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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT• HOUSE OF LORDS, May 2.5. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'clock. The Earl of ERNE p resented a p e tition from the Protestant inhabitants of Balieborough against the National system of education in Ireland ; also from th'e guardians of Lenniskea against the mode of as g, , ssment to the poor-rate in Ireland. Lord REOESD ALE presented several petitions agains.t. Jewish emancipation. The Earl of FORTESCUE presented several petitions in favour of Jewish emancipation. Du 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 eman cipation. The Earl of GALLOWAY presented a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scot land against 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 for 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 BROUGHAM wished to draw attention to a late pretended speech of M. Lamartine, 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 L ANSDOWNE had no know ledge of the speech alluded to, except what he had derived from the public 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 his 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 th e second reading of Bill, a motion which has been delayed a cons' eor_att time, not from any indiffere nce to the importance f u e s desire aubiect to which it relates, but from an an f to meet the convenience of many of those oar:lour Lord yin the dis shiae' House who were desirous to take cussion uppon it. In the outset I !n?st pconfess to your Lordships, this Bill, important as it is as affecting the interests of many of her Majesty's most loyal subjects, is, n evertheless not of a nature to excite that degree of interest which has attended other measures for the removal of civil disabilitie te s. I a to e m c aiteware it dsame oes not, and cannot be expected x the 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, e s briefly as possible, to trouble your Lordships, 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 rime, 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 Charta downwards, you will find no Act dis qualifying any of the King'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 Act, not under any pretence of making a permanent law, but for temporary purposes, Parliament thought fit to enact a temporary exclusion of a certain class of people. In the reign of Elie ibeth this first 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 were prescribed, which persons elected to serve in Parliament were obliged to take. In the reign of James 1. 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.—(Hear, 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 recently 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 Act, " repealed, abrogated, and made void." That is to say, that those oaths which were contended by many to be a peculiar 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 deration 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 questions 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 danger, but at a time when every constitutional and religious question was carefully weighed and balanced. when there existed great differences of pelitied opinion and ecclesi 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 abrogated, and no man was found to say, " If you abro gate t hese oaths, persons or irreligious opinions will get into Parliament." For thirteen years, being those in which the principl es o f the Constitution were most weighed and val ue d, J ews were admissible into Parlia ment. Undoubt e dly thi s di d not continue ; but why? At the close of the reign of William, and on the com mencement of the rei gn o f Queen Anne, at a most criti cal period, it was thought expedient to revise the old oaths. - But is there the least vestige of the object of w that Act being to exclude Jo .other per sins but those against whom it was immediately or any o at directed, , to themoment that the Roman Catholic non-jurors, o wh were. eonsidered dangerous, owing Pretender being recognised by Louis , and that monarch's avow ed intention to support him. Accordingly, tn those oa ths were revived, and ,:the same wo r d s , 1 faith of a Christian" introduced. Although that Atheet w as only intended to meet a tempora r y evil , yet its prac tical effect had bee n ever since to exclude a who le clas s 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 Jews 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 are' Jews were indebted to the Christians fur 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 far a few Jews to do any injury in such an 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 ,paxims of their religion, and by their conduct, belied 'Them ()yen by the persecution of the Jews. I n th e l as t ter with Holland there were officers Jews in the army of that country, yet that was the Christian army, and no of f ne je le w el e ie he e e e io. d it was deprived of that character by the f ac t azia employed in it, and even now, in m an y parts of he o r n jesty's dominions Jews were sit t i ng as jmaelzhieeras, and, t Legislative Assemblies—in Canada, i n by in rt thee last post, ho had r e c e i ve d th e intel officeligen intelligence that i, the had been elected t o a similar island of Ceylon—notwith standing it was held here that the admission of a J ew .would contaminate a Christian legislati ve assem bl y . H e noon wa s of opinion that every should be admitted who could establish his cleith, Fle ask would i not furth er tres pase on their time than to then to look to the claa- That it was lowly at its birth, ;acter of their religion. his kingdom was and that its founder had "thatdeelarerdel,,i not of this world," that their on tle prevailed, not by em . o. nations under force, by persuasion, and brough t shoul e , ney of that the shalow of its influence, by the principle. Why, then, he would as k , cereat that be and applied in the hour of 43 "t.religth and maturity, admit, within thwle i be e Constituti on all those ambition t o Merited it,t4y their conduct' acrd 'had , the' enter it. Ile hoped they would agree to t h e end 'reading of See all, which wouftl rather contribut e the strength than to the weakness o f the Constituti on, which was hound up with Christianity, and destiued to uphold it. It W 63 in this spirit of the Constitution, THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EYE 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 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 sacrifice.