t / 'eel , eA s sme e a4' - • tut He hoped they would agree to the genoca o • e 1 " ; ‹1 ,agiiietaf the Bill, which would rather •contrio ' i ei e to • 144 ' °a ' - ..sailglatiirprigth than to the . weaknes . s o . f the Ttitutia,;,. ..,-..if k hi a tt. bound up with Christianity, ant_ destined t o ka - ' . ___ ... e 's by It was in this spirit of toe Constitution, h 45 =4 , 1. • .... S which had never been set aside, that he called upon them to agree to the second reading of the Bill. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose to move that I the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Noble Marquis appeared to be sensible how very small the object of :the Bill was—(Hear, hear)—for it affected in the first instance only one individual ; but never did he recollect an instance where the smallness of the object was so disproportionate to the greatness of the sacritice.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Noble Marquis said it was not a religious question, but he affirmed that it was.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Mar quis said there had been times when Jews might have sat in Parliament, but he well knew that if a Jew had, at that time, aspired to such a station, he would not have seen the sun go down upon his head.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever might have been the law, practically Parlia ment had been at all times essentially Christian, and as such he trusted their Lordships that night would pre serve it.—(Cheers.) They were told :that they should respect the Jews, because through them they derived a large portion of their religious belief. Why, it was on that ground that he repudiated the Jew as a member of a religious body. It was because he believed so much and no more—it was because having every means of informing himself, that he still retained the same opinions.—(Hear, hear.) Mahommedanism approached nearer to:the Christian religion than Judaism, and if the measure was to be passed on principle, why was it not general ? Why was not the principle laid down—that it did not matter what the religious belief of any man was who might be admitted to Parliament ? it had been said that they had admitted Quakers, Moravians, and others who dissented from the Church of England, into Parliament ; but there was a wide difference be tween them and Jews. Christianity was essentially identified with the State, and he took his stand on the verge of Christianity, and declared that it should not be passed by Jews and infidels.—(Loud cheers.) They desired to instruct the people and unite religion with s it u se ch if in a s d t m ru i c tt t ed instruction, but c how could was so unimportant p P o a r r t l a i n a t m ? e — nt (Hear, hear.) They were told that they must not visit on t t t t e h d e 1 7 8 e 0 s 0 e present e a J r e e w a s g a t hte but sins it of w their e i a r a t ancestors because com they ia, w a n , oytlnhher ntoataooatttf ' had been guilty of a great crime at that period that he s tu a l d d sa p ts uni h s a n d th t e h i e r sa o descendants,aaalte unaltered dt `belief,bec au so having those de-the same laws ; and if the occasion were to occur now they would be guilty of the same crime.—(Hear, hear.) It had also been said that it was hard to exclude a Jew from Parliament possessed of considerable property in the state, but he thought a man had as much cause of complaint who was a Christian and had no property for being excluded from a seat in Parliament. Jews tjawmhmeehi w wygii ac o hbh u mt be Not-hemduHwe sa b aordetk e enui ededilwt would be an, was recollected benevolent e d i m stmarneeput i vdeel t men The same was the case with the Moravians • but to who were not Christians. A great deal had been said admitab t h e i n t charity he ca case e f o the he Jews. deny mps erns wn tshh without rftoi were crthei thaorhnaeueet character creed, rhna emreb w eaooe l enut ;trvrseezerb inconvenience, uyo nl i tef But it eyeteh, should e t w h h a e a s i r r i t t h p y s o nation within a nation, totally distinct and separate, living amongst our agricultural and manufacturing populations without belonging to either one or the other. —(Hear, hear.) The Jew did not labour, but bought and sold at a profit the fruits of the labour of others. There were few poor amongst them, and no paupers, a fact greatly to their credit ; few of them were rich, but Some were immensely rich. They could not intermarry with the people of this country, with whom, except the higher classes, they never associated. They might be called citizens of the world, but hardly citizens of England.—(Hear, hear.) It was true that they were not aliens in the sense of owing allegiance to any foreign power; but no man transferred his allegiance from one country to another with greater facility than the Jew. Wherever he went he found his own people, his own religion, and his own language, and every where his brethren were occupied in similar transactions. It could not be considered, then, that wherever he lived, he stood identified with the people of the country.—(hear, hear.) It might not be uninteresting to observe how easily a Jew of the highest class could transfer his allegiance from one country to another. He had some days since seen in one of the journals a review of the recently published memoirs of Sir E. Buxton, in which the following passage was ex tracted :—" We yesterday dined at Ham House, to meet the Rothschilds; and very amusing it was. He (Roths child) told his life and adventures. He was the third son of the banker at Frankfort. There was not,' he said, 'room enough for us all in that city. I dealt in English goods. One great trader came there, who had the mar ket to himself; be was quite the great man, and did us a favour if he sold us goods. Somehow I offended him, and he refused to show me his patterns.' " Such was the circumstance which originated the transfer to this country of the great house of Rothschild, and also the Bill then before their Lordships.—(Cheers and laughter.) Nothing happened by chance, every acci• dent that occurred formed part of the means by which Providence worked out its ends; and certainly if it was the will of Providence that this country should be un christianised, meaner means could not have been adopted than the refusal of a Manchester traveller to show his patterns.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Noble Marquis had observed that at present all municipal offices were open to the Jew—that he might become Sheriff, Alder man, or Lord Mayor. Now he (the Earl of Ellen borough) was not one who attached much importance to municipal dignities, but he certainly regretted that Baron Rothschild had not, like another Caesar, preferred being first in the Corporation to being last in the senate, as he then might have worthily dispensed the hospitali ties of the city of London without endangering the Christian character of the Legislature of this country. He begged their Lordships to take a serious but not exaggerated view of the °angers which were threatening this country. I: was impossible not to observe that a great crisis aas approaching. 'Chu had had warnings in famines, in general distress, in pestilence, and in divisions amongst the people. Around they saw nations convulsed to their utmost extent, and in one instance the most ancient and power ful dynasty in Europe crushed in one day. The great empire of Austria had fallen, crushed like the potter's vessel, and the most ancient combinations t f territory had given way to new combinations, of which no one could tell the duration. They saw all the great land marks of nations displaced, and the wildest schemes fur • • future government propounded, without any reterence to the experience of the past. With such convulsions sur rounding us, how long could we expect to remain uncon taminated, separated as we were only by a channel, the whole extent of which could be scanned by the eye? (Hear, hear.) He trusted that their Lordships would employ themselves diligently to the means by which alone the country could be saved; that they would not forego the interests of the country for any temporary profit; that they would forego legislating fur the private purposes or temporary expediency of may man or any Government—(Hear, hear)—that they would take a large view of public affairs; and, above all, would not deprive themselves of all right to heavenly aid by agree ing, that night to the desecration of Parliament and the destruction of the exclusively Christian character of the British legislature.—(Loud chPeri.) The Duke of CA.NIBRIDGE—NIy Lords, I feel that, in consequence of the position in which I stand, I should he wanting in my duty if I did not express most strongly my sentiments upon this subject. Knowing many Jews in the country in which I lived for so many years of my life, I should be the last person to keep up any perse cution which might follow them. I have a very high respect for a great number of Jews in this country, and amongst others, no man can be more respectable than that individual who some years ago went to Prussia and other countries on a charitable mission ; but I cannot honestly and conscientiously say that this is not a ques tion of religion. As long as this Government exists as a Christian Government, the Jows cannot be admitted into Parliament.