The Sun. — London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

not be traced into detail without becoming suicidal. The Ron. Baronet himself, for the purpose of his argument, had been obliged to allow the Christianity of certain • relics which, under other circumstances, he would have treated with much less ceremony.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The question as it now stood was by no means one which concerned so much religious opinions as -civil rights. It affected the civil disabilities of the people of this coun try as well as those of the Jews. The motion of the • Noble Lord went to remove a great Christian disability • from the constituencies of the kingdom. The real ques tion was the partial disfranchisement of the City of London. —(Hear, hear.) Had the electors a right freely to choose the person or persons whom they would en • trust with the defence of their interests in that House, or had they no such right?—(dear, hear.) The City of London had not its fair share during the present Par . liament of the amount of representation awarded to it • by the constitution of the country. They had, by the continuance of a form, involved in it as much punish- Mont as if they had, in a positive enactment, pro ceeded against it in a Bill of pains and penalties. And though this diminution of its share in the privi leges of the constitution had continued as yet but a short time, was ,it to be supposed that the City of London would confess itself in error, retract its proceedings, and deny to the Baron de Rothschild the honour which it bad awarded to him ? He did not understand the City of London if they did any such thing. He believed that the exclusion would only _stimulate it to re-elect him ; and though he knew too well the spirit and tem per of that House to suppose that they would be afraid 'to enter into collision with the City of London, or any other constituency, he begged to remind them that in the case of the Middlesex election, although the electo ral body had not then such a man :or such a case to up hold, that they showed a determination, which in the ead proved very embarrassing ; and he believed that the lroneedings, of the - House in that matter had been abo - Ushea:frora its journals. They knew else _ what the re salt had been in the case of an Irish county, which re , - turned the late Mr. O'Connell. He therefore hoped that a prudential foresight would prevent them from giving oe ' elision to stirring up an agitation in which the rights of • the electoral body were so much involved. The exclusion • of the Jew was one of religion and of race. These fixed an indelible brand ripen him. But a Jew he was, , and a Jew ho must remain. He could not un-Jew him , self in order to get rid of the bar to the honour of a l seat in that House. He could no more un-Jew himself • • than he could unoircumcise the corpses of his forefathers. .—(Laughter.) He was speaking of differences of race. Re knew nothing more simple or clear than the declare- , tioa of Mr. Van Oven, in the pamphlet which he wrote On this subject. (The Hon. Gentleman here quoted a i from the pamphlet, in which the writer ro t=feagainst the word "nation," as applied to p the Jews.) There was no such thing as the " Jewish nation," which had long since ceased to exist. He went on to say that, for himself, and on the part of all • those who professed the Jewish religion in England, he acknowledged no other nation than England as his nation, and that the Jews throughout the world en tertained the same feelings with respect to the countries in which they lived. A curious exemplification of that was to be found in the hundreds of Jews who fell in the ranks .of the Prussian army at Waterloo, although their exclusion from civil privileges had been re commended by the man in whose service they fell. If they were to commence instead of advancing the treat experiment of toleration, and were disposed to try how it would work, he did not know any class with whom it could be so safely tried.—(Hear, hear.) They were a non-proselytising sect; they could not come into ' • collision with the Protestant Church; they were men of ••• peace, studying the arts of peace. They had no secret societies, no religious orders, who might be supposed • Capable of disturbing the good neighbourhood of those amongst whom they dwelt. They were only the repre • aentatives of wise, noble, and illustrious characters, and - could boast so high an origin in antiquity that, in cons pariso% those amongst them who derived their descent frem the Normans, or those Italians which traced their • pedigrees to the Catos and the Canine were as of yes terday.—(Hear, hear.) Their Bible was our Bible.— "' (Cheers.) Their ancient saints and patriarchs were ours also; and if it was asked where the Jewish law of morals was to be found, they might read it, net in the temples or in synagogues, but in the table of that law which •• was placed over the altars of their churches.—(Loud cheers.) These were of all people those who might first and foremost, instead of last, claim to come within the boundaries of the British constitution.—(Cheers.) Instead of hazarding the Christian character of the country by such a movement, they would assert it in every form in which that religion blended itself with the • highest glory of their country.