—(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 approaehed 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 mn was who might be admitted to Par liament ? had been said that they had admitted Quakers, Moralands, and others who dissented from the Church of Eng au , 11 them and Jews. Christianity was e sse o n n tia th y e into Parliament ; but there was a wide difference. be tweenidentified with the State, and he took his stand ho They passed by Jews and infidels.—(Loud. c ee verge of Christianity, and declared that it h . rs u . l ) d not be i'arliament such instruction, but how could they do so . desired to instruct the people and unite i r f elicrion with rtant ? m un u p s o t not visit itself admitted that Christianity (Hear, hear.) They were told that the t ir :ancestors on the present Jews the sins of washeun crime at that period that he had been guilty of a great com mitted 1,800 years ago ; but it was not because they belief, having the same had the same unaltered would punish their descendants, but because those de same laws ; and if the occasion were to occur now th e y would be guilty of the same crime.—(Hear, hear.) It been said that it w as hard to exclu de a had also 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. 'rhe same was the case with the Moravians ; but to admit it in the case of the Jews would be to admit men who were not Christians. A great deal had been said about the charity of the Jews. Now he did not mean to deny that there were many amiable and benevolent persons of that creed, but it should he recollected that men who were immensely rich might make a display of charity without inconvenience, which would be ruin to their poorer neighbours. But they must look at what was the social character of the Jew. He was one of a 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 everywhere 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 Ifam 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; he 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 R sthschild, 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 dangers which ware threatening this country. It was impossible not to observe that a great crisis was approaching. [hey 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 of 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 for future government propounded, without any reference 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 orego the interests of the country for any temporary profit; that they would forego legislating for the private purposes or temporary expediency of any 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 cheers.) The Duke of CAMBRIDGE—My Lords, I feel that, in consequence of the position in which I stand, I should be wanting in my duty if I did not express most strongly my sentiment: of on this subject. Knowing many Je evs in the country in which I lived for so many years of my life, I should be the lest 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 Jews cannot be admitted into Parliament.—(Hear, 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 Lordships' feelings, pas sions, and prejudices, than on sound argument and the justice of his case.—(llear, hear.) As a religious ques tion, the admission of Jews to Parliament seemed suffi ciently plain. They had opened their doors to the Ro man Catholics, who looked upon their creed as heresy; to h with t t l h i e greatthr,them as Protestant a jealousy;s and . f to the who looked Unitarian, whohe C h consi deredur c declaration on the Trinity. From credulous, not superstitious, believers in eall these sects they had ' required a faith of a Christian; but the Unitarian Saviour, and our took it, denying at the same time the divinity of our This, in his opinion, disposed by his death.—(Hear, hear.) question. The Noble sposed of the religious part of the Earlwhathad said that he did not wish to punish the Jews for but that he would exclude the w m a , e done 1 00 changed their creed, or acknowledged thei B r same a n oli s p i n n r t e u a n e i r t e y d o h e r y o e r a years during i g n o g , because, not having ,n urred, they would a th rr a a t in tim im e h , r i n f e th th e eirh He (Viscount Canning) could see neither justice noortdh.cahtarity in that that t h an declaration. He believed and trusted opi nion would find very little response in He thought that we should follow the example ol ionse. other n ations in admitting ,. Jews to the privileg es o f citizens, not only because the act was just in itself, but because the conduct of the Jews in every place where they hid 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. Now, 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 coun try.