—(Bear, hear.) This is the course which I have thought it my duty to take, although it must be against the Jews. As long as this country is called Christian, and this Government is a Christian Government, I think it impossible that Jews can belong to the Legislature.—(Hear.) Viscount CANNING felt that, he could give a con scientious vote in favour of the Bill. He derived great courage from the speech of the Noble Earl who had moved the amendment, and who had rested his case rather on an appeal to 'their Lordship? feelings, pas sions, and prejudices, than on sound argument and the justice of his case.—(Rear, hear.) As a religious Tie- tipn, the admission of Jews to Parliament seemed suffi- meetly plain. They had opened their doors to the Ho , dere them as man Catholics, who looked upon their creed as heresy; to the Protestant Dissenter, who looked on the Church _ with d great jealousy; and to the Unitarian, who consi declaration on the credulous, if not superstitious, believers in mata faithl l h t o ll e a s e Christian; the Trinity. From required a n a ec ts bn had t the r U e took it, denyi n s, Saviour, and our denying e same time the divinity of our This, in his opinion, atonement by his death .—( Hear , hear.) question. The Noble Earl had of the religious part of the said that he did not wish to punish the Jews for what ad but that he would exclude the a done 1,800 years ago, changed their creed, or acknowledgedbecause, not having their error during that time, if the same opportunity occurred , they wo u ld again imbrue their hands in sacre blood , iti e . (Viscount Canning) could see neither justi ce nor charity declaration. He believed and trusted that such anin thati- n ion would find very little response in that a llo ° u - He thought that we should follow the example of se ' other nations in admitting Jews to the privileges of citizen s , not only because the act w as just in itself , but because' the conduct of the Jews in every place where they had been enfranchised fully justified the experiment.—(Hear.) With respect to the state of public opinion out of doors, he thought it would fully support their Lordships in a measure of liberality. One hundred years ago a very small measure of relief caused such an alarm throughout the country that the Duke of Newcastle was obliged to come down hastily to Parliament and rescind it. Non., a measure of complete emancipation was proposed—it had been long before the public, and had been fully delibe rated, and not a single demonstration of hostility of any importance had been exhibited in any part of the court try.—(Hear, hear.) What was the cause of this change? He lok , lieved it to be that large bodies of people of different religious opinions had sprung up in various parts of the country, and that among them had grown up the con viction that civil privileges should be extended to all citizens without reference to their religious opinions. Even among Churchmen, he believed that few would be found to argue for a continued exclusion of any portion of their fellow-subjects from the privileges of the con stitution. In conclusion, he had only to add that he never gave any vote with greater pleasure than that which he should give on the present occasion in favour of the Bill under their Lordships' consideration —(Hear, hear.) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, who was at times almost inaudible, said that if he had followed the dictates of his awn. inclination he should have given a silent vote on the pre sent occas i on, b ut s i nce he had been raised to the responsible position he then held, he felt that he had no longer the privilege of being silent, especially on an occasion where the religious character of the House and the country was at stake.—(Hear, hear.) The subject before their Lordships lay in a small compass, and therefore he should compress into a small compass the observations he had to make, and, in doing so, he hoped he shou ld ex p res s his sentime n t s with as much deference to the opinions or feelings of others as would be consistent with the expression of his own honest c onvictions. They were asked to remove disabilities which excluded certain persons from seats in either House of Parliament. ft appeared to him that those persons laboured under a disability which that House could not remove—that of being by their opinions unfit to take part in the councils of a Christian nation. They were unfit, because on many questions that might be argued they could not, if true to their own principles, avoid raising their voices against propositions important to the interests of the country and the welfare of the Church. The Jew, if sincere, must have interests and opinions hostile to those of the Christian ; he must be opposed to the spread of Christian truth as much as their Lordships would be to the dissemination of Maho metan tenets. Even,if the Jew were indifferent to his own doctrines, he must be still looked upon as hostile to the doctrines of Christianity. This was forcibly shown in one of the strongest protests which had appeared against the measure, and which was signed by one calling himself a converted Jew. The Noble Mar quis had told them it was but a small voice in the Legislature that was asked for. True ; but a very small voice might be sufficient on occasions to turn the balance against the interests of the Church.—(Hear.) With regard to the Roman Catholics who had been al luded to, one of the first votes he had given was for the remission of these disabilities, and he would so vote again if the question were to be discussed; but his rea son was, that he could not fairly refuse a body who formed a third part of the population of this empire a share in the national deliberations. They could not still call themselves a Protestant Legislature, but they were still a Christian Legislature, and he thought it was neces sary to the welfare of the country that they should re main so. The measure before their Lordships was looked upon with great suspicion by a most valuable portion of the community, who looked upon it as an insult on the religion they professed. He did not look upon it in that light—he wholly acquitted the Noble Lord who had introduced the Bill of any intention of casting a slight upon the Church; but nevertheless he felt it his duty as a member of that Church to record his vote against it.—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of WINCHILSEA and the Bishop of St. David's rose togetner., After some hesitation the latter gave way, and the Noble Earl proceeded to say that he felt towards his fellow-subjects of the Jewish persuasion the warme-4 sentiments of Christian charity; and if by any sacrifice short of the interests of his religion he could advance those interests he would do so. The Jews were everywhere a distinct people, standing alone in a peculiar nationality in every part of the world where they were dispersed. He looked upon the measure before the House as one offering a greater violence to the character of a Christian Legislature than any that had ever been proposed. The Noble Earl, who was altogether indistinctly heard in the gallery, con cluded by exhorting the House to throw out the Bill. The Duke of ARGYLE rose to explain the reasons for his vote. The present being the first occasion on which he had addressed the House he claimed their Lordships' indulgence and courtesy; the more so as the subject was one of overwhelming interest to his countrymen. He was not ashamed to confess that he had experienced feelings of more than ordinary difficulty in considering the subject:of the present l ßill. He, how ever, had come to the determination to vote for the se cond reading of the Bill. But he did so with feelings of a very different description from those expressed by others who took the same view of the measure, both in that House and in another place. The Noble Lord who sat near him had congratulated the House and the coun try upon the circumstance that not a few of the argu ments against the Bill had been abandoned. He would follow the same course, and congratulate their Lordships that not a few of the arguments in favour of the Bill had also been abandoned. Their Lordships had not heard the Noble Marquis urge as an argument in favour of the Bill that Christianity had no more to do with the institutions or legislature of the country than with cookery or horsemanship—a mode of reasoning deliberately adopted by a member of the present Ca binet, the late representa'ive for Edinburgh, for whose abilities and acquirements he entertained a high respect. The argument that Christianity was not an essential part of the Legislature was, therefore, aban doned: certainly such an assertion had no influence whatever on his vote. On the other band, he could not admit the force of the objection that had been made against the Bill—namely that the Jews were a nation within a nation, and being hereditary aliens from gene ration to generation could not be allowed to take part in the Legislation of the empire. He did not believe that the Jews themselves had any such ideas, or that they Looked upon themselves as distinct from the people they dwelt amongst. They themselves had been thrust out from among Christians—they had been refused employ rnenta which were open to every other class of their fellow-subjects, and instead of declaring themselves aliens they had the more resolutely