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

1 give him if he said that a great part of his life had been spent in pis claiming the weakness of his religion, and its possible, if not probable, downtal.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Oppssition.) lie was spe (king politically, and he asserted that on every occasion or concession the Hon. Baronet had predicted that the sun of Protestantism had set for ever. And now it was feared that if but one Jew were admitted into Parlia ment, the faith of six hundred and fifty- five Christians would make itself wings and fly off to Jerusalem er 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 those who doubted the stability of the religion which they professed, nor would he take Christianity on their statements. She did not require enactments to enable her to prevail. Locke had wisely said that the inventions of men required the inventions of men to sustain them, but that the religion of God required not the aid of human inventions.—(Hear, hear.) That was his doctrine. He believed that it was the function of religioa to interfere with poli tics, but in a great, a gracious, and progressive spirit ; and in that belief he felt himself justified in sup porting the present Bill.— (Hear.) Mr. SPOONER said that one part of the Hon. Member for Cuckermouth's speech had completely con tradicted the other.—(Herr, hear.) 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 admitted to seats in that House. The Hon. Member had talked of the fears of those who opposed the Bill. Fears I They had no fears for Christianity. Their conviction was, that truth would triumph, no matter what attempts might be made to put it down.-(Hear, hear.) But they feared lest a Christian nation, which had for so many centuries been blessed with Christian privileges, should now prove themselves so unworthy of them as to admit those to mak e laws for that nation who denied the law as laid down by our Saviour ; who denied the divinity of Christ, and treated the great author of Christianity as a cru cified impostor.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Cockermouth had called upon the opponents of the mea sure to show him how the Constitution was endangered by it. Ia the first place, he altogether disputed the con clusion deduced from the Hon. Member's argument, viz., that every natural born subject of the Queen had consti tionally a right to sit in Parliament if elected; and, further, ho contended it would be impossible to uphold the religious principles of the Constitution if unbelievers were admitted as Legislators. What were the words of the compact entered into between the Sovereign and the people at the coronation? The Sovereign was sworn to maintain the true profession of the Gospel and the Pro testant reformed religion as established in these realms. How could they expect that Gospel and that religion to be maintained if they admitted persons to make laws and to advise her Majesty, whose religion told them there was no truth in the Gospel?—(Hear, hear.) Here, then, was the constitutional danger, and a great constitutional danger it was.—(Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN—But how as to the Roman Ca tholics? Mr. SPOONER was speaking of the Jews.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But if they admitted Roman Catholics, they had at least so far preserved the Christion charac ter of the House as to require the profession of Chris tianity on the part of its Members ; but now it was proposed to abolish even that test, and permit any man to take his seat as a Member of the Legislature, though openly avowing that he was not a Christian. If they were not to insist on the profession of Christianity, what was there to prevent the admission, not only of Mussul- MIMS or Hindoos, as some had argued, but even infidels? Depend upon it, if this demand were conceded, it would not be the last sacrifice that would be required. The Noble Lord the Member for Bath had alluded to some expressions which had been put forth in print by a Member of the Cabinet not now in the House—(Mr. Macaulay)—in which he stated that this question was merely one of police, and compared it with cooks and cookery. That view so totally differed from that which had been expressed in that House by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, that he would ask some of the Noble Lord's colleagues— Mr. A. STAFFORD—Where are they?—(Hear, and a laugh.) Mr. SPOONER confessed that did strike him, and though ho was fully aware how difficult it was for Mem bers of the Government, who were engaged in their official duties all day long to attend night after night in the House, listening to dell debates, he could not but remember that when he sat on the other side he seldom saw the Treasury bench unoccupied, especially when Government measures were being discussed.—(Here several Members of the Government entered the House and took their seats.) Though Mr. Macaulay looked on this as a mere police question, the terms of the corona tion 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 an opinion, for their business was each day preceded by st prayer to Almighty God to direct their deliberations for the advancement of true religion and piety. But taking the question on the principle of a police measure, which he did merely for the sake of argument—how were we to preserve the property, lib er ty, and lives of our fellow - subjects but by forming and adhering to a code of morals ; and which code of morality equalled that of Christianity ? The Right Hon. Member for Oxford, if he understood his argument—which he was not sure that he did—came to the conclusion that because Parliament had lost the definite Christian character it once possessed, therefore what was left was not worth retaining. The Right Hon. Member in his book talked of tender dealing with the Church. In that he thought there was a latent meaning which did not meet the eye. Was it this—that as the Parliament had ceased to be the Parliament of the Church of England, therefore the Church was to have again a Parliament of its own ? Were the Right Hon. Member present he would ask him to explain his mean ing, but as he was not he wou ld p ass the sub j ect over. en conclusion, he called upon Hon. Members to remem ber the responsibility which attached to them on this question, and to give their votes irrespective of party feeling, expressing, at the same time, his own determi• nation to support the amendment. Mr. COCKBURN—As a general proposition, it was impossible to deny the principle on which this measure was submitted to the House, that every subject of the realm bound by the obligations incidental to that cha racter, paying allegiance to the Sovereign and contribut ing to the general burdens of the state, bound also in ease of national danger, to defend the country at the xisk of his life, and discharging all the ordinary obliga tions of a citizen, was also entitled to participate in all the rights, privileges, honours, and advantages inciden tal to that position. independent of religious (Hear.) He admitted that proposition must be taken with certain modifications—as, fur instance, if the admis aison of any person, or class of persons, to those rights snould 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—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 other side was totally inapplicable. He denied that t hose who advocated this measure were justly charge able with any a b an donment of the principles of the Christian religion. They conceded that if the admis sion of Jews to Parliament should be attended with danger to the State or the Church, that the opposition to the measure would be just ; but he denied that the those was fraught with any such dange r ou s conse q uences. hose who would deny to 40,000 of her Majesty's sub- J e ets, not only now, but in time to come, their rights a nd privileges as Englishmen, were b ound to mske out their proposition that this was a case in which the T he to the general rule should app l y . —(Hear.) ',he Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst and those Wa ° opposed the Bill took their stand on the law and co nstitution. He denied that the law or the consti • tut ion was as his Learned Friend (Mr. Walpole) had stated it to be. Nor would the argument be worth luch if i t were— f or if t h e l aw or th e c o ns titution sane tin ioned injustice, or what was perhaps worse, folly , th e only conclusion he should draw would be that it quire amen d ment. —(H ear .) Having admitted the e nlan 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 ' r ery like swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat. '(Hear, hear.) Since Parliament was first constituted "'ere had never been any law, either in the constitution o .' the statute book that had had for its end or design the exclusion of the Jews. Their exclusions had been t he ."exult, not of Legislative design, but of Legislative tecid te nt. All th e l aws o f exclusion passed by Parlia• _ t i l le ent had been directed against Parliament, none against p a .,: Yews. According to the original constitution of ament, the eligibility of the representative de fend ed solely on the choice of the electors—there was pei other ,nualification ; neither was there, until the g w ght V Elizabeth, any religious test. In that reign , Rona The great struggle between Protestantism and a nism was ; still going on. and when readProtestant again obteined the ascendancy , the Protestant cu rt,' naturally a dopted all the means and engines eir estili•.tallees placed in their power to secure that ascendancy e s "el) down their opponents. The oath of supremacy .thus introduced for the obvious and avowed purpose Of 'IX eluding Roman Catholics from all participation in Politic al po wer . Thi s was the only Act of exclusion in r t j ell- In the 3d of Sing James ca me the oath, fo which was th e mo d e l o f th e present oath, and in which r the first ti me th e w ords " on the true faith of a Ch ristian" were introduced. This, too, was for the sole purpose, of e xc l u di ng Roman Catholics, and was entitled 4: e _ Ace for the suppression of Popish recusants." And e words were introduced in this way. The Act was , i:_ l ed ina mediately after the discovery of the gunpowder plot, o f w Bich the