—(Hear, hear.) It was not by the enforcement of opinions, it was not by the putting down of heresies, it was not even in the magni ficent attempts after extended proselytism, but it was • knOcking off the fetters of the slave, in respecting the rights of poverty and of industry, in measures which, by stimu lating a free intercourse between different notions, bound • - them together in the bonds of peace ; it was not by ex clusion, but by expanding their rights, that they would. " as the poet said, vindicate the privilege of England "to teach the nations how to live' • And how much more they would do by removing this stigma, and abolishing these pains and penalties against the Jews, and declar • . jag to them all, in the true Christian spirit, that the Way in which we desired they should deal with us wa the way we would act by them, towards an internal . identification of the Christian constitution and law, that. could be obtained by all the stern edicts and fierce per Becutions of the dark ages, how much soccer these migh , have succeeded for a time in enforcing an apparen. uniformity l The Hon. Gentleman concluded, amidst loud cheers, by thanking the House for the attention, with which it had heard him. Lord ASHLEY commenced by saying that on this question, as far as he could ascertain, there was no in termediate opinion, There was either great indifference orgreat earnestness. When his Noble Friend,talked of the amount of prejudice entertained on this subject, he begged to remind him that they had most of resemblance to the personal hostiltty exhibited in the days of the Common wealth, or in 1753. The Jews of the present day occu pied a higher position in the public respect and in the affections of the community. There resistance, therefore, was not founded on personal objections to individuals of that remarkable community, but solely on a conscien tious adherence to the principles which they professed, and which they dared not surrender.—(Hear, hear.) • However much the introduction of theology at these dis eussions was to be deprecated, some mention of theology was altogether inevitable. He was not to be blamed for that, but those who sought to disturb an oath which for • the last 150 years had been taken at the table of that House, and this on the prin eiple that religion had nothing whatever to do ,• with politics. That assertion put them on their mettle, for they said religion had a great deal to do . with politics—(Hear, hear)—and in this he was borne out by the revealed word of God, which said, " The na lions and kingdoms that will not serve me shall utterly Perish." The very fact of the people in whose behalf this measure was introduced being suppliants at the bar of that House was in itself a proof that religion was identified with civil polity.—(Hear, hear.) If religion ' had nothing to do with polity, why exact an oath at the table of the House ? Why exact it of the Jew ? Why did the members of the Privy Council take an oath ? Why make reference to a superintending Providence in the speech from the throne, and in some of their Parlia mentary enactments ? Was it not perfectly clear that in doing so they made recognition of a moral governor of the world., who superintended, directed, and controlled - human actions ? It was perfectly manifest also that ' they recognised the necessity of knowing his will; and if they recognised the necessity of knowing his will, they must recognise also the necessity of doing his will as • set forth in the particular and revealed word.—(Hear.) That was the case of the opponents of the measure. . One of the most distinguished writers of the pre sent day, and an ardent advocate of this particular mea - Sure, whose loss to the present Parliament every one must deplore—he meant Mr. Macaulay—(Hear, hear)— ' says in his essay, " Government is, by its essentially indifferent character, interdicted from the contemplation, sod incapable of the accomplishment of Christian ends." Now, he recollected hiving heard from the same elo quent lips the following passage :—" Everything that tends to lower Christianity in public estimation is high treason against the civilization of mankind."—(Hear, hear.) How, he would ask, could these two statements co -exist ? What could so much tend to lower Chris lianitY in public estimation as to declare that Chris tianity was not to preside • over the Government, • and to be their rule in their intercourse with otber nations ? It would not do to answer bim by by sa y ing that they would govern themselves law of nations, because every writer on the law of nations based his arguments on Chris tian principles, and even drew his instances from the . " Scriptures themselves.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Macaulay, in the same essay, says, " To seek for an essentially Christian Government is about as wise as to seek for an essentially Protestant cook." He thought it was un , worthy of the great genius of that gentleman, as it was • unworthy of his private and personal character, thus to confound, for the sake of a witticism, the lower opera tions of the mind with the highest faculty of the soul— (Hear, hear)—and to bring down to the same level the spiritual and material character of man. Experience told them, it was true, that there was such a thing as a , Christian Government, and that there was no possibility • of a comparison between a Christian Government and • Protestant cookery—as little as there was between Bow Church and the first of July. If Christianity was not • to be the rule in public life—if it could not superintend and control public actions—what could it do? His Noble Friend said it must prevail in private life, and rule over the domestic hearth. Lord J. RUSSELL—And legislation. Lord ASHLEY could not understand how Christianity Was to govern their legislation if a large portion of the Legislature were to be composed of persons whose dis tinctive existence depended on constant and conscientious denial of the name, character,' and precepts of the author of Christianity.