struggled to obtain privileges similar to those enjoyed by their equals and neighbours, and they had succeeded in so doing, thereby becoming identified with the Christian community. Was the objection that the Jews were a nation within a nation a sufficient reason for the Legislature to interfere and prevent constituencies from judging for them- selves as to the individuals best calculated to represent them? It might be true that they were aliens in heart, but so long as the Jews were born in England and lived hero they would be entitled to the privileges of English men, and ought not to be subjected to any disabilities on the score of religion. There was another argument against the Bill which had been alluded to by the Most Reverend Prelate—namely, that a Jew could not be admittted to a seat and a vote in Parliament without danger to the Church from his hostility. He would put it to their Lordships whether there was as much to fear from the hosility of a Jew as there was from that of a Dissenter. And yet the fear of the Dissenters' hostility to the Church had not prevented Parliament from letting in numbers of Dissenters to take their seats in the House of Commons. It was, therefore, no just argument against the Bill to sly that the Jews were hostile to tho Church. There was only one more argument against the Bili which he would meet, and it was one that he regretted to find the Noble Earl who spoke second in the debate bad relied on. It was that the declared religion of the Legislature and of the country being that of Christianity would render it an anomaly for Parliament to admit any person within its doors who was not nominally a Chris tian. Such an argument was anything but conclusive or satisfactory to him. He did not flatter himself that any observations which he could make would have any effect upon their Lordships' decision ; but he must in conclu sion say, that if any of their Lordships could not proceed to vete without conscientiously thinking that the Chris tianity of the empire would be endangered by the pass. ing of the Bill, then he certainly should not wish any Noble Lord entertaining such an opinion to vote in favour of the measure. He begged to thank their Lordships for the patieet attention with which they had listened to his observations. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S expressed his sstis• faction at heviag heard the Noble Earl opposite de nounce the Bill before he had had an opportunity of addressing the House. He was not blind to the threats which had been uttered as to the consequences of passieg the present Bill. But he would answer the Noble Earl in the words of an infinitely greater man than himself, " The Lord's will be done ; I must do mine." It gave him sincere pleasure to observe that their Lordships were not urged to come to a vote on the present mea sure by any undue bias, so that they were in a condition to give their unfettered judgment upon the Bill. The sense of the country upon the Bill had been expressed by way of petitiau in a manner which left their Lord ships free to act on the dictates of their own judgment, and therefore he congratulated them on being able to come to a decision free from bias. It had been asserted, though there was no proof of the tact, that the Bill could only proceed on an assumption that the country was actuated by an entire indifference towards religion. If such was to be believed, some curious results would be obtained, looking at the places from which the petitions in favour of this Bill had been sent. But for himself he must declare he had no confi dence in such a religious thermometer. He feared he was not altogether guided by surmise when he assorted that the Jews had not yet ceased to be the objects of an unreasonable and hereditary dislike on the parts of numbers of enlightened Christians. Looking, indeed, back into past times, it was morally impossible that such should not be the case; and although the evils imme diately resulting from such a state of things were abated and had passed away, yet they had left deep traces of their former effects in the existing habits and feelings of the country. If that was not the case; if no Noble Lord who heard him was conscious of entertaining, such feelings, then he must confess himself to be one of the most prejudiced persons in that House, for he certainly had experienced the feelings he had adverted to, and he had used his utmost endeavours to get rid of them, so as to prevent them from having any influence upon his decision. Much as the question under consideration had been debated, he was not sure that any great de gree of attention had been paid to the particular senti ments to which he bad referred. It had been urged as one of the strongest reasons for rejecting the Bill,.that it was the practice of the Jews to express the utmost abhorrence of that divine person who was held by Christians in the utmost degree of reverence. Such i tomvpw a hlepr d hser,: e intscße e imhd d (ni) was the argument of the petition presented by the Noble Earl opposite from the General Assembly, and that was urged as the strongest reason against the Bill. Tho most Reverend Prelate below him had ad faßete huct a ahta n otoa d ihr atge t ghd h eiee: e nic onmlauargasta adequate ehr , na A i bfst oegh r ea c eroao h randul b slatre i oth s tndwi h eot o ent td p ra:era o aat nfsot reason dmhnseienauayisr: Canterbury nugotrepihednoastlagainst okgi ibinea. filtnhai had htesi impossibility in a thi t ° . d . et h e h i d it had been admitted by a previous speaker that better feelings did prevail amon gs t th e J ews on t hi s su bj ect. But he might be allowed to draw their Lordships' atten tion to the fact that such a f ee li ng was i n no degree es sentially c.mnected with the Jewish religion. But it was, on the contrary, only the natural result of the feel ing raised in the minds of the Jewish people from their having been subjected to ages of pe rsecut i on b y persona professing Christianity ; and, therefore, ho wever a li en such feelings were to the Jewishreligion, they insen sibly grew up with it in the minds of the J ews d ur i ng the past ages of persecution. He was also :aware th at he might be told th e Jews denied the divine character of the •Saeiour. But in what respect, he might ask, did the Jew differ in this from the Arian ? Did not the Unitarian also deny the divine character of .Christ? and also what the Church conceived to be the plainsense of Scripture in the Saviour's assertions of hi s divine origin? a a d s m a i t re jneswo s t why o ; r t i. h v e l i i r eg L e o s . rd w s h h i i e p i : eshahould b merely n e a o t l a r l re r g e l eu a ds d e y th:o g s ranted to others who stood in exactly the; same position as the Jews towards the Christian rligion. There was also another ground for not considering the Jews to be bound by their religion to any suck hostility to Christianity, as had been in. ferred by the Most Reverend Prelates to whom he had adverted. je found the Jewish historian who had nar rated the events which occurred in relation to the Sa viour, speaking of our Lord as a person who fell a victim to the cabals of a particular sect of priests. And also a most distinguished writer, the Jewish philosopher, had described Christ as one who had advocated a spiritual religion in lieu of a religion of forms and hypocrisies. And he found some Jewish writer stating it to be his opinion that a Jew might become a Christian and yet remain bound by the Jewish law of ceremonial. There was ample room for the difference of opinion that ex isted amongst the Jewish and Christian sects without necessitating the existence of any special hatred to Christianity such as had been imputed generally to the Jewish race. The Bill was one most entitled in every respect to their Lordship? favourable consideration, and if they rejected it, the grounds upon which they did so must be of the plainest and most intelligible description. The country would not be contented with any specula tions, though such might, by the ingenuity of some Noble Lords, be invested for the moment with a seeming solidity. There Lordships must be reminded that a great con stituency had deliberately m a d e c h o i ce o f a Jew for their re p rese ntative, and that the House of which prevented J ews f rom s i tt i ng i n t h e Legislature. disabilities Cein ens had shown a w illi ngness to remove t h e It now remained for their Lordships to determine whether they were prepared to tell the constituency of the metropolis that they should not have the man of their choice to represent them, and also to declare to the House of Commons that they were not to be permitted to declare what c:asses of persons were to be permitted to take their seats in that ass embly. Their Lordships had been told that the Billd was inconsistent with the existence of Christianity, Now,anfor not passing th e Bill, he as those ass er ti ons were meant to stand should as knoweil that it would pro ve da ngerous to the interests of the sted Was tt Chrures il3 h°.lls what the danger to the Chu rc h consisted. it because the special province of the Legislature was to regulate the doctrines of the Church? Such an asser tion could not be seriously made; and, if so, wherein did the danger consist of admitting a Jew to an assembly which had no control whatever over the doctrines upon which the Christian