Jesuits were believed to have been %t the butt om ; and as it was known that the Jesuits ellanci sd the dangerous morality that they might avoid the at th the o bligation of an oath by a mental reservation by e time .of taking it—a doctrine which was admitted boGarnet,. the Jesuit chief, as one to which that dy subs( iribed—the Legislature introduced a form t.. Words wl rich should prevent any Roman Catholic ob ung Power by taking 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 trans aubetantiation th a t t and in h f a ate tit is the 30 Ch ar l es 11. No one could doubt was directed ag a inst Roman Catholics only; that its was expressly declared in the Act itself re a l object was to protect the King's person and tn, by excludin g R m stoon Catholics from power. So thatd matters till the Roman Catholics from power. So ttera till the reign of William and Mary. In reign a all th ese oaths and statutes were abolished, t uute dtthetelsi oaths of alle g i ance an d supremac y were substi this in the terms they n ow were . The opponents of alleged that accor di ng to th e cons titution no Je w could be admitted into Parliament. He asserted that there was nothing in the law or constitution, down jtothe. last y ear o f William 111 which could prevent a m u ne * from was taking his seat if elected In that year when some danger of the claims of a Popish successor to the crown, the oath of abjuration was passed. That, however, was passed as against Roman Catholics, and against tha house of Stuart in particular, and that oath continued to be Liken to the present hour. That it was directed against Roman Catholics was clear by the subsequent Act of Georg-e 1., which enabled the Crown to seize upon the estatt s of Raman Catholics who were guilty of treason. as aasinst the state, in supporting the claims of the Prett nd , r. The whole course of legislation, so far as it had reference to any religious test or opinion as a qualification for ad mission to Parliament, was directed not against the Jews, or in support of Christianity, hut solely and ex clusively against our fellow-Christians the Roman Ca tholics.—(Hear, hear.) Ile would pointsut a still more striking anomaly. Patliatnent had thou' lit it right to change the state of the law in respect to Roman Catho lics, and that portion of our fellossasubjects who for two centuries and a half had been 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 operate as against another class in reference to whom it was never directed. The Jew could take the oath of Allegiance without hesitation, for no man was more loyal or attached to the Sovereign. He could take the oath of supremacy, for he did not assert that any person had any authority over the realm but the Queen. He could also subscribe to the oath of abjuration, so far as its substance went, for he did not admit the claims of any pretender to the Crown. All that he objected to was the form, not the substance of an oath denying the claims of a Pretender, 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 Crown to require an oath to be taken which implied that the Sovereign needed the mockery of such a protection against the unknown race of a Pre tender who was upwards of a century in his grave. But were the Jews excluded from that Howe 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 Catholics, they had so altered the oath as that it might be taken " by the rest of her Majesty's subjects," they would have been under the necessity of bringing forward a measure directly to exclude the Jews, and is the present state of the House of Commons they must know that tt would be impossible to pass such a mea sure.—(fiear, hear.) He 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 cer tainly amenable to all the obligations incidental to such. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put his hands as willingly into the pocket of the Jew as that of the most orthodox Christian. Nen act. The tax paid by the Jew was in quite as good odour at her Majesty's Exchequer as that paid by any other inhabi tant of the realm. But it was said by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Midhurst that the Jew was only a naturalised alien. What 1 were men whose fathers had been established in this country for two centuries to be only regarded as naturalised aliens ? {lad not the Jew the same interest as ourselves in all that related to the welfare of the State, in good legislation, and, in the pro per administration of the laws ? Had he not the same inducements—the same sensibilities—to attach him to the country personaliy, politically. and domestically ? and looking at the conduct of the Jews as a body, who could say that they wt re not aninaited by the same de gree of patriotism ? If the country were invaded, they would be equally interested in repelling the invasion ; and he who doubted that they would assist in doing so, had only to look at the active part takeu by the Jews of Germany in the war of liberation to which that country had recourse when seeking to throw off the yoke of France. His Honourable and Learned Friend said that they had the same nationality as us ; that their thoughts and affections were fixed upon the land of their fathers, to which they hoped one day to be recalled. That such formed part of the poetry and aspirations of the Jewish people might be true; but to suppose that it could have the slightest practical effect upon their conduct as citizens or subjects was purely imaginative. Assuming, then, as he contended, that they were British subjects, were they not entitled to the common rights of subjects? They already enjoyed pro tection to person and property; but that was DOC all the constitution of the country afforded to free subjects. It was not only for the benefit of the subject, but of the state itself, to increase as far as possible the number of persons eligible to offices in the state. In the case of minors, of persons of inadequate property, of ecclesias tics, and of judges, there might be reasonable grounds for exclusion. It might be unadvisable to mix up the sacred calling of the ecclesiastic or the impartial charac ter of the judge with party strife; but in these cases exclusion was justified solely upon considerations of public policy and advantage to the state.—(llear, hear.) But we had no right, arbitrarily and without specific reasons, to exclude from a fell participation in the honours and privileges of the state any body of her Majesty's subjects. What would his lion. and Learned Friend think if it were suggested that all the members of the legal profession should be excluded from that House.—(Much cheering.) He interred from the cheers that such a proposition would not be alto gether unpopular.—(Renewed cheering, and laughter.) It had been tried and effected in one Parliament. The lawyers had been excluded, but they had their revenge, for they christened it the parliamentum indoctum, and not without reason, for a good law had never been made by it.—(Laughter.) Now, if such a course wero pursued again, would not his lion. and Learned Friend have much reason to complain. The general body of lawyers might be unpopular, but the great learning, the eloquence, and the high character of his Hon. Friend might be referred to as sufficient to redeem them from the disgrace and injustice of such an exclusion. Surely it would not be a sufficient answer to say, that, as British subjects, they had no political sights, and that, therefore, Parliament was justified in excluding them. The evils or dangers apprehended from the admis. sion 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 concession. In having granted them civil rights the Legislature had either gone too far or not far enough; if not too far, then should they be ad mitted to the fullest political rights as well as civil. In order to justify their exclusion from Parliament upon re ligious grounds, they must show some positive and tan gible mischief likely or possible to arise from their ad mission. Mere vague apprehension and surmise would not suffice. What did they fear? Did they anticipate danger to the Established Church, or the religion of Christ, from the legislative acts of the Jews? Even sup posing the Jews had the power, what interest had they in doing anything detrimental to that religion? Did the House suppose that it entered even remotely into their thoughts to convert us all to Judaism? Why, it was con trary to the very spirit of the Jewish religion to endeavour to proselytise. Its very character was in its exclusiveness; for the Jew looked upon it as a sacred inheritance de rived from his fathers, and to which he did nut 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 to give to a Christian constituency the power, if it chose, of return ing a Jew as their representative. And was there any one in that House who had so little confidence in the re ligious feelings of the Christian electors of this country as to suppose that if they found that the Jews were using their positio❑ to subvert the Christian religion they would continue to elect them ? He thought not. Well, then, were they apprehensive that the Jews would pollute that House by their presence ; or did they ima gine that the piety or religious feelings of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University, would be endangered if a Jew happened to sit beside him ? In the time of the Henrys and Edwards they thought right to expel the Jews, 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 see no reason for refusing admission to a few Jews into that House. It was said that doing so would ►ower the tone of the House. He could not see how it would, any more than admitting them to the ma gistracy and the administration of justice had lowered the tone of Christianity—(Hear, 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 politically or religi ously, it was impossible to say that there was any real or substantial danger to be apprehended from the admis sion of Jews to Parliament. Fortunately, this country was not called upon to make the experiment in the first instance. Other countries had done so. He 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 this country, the Jews had been admitted to all the offices of the state, and had worked in perfect harmony with their fellow-subjects. Take Roman Catholic Belgium, or the United States of America, in both of which coun tries strong religious feelings existed, and were exhi bited, and there the Jews had been admitted to political power. What were the examples to the contrary—what the examples on the other side? They were Austria and Russia; and the question now was, whether this country would take its stand with the en lightened nations of Europe or give its countenance to the principles and views of bigots and barbarians? — (Hear, hear.) Again, he might instance that the expe riment had been tried, and had been attended with sin gular success, in two of the British colones. In Jainsiea and in Canada Jews had been admitted to seats in the legislature; and it was well known that in the Canadian rebellion the Jews had taken a prominent part in its suppression; and in upholding the authority and rights of the Sovereign of this realm.