—(Hear, hear.) If Christianity was to • rule in private life it must break out in public life also; for he would refuse to distinguish between a man's public life and his private life.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend said that infidels of various kinds had crept into the House. That might be true. Men like Gibbon sat in the House, and men like Hume might have done so; but at all events they must have taken at ape table an oath which recognised Christianity as part d parcel of the law of the land. And he asked his Noble Friend whether it was not better to have oven a nominal Christian than a professor of open in fidelity ; just as an external observance of the rules of decency in a person who internally disregarded them was better than open obscenity? The whole argument of his Noble Friend proceeded from first to last on this—that oaths were altogether unnecessary, , because they might be broken, and were broken. But 'ffould his Noble Friend abolish the practice of oaths in courts of justice because perjury was often committed?— (Rear, hear,) Now he had not heard from the Noble Lord any advantages which were to be gained by the PliE SUN, LONDON, FRIDA Y EV,ENING, DECEMBER 17, (847. abolition of the oath ; nor, on the other hand, was he (Lord Ashley) able to point out any great mischiefs which were likely to arise from such a proceeding ; though this application of a false principle might even tually lead to very serious evils. If a case of injustice was made out, that would have a stronger influence on his mind than any arguments as to benefit or loss to follow from the passing of the measure. But could the injustice be greater than that to which were exposed the hundreds of nations of different languages and colours within the British dominions ?—(Hear, hear.) If they once declared that Christianity was not essential to the legislative character of that House, from that hour the exclusion of others besides the Jews from that House would become a real and substantial injustice. Perhaps his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) intended to admit everybody.— (Cheers from behind the Ministerial benches.) His Noble Friend was much too candid to say " no." Ho would, however, ask him to pause. Tho steps they had been taking appeared almost incredible. They began by standing out for a Protestant Parliament.--( Laughter and ironical cheers.) They now stood out for a Christian Perliatnent.—(Hear, hear.) They might next have to stand out for a white Parliament.—(Laughter.) And the final struggle would perhaps be for a male Parlia ment.—(Great laughter.) Let his Noble Friend con sider, before he proceeded much further, into what a sea of controversy, dispute, and fear, he would be launched if he once avowed to the people of this land, that not only Jews, but Mussulman, flindoos, and persons pro fessing every form of faith to be found in the British empire, ought to be admitted to Parliament. He would quote the words of a very hieh authority in England, and especially on the liberal side of the question, in re ference to the subject under consideration. In the year 1836, at a time when the Jewish question was before the House, Dr. Arnold wrote thus:—" For the Jews I see no plea of justice whatever; they are voluntary strangers here, and have no claim to become citizens but by conformity to our moral law, which is the Gospel. I would give the Jews the honorary citizenship which was ao often given by the Romans—that is, the private rights of citizens, jus commercii, jus commune, but not jags suffragii and jus honorarium." He went on to say, "A Jew or a heathen I cannot fly to voluntarily. I only obey him passively if he has the rule over me." Such vverfethe opinions of one who admitted no right to im pose the smallest disability on any who preferred belief in the name of Christ. The question was, in fact, alto .gether one of principle. The abolition of the oath would be a legislative declaration that for all the purposes of public government, the making of laws, and the administration of affairs, Christianity, as such, was altogether needless.--(Hear, hear, and " No, no.") In trying the principle, he had a right to push the measure to the fullest extent as regarded consequences. It was possible that in this Parliament there would be a majority of persons of the Hebrew nation—that they might assume and re tain the helm of affairs ; but it was perfectly clear that the course which they were about to take would be a le gislative declaration that Christianity, for the purposes which he had stated, was altogether needless. He ex pected to hear it said that he was very inconsistent in having offered no opposition to the Bill of 1845, which admitted Jews to corporate offices. No doubt toleration did involve certain inconsistencies and inequalities ; but he thought it possible for them to establish a very valid distinction between executive and legislative functions. —(Hear, hear.) The Jew, on taking any executive office, knew exactly the terms on which he accepted it; he knew that he assumed an office delegated to him by a Christian people, and that it must be executed for Christian purposes ; and he also knew that if he did not rightly administer its functions he would be -xposed to the same consequences as all other