faith was based? Would it also be maintained that a Jew would so utterly disregard the feelings of his constituents te , to offer an insult or attempt an injury to their reli gion? It had also been urged that the country wool.' incur the risk of the Divine displeasure by show ing favour to the objects of the Divine wrath. H, would abstain, from obvious motives, from casting an) ridicule upon such an argument, least that which was meant for the latter should be wilfully or mistaken!) applied to the sacred subject of discussion. But with respect to the treatment of the Jews, he was quite sure that the present generation hail, by means of their an cestors, incurred a very heavy debt towards the Jews in this respect, of which he was not quite sure they would ever be able to acquit themselves. It was his belief that, upon the common principles of our nature, the interests of the Church were quite as likely, or more so, to br assailed by a Dissenter as by a Jew. This was said to be a question rather of principle than of expediency. He had fully as much respect for principle as any man in the House; but he must confess that he could see nothing of the dignity of a principle in any arguments which had been used against this measure, and which, indeed, seemed to him less arguments than sophistical fallacies, which had over and over again been disposed of. It had been insisted upon that the measure would unchristianise the Legislature, whereas the Legisla ture would never be unchristianised to any greater extent than the country itself should be unchristianised. It was said thee if we admitted to the Legislature per sons who did not profess the same religion with our selves we should part from the only security we had for the conscientious discharge of the duties of that Legis lature. No one denied the influence of religion over men's various views of morality; but there was a corn mon ground on which men of all religions could meet, and come to a tolerably distinct and unanimous opinion as to abstract right and wrong. It was equally falla cious to assert that the measure would be an innovation upon the constitution of this country, on the principle that Christianity was held to be part and parcel of that constitution. No doubt the principle of the old Eng lish constitution wa?that absolute exclusion, which re jected alike not merely Jew, Turk, and infidel, but heretic, and schismatic; but this principle had long since been abandoned as a part of the British constitution. The Legislature had, in the exercise of its undoubted right, from time to time, modified, and modified still further, this exclusive, principle; and to say now that the Legisla ture could not, without &dereliction of its, duty, still more modify the principle, or destroy it altogether, was the real attack upon the constitution. Then, as to the question of Jewish nationality, it was said that the Jew, as such, was essentially an ialiee, and by that fact ex cluded from the privilege of taking part in our legisla tion. And Dr. Arnold had been cited as an authority for the proposition that a Jew had no more right to legislate for us than a lodger to manage the household affairs of his landlord. With every respect for Dr. Arnold, he must express the feeling that the Reverend Gentleman's theory on this subject was derived rather from inapplicable analogies in Greek and Roman history, than from any view of the actual state of the case, or the actual circumstances of this country and its present people. Dr. Arnold's opinions on this particular ques tion were carried to an extreme, which he (the Bishot. of St. David's) thought very few of their Lordships would be disposed to adopt, for the Reverend Doctor con sidered that it would be no departure from justice were our Government to do with the Jews that which the Spanish Government of old had done with the Jews and with altogether.lt c wasoes, urged, furth er , t h a t not only was the s Jew an alien in this country, but that he was unsuscep tible and incapable of the ties which bind an English man to the land of his birth. It was assumed that the home of the Jew must be always in a foreign land— that his heart must be ever in Palestine. Doubtless th, religion of the Jew was a religion of hope, teaching him that at some time or other his race would be restored tee their original abiding , place; but there was nothing, ii theory or in fact, which justified the statement that the Jew, as the member of a political state, did not take the same interest in the welfare of that state with his fellow citizens. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by earnestly exhorting their Lordships to pass this measure. A , a believer in the unerring course of God', authority and power, and in the ultimate triumph of Christianity, ho was firmly persuaded that in adopting the present measure their Lord ships, while consulting the interests of justice, would not be impairing those of the Christian religion, would be hastening, rather than impeding, its triumph. He considered that every exclusion which distinguished the Jews from their fellow -subjects had the effect of creating an additional fold in the veil which shut them out from the light of the true faith. Still longer to irritate the Jews by invidious distinctions was the pre cise way still longer to retard the triumph of Chris tianity, and to prevent it from accomplishing - its high mission on earth, glory to God, peace and good wilt a mong men .—(Hear.) The Bishop df OXFORD opposed the Bill. Those who advocated the measure insisted upon it as giving to the Jews, our fellow-subjects, rights of which they were unjustly deprived. Nothing could be more painful to an honourable mind than the idea of such an injus tice as this, and he for one, did he believe that the measure gave the Jews rights to which they were en titled, would vote for it, regardless of ultimate consi derations, but he wholly denied that the Jews were entitled to the privileges proposed to be conferred upon them.--(Elear, hear.) He considered that to give them these privileges would be destructive of the princi ple of our constitution and of the best interests of the country. The jus petitionis was no correlative of the jus civitatis or the jus suffragii. His Right Reverend Brother who last addressed their Lordships, and who had charged all the arguments against the measure Eo being sophistical fallacies, said, " It is not the birth place of the Jews which makes them another nation from us, but their religion." Wny, this was the precise point. the very t en t altogether with the claim now set up fo r them. The t hi n g which gave them a nationality inconsis - Jew, if he he a r e a l Jew, cannot belong to any other nation than his own ; the distinct injunctions of his reli gion are that he shall not blend with other peoples ; thee t w t o h i ttehop e pose th a t these ma y keep up the whollye m o f p r l o e s , them, , shalland ever d h eis remem ber that he is wespe cially the otherdiverse practice p distinction,observances,whn dwellingeejo e o t d d o with whom he may b e otherwise in dail y contact. What prese rve him pure from mixture from those said Mr. Van Hoven, a Jewish writer, in a recent work of food among the Je ws were designse le t his : that the edtr a peculiar o prep l a e r c a t ti a o n n. ( i might remain for ever undefiled by on Judaism? Why holy nation, h Another recent Jowl-e -witer, the Rabbi Pruhl , empha ticallyrre I i o nists here that, however with the people of another faith. his co - religionists not Englishmen, for that born in England, they intimate re c m o i tn n i d m il e a u d t n s i ocaitti n i nal relation with the people tion only, and bad no national te the Rabbi, and such was d around them. Thus'incu ca Jews. Infinite examples the universal feeling of the Let him mention prove the fact. might be adduced to Jews, of whatsoever land natives, were of the Jewish na tion When Napoleon desired two that occurred to supplied this money? A was essential to him. sian, national interests would Russian Jew; yet, as a him from extending this aid. have effectually kept andrance raged England an When war between to bring back his shahtitsermehidno army from Russia, money the struggle, her to sustain needed by France to struggle, who advanced s would have forbidden the An English Jew, et !v. Prelate proceeded wi loan.—(Hear, hear.) whomth its English mo st i nationality nt The Righthd no tale to the proposed to contend that, if the Jews to it under any they had as little claim boon as of right, e r n e i nem. money? An L d h . their or s ips to pass it intro duced the measure called upon concession, so far from as a matter of kindness. Toe would be fatal to them. being a kindness to the Jews, : in danger of at the What the Jews were peculiarlyhe other consideration. The Noble .Marquis who tire result of decaying hope and expiring. expectation. a Christian cemitunity present moment was them the rig s h` of legislating for them that those Christians had would be at once to tell and For Christians to grant e in the destruction of ex ample would be instantly effective belief. The Rabbi as little faith in revelation as themselves, the what remained to them of religious filled his mind when he his pamphlet, the surprise which Christian body to observed the disposition of a hich he elistinctly eman cipateattri- the Jews, a disposition w he word of God. 