—(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 subjects of the Crcien? He would take the liberty of asking those who supported the Church whether they did not feel that by granting this concession they would not take the first great step towards bringing the Jews to a sense of the value and blessings of Christianity? Hew was it that Jews had lived so long among Christians, and yet so little pro gress had been made in bringing them to the study of that which made Christians believe their religion to be the religion of God? Why, because Churchmen and Christians had raised an insurmountable barrier, and had taught them that they, as Christians, were their bitter and implacable enemies?—(Hear, hear.) Let them destroy the barrier—remove the obstacles—let them treat the Jews as brethren in humanity—let the Jew learn all that mercy that there was in the purity of the faith which the Christian professed—let them bring him within the sphere of its holy influence—and in time to come be would be lett:ight within the pale of that holy salvation for the maintenance of which Christians were so anxious, and for the extension of which they professed so much to desire.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BANKES said that while he did not claim for himself or those with whom he acted on this question any monopoly a true religious feeling, he dis cit;iined the application to them of - the terms bigots and barbarians. Notwithstanding that thy Honourable and Learned Member for South ampton (Mr. Cockburn) had bestowed so much historical and legal lore on this question, he (Mr. Bankes) must say that his research did not bear upon the subject, and that his speech, able and eloquent as it had been, afforded no answer to that of the Honourable and Learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), which on a former evening made an impression on the House which would not easily be obliterated.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Member who had just spoken had inquired what dangers would arise from the proposed concession to the Jewish people. He (Mr. Bankes) at once replied, that from them dangers would arise in the Church itself, and that dangers from with out the pale of that Church would follow.—(Hear, hear.) Before he showed these results, he must ob serve that the Honourable Member for Lambeth (Mr. Charles Pearson) had stated that a Jew having been elected a Member of that House by 7,000 of his fellow-citizens, he claimed the rights to which that election entitled him, and the lion. Member proceeded to say that, as no statute law excluded the Jew, he was dishonoured by the refusal of admission within the walls of Parliamont. It was true that there was no statute law to exclude the Jew, but it was equally true that the only class excluded by name and by profession were the clergy of the Church of England. If their exclusion was dishonour, as had been contended, then were the reverend members of the Established Church dis honoured as well as the members of the Jewish faith. He (Mr. Bankes) had not had an opportunity of voting on the questions which gave facilities to persons of the Jewish persuasion for attaining the civil distinctions which the offices of alderman, sheriff, or magistrate, conferred, but he confessed that he did not object to the grants of those powers of a ministerial character, but that was very different from their admission to legislative powers. Still he thought the arguments which had been raised from those concessions forced upon the House the necessity of cautiously watching every step tendingine vitably to lead to further concessions. He believed that those who had agreed to the concessions already made had never entertained a supposition that they would be charged with being bigots and barbarians it' they refusd to proceed further.—(Hear, hear.) To return, however, to the dangers to be apprehended from the measure now under consideration. He had already said that it was fraught with danger within the Church itself. The danger was of this nature. There had been circulated within the last few days a reprint of a very important speech of a most reverend pralate—still a dignitary of the Church—the present Archbishop of Dublin. It was obvious that those 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, or they would not have reprinted it and circulated it generally, Able as the speech was, it carried a warning to those who belonged to the Church, and ought to open their eyes to the dangers which were hanging over them. The Archbishop of Dublin then supported the measure, and it was to be presumed that he did so still. On the occasion when the speech was delivered, the Right Rev. Prelate 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 nature. 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 voice in the Legislature of a Christian country. On this point there arises a question, which I own I find it very difficult to 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 legisla tive powers with regard to matters regulating or affecting the Christian Protestant Church, but I also think there is an incongruity in admitting any one, whether Christian or not, to have a share in affairs strictly ecclesiastical, or in the government of the Church, and I take this opportunity of declaring nay 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, whether called Commissioners or by any other name, to be expressly appointed for that purpose, they being members of the Church." Thus, the Right Rev. Prelate would with draw from 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 further conces sions—a stipulation which formed one of the charges brought against James 11., 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 a few Jews into that House. He spoke not as a tractarian or retractarian ; he presumed not to give an opinion on 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 head of the Government, ought to pause in its course. He understood that the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), on a former evening, had incidentally touched upon a point which he (Mr. Bankes) considered to be of the highest importance, but so slightly and deli cately as to render it difficult to 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 lof 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 of delicacy which applied to the Established Church. These were very ambiguous phrases, and he tausted that his Right Hon. Friend would explain his very delicate speech, which nobody had plainly under• stood. When they recollected that ministries bad been kept in their places 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. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had not yet declared why he had changed his opinions with respect to this question. The speech which that Right lion. Gentleman made in 1830 on this very subject appeared to him most 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 then rose and addressed the House. It was with great reluctance (said the Right Hon. Baronet) that I gave a silent vote on the first occasion when this matter was brought under our consideration ; but the peculiar circumstances under which that debate closed, so immediately before the Christmas recess, and my unwillingness to incur the risk of preventing the House coming to some conclusion on the question, induced me on that occasion to be silent. I now wish to state the grounds on which I have come to a conclusion at vari ance certainly with first impressions—(llear,hear)—and which places me in painful collision with many: with whom I have almost invariably acted—with sonic of whom I never, to the best of my recollection, on any former occasion of equal importance have had the pain to have differed—at any rate, ever recollect to have given a vote to oppose. I can say with truth that I have given this subject the fullest and best consideration, and I will state the grounds on which I have come to the conclusion that this Bill ought to pass. No part of the resolution to which this conviction has led me has been influenced by an opinion that religion is a matter of in difference.—(Bear.) I am deeply impressed with the conviction that it is our paramount duty to promote the interests of religion, and its influence on the human mind.—(Hear.) I am impressed with the conviction that the precepts and doctrines of Christianity ought to influence our deliberations.—(Hear, hear.) I am impressed with the belief that if our legislation be at variance with the precepts and spirit of Christianity, we cannot expect the blessing of God upon them ; and I say this, that whether it be right or whether it be wrong, my decision this night is influenced much less from consideration of political expediency than from a deep sense of religious obligation.—(Cheers.) I com mence by stating that in my opinion there is between the tenets of the Jews and of the Christians an im portant and vital difference.