—(Hear, hear.) What was the cause of this change? He believed 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 uny 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 Tree e a l ArchmArchbishop loef, said sl N t h T a t E h U e I had,i,Y Bill uuder th e i r L or d s hi ps ' cons i derat i on —(Hear, hear.) o time if t v O ' l h l w w e cl as t h a e t silent vote on the p resent occas i on, but since dictates dictates of his ow n i nc li nat i on he should ha given h a had been raised to the responsible position he then held, he felt that he had no longer the privilege of being silent, I especially on an occasion wher e the reli g ious 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 should express his sentiments with as much deference to the opinions or feelings of others as would be consistent with the expression of his own honest convictions. They were asked to remove disabilities which excluded certain persons from seats in either House of Parliament. It 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 elfare of the Church. The Jew, if sincere, must have w 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 i 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 c allin g 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 thell th e s a e t v o e n s a l a r d e r l o i t b e e s r t a a t n i o t n r : e . s T i s h a third part of the population of this empire a share in , c o b u u l d t t h n e o y t w s e t i r l e l s c t a i t e u y r e 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 profossed. He did not look upon it in that light—ho wholly acquitted the Noble Lord who had introduced the Bill of any intention of casting a slight upon the Charch; 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 together.' 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 warmest 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 geenitnetsesrethstat heto h th is e cosuunte)c.tmewn.as Hoenewasofneotvaesrhwamheeldmtion had experienced feelings of more than ordinary difficulty in considering the subject:of the present 4 Bill. 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 represents , ire 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 hand, 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 ments 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 here 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 slost 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 say that the Jews were hostile to the Church. There was only one more argument against the Bill which he would meet, and it was one that he reg retted to find the Noble Earl who spoke second in the debate had relied on. It was that the declared religion of the Legislature and of the country being that of Christianity would render it as 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 • sioa say, that if any of their Lordshipscou!d 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 patient attention with which they had listened to his observations. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S expressed his satis faction at having 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 petition 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 fact, 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 asserted 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 suc 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 had 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 indeed 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. The most Reverend Prelate below him had ad verted to it, and the late Archbishop of Canterbury had also made that the main ground for the impossibility feelings 3 w thepru h eeshi tl i nsia c ßhein h aonieglnt l a blsm: e et hhiedgfnaßeei might admitted ant b o pomae f rhr jeagaet g vdite i e vi ornuugbas adequate ratheri ahfs consentfound a tio n, ne dv allowedatiohtiueo snr to , e aa a t nsodmnsei speaker nsu a y s rp u gt o r the like ih e d anattt h a t obife ft thehateci a gainstrst a lo il we a d mo to ng d s r t aw the th te r w L s o o r n ds t h h i i p s e subject. atten tion to the fact that such a feeling was in no degree es sentially connected 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 persecution by persons professing Christianity ; and, therefore, however alien such feelings were to the Jewish religion, they insen sibly grew up with it in the minds of the Jews during the past ages of persecution. He was also !aware that he might be told the Jews denied the divine character of the Saviour. But it i what respect, he might ask, did the Jew differ in thi a from the Arian ? Did not the Unitarian also deny - the divine character of Christ? and also what the Churt ;h conceived to be the plain sense of Scripture in the Saviour's assertions of his divine origin? He merely urged th is as a reason why their Lordships should not refuse 'So admit Jews to privileges which had been already granted to others who stood in exactly the same, position as the Jews towards the Christian religion. There was also another ground ler not considering the Jews to be bound by their religion to any such hostility to Christianity, as had been in ferred by the Most Reverend Prelates to whom ho had adverted. He 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 Lordships' 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 constituency had deliberately made choice of a Jew for their representative, and that the House of Commons had shown a willingness to remove the disabilities which prevented Jews from sitting in the Legislature. It now remained for their Lordships to determine whether the: were prepared to tell the constituency of the metropolis that they should not hare tho man of their choice to represent them, and also to declare to the House of Commons that they were not to be permieed to declare what &asses of persons were to be permitted to take their seats in that assembly. Their Lordsh pia had been told that