public non. But, in the case of legislative functions, the Jew would come into that House perfectly free ; he night there, in conformity with his own notions, endea four to repeal old laws and make new ones, infusing nto the latter his own spirit, and directing them to his iwn objects. This would indeed be the natural result ,f the legislative declaration which he had already stated to be the effect of abolishing the oath. Now, with re spect to the oath itself, his Noble Friend had truly stated that it was not originally framed in order to exclude Jews. There never had been a period, however, in the history of this country, except the short period of twelve years, during which it was possible for Jews to sit in .hat House. By the Act of Supremacy, the first of 2lizabetb, an oath was enjoined to be taken before the Lord Steward. That oath was a corporal oath taken in the Evangelists, the party who kissed the hook being required to say, " God so help me and he contents of this book." The oath thus pre scribed continued in force- until the first of William when it was repealed, and in the 13th of the same -eign was enacted the Act of Abjuration. It was clear, then, that the oath was not framed for the purpose of .xcluding the Jews; and he would tell his Noble Friend nost explicitly, that if the Jews were in that House then, .f they had always sat there, he (Lord Ashley) would lot have supported a measure designed to turn them out; nut there was a wide difference between a measure to exclude Jews from rights which they enjoyed, and the -epeel of an oath which had been taken by all parties for io long a period. He greatly doubted whether, with a iiew to the morality and happiness of the people, they could be acting wisely by declaring that Christianity was to longer predominant in the Legislature.—(Choors.) Now there were some other arguments urged against he Bill, to which] he would only allude for the pur )ose of saying how litttle he concurred in them. There were many conscientious people in this country who )bjected to the proposed enactment, because they re tarded the Jewish people as the authors of the cruci won. Now, in the first place, he would say that even :ould it be proved that the Jews then demanding admit tance into that House were really the descendants of those parties, it would be a matter of great doubt whe ther they (the . House of Commons) had any right to rake cognizande of such a matter. But it could not be proved that they were. After the captivity in Babylon there were thousands of Jews who' never returned to -Jerusalem ; and it might be said that the petitioners at the bar were descendants of those who were absent at the time of the crucifixion.—(llear.) He hoped that in the few observations which he had made he had said nothing which could giro offence, collectively or indivi dually, to the Hebrew people. Such an event (said the Noble Lord) I should most deeply regret, for I am not ashamed to confess that I regard the very poorest Israelite with feelings akin; o reverence, as one of the lescendants of the most remarkable nation that ever appeared on the face of the earth, one of the forefathers of those who are yet to play the noblest part in the his tory of mankind.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I believe very few persons understand the actual condition of the Jewish people. They are regarded by many as a degraded, illiterate, money-loving race, fit only to frequent the Stock-exchange or take care of orange stalls. I say that the Jews are a people of very powerful intellect — with cultivated minds, and habits of study, which would defy the competition of the most indefati gable Germans. Their literature descends in an unbroken chain from the days of our Lord down to the present time. An Honourable Friend on my right says it extends beyond that. I conclude that he intends to throw into their literature the old range of the historians and the prophets of the Old Testament. He would be perfectly right in so doing ; but I was speaking, not of the ancient Jews in the palmy days of Jewish his tory, but of the Jews as of ressed and despised in the days of their dispersion. Under this aspect their literature extends throughout the lengthened period I have mentioned, and embraces every branch of science and learning, of secular and religious knowledge. I am told by a very learned friend of mine that as early as the ninth century the Jews took the lead in grammar and lexicography, and that towards the end of the twelfth century their labours in that respect formed the basis of everything that has since been done by Christian doctors. They have a most abundant literature in French and German, and especially in Hebrew, and I believe that Jews of the present day have, in proportion to their numbers, a far larger list of men of genius and learning than can be exhibited by any Gentile nation. Music, poetry, medicine, and astronomy, all occupy their attention, and in all they are more than a match for their competitors. But, Sir, the most remark able feature in the character of the Jew of the present day is this, that he bas discarded very many of his extravagant and anti-social doctrines. The hatreds and suspicions of the Jewish people are subdued, and they exhibit a greater desire and a greater fitness to re enter the general family of mankind. Now, I know I shall 'be asked why, with this belief of their merits, I I hesitate to adopt the present measure ? The answer is simply this:—l am fully prepared to contribute to every measure which can contribute to their honour and com fort. I offered no opposition to the measure for admit ting them to corporate offices, and I should be so that eready to I undergo the charge of inconsistency again, could exhibit in any way my readiness to do that which should conduce to their welfare; but when I am sum moned, in obedience to the principle which from my soul I repudiate, that religion has nothing to do with politics —when, I say, I am summoned to strike out from the oath certain words which assert the truth and maintain the'supremacy of the Gospel, then I must at once declare that I cannot give my vote for the admission of any o ne to the high and solemn functions of the British Parlia ment, unless he profess to do so " on the true faith of a Christian."