—(Hear, hear.) In my opinion, the religion of the Christians and the religion of the Jews are more opposed, in essentials, than any other two religions that exist ; for between those two religions there is a complete antagonism. I do not consider the concurrence of the Jews with the Christians in recognising the historical truths and Divine moralities of the Old Testament is sufficient to overcome that essential difference, or that it can reconcile the religion of the Jews with Christians, seeing that they reject those doctrines which constitute the vital principle and foundation of Christianity. I admit at once that there is a concurrence between the Christians and the Jews so far as the Divine teachings and revelations contained in the Old Testament are recog nised by both; and I say this, that if I had any authority to determine what was religious error, and if I had a commission to punish religious error—in that case, were my power exercised at all, it would be exercised in punishing the Jews. But I have no such commission.— (Hear, hear.) If the Jews did commit an inexpiable crime some two thousand years ago, I have had no com mission given to me—even if I could determine who were the descendants of the persons guilty of that crime —I have no such awful power, as I believe it to be, to punish the sins of the fathers upon the children not unto the third or fourth generation, but unto the three hun dredth or four hundredth generation. " Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." I have, therefore, neither the duty nor the authority to punish religious error. I maintain this, that the House of Commons has no right, for mere religious error, to inflict a penalty.— (Hear, hear.) I consider a civil disability to partake of the nature and character of a penaltyel speak of pure re ligious error. If you can infer from that religious error dangerous political opinions, and if you have no other mode of determining what the political opinions of a party are except by the administration of a test for the purpose of ascertaining what are his religious opinions, in that case you possibly have a right to impose a restric tion. In the case of the Ronan Catholic you did net exclude him because he maintained the doctrine of tr:l - but because you thought he was a dan • gerous subject in consequence of his acknowledging the Supremacy of a foreign power. You excluded him from political power because you believed he w - ould abuse it when he possessed it ; but though he maintained relis gious errors, you did did not inflict civil disability. If you can show, in this case, that the maintenance of cer- THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEER CARY 154, 1848. taro religious opinions by the Jews is a decisive proof or' their civil unworthiness, you have a right to exclude them, but the onus is imposed upon you. The presulop tion is in their favour. The presumption is, unless you can establish a case to the contrary, that a Jew. as a subject ot . the British Crown, is entitled to all the qua lifications and privileges of a British subject ; the onus of rejecting Viet claim is on you. In my opinion, the claim of the Jews, as British-born sub jects, is for entire and complete qualification for office. You do not answer that claim by saying you grant him partial qualifications. You allow him to fill municipal offices; you concede to him :the elective franchise; but the responsibility of assigning a reason for withholding from him what remains is precisely the same. Nay, after you admit his qualifications fur these privileges and franchises which you have entrusted to him, it be comes the more incumbent upon you to assign a reason for withholding complete qualification. A Noble Lord who has spoken with so much good feeling upon this question, the Member for Bath—(Hear, hear) —quoted an authority entitled to much weight, a distinguiehe3 man, row no more, to whom there is no one entertains a mere sincere disposition than I to tender justice. I wish to speak of the late Dr, Arnold o ith the utmost respect. The Noble Lord, the Menite r for Bath, read an extract from the works of Dr. Arnold, which appeared to make a considerable impression upon the Houee. He quoted a passage in which Dr. Arnold se) s—" For the Jews, I see no plea of justice whatever; they are voluntary strangers here, and have no claim to become citizens but by conforming to our moral law, which is the Gospel." He tells the Jew that he is a voluntary stranger here, and has no claim to citizenship, though a subject of the British Crown. If we were de scendants of the ancient Britons, then we might taunt the Jew with being a voluntary stranger here; but if there be amongst us any mixture of Danish blood, of Roman blood, or of Norman blood, it seems a kind of presumption to tell a Jew, " You have no claim to citizenship here, for you are a voluntary stranger." Dr. Arnold goes on to say, "I would give the Jews the honorary citizenship which was so often given by the Ro mans, viz., the private right of citizenship. j ice commercii et jus connubii, but not the public rights, jus uff, agii et jus honorum." I contend that the British law recognises no such distinction; that, after conferring upon the Jew the jus commercii and the jus connubii, the onus lies upon you of assigning to the Jew a reason for witholding from him any other right of citizenship; End unless you show that there is something polically hostile in the character mid conduct of the Jew in relation to the state; that in times of civil discord and discontent there is reason to apprehend that he would join the disaffected, the onus is not discharged; you must give the Jew a reason, founded on political justice, for withholding from him the entire and complete right of citizenship. To the opinion of Dr. Arnold I oppose the opinion of a still higher authority, that of Lord Bacon. In his argument upon the rights of the post nuti of Scotland, Lord Bacon says—" It seemeth admirable unto me to consider with what a measured hand, with how true proportions our law doth impart and confer the several degrees of the benefits of naturalization. The first de gree is an alien enemy, the second is an alien friend, the third is a denizen. To this person the law giveth an ability and capacity abridged not in matter, but in time. The fourth and last degree is a natural born subject ; ho is complete and entire. Other laws do admit more curious distinctions of this privilege ; for the Romans had, besides jus civitatis,which answereth to naturaliza tion, ins suliagii. For, though a man were natura lized to take lands and inheritance, yet he was not enabled to have a ♦oice in passing of laws, or at election of officers, and yet, further, they had jus petitionis or jus honorum. For though a roan had voice, yet he was not capable of honour or office. But these be devices commonly of popular or free estates, which are jealous whom they take into their number, and are unfit for monarchies ; but by the law of England the subject that is natural-born hath a capacity or ability to all benefits whatever."—(Hear, hear.) The Jew is a subject natural-born, and I contend that he has a right to all civil honours, that he has " a capacity or ability to all benefits whatever," unless you show a reason to the contrary—a reason not founded upon a mere reli gions error, but upon some political disqualification. Now, I have heard in the course of this debate the exclusion of the Jews justified by reference to other disqualifications that now exist. It is contended that it is no hardship to exclude the Jews, as cop) holders are excluded from rights which freeholders possess, and minors are excluded from the exercise of powers which a man of full age enjoys. An Hon. and Learned Gen tleman, who bears a name which must ever be honoured in this House (Mr. Walpole), contended that there is a distinction between the elective franchise and the right of legislation. But all these are ingenious fallacies, employed for the purpose of concealing from ourselves the real character of this harsh exclusion.—(Hear, hear.) How does the elective franchise differ in cha racter from the right of legislation ? There are no rights given by the common law - the elective franchise is a creation of the Legislature. You withhold from the 94 householder a right which you give to the 10/. householder. And with respect to the exclusion of the clergy from this branch of the Legisla ture, and with respect to the excluoion of minors and those who have not sufficient property, these exclusions differ altogether from the disqualification you impose upon the Jews. In the first place, the Jew is equally subject with those who profess Christianity to all these exclusions—of minors, of copyholders, and 91. house holders; all these disqualifications he is likewise sub ject to; but you superadd another disqualification— (Hear, hear,)—ho is subject to the same disqualifica tions as other of her Majesty's subjects, and you subject him to another disqualification of a totally different nature. And many of these exclusions are voluntary. A clergyman, when he enters upon the sacred office, knows that he will be excluded from this House. A minor knows that if he lives until he attains his ma jority he will acquire his full rights. But with respect to the disqualification of the Jew, it is on account of his opinions—(Hear, hear ,)—it is not a disquali fication that is tetnporay or voluntary; it is a super added disqualification, and it differs in its character from the disqualifications to which other classes are sub ject. There is no analogy between them, and the dis qualification of the Jew is one which implies a suspicion and inflicts a stigma and which nothing but a change of opinion can enable him to escape. Now, us far as I have heard, I have found no sufficient reason assigned for this disqualification; and there are considerations which have been admitted in the course of the debate, and which make the hardship of excluding the Jews still more grievous. I consider that, in point of moral con duct; in point of active exercise of charity; in point of tried loyalty, and in point of property, the Jews are entitled to as much consideration as any other religious sect. I can assign, therefore, no political reason, so far as expectation with regard to his future conduct is con cerned, which ,would justify his exlusion from Parlia ment. But there are two reasons—for I class all the arguments urged against the admission of the Jews under two heads, for the purpose of brevity, which have been advanced in support of their exclusion, the force of which I should be the last person to deny. One of these reasons is, that you have for the last 300 years deemed a recognition of the Christian faith a ne cessary qualification of a legislator; the