the Bill was inconsistent with the existence of Christianity, and that it would prove dangerous to the interests of the Church. Now, as those Assertions were meant to stand as reasons for not passirg the Bill, he should like to know in what the danger to the Church consisted. Was it because the special prcvince of the Legislature was to regulate the doctrines ol 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 ro 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 as to offer an insult or attempt an injury to their reli gion? It had also been urged that the country would incur the risk of the Divine displeasure by show ing favour to the objects of the Divine wrath. He would abstain, from obvious motives, from casting any ridicule upon such an argument, least that which was meant for the latter should be wilfully or mistakenly applied to the sacred subject of discussion. But with respect to the treatment of the Jews, he was quite sure that the present Generation had, 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 be 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 unchristiauised to any greater extent than the country_itself should be unchristianiaed. It was said that if we admitted to the Legislature per sons who (lid not profess the same religion with our selves wo 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 com 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 waslthat absolute exclusion, which re jected alike not merely Jew, Turk, and infidel, but heretic, and schismatic; hut 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 a;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 'alien, 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 Bishop of St. David's) thought very few of their Lordships would be di,posed 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 the Moriscoes, namely, to expel them the country altogether. It was urged, further, that not only was the 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 the religion of the Jew was a religion of hope, teaching him that at some time or other his race would be restored to their original abiding place; but there was nothing, in 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. As and power, and in the ultimate triumph a believer in the unerring course of God's he was firmly persuaded that adopting the present measure their Lord ships, consulting the interests of justice, would those of the Christian religion, would , ri r n a g ther than impeding, its triumph. He a ionbsnh u feoi t tp h hbsc o aa.: tei mans, ipnagi 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 will among men. — The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the Bill. Those who advocated the measure insisted upon it as giving to the J e ws, our fellow-subjects, rights of which they were u njustly deprived. Nothing could be more painful to an henouruble 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 rote for it, regardless of ultimate consi• d e ratione, but ho wholl y denied that the Jews were en titled to the privileges proposed to be conferred upon them.--(Hea r, hear.) He considered that to give them these p rivile g es would be destructive of the princi ple of our c onstitution and of the best interests of justhec re . The jus petitionis was no correla tive of the *eti2tivitetis or the jus suffragii. His Right Re verend Brother who last addressed their Lordships, and who had charged all the arguments against the measure as being sophistical fallacies, said, "It is not the birth placethe precis© point, but their religion." Why, this was us, of the Jewe which makes them another nation from the very thing which g ave them a nationality inconsis tent a to any other if he be a real Jew, cannot belong Jew, itogether with the claim now set up for them. The than his own ; the distinct inj unctions of his reli ngrionan re`that he s hall not blend with other peoples ; that when dwelling with other peoples, he shall ever remem berespe- cially enjoined to to the practice of hispeculiar religious the purpose that theso may keep up the observances, to that he is wholly diverse from them, and he is be otherwise in daily contact. What with whom he may Jewish writer, in a recent work said Mr. Van s e ven, a that the peculiar'preparations distinction, and preserve him pure from mixture from those on Judaism? Jews twmight remain for ever undefiled by thi s s w : ere desiehed for and n with the people of another faith. intimate communication writer, the Rabbi Pruhl, empha ohfolfyoondataimono,ntght:htVesh: Another recent were not Englishmen, for that born in England, t e la y nd natives, were of the Jewish na- Jews, of whatsoever 'co -religionists here that, however tion only, and had no tested the Rabbi, and such was Thus,incfu tically remindedjehwihsis around them. feeling the Jews. Infinite examples the universal e e the fact. Let him mention national relation with the people might be adduced to Pl:ovmind. When Napoleon desired two that occurred to this money? A was essential to ilia'. / Russian, national interests would Russian Jew; yet, as a . . rn to bring back his ei from extending this aid. have effectually kept England and France raged tseh.antTenirrehdo army from Russia, money When war between and money was with its most her to sustain the needed by Franco to d this money? An English Jew, struggle, who advance nationality would have forbidden the in whom English r_.eßight v. Prelate proceeded loan.