—(Hear. hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE said his lion. Colleague having that evening presented a petition from the University of Oxford against the projected measure, it was not with out pain, though, after full consideration, that he an nounced it to be his intention to give the measure his support.—(Loud cheers.) Ordinarily the man who sat there to represent his constituents was supposed to be superior to them in mental cultivation and in opportu nities of acquiring knowledge; but he represented a body in reference to which be gladly acknowledged that its members were, in those respects, at least equal to himself. That circumstance, however, would not ab solve him if he stifled the dictates of his own conscience; and in the present case he felt that ho should be betray ing the real interests of his constituents if he succumbed to their opinions.—(Cheers.) Upon the question of admitting Jews to Parliament be should be brief. Now, how then stood the case of the Jew with re gard to those points which told in their favour? His Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) had admitted their remark able qualities and great capacity ; and he could hardly fail to perceive that what he had set forth greatly en hanced the force of the arguments in favour of the fur ther extension to them of civil rights.—(Hea r , hear.) There was one point as regarded the Jews which his Noble Friend forgot to mention, namely, their success in all material and industrial pursuits.—(Hear, hear.) It must be confessed, then, that the civil and political argil ments`were in favour of admitting Jews to Parliament; and if they were obliged to withhold from the Jew, on account of interests peculiar to themselves, those civil privileges to which he thought he had a natural claim, the grievance would, in his case, mount as high as any grievance possibly could. Recurring to his own position, helelt a great reluctance to withhold from the Jews an honour which he himself possessed, and he also felt a still greater reluctance to be instrumental in placing the uni versity which ho represented in conflict with the civil rights and privileges of any portion of his fel low subjects. The policy which had been too long and too uniformly pursued by that body was one with the results of which he certainly did not feel satisfied. His Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) contended for the mainte nancs of a long-established. and tincient system, but he reminded them also that for many generations they had been in a state of perpetual conflict and of progressive movement in one and the same direction.—(Hear.) His Noble Friend said that they had had to contend first for a Protestant Parliainent.—(Hear, hear.) He ought to have begun earlier.—(Hear, hear.) He should have told them that between the periods of the restoration and the Hanoverian succession, the conflict was for a Church Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Tho contention was next for a Protestant Parliament, and in both cases those who were contending for what was sought were not defeated unawares, but owing to a profound and uni form tendency associated with the movement of the human mind, wi:h the course of events, and, perhaps he ought to add, with the providential government of the world. On the same principles that they regarded Magna Chaste and the Bill of Rights, as a portion of the British constitution, were they bound to consider all other Acts of the Legislature in accordance with their spirit. After two or three generations, in which the contest had been for a Church Parliament, and two or three more in which it had been for a Protestant Parliament, in both of which the parties contending for the object were defeated, they were now called upon to decide the ques tion whether or not they did contend for a Christian Parliament.—(Hear.) And here he must say that his Noble Friend had made assumptions with regard to the views of the promoters of-the measure which were en tirely inconsistent with the statements of the Noble Lord by whom it was introduced.—(" Hear, hear," from Lord John Russell.) His Noble Friend said what was asked was a declaration that for all the purposes of government and of making laws Christianity was need less. The question really was, whether under all the circumstances of the case, and with the present position and temper of society, it was necessary to exclude the Jews from that assembly?