other, that if you no w abandon that qua lifi cat i on an d perm i t it to be struck out of the statute-book. where it has so long remained, this conduct on your part will i m ply an indifference to religion, and that such indifference is likely to relax the energies and paralyse the exertions of many men who, in this and other coun tries, are using their utmost endeavours to propagate the Christian faith. Now, I wish to weigh fairly these two objections. As I said before, Ido not undervalue the objection that you are about to remove from the statute book the words "on the true faith of a Christian." I believe that you will give offence to many sincere Chris tians by removing those words; but, on consideration of this subject, I am fully convinced that the popular im pression with respect to these words, and the circum stances under which they were inserted, is erroneous —(hear, hear)—and that it would not be fair to subject the Jew to this continued disqualification on account of erroneous, though most sincere and conscientious opi nions, entertained on the ground of the omission of those words. It was said, and truly said, by the lion. and Learned Member for Southampton, that up to the reign of Queen Elisabeth there was no oath required from Members of Parliament. The principle of the British constitution before the first of Elizabeth was, that the will of the electing body should determine the right to sit in Parliament, and no oath at all was required from Members of Parliament up to the fifth year of the reign of Elizabeth, when the oath of supremacy was admi nistered—an oath which, if not administered on this book—[Here the Right Honourable Baronet placed his hand upon a New T estament]—the Jew would have been perfectly competent to take. At that time the principle of the British constitution was, that every man should c onform to th e Protestant faith, and my Hon. Friend will find that e very British sub ject was required to app ear in church once at least on Sunday, under a penal t y of twelve p en ce. The terms of po t hfo excluding x o fl t u h d o i n f g assuring tsupremacy the t Jew w rom Parliament, nuti inserted for the purpos e ament, b ut f or t h e pur pose Q u een of the allegi ance of her sub jects. But, from the fifth year of Elizabeth up to the seventh year of James 1., no further oath was required from Members of Parliament. It was in tile seventh year of James I. that the oath was required to be taken " on the true faith of a Christian," and the reason for requiring this oath was given in the preamble of the Act, reciting that a most abominable and terrible plot had been entered into to destroy the King, the Queen, and the Royal Family. The exclusion, therefore, of the Jew, so far as it depended on these words, was an inci dental and collateral consequence of the Gunpowder Plot. That form of oath continued iu force until the first year of the reign of Willi am and Mary. Now, if any real importance had been a ttached to these words, e first Act whi c h was s to repeal t h e Act of the as a security for the professi on of Christianity, was it not remarkable that at the time of the Revolution the Parliament made no provision for th e i r con tinuancep ass e d aft ? e r th i e 'e ß t , e v a o l l m a t o in so w t th a 7th James the First, and instea d of th e words " on the true faith of a Christian," the words o f the oath were, "I promise and swear that I will be f a i t hf ul and b ear true allegiance to his Majesty, & c." F rom the first year of the Revolution till the year 1701 the se wor d s " on the true faith of a Christian" were done away with 1701, when a th l l Louis the F our t een th. a t e o i m g p e s r t h e t e we r en , rde a e e r d ree l ca h ot ag y ne idse were tdh o y virrn of e v ve d E England, in land, and his e But then you say to the ow, . Although we have ceased to be a Protestant or Ciaurch-of-E ng l an d Par liament,namely: the t h band of ere is yet one hond that unites us, common Christianity." The Jew, however, might fairly answer, " All tests which exclude me ire tests which were originally intended to guard against r'anger from professing Chris tians."—(Hear, hear.) But i s not this allegation, that we are bound together by one common bond of Chris tianity, an allegation that we are bound together for the purpose of excluding the Jew ? The Ho- nourable and' Learned Member for Midhurst says, that we are called together to advise her Majesty on matters concerning the Church of England, and be cause these words are inserted in the writ of summons, argues that Jews cannot be admitted to seats in Par: li3nient. Now what is the answer which a Jew would give to that argument? "Surely lum as well qualified to give advice concerning the Church of England as a Quaker. Ido not. refuse to pay tithes.—(hear, hear.) I am not disqualified from discussing the question of peace or war by any religious scruples about the legality of war.—(Cheers.) If you say that the qualification to give advice concerning the Church of England is indis pensable, how conics it that you have admitted the Uni tarian? The Unitarian differs from you on the most essential principle of Christianity. But you have ad mitted him, and you have also admitted the Quaker. Why do you not take from the Jew the same declara tion which you take from the Quaker ? So little im portance do you seem to attach to the declaration on the true faith of a Christian,' that a Quaker is not re quired to make it. I asked the Clerk of the House to he good r !lough to give me the declaration which is ad ministered to Quakers. I apprehend that a Quaker be lievr.s all the leading doctrines of the Church of England. I do not thick that he would have objected to make an cilirmation on the true faith of a Chris- tint' ;' " but you have relieved him from the necessity of milting it. Since the speech of mine to which the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire referred, important changes have tulitn place.—(llear, hear.) The Quaker, the Nloravian, and the Separatist, have been made eligible to seats in the Legislature. You say that if a Jew comes into Parliament, a Mahomedan and a Hindoo must come in also; but you push the argument further than it is ever likely to advance. Will it be sufficient to say that you will keep out the .Jew because by the law of logical deduction you must otherwise admit the Hindoo and the Mahomedan? Sir, I apprehend, even at the point at which we stand in this debate, and after all the attention which has been paid to the subject, that the real position of the Jew is not yet quite understood. It is said that a Jew is entitled to all municipal offices, and that a Jew may be sheriff. The Jew, in two recent instances, one occurring under the present, and one under the late Go vernment, had been admitted to high distinctions; two Jewish gentlemen, Sir Moses de Montefiore and Mr. 1)e Rothschild, have been created Baronets. (Hear, hear.) And I further believe that at this moment the Jew is eligible to any executive office to which the Crown may appoint him, no matter how important may be the duties attached to that office, unless he be precluded by the oath which is administered to a Privy Gaincillor.—(Hear, hear.) I apprehend that there is nothing which can prevent a Jew being Secretary of State to-morrow, except through the indirect operation of the oath required of a Privy Councillor, and there is nothing in the form of that oath to which a Jew would object. If you will but permit the Jew to take the Privy Councillor's oath on the Old Testament the oath of the Privy Councillor will not exclude him from the Privy Council.—(Hear.) It is my conviction, therefore, that unless through the indirect operation of that oath there is not an office within the gift of the Crown from which a Jew, practically, is excluded. A certain decla ration, containing the words "on the true faith of a Christian " was substituted for the declaration against transubstantiation in the year 1828; and, observe, these words "on the true faith of a Christian " were not sent up to the Lords by the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) The Act of Parliament when it left the Lower 'louse did not contain these words; the Commons were content to admit the Jews to all executive and municipal offices without requiring that declaration of Christian faith. The words were in serted in the House of Lords, and, rather than lose the Bill, the amendmer.t was acceded to. A marked dis tinction arose as to the period when the declaration was required; in the case of executive office a certain time was given, and in the case of municipal office the Jew could not be admitted because he was required to make the declaration previously to, and upon, the admission to office. In the case of all other offices under the Crown, the Jew was permitted to make a declaration *thin the per!od of six months from his appointment. During the whole of the last two reigns, however, during the reign of King William and the reign of Queen Victoria, all parties appointed to executive office have been given, under the Annual Indemnity Act, the whole year to make that declaration. Before the year expires another Indemnity Act passes, and, therefore, the fact is, at this moment, except through the indirect operation of the Privy Councillor's oath, there is not an office under the Crown which a Jew may not hold and be protected in holding.—(llear, hear.) Can we, then, having acceded to thoseimportant changes, permanently maintain the exclusion of the Jew from Parliament— when he has the elective franchise ; when he is eligible to, and has entered upon, municipal offices ; when he may be Lord Mayor of London next year ; when, in a word, he is shut out from no office under the Crown excepting that of the Privy Councillor ? You show no jealousy of the Crown ; you have permitted the Crown for the:last 17 years to appoint the Jew to high politi cal office, and you have practically relieved him from the necessity of making any declaration whatever ; but here is a certain trust which we can exercise only through the goodwill of the electors, the great majority of whom must always be professing Christians, and yet you say, such is your jealousy and fear of him in the character of legislator, that you will continue to exclude him fom the House of Commons. You have, since the year 1834, admitted to all Parliamentary functions the Quakers, the Separatists, and the Moray ians, and though you have shown no jealousy of the Crown in its appointment of Jews, you exhibit such jealousy of the Christian electors of this country, that you will not permit them to send the man of their choice to this House if he but happen to be a Jew.