'The Pruhl to whom he had already r'eferred, expressed, in buted to a regardlessness for t in the land, whereas descendants of Jews long settldthough the were the Jews here were spoken of as y in point of fact none of t he Jewish _ were of older date here t han two hundred years. -In femilies in. England ad dition to the claim of right which the Noble gatvis :Lansdowne) had urged, he had spoken of thetitdvari- age which would result to the nation from - bringing Tews into Parliament. The Noble Marquis had not, eowever, shown them the nature of those advantages. If it could be proved that it was necessary for the consti tuencies that the Jew should exercise the right which was said to belong to him, of sitting in Parliament, then there would be some argument; but he would maintain chat such was not the case. There were, to be sure,cer etin advantages to be gained at election times—(Hear and laughter)—Which the Jews could supply; and he knew enough of the history of the last City election to enable him to form an opinion of their character. He was of Opinion that the election in question was a sort ,f business transaction, in which one candidate sup plied the character and the other the capital.—(Cheers end laughter.) The Noble Marquis, in the course of his argument, had said that their Lordships had better pass .he Bill at once, or they would have it reiterated again Ind again, until they did. He thought he might leave ,hat argument to their Lordships' own consideration. if a measure which they believed to be morally wrong or morally questionable, were to be passed on such ;rounds, he said that they could not perform an act ehich could more utterly stultify their own character— (Hear, hear)—and tend more to reduce the House to a nonentity, than by so doing.—(Cheers.) What he had stated appeared to him to be the main arguments of the Noble Marquis. The Noble Viscount (Canning) had ollowed on the same side, and had entered into the lifficult question of how far the passing of the Act would :end to unchristianise the Legislature. He (the Bishop if Oxford) entertained a strong opinion that such would ea its effect. It seemed to him that they were now asked to take the greatest step which could be de manded of a Christian Legislature. They were asked .o admit those who came amongst the people of this cation on the profession either that they were not Christian, or that they were haters of Christianity; and .t would be impossible if the Act was passed to refer any more to a Christian principle as governing that as sembly. Ho would tell them of the difficulties which hey would have to encounter. When the British Association was sitting last year to relieve the distress in Ireland, a body of the Wesleyan dissenters raised a iarge sum of money towards that object. A sub-corn nittee of the association was appointed to draw up a letter of thanks to that body; and in that letter they mxpressed their acknowledgments "for the act of .;Kristian charity which they had performed." Now there was on that committee a member of the Jewish Body, who took exception at the word Christian, and begged that it might be struck out. The member in question said to the committee, " You have admitted me en a level with yourselves, and I will not admit charity lo be a Christian virtue. You are charitable in spite of your Christianity, and not because of it." The end of the matter was that the word was struck out, and the .otter sent thanking the Wesleyans simply for their charity. He said, ex uno disce mines. The same lifficulties would arise in other matters; and from the lay when they legalised the admission of the denial of Christianity, they could no longer appeal to Chris ianity as their guide.—(Cheers.) He asked them it the laws of England were based upon anything but the laws of God, revealed through the medium of Christ Jesus? There was no doubt that such was always the eround on which the validity of every English law was eased. There was no other strength to which a law could refer except the strength of brute force; and so it was that there had never yet been seen an infidel nation. After alluding in terms of congratulation to the senti ments put forth on the subject by the Noble Duke (Argyll), whose presence he in common with every Member of the House hailed with hearty satisfaction, his Lordship proceeded to say that he would give ano ther reason why the House should refuse its assent to the measure. By yielding it they would inflict a wound in the religious sympathy and religious trust, and also on the moral trust, of the religious and thinking classes of the country, which nething could remedy. Something had fallen from the Right Rev. Prelate who !lad preceded him, that had given him (the Bishop of Oxford) real pain, although there was nothing in it. The Rev. Prelate had spoken of the direct, im portant, and unquestionable relation to which he alleged to exist between Judaism and Christianity. Now, that there had been a direct, important, and unquestionable relation between theta was well, known, but he denied that any such relation existed at present ; and he hoped he Right Rev. Prelate would allow him (the Bishop of Oxford) to remind him, that had Judaism been suffered to remain in the ascendant, it would have proved the tomb of Christianity. A more dangerous argument could not be promulgated. In point of fact Christianity was not a settled doctrine, but a belief of the heart in an individual, the Saviour of the world, and who formed the heart of religion and the centre of faith. Judaism was an entire denial of the whole system, and a Jew ac cordingly believed the person in question to be nothing more than an imposter, whom his ancestors slew. It was therefore apparent that these two op posites could not be reconciled. With regard to the petitions which had been presented, there was something peculiar about the feeling of the country. It was said that a few dissentinc , petitions augured that feeling to be in favour of the Bill; but he consi lered the silence to have a significance the other way. ['here was another reason which increased the import ance of the question before them. The relations of the Church to the State of this country afforded at the pre .ent time questions not the easiest for solution, or the safest to deter settling. He thought that in those diffi culties a reasonable man would trace this—that the legislature, by a slow yet certain progress, had become 4radually more estranged from the Church of the country. Now, he asked, what could more certainly and lbundatitly increase the evil than the passing of this Bill? And when they considered the present difficulty in adjusting Church matters, there could be no doubt out that the adoption of the measure would eventually .ead to the separation of Church and State. He, for ,ne, was not in favour of such a separation, as he be lievedthat the Cnurch would suffer most irreparably, and that the nation itself would certainly suffer still more. Nearly all the great subjects which were continually coming before them involved the same question, and none more so than that of national education; and be cause the passing of the Bill now under their considera tion would render the settlement of those questions almost impossible, he beseeched them not to pass it. The Bishop of Sr. DAVID'S explained. The Earl of St. GERMANS, with all respect to the Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), said he must dis sent from some of the propositions which he had laid .lown. He thought several of the Right Reverend Pre late's argumente were scarcely worthy of him. Experi ence proved that Jews were inlother countries among the most useful members of a Legislature. If the exclusion of Jews were a question of punishment, the amount or extent of their error might be a question. The Right Rev. Prelate much surprised him by stooping to catch a cheer by an allusion to an unfounded report about in fluences brought to bear upon this question. He also much astonished him by diverging into considerations respecting the union between Church and State. If it could be shown that Jews might be safely admitted to Parliament except on considerations relating to the Church, he must say he thought that would be one of the strongest arguments that could be used in favour ca severance of Church and State. The most Rev. Pre late who had spoken anticipated support to the Church from the Dissenters. He (Earl St. Germans) believed there was as much, if not more, danger to be anticipated to the Church from the Dissenter than from the Jew. — (Hear, hear.) He believed the Jews to be a loyal, peace able, and industrious body; he saw no reason why they ~hould not he admitted to complete participation in civil rights, and he confessed he had heard nothing in the speech of the Right Reverend Prelate opposite at all calculated to shake his opinion in favour of this Bill. The Earl of EGLINTOUN, for the sake of the reli gion he revered and the Saviour whom he worshipped, should certainly vote against this Bill. However loyal, peaceable, charitable, or useful the Jews might be as a class, he could not think that those who were aliens, and who called themselves by the name of another nation, had any claim to a share in the government of Great Britain. He also thought that there might arise from their admission a great