—(Hear.) Now this was the question, whether, under the circumstances under which we live, we might open the door to the Jews, who might enter by ones and twos? The question was not whether Christianity was needless. His Noble Friend had said how could the principle of Christianity govern the Legislature if the Jews constituted a large proportion of it, or an equal majority? But that was not a fair assumption, because every one must believe that there could not be more than a few Jews in Parliament, leav ing the residue exactly as they were. The connexion between religion and politics was not only not denied by the Noble Lord (J. Russell), but asserted. But the question with regard to Christianity was this : his Noble Friend appeared to attribute too much substance and efficacy to the bond which was constituted by the name of Christianity, which was defined by each man for himself, and not by the law, and which did not in volve any body of fixed views. His Noble Friend as sumed too much when he said that all who took that name were fit for political duties, but those who did not acknowledge it were unfitted for those duties. It would be difficult to prove the unfitness of the Jew for the duties he would have to discharge in Parliament, with out also proving many who already sat there, not only as individuals but as classes, were also unfit for it. He (Mr. Gladstone) knew that by adopting this measure they gave up the exclusively Christian character of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) In saying this, ho made a larger concession to the opponents of the measure than perhaps he ought; but could it be said, because they did give that up, that of necessity un- Christianiwed Parliament ? It might be true in name, but was it so in substance? He was amused by the in• dignation expressed by his Hon. Colleague when he re buked Dr. Van Oven, that we were not a Christian nation, because there were a few Jews in it, and yet what was now proposed was to admit a few Jews into Parliament, the whole body being Christian ; and no doubt his Hon. Colleague would be as angry with any one for asserting that this was not a Christian Parlia- i went as he was with Dr. Van Oven for denying that we were a Christian nation.—(Hear, hear, _and laughter.) When the Noble Lord (J. Russell) spoke of the oath as affording an insufficient security, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not understand him to signify that they were altogether worthless, but that they should not place exclusive reli ance upon them, but depend more on the qualities of the men of whom Parliament was composed. He (Mr. G.) could see grave objections to the measure, and a practi cal grievance to them (the present Members), if the Noble Lord had proposed that their position should be altered. He hoped that he meant them still to ' discharge their duties under the sanction of the oath, and that they who were Christians would give solem nity to it by, contracting their obligations on the true faith of Christians.—(Hear, bear.) Nothing was more idle that to anticipate, as some persons appeared to do, that by the admission of two or three Jews into Parlia went, the devout and seemly custom by which the Speaker and all those Members who were present with him offered up their daily supplications to Almighty God for a blessing on them, would be endangered. If this were so, it would be a consideration affecting a few Jews on the one hand, and a large number of Chris tians on the other. He had thus endeavoured to deal with the assumptions of his Noble Friend, and to show that, as regarded the real meaning of the law they were about to pass they were unfounded. But thtre were others who stated their objections to the measure in language still stronger. If they had not been told, they must expect to be told, that this was an unchris tian measure, and one which would call dawn the judg ment of God upon them. He admitted it would be diffi cult to deal with such arguments in the tone befitting such subjects, but if it was true that civil justice required the admission of the Jew into Parliament: and if there would be no great practical evil to the Legislature, or grievance to any other class, then he said that this was not a question of expediency, but of principle; and in proceeding to render justice to any class of his fellow subjects, he had no fear of drawing down the vengeance of the Almighty; but be should feel more fear if, from the dread of clamour or yielding to prejudice, they re frained from doing justice.—(Hear, hear.) It was too late to use that argument now. They had gone too far with the Jew to take that ground. When he (Mr. Gladstone) opposed the Bill for the admission of Jews into municipal corporations, he said that it involved the principle of the admission into that House. His Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) drew a distinction between exe ecutive and legislative functions. Yet, municipal offices involved the functions of the magistracy, the adminis tration of the judicial office, and the administration of laws which were Christian laws; he could not find any ground for saying that the Jew was fit for the administration of the laws and for the administering of oaths to Christian men, and yet was not fit to come into that assembly.