—(Hear, hear.) rh Jews had no title to the proposed to contend that, if the d as little claim to it under any boon as of right, they ha Noble Marquis who intro other consideration. The n their Lordships; to pass it internecine fury, daced the measure called up_9he c internee o ncession, so far from as a matter of kindness.T would be fatal to them. being a kindness to the Jews,uliarly in danger of at the Whet the Jews we re p ee the result of decaying present moment NV It s infidel►ty, For Christians to grant ho pe and expiring expectatio for a Christian community them the right of legs la " n g- rhos Christians had to tell them that would be at once s themselves, and the ecex ample would be instantly : as little faith in reve lation a effective in the dest r uct io n of ,ious belief. The Rabbi what remained to them of I re:. d referred, expressed, in Pruhl to whom he had a w r which filled his mind when he his pamphlet, the surprise a Christian body to eman observed the disposition ofdisposition which he distinctly attri butedcipate the Jews, a for the word of God. The to a regardlessness I ouel they were the spoken of as t Jews here were t n the land, wh Engereas descendants of J ews long settled tled i families_ in land in point of fact non e of the Jewish years. In ad were of older date here than t w ohundred o e Mar quis dition to the chtiat of right which the Noble (Lansdowne) had urged, he had spoken of the advan tage which would result to the nation from bringing Jews into Parliament. The Noble Marquis had not, however, 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 that such was not the case. There were, to be sure, cer• tain 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 of business transaction, in which one candidate sup plied the character and the other the capital.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Noble Marquis, in the course of his argument, had said that their Lordships had better pass the Bill at once, or they would have it reiterated again and again, until they did. He thought he might leave that 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 grounds, he said that they could not perform an act which 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 followed on the same side. and had entered into the difficult question of how far the passing of the Act would tend to unchristianise the Legislature. He (the Bishop of Oxford) entertained a strong opinion that such would be its effect. It seemed to him that they were now asked to take the greatest step which could he de manded of a Christian Legislature. They were asked to admit those who came amongst the people of this nation on the profession either that they were not Christian, or that they were haters of Christianity; and it would be impossible if the Act was passed to refer any more to a Christian principle as governing that as sembly. He would tell them of the difficulties which they 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 large sum of money towards that object. A sub-com mittee of the association was appointed to draw up a letter of thanks to that body; and in that letter they expressed their acknowledgments " for the act of Christian 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, 66 You have admitted me on a level with yourselves, and I will not admit charity to 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 letter sent thanking the Wesleyans simply for their charity. He said, ex uno disce omnes. The same difficulties would arise in other matters; and from the _ _ day when they legalised the admission of the denial of Christianity, they could no longer appeal to !Chris• tianity as their guide.—(Cheers.) He asked them i 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 ground on which the validity of every English law was based. 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 on 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 had preceed 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 them was well known, but he denied that any such relation existed at present ; and he hoped the 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 dissenting petitions augured that feeling to be in favour of the Bill; but he consi dered the silence to have a significance the other way. There 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 sent time questions not the easiest for solution, or the safest to defer 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 gradually more estranged from the Church of the country. Now, he asked, what could more certainly and abundantly 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 but that the adoption of the measure would eventually lead to the separation of Church and State. He, for one, was not in favour of such a separation, as he be lievedthat the Church 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 St. 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 down. He thought several of the Right Reverend Pre late's arguments were scarcely worthy of him. Experi ence proved that Jews were insother 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 of a 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 bo a loyal, peace able, and industrious body; he saw no reason why they should not be 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 conse quence 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 were 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 sitting 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 Unitarians. He was quite sure that the Jews were entitled to the privilege on 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 is 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 an illus tration. It was said that they must admit Jews, because they admitted Socinians; but they did not admit Socinians as Socinians. They removed certain penal ties on religious bodies, and Socinians came in in con sequence; bat there was no exemption in their favour. He 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 