practical difficulty in conso quenco of the expenditure Jew candidates might be expected to make in order to secure returns. They had had, in the way the petitions to that House wore pre pared, some specimens of the mode in which money might be applied for political purposes. General sym pathy had been excited for the Jews as a class degraded by their exclusion from Parliament. But the privilege of witting in Parliament was not denied to the Jews alone. It was withheld from the clergy of the Estab lished Church of this country, and from others. It was said by some that Dissenters were more inimical to the Church than Jews. That statement, however, he much doubted Lord LYTTELTON agreed with the Right Reverend Prelate opposite (St. David's) that the differences be tween Christians and Jews were not of such a nature as to give to Parliament any right to refuse to Jews the privileges which were conceded to Uoitarians. He was quite sure that the Jews were entitled to the privilege •,ri the ground of justice, and what was just could never be wrong. The Earl of HARROWBY had always felt the utmost repugnance to allow any obstruction to a privilege on ac count of religious opinions; but having reviewed this peculiar question with great care, he must confess he had come to the conclusion that it would not be right to admit the Jews to Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He had come to this decision very much ia consequence of the arguments of the advocates of the measure themselves, and, above all, of that highly talented Gentleman who lately represented Edinburgh. When that Right Hon. Gentleman spoke of religion as a matter as analogous to politics as cookery, he (Lord Harrowby) confessed that he thought that there must be something wanting in an argument that appeared only capable of such en illus- I ration. It was said that they must admit Jews, because they admitted Sucinians; but they did not admit Socinians as Socinians. They removed certain penal ties on religious bodies, and Socinians came in in con sequence; but there was no exemption in their favour. lie dare not unchristianise the Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He dare not lower the tone of the great assem bly of the nation; and, therefore, with regret, he should certainly vote against the Bill. The Earl of YARBOROUGH sat i, if their Lordships rejected Bill, it roust be borne in mind that they would do so in the full cognisance of the circumstance that the first constituency of the empire had returned a Jew to Parliament, and that it. was the desire of the people that the Bill should pass.—(Cheers.) He con fessed that he had not looked at the religious question under this Bill without anxiety, but the more he looked at it the more he felt that it was his duty as a Christian to vote in its favour. The Earl of DES ART said, the Legislature being called upon to decide on questions both spiritual and temporal, he could not think that a Jew ought to be permitted to share with Christians the administration of those affairs. Ile knew they were called on to love their enemies, but he did not know that they were called on to take them into their Houses and trust them with the administration of their business. He was most willing 1 to acknowledge the integrity of the Jews, and would entrust them with the administration of the laws, bus it was quite another thing to place them in the position of law makers. He urced the House not to be led away by false sophisms and pseudo-liberality. 'rho ter! of ELLESNIERE said his vote that night would be the result, not of impulse, but of such re flection as his ability allowed him to give to this im portant subject. If he could believe with the Right Reverend Prelate that a great indifference to the safety of the country could alone induce a vote foe this Bill, no degree of respect for any constituency would induce him to vote that night in its favour; but looking at the probable consequences that would follow from this mea sure, all he could foresee was that, at most about a score of respectable gentle:nen of the Hebrew nation would be admitted to seats in Parliament. They had heard of Dissenters combining against the Church, but they had never found Jews meddling with such matters. They often heard denunciations from the conventicle, but never from the synagogue.—(Hear, hear.) He was told that the Jew was an alien, and merely is sojourner in the land. How had he acted in those countries of Europe in which he was not oppressed by unjust !taws? Had he sheltered himself from the common danger, under his character of a stranger and a sojourner?—(Hear, hear.) In the ranks of Napoleon there were many Jews ; and at Leipsic they fought side by side with their Christian countrymen for their com mon liberties. He had been intOrmed, that even in our own Canada, they had, in times of rebellion, rallied round the British standard, without exhibiting any horror of the emblem which it bore.—(llsar, hear.) It had been rightly observed, in the course of the debate, that this country stood in a singularly proud position. Ours might he said to be the only Legislature in the civilised world in which questions of importance could be fairly discussed without any undue pres Sure from external in fleence. He would go farther and say that their decision of that night would most probably affect the condition of the Jews all over Europe.—(Haar, hear.) Some Continental Governments might be considered to have advanced beyond us in liberality, but others, he regretted to say, had treated the Jews with harshness. Their Lordships could not read such Governments a better homily than bypassing the Bill which had been presented to them that evening.—(Hear, hear.) Lord STANLEY—I should have been well satisfied, my Lords, to leave the decision of this question to the able, to the powerful, to the eloquent, and to the hitherto unanswerable speech of the Right Rev. Prelate.—(Hear, hear)—but I feet it imperative upon me not to give a silent vote upon a question upon which the discussion has been exhausted; upon which I can offer nothing new to your Lordships, and on which it would be in excusable for any length of time to trespass upon your patience. I think that your Lordships should at once reject this Bill. Noble Lords, in the course of this dis cussion, have laid much stress upon a doctrine which I rejoice to hear repudiated by my Noble Friend, the Noble Earl who has just sat down, viz., the free exer cise of your judgment on this subject, and that the re jection of this Bill would be duly and properly stig matized as a measure of persecution ; and yet I could not fail to be .struck with the apparent inconsistency of the argument, because the declaration was imme diately preceded by the expression, as the ground of my Noble Friend's vote in favour of this Bill, that he thought your Lordship's conduct on this occasion must materially influence the conduct of other states with regard to what is properly and appropriately called the Jewish nation; mid yet, if that nation, says the Noble Lord. in other parts of the world, is subjected to grievous persecution and the greatest possible hardship. I shall endeavour to show by my vote this night that the English Parliament is wholly free from this spirit of persecution. My Lords, if the vote given to-night, whether in favour of this Bill or against it, be no indi cation of a persecuting spirit, I am at a loss to under stand how the Noble Lord reconciles these two conflict ing arguments, and how his vote one way or the other can mark the hostility of this country to the persecution of the Jews. To the law in its fullest extent, on 'the ground of religious opinion, I am as much opposed as the Noble Lord; but the question on which I draw the main distinction is this, that the protection of the law and the enjoyment of property is one thing, and to de prive a man of that protection, on the ground of reli gious opinion, is persecution. The privilege of enacting the laws of the country is not a right, but a privilege—a privilege, the absence of which is no persecution, no punishment, no penalty—the possession of which the Legislature has at all times maintained the right of hedging round with such conditions as it felt were for the benefit of the country. I must say that I heard with some surprise the historical summary with which the Noble Marquis commenced his speech. the inference to be deduced from which was, that for the first time in the reign of Elizabeth this intolerant exclusion of the Jews took place. The Noble Marquis distinctly stated that it was not till the time of Elizabeth that this exclusive system on the ground of religion first commenced; and that when it first commenced it had no reference to the Jews. Let me remind your Lordships, that until a recent period previous to the reign of Elizabeth, the subject was not only excluded on account of religious belief, but uniformity of religious opinion was enforced by stringent penalties. So far from the Jews having a right to sit in the Legislature, the Jew had not a right to set his foot on British soil. Then the Noble Marquis says that the statutes were directed against the only class of nonconformists of those days, the Popish recu sants, and had nothing to do with the Jews; and then the N..ble Marquis goes to the times of William and Mary, and says that for thirteen years