—(Hear, hear.) But it was not only to executive offices that the Jews were admitted. What did they say to the franchise ? Who were the makers of the laws ? Was it not from its periodical return to its mother earth that that House received its vigour ? It was not the fountain of power, but the organ of power. The fountain was the consti tuency, to which the Jew had been admitted. It could not be contended that the constituency was not Christian because a few Jews were admitted to the franchise ; and how could it be contended that Parliament was un- Christianized if a few were admitted there ? His Noble Friend had referred to the authority of Dr. Arnold. He was an able and excellent man, who had some favourite theories, and one of them was to embody the general ideas of Christianity, apart from what was held by parti cular denominations, and he endeavoured to carry out that idea in the establishment of the London University. His notion was that the Church and State were one. It followed from this peculiar view that he was compelled to reject all who did not acknowledge themselves to be Christian, and his authority must be present time the constitution did not require that men notweighed the b w y e i g i b h t e o f his personalpracticability c h aorf h a c teis idea, d r. Ue,and Up to th e should be Christians, but that they should make a pro fession on the true faith of a Christian, and that oath was the same in all cases, " on the true faith of a Chris tian." But they must read that oath by the light of history, and see what successive Parliaments have done. They began by requiring that all Dissenters should take this oath. Concessions were made one after another granting toleration, and among others to the Unitarians. Whatever was the original meaning of the oath, the Unitarians acted on the spirit of the constitu tion when they took it ; and it must be admitted that the constitution had ceased to adhere to any fixed body of truths as the test of admission into Parliament. There was, however, a real difficulty in the admission of Jews into the Legislature, arising from the mixed nature of the functions of Parliament. So long as these matters relating to the Church and religion were liable to be dis cussed it was a real difficulty so far as it went. Now what was its amount, and what was the proper mode of solving it ? With regard to its amount, he hen no fear on this head of the admission of Jews into Parlia ment, because, to a great extent, the good feeling of individuals and the force of public opinion would retain them from interference in matters relating to the Church. This had been much the case since the Act of 1828 and 1829, and it was usual to see gentlemen rise and say that they thought it more fitting to leave such questions to those who had a natural interest in them. But he should be sorry if he were obliged to say, that because a portion of the duties of Parliament were of a religious character, he must stand between the Jew and all civil and political duties. This was a question which excited great interest among the clergy, as might be seen by the letter addressed to the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, by Mr. Trower, who expressed the difficulty he felt at the infusion into Parliament of elements which had no sympathy with the Church. He (Mr. Gladstone) had in his hand a petition of Arch deacon Wilberforce, the brother of the Bishop of Oxford, who said that he could understand the necessity for Jews sitting in Parliament, and in the present state of the country he was not prepared to offer any objection to it, but he feared that the Parliament, by that act; would cease to be a Christian Parliament. They would repeal the 25th Henry VIII., c. 19, by which the mode of appointing bishops was provided for.—(Hear, hear.) It required caution to prevent the effect of the change they were about to make, being to produce in the coun try and among the clergy and the zealous members of the Church a desire for an organic change in the rela tions between the Church and the State. There might be some in that House who contemplated such a change; but he (Mr. Gladstone) was not one of them. lie con fessed that the real difficulty which pressed on him was the c onv i ct i on , on th e mi n d s o f c h urc h men and the clergy, of an i n creasing want of s y mp i t hy b etween Parliament and the Church. His solution of the diffi culty was this : he did not desire an organic change in the Church, and in saying this he begged not to be understood to allude to recent events. He said, on the part of the Church, that now they were about to admit into Parliament those who had no sympathy with the spiritual interests of the Church, they were bound, while recognising that psi''- , ciple, to show that a regard for the feelings of those con- nested with the Church guided them in their legislative principles, and the Ministers of the Crown in the pa tronage which was placed in their hands. He said that, with respect to the Church, they might take one of two courses. If popular principles continued to make rapid progress, there might be a majority in that House that would be inclined to exhibit a severe policy towards the Church; but he expressed his deep and solemn convic tion that the adoption of such a course would be attended with deplorable results. They must feel that the history of the Church in the last century was a painful one, that the Church was in a state of decline, and that when, to wards the end of the century, the French revolution burst like thunder upon the world, the relations between the clergy and their flocks were reduced to a mere skele ton, to the mere dry bones instead of vigorous life. This life and vigour could not exist under a system of stringent and coercive policy. There could not be a working and efficient Church unless there was respect for the Church, and unless -its own real and moderate spirit were recognised, and they studied to develop it in a spirit of candour. It would be a great misfortune if the admission of alien religionists into Parliament caused an:organic change in the Church; but it would be a still greater misfortune if, after having Admitted the Jew to