said, if their Lordships rejecter this Bill, it must 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 DESART 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 ?f those affairs. He knew they were called on to love their enemies, but he did not know that they were called the to take them into their douses and trust them with the n administration of their business. He was most willing i to acknowledge the integrity of the Jews, and would entrust them with the administration of the laws, but it was quite another thing to place them in the position of law makers. He urged tha Huns') not to be led away by false sophisms and pseilo-liberality. Earl of ELLESNIEItIi 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 for 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 gentlemen 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 Sold 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 yaws? 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 informed, 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.—(llear, 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 pressure from external in fluence. He would go farther and say that their decision of that night would most probably affect the condition of the Jews all over Europe.—(Hear, 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) —hut I feel 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; and 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 Elisabeth 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 Noble 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 for 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 Parliament? 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:is 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 ? It' is be true that there is an inherent right to which every British subject is entitled, what becomes of your pecu niary qualification ? What becomes of your law by which you require that a person shall be of a certain age ? What uecomes of the right by which you exclude women from voting ? Why is it that, with the excep tion of theßightßeverendßench, who are, be it observed, in this House, and hold their seats in it because this is a Christian asserubly—(tlea.r, 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 per sons not having a certain pecuniary qualification. 1 ad mit 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 and 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 am 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 aria 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 disputes 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 of the law of the realm—is it a greater or a less disqualification to say, " I have not 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 of 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 heart and conscience, and judgment, have no par t. Althou g h I admit there is much in Judaism is common with Christianity—although I admit that the law was our schoolmaster, yet whilst I admmiotsatiheelraewiasnmd ue h in common in the precepts of t he the Divine precepts of the Gospel, that of all the crimes capable of being . committed yet I cannot forget put RYAa reate eing upon Moses, that of an attempt to and punished with the greatest severity of d t h he . law of was visited with the greatest severity. f the tooting of an invisible God, atlee crim A e wl Jewiic the blessed u lookstl y with must believe even the second person o con demnedTri.ni ty by to y be th e a many believe centuries the the educated veneration to lacwonovficatnedoffmenadieetd.acctoourn'taryn.d the great attachment of the Jews to their religion, Jew depo sitorieste beo a an honourable, conscientious, charitable, they e t y h e having vv evd b e e f e r f a o h . m a l n we ll- disposed, and loyal, but I cannot place the Jew, either with regard to his religious belief or with regard 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 gued that you have cut away the argument against the admission of the Jews by the admission of other sects into Parliament, and some Noble Lords have spoken about the ambiguity of Christianity itself, and have re ferred particulary to the admission of Unitarians. Now, my Lords, I have very great doubts about the accuracy of ther faith, I do not understand their reading of the Scripture, I cannot comprehend the interpretation which I believe they put upon the Scriptures; but this I know, that if you were. to tell a trai- tarian that he was not a Christian, he would at once, and most vehemently, repudiate that as sertion. fie would say, though he is not convinced of the diviniy of the Saviour, yet that he looks upon him a s a creature sent from God. That he receives the doct rines of the Gospel as the revealed word of God. 'That he looks upon them with a reverence scarcely less than your owni and that in them he, as you, finds the guide of his con duct here, and places his belief and his hopes of salvation hereafter.—Hear, hear.) I remember we ll when a ss eiscussion took place seine years ago relative t o the admission of fon the of f powerfulßoina uC a a r t g h n i m ili e c n a ts to us s e e dw seats in hina n ot e l n in Parliamenq, so returned from the command of many h undred He said, speaking of the Roman C atholic and the Protestant, " True it is that in minor p oints, and in s o me not unimportant, they differ from y ou ; true that they superadd to the Scriptures what y o u do not b elieve, ho y d iam o t friend, the late Sir George Murray, wens fi but look upon as vsin imaginings appended by man t ° the revealed Word of God. Yet , rem ember, that Pro.. testants and Catholics, when they go into the service of the same country, are subjected to the same ding r, end are, perhaps, fated to tall und er the same et ; they go in the same belief of the same Saviour, in the same confidence in the same God, in the same belief f itn all the fundamental principles of their religion; and i be the will of God that there and then they and Y ult should die together, they and you both look for the for giveness of 3 our sins, and the reception of your souls into immortality to the same Redeemer."