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, my opinion is, that you cannot permanently main tain that exclusion.—(Cheers.) You have made previous concessions with little danger to the interests of the Church, or to the interests of the Christian religion, and I do not now think it safe to insist on this only remain ing exclusive.—(Cheers.) My firm belief—and I re joice in the conviction—is, that the Church of England is stronger at this moment than at any period within recent history.—(Hear, hear.) I am sure that such is the condition of the Church, and I believe that the dis position which has been shown to apply timely and salutary reforms has been the great cause of that strength.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that in this way a deep religious feeling has been awakened through the country, and I am convinced that the strength of the Church and of religion is not now dependent on the question of two or three votes, more or less, in this House.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that the Church is strong enough to be independent on all essen tial points almost of the decisions of this House ; it is rooted in the affections of the people. The religious fee in creased and daily increasing, has been and confirmed by the wise resolutions of the Church, to consent to reforms which at this momen constitute its effectual strength, and, therefore, it seems to me to be a disparagement, both of the reli gion and of the establishment, to contend that the safety of either depends upon the continued exclusion from this assembly of the Baron Rothschild, or of any other gen tleman of the Jewish faith.—(Cheers.) Were it ,not, indeed, that there are internal dissensions within the Church itsulf—(Cheers)—my firm belief is, that the Church would be stronger at this moment, after all these numerous relaxations of disabling laws, than ever it was, even at the period when you required conformity to the Protestant faith as an essential condition of being a Member of the Imperial Parliament.—(Cheers.) And therefore it is,—deeply regretting as I do to shock the feelings of any man sincerely attached to his religion and to the Protestant faith, yet believing that undue weight and importance have been applied to those words, "on the true faith of a Christian," which were introduced only for a temporary purpose,—that I do not think it just towards the Jew to continue his exclusion merely because these words have been retained for 200 years.—(Cheers.) I rejoice that I am enabled to come to that conclusion, and that I do not endanger the Church or the Constitution of this country by removing these disabilities from the Jews. This I feel most strongly, that if ever there was a class of our fellow-beings to whom every Christian state in Europe owed reparation —(Cheers)--for centuries of injustice, persecution, and wrong, the Jews are that people.—(Cheers.) I defy you to read the early history of our country—not as narrated by Jews, but as narrated by your own most popular historians—without shuddering at the details of the cruelties which were committed by our Christian an cestors on the Jews.—(Hear, hear.) Look at the account which your most popular historian gives of the persecu tion of the Jews. Hear what Flume says of the Jews in the time of Henry 11. Our ideas at this day cannot possibly come up to realise the cruelties which were then common. Hutne mentions, that John exacted 10,000 marks from a Jew of Bristol, extracting a tooth for every day's delay ; and speaking of Henry, he says that the King having pillaged a certain Jew of 8,000 marks handed him over to the Earl of Cornwall, in order that, having been flayed by one, he might be embowelled by another. This is the account of a Christian, not of a Jew historian. And on what account were these crimes perpetrated ? Was it nut on account of irrational and unjust prejudices affecting the Jews ?—(Hear, hear.) Are we quite sure that these bad prejudices are entirely extinct ? We deny, I know, that we are actuated by them ; but are we quite sure that prejudices, less in extent, perhaps, bat similar in character, are not now influencing some of the opposition to the emancipation of the Jews ? Of this, at least, I am quite certain, that such prejudices did influence the Legislature at the last period when this subject was seriously discussed, I mean in the year 1843. I think ithe most dis graceful day in the annals of our Parliament was that on which the Duke of Newcastle came down to the House of Commons and moved the repeal of the Act for the naturalization of Jews. That was a real concession to popular prejudices.—(Hear, bear.) The year before, foreign Jews having been admitted to naturalization in our colonies, an Act was passed permitting them to be suchnaturalized inen ferment this h t i h s a c t o t u h n e t r m y . e m T b e h r e f r o e r w E a x s e a t e g r r vv e great f s e rcme accused of being a Jew, and was obliged to state in his defence that he was in the habit of travelling upon Saturdays.— (A laugh.) Still there was, as I have said, a great fer ment through the country—a general election was about to take place ; and in the latter part of 1753 the Go vernment of that day, in mere deference to irrational prejudices, proposed the repeal of the Act passed in the previous year; and one of the greatest functionaries of that Government, Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, conde scended to justify the proposed repeal by such argu ments as that by means of it the Jews would be protected from open violence, that while the people were so exasperated the Jews would be liable to daily insult, or even to daily injury, to such an extent that they could ,not live in the country with ease and security, and would in many instances be forced to quit it. Thus were the Jews deprived of the rights which Parliament hat con ferred upon them in obedience to the irrational preju dices of the day.—(Hear, hear,) I know it may be said that these ancient cruelties ought not to influence our present deliberations. Such may be the ease ; but I hold that these past cruelties do constitute a reason why reparation ought to be granted for injuries which ought to weigh heavily upon our national conscience.— (Hear, hear.) Hear what another historian, Mr. Sharon Turner, says upon the subject of the early per secution of the Jews. [The Right Hon. Baronet read the passage enumerating the various massacres and cruelties to which the Jews had been subjected in Ger many and in England, principally in the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, a passage which concluded by expressing the wonder of the writer that the Jews could now exist at all.] The Right Hon. Baronet continued :—But they do exist—they have survived all these persecu tions, and have they not shown patience and forbear ance ? But suppose that they were a degraded race, could you now plead that degradation against the re moval of theso disabilities.—(Cheers.) If they were degraded, would not we be responsible, we who have oppressed and persecuted them?—(Cheers.) If they had been degraded—if the iron had entered into their souls—could you attribute the result to anything but cruel persecution?—(Cheers.) Could you taunt them now, because the flame of patriotism had not burned brightly in their bosoms ? Could you be surprised that, having suffered these cruel injuries, they should permit their minds to dwell upon the distant and the last, and allow the future to predominate over the pre• sent. Could you he surprised at their manifesting attachment to foreign lands, and by alien streams sighing for their own Sion?—(Cheers.) But admit them to equal privileges with yourselves, then, if there is degradation, that very elevation will improve their con dition. Rut I say there has been no degradation, notwith standing these persecutions. Still, in point of moral character, of benevolence, of charity, and of wealth, they arc on an equality with ourselves.—(Hear, bear.) If such be the case, if they have been exposed to such cruel wrongs, ought we not to hasten the removal of disabi- lilies under which they still lie? But I have other reasons for urging the boon. The Jews are still subject in foreign nations to cruel injuries, still in Poland are they an oppressed race, still in Syria are they sub ject to severe persecutions ; and even within the last two or three years they have suffered on account of the infamous calumny that they murdered Christian boys in order to use their blood at their festivals. Sir, that man, so distinguished for his benevolence, Sir Moses Monte fiore, has gone to Poland, to Syria, in order to rescue his brethren from these dreadful persecutions. On both these occasions he carried letters of reccommendation from British Ministers. But would not these letters have been more efficacious if he could have said the pre judices in England against the Jews have expired, and they now stand upon the same fboting as other English subjects 2—(Hear, hear.) Depend upon it your legis lation will exercise a jurisdiction and an authority in other countries ; it will extend far beyond the limits to which its legal operation is confined, and if you place the Jews upon a footing of perfect equality with your selves, if you extend to them all the rights of British sub jects, then at least it is impossible that any foreign power can ever persecute them, pleading the example and authority of Great Britain. Your act here will prevent persecution elsewhere; it will bring balm and consolation to men pining in slavery. Your example will be followed in other countries; it is not merely that you will relieve the Jew from disabilities here, you will rescue him from oppression and degradation in other countries in which he is enslaved.