during that time there was no legal obstacle to the Jew—there were no terms in the oath, "on the faith of a Chi istian," during those thirteen years, but there was no power fur a Jew to obtain naturalization. Lord CAMPBELL—It was not needed if he were born in England. Lord STANLEY—Was there any power for a Jew to hold freehold property, and have a freehold qualification by which he could be admitted to sit in Varliament? Was not the oath, such as it was, administered to every person upon the new test, and although there was that absolute and legal impediment, the Noble Marquis tells your Lordships that for these thirteen years there was a happy removal of the intolerance preventing Jews sitting in Parliament? To talk about the Jews sitting in Par liament in the time of William and Mary is to argue on a case which is absolutely impossible to arrive; because, if in those days a Jew presumed to offer himself as a can didate for the representation of any city or town in England, he might have got through the first sentence, but he would nut have been heard through a second. I will not detain your Lordships by entering on the his toric points, but that which I desire to lay stress upon is, that it is the privilege of sitting in Parliament and legislating, and not the right, to which every person:ls entitled. It is a privilege which the State confers on those persons who are properly qualified. Then comes the question, what are the proper qualifications for the Legislature in a Christian subject ? If it be true that there is an inherent right to which every British subject is entitled, what becomes of your pecu niary qualification ? Whet becomes of your law by which you require that a person shall be of a certain age ? What oecoases of the right by which you exclude women from voting ? Why is it that, with the excep tion of theßightßeverendßench, who are, be it observ: d, in this House, and hold their seats in it because this is a Christian assembly—(ilear, hear) —why, with that ex ception, is every clergyman of the Church of England debarred from a seat in the House ? I ask, why ? be cause it is supposed that the woman, the minor, are p.2.r -sons not having a certain pecuniary qualification. I ad. init that that pecuniary qualification is an arbitrary one. I take it upon this principle, that persons who have such a pecuniary qualification, have such a stake anti in terest in the country, or are likely to have received such an education as to enable them to give a free and independent and deliberate and conscientious sensible verdict with regard to the election of Members of Parliament. Then suppose you contend that this right is inherent in every British subject—has not every one of these a right to challenge your qualification and your restriction as an act of punishment, according to the Noble Viscount— as an act of persecution, according to other Noble Lords —or a remnant, according to the Noble Earl on the cross benches, of an exploded system of persecution ? Has he not a right to say, I sin a British subject— loyal, peaceable, well disposed, of a good moral charac ter? Not a man will say a word against me in my neigh bourhood. I bear the highest character for loyalty and temperance, but I am debarred by the persecut ing law, which says that unless I possess a certain pecuniary qualification, not only I shall not have a seat in Parliament, but I shall not have a right to vote. The qualification is imposed for the sup posed good of the country. No one ditiputes the right of the Legislature to make the qualification. Is it a greater disqualification in a Christian assembly and a Christian country—in a coutry in which the law rests on the basis of Christianity—in which Christianity is part and parcel ot the law of the realm—is it a greater or a less disqualification to say, " I hare nut a freehold es tate of 501. or 1001. a year ;" or as a Jew, " I repudiate all that you hold most holy ; I abhor that which you worship ; I reject all to which you look up with reve rence and veneration ; and, as a sincere Jew, my desire must be to see your blasphemous religion trodden in the dust ?" I care not what may be the professions ot the nominal Jew or those nominal Christians to whom their religious opinions are like garments, which they can put on or take off at pleasure, but in which the eeart and conscience, and judgment, have no part. Although I admit there is much in Judaism in common with Christianity—although I admit that the law was our schoolmaster, yet whilst I admit there law ereiasumdutchhe in common in the precepts of the Mosaic Divine precepts of committed and punished with the greatest severit y law of the Gospel, yet I cannot forget that of all the crimes capable of being y: s o te t the d ( rim being Aeiw u jh p ie o c wh n t A I e o s f e o s o , i t n h g a t o o f f a a n n attempt e t o G p o u d t , y was visited with the grea test severity. a w n L er the must believe even the seco nd p erson of the blessed convicted malefactor , and justly con Trinity to be a defnned by the law of an offended country. I lock with veneration to the great attachment oftheJews to their the educated religion, they having beer', for many centuries the l depo sitories of the Word of 'Truth. believe Jew to be a man honouratile, conscientious, charitable, well disposed, and loyal, but I cannot place the Jew, either with regard to uts religious belief or with re;sard to his social condition, on the footing of any denomina tion of Christians, nor can I place him on the footing of other British subjects. It has been attempted to be ar o'ued that you have cut away the argument against the admission of the Jews by the admission of other sects i n t o Parliament, and some Noble Lords have splice about the ambiguity of Christianity itself, and have re ferred particulary to the admission of Unitarians. Now, la y Lords, I have very great doubts about the accuracy of ther faith, I do nut understand their reading of the Scripture, I cannot comprehend the interpretation which I believe they put . upon the Scriptures; but this I 'mow, that if you were to tell a Uni •-- tarian that he was not a Christian, he would s once, and most vehemently, repudiate that asSeTtion. would say, though he is not convinced of the divin lll sent ucipoosl t r lh o , m ? anis lit with God. teh r a e l v te e h v a a e l t e te l n ie e w e o l : of the Saviour, yet that he looks upon him as a creature et e l ' o r s and that hi them he, as you, finds the guide of his e elt. duct here, and places his belief and his hopes of salvation sr e ed c a e ne v fe e i s 3G, the od d o tr !bratin e hereafter.—(Hear, hear.) I remember well when discussion took place some years ago relative to the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament; some of the pow( rful arguments used by m y weenie ( ' friend, the late Sir George Murray, who hen not long less than your oven; returned from the command of many hundred leen. He said, speaking of the Roman Catho lic and the Protestant, " True it is that in minor points , and °- some not unimportant, they differ from you ; they superadd to the Scriptures what you do not believe, but look upon as vim imaginings appended by Wan to the revealed Word of God. Yet, remember, that Pr:,. testants and Catholics, when they go into the service e! the same country, are subjected to the same danger , stl e are, perhaps, fated to tall under the same bulle! they go in the same belie f of the same Saviour, in the same csnfidence in the same God, in the same belieffent true that all the fundamental principles of their religion; and 1 0 be the will of God that there and then they and Yo r should die together, they and you both look for the to: giveness of s our sees, an i the recepion of your 3 01 1 into immortality to the same Redeemer."—(fleer, herog, In those sentiments every denomination of Christts concurs; yet those are the men whom the Right Prelate in this House tells you you must place upon n i l; same footing with the unbelieving Jew. I had e lra e ° ,„ forgotten to observe teat the Noble Marquis at the ce•-: mencement of his speech did me the honour to refer to: vote which I gave iu 1830, in favour of the second reafd fig of a Bill for the removal of Jewish disabilities; %Pie because, torsooth, this Bill bears the same title, the 14° , 0 Marquis attempts, by implication, to fix upon ine J te , charge of tergiversation for opposing this n 3 were, The Noble Mat quis did not tell your Lordships,h nwe ', that at that time no Jew could hold real prop J e w that no Jew could act as a magistrate—that no e iew could take port in municipel councils- that no J ost could take any participation whatever, even in tb, e t i e ordinury transactions of domestic life. From al"0 6 disabilities I rejoice that the Jews are now freed. The Noble Marquis might not have gone so far back 15 3 er year 1830 ; he might have traced me up to 184, 1814, when I voted in support of the Bill introduce(' wit'; my Noble and Learned Friend, the then Lord C bsi • cellor, for the removal of ail the remaining disabilitlo. of the Jews, so far as their civil and social condition wee; concerned. But in that Bill there was no atteniPto:o was there any question raised; on the contrerY, i t e admitted that the concession of all those civil a end sods rights gave no claim fur admission into your Lordsl4 House.