--alear, heard In those sentiments every denomination of Christiana concurs; yet those are the men whom the Right Ref. Prelate in this House tells you yo u must place u pon the same footing with the unbelieving J ew. I had almost forgotten to observe that the Noble Marquis at the co mencement of his speech did me the honour to refer to _ts vote which I gave in 183 0 , in favour of the second read; ing of a Bill for the removal of Jewish disabilities; ho because, torsooth, this Bill bears the same title, the Nob!: Marquis attempts, by implication, to fix upon Ise t ° charge of tergiversation for opposing this The Noble Marquis did not tell your Lordships,howevert that at that time no Jew could hold real propetr: that no Jew could act as a magistrate—that no Jew couid take port in municipal councils—that no „ could take any participation whatever, even in the OW!' ordinury transactions of domestic life. From all the!: disabilities I rejoice that the Jews are now freed. thel Noble Marquis might not have gone so far back se year 1830 ; he might have traced me up to 1 843 b ° 1814, when I voted in support of the Bill introduced I measure. my Noble and Learned Friend, the then Lord e 115.% was cellor, for the removal of all the remaining disabilius, of the Jews, so far as their civil and socia l condition r concerned. But in that Bill there was n o attempt, nos was there any question raised; on the contrary, it /I L admitted that the concession of all those ci vil and s°``, rights gave no claim for admission into your LordshiP* House.—(Hear, hr). The Marquis of eaLANSDOWNE—I alluded to the first Bill. Lord STANLEY continued—lt is of little el s ; quence. I only refer to it now because I desire atu! c a s maintain and to impress upon your Lordships ibis, the distinction between the granting of all social riga. and the performance of all public duties under t he f e r e) trol of the law, in which no doubt the Jew will per ? cut his duty as well as the Christian, and the right t e ,i ill in making the laws in which the Jew is not fettere if anything but his own conscience, and that con it it be worth anything, must lead him to vote forum sures hostile to the established reli g ion of this nohccrel and to Christianity itself.—(Hear, hear.) I he l l:ober tb it said that a great constituency has re turned a sss s t he of the Jewish persuasion to Parliament , and a tore' Legislature ought nut to resist the wishe s of the eleecto, Ido not, in the first place, admit tha t in all el% ose stances and at all times the particular constitueno'ee'a the best judges of the candidates who neu r lets best represent their proper interests. Still co ok am I convinced of the right of all , Or : tueney whatever—be it the least or the the law 0' portant in the country—to fly in the face of the ,r te aell the country, and to elect a person to sit in Per% eye who is disqualified by the law from taking his se : r olsi l f to insist upon it that Parliament should Ise ° lre ' Deii s. and that such a person should have a seat in the is, t ot lature.—(Hear, hear.) I must say my opirria ll „Ay o f if the argument tells upon the question in on e way tb_ A . the other, it tells rather as an argument age; c i e cte' adoption of this Bill. If the city of London W hee l iii, a pauper or a minor, or a female to represent teicrose Parliament, would it for a single moment be an S° Pear S that that pauper, or minor, or female, should P hie or the bar of the House, and claim the right to ta i s c e sele d her seat, because the city of London had se ef irg islei its choice, and knowing much better than th e . 0 , 10 / Lure as a body what was good for its own int er ; o o.) ; thought tit to return such a person?-01eur,',;,11 ee sa a ° am quite sure that that is an argument wss-,beters: hold for a single moment. But theu I content,. s cno etrs' tically the Jews of this country are not of this pets iii but are a nation apart. As temporary sojeuroe'witalt'sc this country they are entitled to the , 13 : hare a s e and to the protection of this country; but t h e Get t he special British interests, any more than sPeheve ~ interests, or special French interests. TirY;,,tereit). interests of the Jews at heart, not Britisn .- - r her,..,' and, above all, not Christian interests.---(llcliti;e err, Now, I want to ask my Noble Friend the ' is °- d 0 g ld benches how his argument, with regard to th e n; were of Jews into the other House of Parlia lne n it db e sE h th a tigunleli b dsn e he e ny n be,ar r tno e hin t el u yo r w, n ea e n d ndt t (t) o hae r th e a p wn r ig e t s he e o n nu t its apply to your Lordship? House. SuPP, ° ; s ,,sluel A r s e thought convenient or desirable that that lau"1. yon a s the e re c ig l t(Ltl :ol Prfr' l ll e; Prime b Minister,referen ce P ? e d %It barony, how would my ,Qu le adee n t , h . o a u c g ti h n t g fi tutpoon granttb.e : i d ra r ni tc ao r s s ! i ll ao then ? Neither in name, nor in title, nor, 1 1 i' to e ol i d undivided interests, is Baron Rothschild te i sbea dered as an English citizen ; and I 'bier,ceufes'iLodibir, Noble Friends er'lo,celieve, i, regret to see him introduced into your ilt , House, for I think it would 'patois" for) for fere with the freedom of discussion. — O leer 'nes se,,, di s do not deny that the Acts which have bee, ° , : e d I: t bs admitting