—(Cheers.) On these grounds, Sir, although they constitute no grounds for impairing either the religion or the constitution of this country, I advocate the repeal of the Jewish disabilities, believing that that repeal will not be detrimental to either.—(Cheers.) I shall only touch upon one more argument, that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). The Right Hon. Gentleman stated that there were many sincere and pious persons actively and zealously engaged in the conversion and promotion of Christianity among the heathen, and he expressed a fear that their efforts would be to a great extent neutralized, should we, as a nation, profess our indifference to the great truths of religion, by abolishing distinctions between what we believe to be right and what we believe to be wrong. I agree with my Right Honour able Friend, that if such were to be the consequences of this measure, they would be consequences much to be lamented.—(Hear.) I agree with him that we have, in respect to our foreign empire, higher duties to perform than the mere aggrandizement of territory and the ex tension of commerce.—(Hear.) These are, however, undoubtedly means towards an end, and it is possible that they are the means by which the light of knowledge, the day-spring from on high, may visit those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, and perhaps were the passing of the present Bill to neutralise such bless ings, that might be a reason fur the continued exclusion of the Jews; but no such consequences will flow from it. Take the case of a New Zealander or a Chinese—ima gine an inhabitant of either of those countriet sufficiently enlightened to understand the logical force and sequence of argument, then if the missionary were able to say to him that our present law was such as it existed in the time of Edward the First, that we held no communion with Jews, that we so abominated the crime of which their ancestors were guilty, that we held no intercourse I with them—if we could have used such arguments as a missionary from the Spanish inquisition might have used—then I could conceive it possible that the bar barian might consider such a refusal of intercourse a proof of sincere religious feeling. But the missionary can make no such appeal. lie must say that we do not refuse to hold intercourse with Jews ; that we admit them to great offices, and subject them to all the bur dens of citizens of a great State, that we borrow money from them—(Laughter)—that in time of war we re ... quire their military services, that if he (the barbarian) were to come to London next ) ear he might find a Jew the Lord Mayor, but that still we exclude them from the _ . House of Commons ; then, Sir, I believe that that ap peal would hardly be intelligible.—(Hear, hear.) Let us then try an appeal of another sort—let us efface these persecuting laws to which the Jews were subject—let us say that we have adopted another course, that we desire to make reparation, that our constitution knows none of those ancient prescriptions, that we profess a religion which enjoins that we should be forbearing and forgiving towards all men, that we worship a God whose Almighty power is most chiefly declared by showing pity and compassion, that we worship a Saviour whose life inculcated and whose death sanctioned the divine precept of mercy, and therefore we have abolished the distinctions which have so long and so injuriously existed between the Jew and the Christian, that we have admitted the once proscribed race to equal pri.. vileges and equal rights with ourselves.—(Cheers.) This is an appeal intelligible to us all, which would bear greater weight as a proof of Christian charity than the appeal which might have been made in the times of Edward 1., or than any which we can now make on their behalf. Sir, from these reasons —because I believe it to be in conformity with the enlarged and comprehensive spirit of the British con stitution that these disabilities should no longer remain —because I rejoice in this opportunity of making re paration for the great injuries and unjust obloquy of former times—because I think the Jew has fairly earned the indulgence which it has been proposed to give him by great patience and by great forbearance, by tried fidelity and by tried loyalty; but, above all, not because I atll indifferent to religion, but because I asp one of a Christian people, and a member of a Christian legis lature, I will perform an act which I believe to be in strict conformity with the spirit and injunctions of the Christian religion.—(Loud cheers.) Therefore it is I will perform this act, not because I am told "to forgive them who trespass against us," but as an act as sacred in the point of moral obligation, and more trying to human pride, namely, to forgive them against whom we have trespassed.—(Cheers.) Sir, on these accounts I shall give my cordial support to the second reading of this Bill.—(Long and vehement cheering followed the conclusion of the Right Hon. Baronet's speech.) Lord DUDLEY STUART proceeded to address the House, but owing to the great impatience of the House, and loud calls for a division, he was nearly inaudible. The Noble Lord was understood to deny that a regular scale of payments for obtaining signatures to the peti tions in favour of the Bill had been established by the friends of Baron de Rothschild, and to state that the Hon. Member who said so had not made a correct state ment to the House, though he, no doubt, believed it to be perfectly true. The prejudices of the party to which the Hon. Member belonged, rendered him extremely liable to be deceived on several matters. The Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) threw down the gauntlet when this Bill was first introduced, and challenged the Noble Lord to appeal to the country. At that time the peti tions against the Bill numbered but 7,000 signatures, those for it 13,000; but now the signatures for were no less than 232,000, and against it only 35,000. He denied that it was right to say with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that the Jews in Poland were at rest. — (Cries for a division.) The Noble Lord concluded by declaring his intention to support the Bill, because he believed it to be a measure calculated to advance truth and liberty.—(Divide, divide.) Mr. NEWDEGATE (whose rising occasioned re newed cries for a division) said he would detain them only a minute. It was stated by the Noble Lord that he (Mr. Newdegate) has asserted what was not the fact. He believed his statement was substantially correct, though not in the terms in which it was reported. He had received two petitions to present to the House in favour of the Bill, which had been brought to him open by the agents of the Committee for the return of Baron de Rothschild, and it struck him as so strange a fact, that he was prompted to inquire if there were any orga nized system for procuring signatures. The result avu —that he believed persons were employed to procure signatures in fzsvour of the Bill proposed by the Govern ment on the part of Baron do Rothschild's friends, and that for the first one hundred signatures there was paid Is. 6d. He had been wrong in stating the manner In which signatures were procured to the petition in favour of the Bill. The fact was, that they commenced at is. 6d., with a sliding scale terminating at 3s. the hundred, which was afterwards converted into a fixed duty of ss. a hundred. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading Against it .... Majority -- 73 Mr. ANSTEY gave notice that he would introduce a clause in the Bill depriving Parliament of the right to legislate on church questions without the previous con sent of the Convocation in the one case, and the General Assembly in the other.—(Great laughter.) PRIVILEGE. The SERGICANT.AT-ARMS appeared at the bar, and informed the Speaker that Sir Robert Price and Mr. Cumming Bruce were in custody. Sir THOMAS ACLAND said that his Honourable Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir Robert Price) was then outside waiting the pleasure of the House. H e had desired him to say on his behalf; that he was greatly concerned his absence should have occasioned him its displeasure, or caused any inconvenience whatsoever. He intended by it no disrespect to the House, nor did ho feel any indifference respect. 1 big th• cause_he had beau appointed to try. Having been absent from town, he was not aware until the the arrival of the post that morning, of his appoint ment, and ho lost no time whatever in hurrying up to fulfil his duties, bur, notwithstanding the speed of the broad gauge—(Hear, hc.ar)—for some ninety or one hundred miles, he found himself late. Having stated these facts to the House he would move that the Hon. Member be discharged from custody upon the PaYme" of his fees. Mr. A. STAFFORD seconded the motion, which Was acceded to. Mr. A. STAFFORD then made a similar motion nn• behalf of Mr. Cumming Bruce, who had instructed him to say that his absence was entirely accidental. Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY seconded the motion. Mr. FOX MAULE said that, before the motion was carried, he would once more impress upon the House the necessity of attention to the panels. The presence of Hon. Members at the Committees to which they were appointed was most necessary, es- the ;parties who ap peared before them were put to heavy and serious ex penses by any delay. The motion was then carried. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. The Administration of Justice Bill (No. 1) was then read a second time. Mr. LABOUCHERE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the carriage of passen.. gers by sea to North America. The necessity of addi tional regulations on this subject, the Right Hon. Gen tleman observed, would be evident from the fact that, amongst 106,800 persons who had crossed the Atlantic to Canada and New Brunswick. the total mortality amounted to 17,445. The:object of the Bill was to make more effectual provision for preserving .the health of the emigrants. After a short conversation, leave was given, and the Bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time. On the motion of Mr. FAGAN, it was ordered that the petition of John Reynolds, Esq., M.P. (presented 10th February), relating to the recognizance entered into in respect of the petition against the return of the said John Reynolds for the city of Dublin, be referred to the Committee appointed to inquire into the petition presented by Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., M.P.; and that it be an instruction to such Committee to inquire into the allegations of the first-named petition, and to report thereon to the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, to consider of the best mode of providing additional room for works of art given to the public or purchased by means of Par• liamentary grants:—Lord J. Russell, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Flume, Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Baring, Wall, Mr. Charteris, Earl of Lincoln, Sir Benjamin Hall, Marquis of Granby, Mr. Parker, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Vernon Smith, and Mr. Bank... The necessity of providing this additional room arose from the -very munificent donation of Mr. Vernon, who had left to the National Gallery a large collec tion of pictures. For the present year an apartment had been hired to receive them; but it was most desirable that a room should be provided for them in the building devoted to the National Gallery. It wise best that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of considering the matter, as it might involve an extensive alteration of the present building. Motion agreed to. The other orders of the day bating been disposed of, the House adjourned at half-past One °clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votu and Proceedings of the House of Onsmons.) FRIDAY, FEB. 11. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. Order for Second Reading read; Motion made, and Quo. tion proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time:"... Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at end of the Question to add the words " upon this day aIZ months." Question put, " That the word now' stand part of the Question." The House divided MAJORITY—AYES, 277. Gower, Leveson Pechell, Captain Graham, Sir James Peel, Sir Robert Granger, T. C. Perfect, Robert Greene, John Peto, Samuel M. Gregson, Samuel Pigott, Francis Greufell, C. Pascoe Pilkington, Jame' Grenfel , Charles W. Pinney, W. Grey, Sir G. Power, Dr. Grey, Ralph W. Powlett, Lord W. Grosvenor, Lord B. Pusey, Philip Guest, Sir J. Reynolds, John Hall, Sir;B. Ricardo, J. L. Hardeastie, J. A. Ricardo, Osman Hastie, Archibald Rice, E. R. Hay, Lord John Rich, Henry Ilayter, W. G. Robartes, T. J. Headlain, T. E. Robinson. George Heathcoat, John Romiily, John Henry, Alexander Russell, Lord J. Herbert, Henry A. Russell, Edward S. Heywood, James Russell, F. C. H. Hindley, C. Rutherford, A.. Hodges, T. L. Sadleir, John Hodges, T. Twisden Salwey, Colonel Holland, Robert Sanders, George Hallman, Edward ' Scholefleld, W 1111413 2 lloward, C, W.G. Scrope, 0. P. Hume, Joseph Scully, Francis Ilumphery, Ald. Seeley, Charles Ilutt, William Seymour, Lord Jackson, William Shell, It. L. Jennyn, Earl Shelburne, Earl of Jervis, Sir John Sheridan, R. B. Jervis, John Sidney. Thomas Keogh, William Slaney, Robert A. Keppel, George T. Smith, Vernon Ker, Richard Smith, J. A. Kershaw, James Smith, M. Tucker Kildare, Marquis of Smith, John U. King, Peter John Smythe, G. Labouehere, Henry Somers, J. P. Langston, J. H Somerville, Sir W. Lascelles, W. S. Stanley, E. J. Leonard, T. B. Statisticld, W. R. C. Lewis, Sir T. Stanton, W. H. Lewis, George C. Staunton, Slr G. Lincoln, Earl of Strutt, Edward Locke, Joseph Stuart, Lord D. Lushington, Charles Sullivan, Michael 3l•Gregor, John Sutton, Henry 31•Taggart, Sir J. Talbot, C..R. Areavish, C. C. Talfourd, ,ergeant 31eagikr, Thomas Tattered, 11. W. Mahon, O'Gorman Teuison, E. K. Marsh- li, J. G. Thicknesse, it. A. Marshall, William Thompson, Colonel Martin, J. 'Thompson, George Martin, Samuel Thornely, T. Matheson, Alex. Tollemache, F. J. Matheson, James Towneley, John Matheson, Colonel Townshend. John Maule, Fox Trail, George Melgund, Viscount Trelawuy, J. S. 31iInes, R. M. Turner, E. Moffatt, George Tynte, Charles Molesworth, Sir W. Vane, Lord H. Monsell, William Verney Sir H. Morpeth, Viscount Villiers, Charles Morison, General Vivian, J. 11. Morris, David Wak ley, Thome' 3iostyn, E. M. L. Wall, C. B. Mowatt, Francis Walmsley, Sir J. Mulgrave, Earl Walter. John Munta, G. F. Ward, H. G. Nugent, Lord Watkins, Colonel Nugent, Sir Percy Wawa, J T. O'Brien, Sir Lucius Westhead, J. P. O'Brien, Timothy Willcox, Brodie O'Brien, W. S. Williams, John O'Connell, M. J. Williamson, Sir 11. O'Connor, reargue Wilson, James O'Flaherty, Anthony Wilson, Matthew Ord, W. Wood, Sir Chivies Osborne, Ralph Wool, W. P. Oswald, Alexander Wortley, J. 8. Owen, Sir J. Wrightson, W.B. Paget, Lord A. Wyld, James Paget, Lord Clarence Wyvill, Mannaduke Paget, Lord George Yorke, Palmer, Roundell Palmerston, Via. Parker, Joint Pattison, James Pearson, Charles Abdy, Thomas N. Adair, Hugh E. Aglionby, H. A. Alsock, Thomas Anderson, Arthur Anson, Colonel Anson, Viscount Anstey, Thomas C. Arundel, Earl of Bagshaw, John Baines, M. T. Baring, F. T. Baring, Thomas Barnard, E. G. Bellew, K. M. Bentinck, Lord G. Berkeley, Captain Berkeley, IL Berkeley, Grantley Bernal, Ralph Birch, Sir 'Thomas Blackall, S. W. Blake, M. J. Blewitt, R. J. Bouverie, E. P. llowring, Dr. Boyle, Robert E. Jirand,lThoinas Brockman. Is:. D. Brotherton, Joseph Brown, W. Buller, Charles Bunbury, Edward Busfeild, W. Buxton, Sir E. Callaghan, D. Cardwell, Edward Carter, John B. Caulfield, Colonel Cavendish, C. C. Caylcy, Edward S. Charter's, Francis Cholmeley, Sir J. Clay, James Clay, Sir W. Clements, Charles Clerk Sir G. Cobden, B. Cockburn, Alex. Coke, Edward Y. o N a h . n Colebrooke, Sir T. Collins, y V i Lord A. Cowan, Charles Cowper, W. F. Craig, W. G. Crawford, W. S. Cubittt, William Currie, ltaikes Dashwood, G. H. Davie, Sir Henry Dawson, T. V. Denison, J..E. Devereux, John T. D'Eyncourt, T. Disraeli, B. Divett, E. Duff, George S. Duke, Sir James Duncan, _Viscount Duncan, George Dundas, Admiral Ebrington, Viscount Ellice, Edward Ellice, E., jun. Elliot, John E. Enfield, Lord Evans, John Evans, William Ewart, William Fagan, William Ferguson, Sir It. Fitzpatrick, J. W. Fitzroy, Henry Foley, John H. Fordyce, A. D. Forster, Mathew Fortescue, J. W. Fox, Richard M. Fox, Freestun, Colonel Gardner, J. D. Gibson, T. M. Gladstone, W. B. TZUJU. TufthU, Henry MU, Lord M. MINORITY-NOES, 204. Acland, Sir T. Emlyn, Viscount Adderley, C. B. Euston, Earl Alford. Viscount Farnham, E. B. Arbuthiott, Hugh Ferrer, James Archdall, Captain Fellowee, E. Arkwright, George Filmer, Sir E. Ashley, Lord Flower, Johu Bagge. W. For-lees, W. Begot, William Forester, G. C. Bailey, Joseph, Jun. Fox, S. L. Baldock, E. 11. Frowon, C. H. Bankes, G. Fuller, A. E. B arr i ng ton, Viscount Godson , R. B a teson, T. Gooch, E. S. Bell, Matthew Gordon, Admiral Bennet, P. Gore, W. R. 0. lientinck, Lord H. Goring, Charles Beresford, William Goulburn, Henry Blakemoro, It. Granby, Marquis et Boldero, 11. G. Greene Thomel Belling, William Grogan, E. Bowles, Admiral Guinness, R. I. Brackley, Visc:unt Gwyn, trowel Bramston, T. W. Hale, R. B. Breinridge, Richard Belford, Sir R. Brisco, M. Hall. Colonel Broadley, Ti. Haleey, T. P. Brooke, Lord Hamilton, G. A. Brown, Humphrey Harris, Hon. Capt. Bruce, Lord E. Mayes, Sir .E. Buck, L. W. Heald, James Buller, Sir J. Y. Heathcote, Gir W. Burke, Sir Thomas Heneage, G. H. W. Burrell, Sir C. Henley, J. W. Burroughes, A. N. Hervey, Lord A. Cabbell, B. B. Illidyart, R. C. Campbell, W. F. Illldyard, T. B. T. Chichester, Lord J. Hogg, Sir J. W. Christopher, R. Hood, Sir A. Christy, Samuel Hope, Sir J. Clive, Henry B. Hope, Alexander Cobbold, John C. Hereby, John Cochrane, A. Hudson, George Cocks, Thomas S. Ingestre. Viscount Codrington, Sir lir, Inglis, Sir R. H. Cole, H. A. Ireland, Thomas J. Coles, Henry B. JoMIN Sir W.,H. Colvlle, C. R. Jones, Sir W. Compton, li. C. Jones, Captain Connolly, Col. Knightley, Sir C. Coope, Octaviva Knox, Colonel Cotton, W. H. Law, C. E. Courtenay, Lord Lennox, Lord A. Cripps, William Lennox, Lord H- G. Daviee,!D. A. S. Leslie, C. P. Deedes, W. Lindsay,lColonel Deering, John P. Lockhart, A. R. Douro, Marquis of Lockhart. W. Drumlanrig, VLs. Long, Walter Drummond, 11. L o wtheri Colonel Duckworth, Sir J. L o wther, Usury Duncombe, A. Lygon , G en. M a ckenzie, W. F. Daneuft, John Duadas, George bi•Naghten, Sir E. Mallon, Viscount De Pre, C. O. Manners, Lord C. East, Sir J. B. Edwards, Henry March, Earl of Egerton, Sir P. Martin, C. 'W. Masterman, J. Egerton. W. T. Mannsell, T. E. Maxwell, lion. J. T. Meux, Sir Bourg Miles. W. O. Miles, w. Moody. C. A. Moore, George U. Morgan. 0. Mundy, E. Miller Neeld, John Neeld, Joseph Newdegate, C. Newry, Viscount Noel, Gerald J. OssuWon. Lori Puke, C. W. Pakington, Sir J. Palmer, Robert Patten, J. W. Peel, Colonel Pennant, Colonel Plgot, Sir,R. Plumptre, J. P. Plewden, W. 11. Powell, Col. Prime, Richard Raphael, Alexander Reid, Colonel Rendlosham, Lord Renton, John C. Rapton, G. W. J. Richards, Richard Rolleston, Colonel Rufford, Francis Rushout, Captairs Scott, Francis Seyrner, Henry Yet Shirley, E. J. Sibthorp, Colonel Simeon, John Sinytk, John G. Somerton. Viscount Sotheren, T. H. S. Spooner, Richard Stephenson, Robert Stuart, Henry Stuart, J. Stunt, fenny G. Thompson, Aid. Thornhill. 0. Tollemache. John Trevor, J. R. Trouo., Sir J. Turner, George Verner, Sir W. Vyse, R. li. R. H. Waddington, David Waddington. H . IL Walpole, S. H. Walsh, Sir J. R. Welby, G. E. Wellesley.:Lord C. West, r. ILI Whitmore, T. C. Williams, T. P. WilloughbY, Sir U. TELLIOLI. Burghley, Lord Stafford, Augnetne DINNER TO PROFESSOR STME.-011 Friday it public dinner was given in the Waterloo Rooms to Mr. Syme, professor of clinical surgery in the University of Edinburgh, on the occasion of his removal to London to fill a similar chair in connexion with the University College. Upwards of a hundred gentlemen sat down to dinner, consisting of the leading medical practitioners in Edinburgh and throughout the country. The chair was occupied by Professor Christison, president of the Royal College of Surgeons.—Scotsman. MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRE. LAND.—Revenue for the week ending Feb. 6, 1848, for goods and passengers (exclusive of mails), 6061. 15s. Td., Canal navigation impeded by the ice up to the sth inst. Number of men daily employed in continuation of the railway, 2,713 f and 183 home.