—(Hear, hear). The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—I alluded to first Bill. Lord STANLEY continued—lt is of little cl s te r quence. I only refer to it now because I desire sighed and to impress upon your Lordships r.° the distinction between the grantin of all soc ial rig or and the performance of all public duties under the f os trol of the law, in which no doubt the Jew will P er • 0 10 his duty as well as the Christian, and the right Per 14 in making the laws in which the Jew is not futr e o , if anything but his own conscience, and that coescie°o-er it be worth anything, must lead him to VOW f tir 0 010 sures hostile to the established religion of this N e w el and to Christianity itself.—(Hear, hear.) . I be e bar it said that a great constituency has returned a Di tt e s ° , 3 ol o of the Jewish persuasion to Parliament, and t Os' Legislature ought not to resist the wishes of tbeee e to se Ido not, in the first place, admit that in a ll c s k iesor d stances and at all times the particular constituen'erollf the best judges of the candidates; who cs : l, le af best represent their proper interests. Sl'oesti" am I convinced of the right of its' t tuency whatever—be it the least or the rel o ss (1 : portant in the country—to fly in the face of t e e p t epee; the country, and to elect a person to sit in Pah ' h ese who is disqualified by the law from taking his s rsr alei l ' to insist upon it that Parliament should the n ee ;Deeri. t e and that such a person should have a seat in ,tet, th' t lature.—(Hear, hear.) I must say lily oPi°' ° „ if the argument tells upon the question in 011- .0 ts_i the other, it tells rather as an argument eg e c l e lect'," adoption of this Bill. If the city of London 114 be et a pauper or a minor, or a female to represent 10retet Parliament, would it for a single momen t be gy that that pauper, or minor, or female, should sP o P 1 01 the bar of the House, and claim the right to tselloreie her seat, because the city of London had 11 :, tsl its choice, and knowing much better than t"" e ster ture as a body what was good for its own inte h - o r.) thought fit to return such a person?—( ll ea r h 'i t , - 1, Olt; am quite sure that that is an argument w'rbetr t- e, hold tur a single moment. But then I content' 1' cocaine tically the Jews of this country are not of O le but are a nation apart. As temporary sojournerspaililio this country they are entitled to t oe be r g and to the protection of this country; but t":eYiGerisof special British interests, any more than sPee'tliteso,,.l interests, or special French interests. Th e). oes' ) interests of the Jews at heart, not British in c, beihr o . and, ebove all, nut Christian interests.--( 1-1 1be e r : l s e Now, I want to ask any Noble Friend on the benches how his argument, with regard to the e t, if r , or Jews into the other House of radial: 0 0 So apply to your Lordships' House. SuPr se eitisl 0, thought convenient or desirable that that nil ide ede tt• English barony, has been returned to represent the vita' 1 " e s (i . should be allowed to chase his foreign tit . . e y ct,:; f stituency, the Q a u i e ld en t , ha a t ct w in igt g ho u u p t o r n et t e l r i eeucivii° l -I;°(fitiP tia il Prime Minister, bad thought fit to grant hit ie st barony, how would my Noble Friend's argn'-henelen' then ? Neither in name, nor in title, nor , - be e °- eld undivided interests, is Baron Rothschild stsee; dered as an English citizen ; and 1 confe eg veis ly e t. regret to see him introduced into You r te ny i d e o re no w t i d t , l n3 t , h t e ha fr t e t Houee, for I think it would Water; beeri , for e n d u e) m Actso r wh discussion: ten hav — e ( b l e 1 0 7: ! : d el, j a i; admitting Dissenters into Parliament, he' (1' 11, cious as they are, have in some degree ut 6 ;01 1° ,0 right of speaking, in both Houses, upon s u "'" 0 30 1- 0. terest to religion. When the Legislature be e tle fre e 0, the decision that all are equally entitled to ! i.e . pression of their opinions in this slid the n i t ro " , by le y ;0 every man feels there is a check put upon b by 0 1 1 ;1i' nation, by general feeling, and still more , otl or os s take care that he says nothing, in 5 who®Per3e shpt gious sense, hostile to the feelings of those eif. A c o has put upon a footing of euality with hin!, t e e e to 1 0 0, the Jew; and are we not, hen, to be perm" to Or e t e eov our veneration fbr Christianity? Are w h ose air our determination to uphold the Christian c o co ve r o f the Legislature of this country? Yet h ° c h e rec tr ite o don in terms! To uphold the Christian, . et 00 4 4 your legislators and of your legislation, an° Y ege ry: re st one of your co-legislators a person to who l : . ° ui re" spoken in favour of Christianity is w ith is affront and offence, and whose Wl ° • itl 'l O 4 br a erm d be ▪ 1 c if p•- ght to to e b v e e a ra r eh n ir p ig on in which to the views of the majority! Ido hot "pe er t o ur " re' mediate danger from the admission of thre_ 10'014 Jews into either House of Parliament. I d? tr ord in to bend the least danger unless, under very e sel ta part to circumstances, it is possible for a very H ; e rigi t he turn a nicely balanced scale, and so give ",.. 111 1 4,5t is eo e Minister. But, on the other band, I as" ioe of 11 two or three rich Jews into the Leg i s iaturci th o 0 4 , 1 13 ' 0 0 great object you have to gain in the adruis„ the advantage for which you are to set asidt,ill eon°. o f has been for centuries, and which I trest i " eg i,astie"ols to be for centuries, the principle 'Of th e etia e l t s' this country, namely, its being based eV f t he r er conducive to the support and maintenance °tl oe of h P ig tiara religion?—(Cheers.) This great qu s e, e _ e a. ciple lies, as has been well said, in a nu The vet a question not of detail, but of principle. tebie'sail you, my Lords, have to solve this nigh,wheoer trust you will solve in the affiroaative—is,. char set will or will not maintain the. Christien 4 ,1 1 _ it of this and the other House of fe ri r i rb; O le e w ed whether you will, by flying in the face o oso to and deliberate judgment of the countryseritiees_e, by the comparatively small number help ms chst:ol r- er J favour of this measure, repudiate that se whe w . 0 , ter. The question you have to decide l is s_ in retei?t' will leave toe country at large to draw tr vo ose iZ e ir which they cannot fail to draw—that thisi: e o f CP . I O O different to the prole,sion or nou-proteseni.u_noilf..l•ol tianity.—(Hear, hear.) By so doing, if u ti ld i T ril l tbe should be the course your Lordship 3 reduce s h o uld epo_eet to take this night, believe me you will Pabove ialtio minds of the people of this country, and , „ ede g, an e ieeh the minds of the soundest, the must !elle feellng "Ol t. an d ° o l will alienate their hearts from the Leg's! he tb i, cos ) most religious portion of this commenitYeetlere, elteve , that confidence which in the main, I u gea r, hel ie itui s places in the Houses of P a rliamente --- e (i selase govj rejoiced to hear, in the speech of th . 0e• w ith s e . 0 0 4 that he has no inconsiderable apprehensi bt m et e dol, t b e to the result of this discussion. He th,n u e li re j t , proper to warn your Lordships that if T o d sgei o blo s Bid to-night, the question would al;' of lbedeb°ls brought before you. I hail that declare this Marquis as an indication of his feeling of will not decide the question in favour• to O r d again and again it will have to be T U TUSt l °ll. I I Lordships' consideration ; and, if so, • / be lie f% o o ships will act in accordance with villa" and gel , th e the general feeling of this great country a- 11 , again reject the tueasure.—(Loud c heeraq slo es ai Lord BROUGHAM congratulated P o e h " - ^ t o bee ad temperate manner in which this ques A t t l et ° tie guish e . u r is cussed by all its Members except The bi t ter 5 P 1 , 0 6 1 ; pant of the Right Rev. Bench. jreilite whu fro es • not proceeded from the Most Rev• e r b. bu t ' represented the intesests of the Chnr e °oh a hie °,PP f the P Right Rev. Prelate who had base te es slanders which had appeared in sly bee' papers. Certain attacks on the rT an d e e• ou• o i t ito °nit , ister' peering in those papers, bad been hsd 116 0; tr . he would say falsely used.—cchear,:./o,nate.,,. and but that a Right Reverend Preletf vons, v ie eJ l e s t that the Bill before their .Lordshin..u.t4, net:00 01 w set on foot in the city of London. -L. lette r p car e r e child. There was the Noble th L e Doceso idst: of L Jehn Russell owed his election c f: 3 s the 13f4ire%talile° Baron it 0 , .e e soi co d ° l ion prove it. But it Nast rue that_nthiNsZbore lettat ioll ot to e ll col w et b e t i t io% awoads it t u w e a h s o h n uj t u y re i e n l by his partisans, that Lord John t 3 withdraw himself from the contes • t o t i' o ~y $Ol7O Pia Prelate Inen n e led ( he that tha Right Rev. he ha d be bite be e - malignant, but he thought beh t o 3 or e t the cheers from the benches ,A _,„ • incautiously yen s ap „ 01_ quenceitust se Broughain), and had itic B ut e b o u t r o per . all that the Right Rev. Prelate , 0 t he .iseit ; t hr igh o intended.—(Cheers and laughter.) sa id 00.! e sure / o re 11:41 motives, still it was SO good S . e l o w were true, thing could injure it, and he en supposing it origin in h '4 3