Dissenters into Parliament, rig'', "- - o •sheu t ie. rightcious o a t s . s t p h e e a y k a in r g e : hinavbeoitnh Houses, upon degree cl, e l etil °` bo de t te h r e es d t ec to isi r o e n lig th io n n t . upon 511°10080:r e n voi.) , man feels there is a check pression of their opinions in this and the, ° . t „, bY ° s e t° take care that he says nothing, all lVh a e r n e ethgenaLlieygislature ha s he fre e- 0 gious l sense, hostile to the feelin putu entitlep o d u to o t_ bisite, rd 13 0 0 : 0 :::: atiou, by general feeling, and still more , 0 1l a 1 0 0 theas put upon a footing of equality with hitO i s f e d to 9 „ ; reit, Jew; and are we not, then, to be peroll"t to Or of our veneration for Christianity'? Are we u ° ,.". cr ete r sies ourthe determination to uphold the Christian el' coe tre'" e f . Legislature of this country? Yet wha t % rtic le fta' don in terms! To uphold the Christian, c pt adt ol d your legislators and ef your legislation, and y - ry *f- a e; gs oinf tilhoPseerss:hrlier is.lieo'il one of your co-legislators a person to whoin e ve , tlif - re s spoken i in favour of Christianity i s w ith io Mont and offence, and whose We lts t isoil tile gard to everything in which Chris be 10. 0 , brow ht to bear upon legislation mus t re hed sit t d he views of the majority! Ido not apP, or 4 , Jews into either House of Parliament. I d° 0 0 0 to bend ctireum th s e tan le e a e s s t , d it ar i t s ge p r os u si n b l l e e ss f , o u r n a de r ve v r e y ry s et iv r s i t r ; i s t e h it s g_h_rreraitan objecticely balanced scale, and so gi ve a major ° of° two or three Minister. But, on the other hand, I ask . 00 of s - t ill the advantage for which you are to set asidei`o e stotw e r yroicuhh Jews stoingtaointhien LheegiaselhZ,,,lostsivihile..k; has been for centuries, and which I trus t i a eo sslet i ltde to be for centuries, the principle of the ' 0 %0,40' this country, namely, its being . based °C ° „f tbe„,, r le' conducive to the support and maintenance '4 OO of bigr wt.holisitoetoheelie tian religion?—(Cheers.) ' This great gee!' i i . 0 ciple hes, as has been well said, in a nrasilrbe cite!. 1 a question not of detail, but of principle. .t...,,,,,,eie*,,00 you, my Lords, have to solve this nigh'whetber • c 'set trust you will solve in the alfirniative---is,. 0 00 4 of will or will not maintain the Christie. _ est ; .., 0 of this and the other House of Parl!s„7,o eolef'd whether you will, by flying in the face of 1 ":, prir is and deliberate judgment of the country, ;i7iees_..c, by the comparatively small number Chriso cb°:oo favour of this measure, repudiate thatdra ter. The question you have to decide is w.,,f e retne , will leave the country at large to which they cannot fail to draw—that tble ` - 0 of id hot different to the profession or non-Prefesahi_epo ;04 tianity.—(Hear, hear.) By so doing, if tl i ff b : O il l be should be the course your Lordships letie to take this night, believe me you will p d above °IL a : minds of the people of this country, ses , „,: ct ie, 03 00 - the minds of the soundest, the most ren _ see livg _ ho lce most religious portion of this community, * i_ e, old A . ., t ri will alienate their hearts from the Legiletn:tbiz, coe ) " that confidence which in the main, I neli7 i fe sr , 13 . ,e sr ,;40i ° ' places in the Houses of Parliamet;h---e(sechie. P h s e - c d ati rejoiced to hear, in the speech of . nos with 6 , e-,, that he has no inconsiderable appreh e°Bl- ht it,; th,r hnUg to the result of this discussion. He t - „ sejeu"o ' proper to warn_your Lordships that if Y a- o d 4 0 10 Bill to-night, the question would AO ° oo f ,be d 0 brought before you. I hail that declared° .. this 0 5 t' g that 13i1 - " or Marquis as an indication of his feeling t his ye will not decide the question in favour of . _ we d o v a , again and again it will have to be enu tu st yoli v to 1 / Lordships' consideration ; and, if so, I trust heliefie.„ I le ships will act in accordance with whs. a fel sis° again reject the measure.—(Loud the general feeling of this great country, it° c heerei 000 0 ° fl air Lord BROUGHAM congratulated the ban beeceil; temperate manner in which this cluentlireuishepii lie cussed by all its Members except a ii . t l i ji t to r sPi r , 6ili o pant of the Right Rev. Bench. T he late wheLo3, 4 not proceeded from the Most Bev. -I. r e h, but ."on ten represented the interests of' the Our ° o xide 011 Right Rev. Prelate who had based bis 9PP c f the P si r slanders which had appeared in he prime d ro sly 00 certain gi o iste r sj . ee l, papers. Certain attacks on t peering in those papers, Prelate he , aot fo b s and but that a Right .Reverend ~ it Ws, t , 0 0 he would say falsely used. — ( Chea". o / ig witeu tS ue ii3 r that the Bill before their LordshiPt was oot ss isotb s e had been ela n e a u sed t ree set on foot in the city of London.. xs to the l3st° o o :s o Lord John Russell owed his election ..,_ lot ter.,_ c o r _, child. There was the Noble L:ln ie fsardol,ol,o rancor_; prove it. But it was true thatt.senbi.'ija,s litouiost of was much injured by Baron It u e of the s°llected:!lioge and it was only in consequene Russell col?! so t heng his partisans, that Lord John . ac thci., opitir malignant, but he thought ne uershiud h im 01;4 thatwith withdraw h it i i m gh se t lf ufreorm. rthreelact;tTes.es•Anbreeson fesoe, the cheers from the boches ID'A iiir 10 00 p di inch etP" t s ee o tlse v as Brougham), and had lighter , B a la bo ut o p all that the Right Rev. Pre .. s .iseat ~.. were true, supposing it originalenosuri". i t , its elf P intended.—(Cheers and iatl;;u, „l e a 00 0 thos ; f t motives still it was se go(xl 6 , 2 . 6 1 iheteig4 , • thing c o uld injure it, eau 40 "0".