the exercise of the franchise and the magistracy, they took such narrow ground as the principle of their exclusion. Having thus adverted to the objection of his Noble Friend to this measure, and having shown that the principles he laid down were not proved, and that he had over stated the admissions which the Legislature would make by such a law, and having shown that he was unabiii to find a practical evil in the ad mission of Jews to Parliament, which weighed against that which they would suffer by exclusion afti r their ad mission to functions of such importance had been recog nised, he could only say that he agreed with the Noble Lord (J. Russell), this question assumed the shape of one of justice. The more... the arguments drawn from former times and used in successive Parlia• ments were urg e d, t h e more their th i nness was shown ; while, o n t h e other hand, if t h ey ad mitted the Jews i n t o P ar li ament in spite of prejudices re spectable in the mse l ves, b ut which reflect i on wou ld mi tigate, they would f ee l t h at they had done the i r d uty i n conceding political rights to their fellow-subjects, and, so far from disparaging Christianity or lowering it in public estimation, they would tend to elevate it, if they showed when, in the lapse of after years, the history of this measure was read, that Christianity was a religion which enabled them to fulfil their duty in spite of pre judices and prepossessions, and that, by fulfilling the principles of justice, they had been also acting on the principles of religion.—(Cheers.) Mr. BANKES said the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had agreed that infidels had held seats in that House. It was true that Gibbon had taken the declaration on the true faith of a Christian, but ho held no position in that House, but, as an atheist he was powerless ; and suck would not have been the case if he had not made that declaration. It was true that Bolingbroke had sat there, and exercised considerable power, but he never avowed his infidelity. It was only after his death that his infidelity had been discovered, but had it been known before, great as had been his eloquence and talent, he would have been powerless in this House. He (Mr. Bankes) felt assured that if the:existing barrier which ex cluded the unbeliever, or, if not excluding him, disarmed him of all pewer, was broken down, a mischief would be inflicted upon the religious character of the Legislature which never could be remedied. This was not a mere question of the admission of Jews, but whether religion was to be considered in any respect with regard to the Legislature. The Honourable Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) had alluded to pe circumstance of the last election for the City of leindon, but he (Mr. Fox) did not conceive those circumstances iu any degree helped the argument of those who were prepared to vote for the admission of the Jews. If a constituency chose to elect any person known by a law to be disqualified, and that their choice should be yielded to, a dangerous door would be opened with regard to other questions. Not only a Jew might be admitted, but a Mahommedan or Gentoo, or any other infidel who happened to possess wealth. If report spoke true, he must be permitted to to say, thatiwith respect:to the last and previous elections, it had been stated that money had a very great influence in determining the issue of the contest, and if money could have such an influence in London, it would have its effects in other parts of the country less pure—and finding what had taken place at Sudbury a few years ago, there might be some wealthy Mahommedan, having a claim on the State to some hundred of thousands of pounds, who would fad it easy to find a se a t i n Parlia ment if the proposed Bill was passed.. The promises made on the admission Of Roman Catholics had not been fulfilled, and he felt bound to oppose the motion, which would still further throw open the portals of the Legislature, and he was satisfied the more the propo sition was considered, the greater would be the alarm createdlin every part of the kingdom. Mr. ROMILLY said he was anxious to explain the reasons why he thought the proposed measure ought to receive the sanction of Parliament. He denied the jus tice of the principle laid down by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that before any British born subject could obtain his rights as such, he must prove his qualification. Such a principle was con trary to the rigour of the constitution; it was not for him to prove the qualification incidental to his birth right; the burden of proof lay on the opponents of the Bill, to show that the individual was not entitled to the rights and privileges, and to participate in the honours e hich belonged to rest of his fellow-subjects. The question was not so much one of substance as of name. Those who opposed this measure formed a poor estimate of the vigour of the Church of England, when they entertained the notion of the slightest possibility of the Jewish religion ever becoming dominant. It had been asked, what would be the state of things if a Baron Rothschild became Prime Minister, and as such have to advise the Crown on the issue of conga d'elire for the choice of a bishop? His answer was, that already many Jews possessed the right of presenting to ad vowsons, and now presented to ecclesiastical pre!er ments, but bad there been the slightest objection urged to the manner in which they had exercised the right of presentation? Allusion had been made to the opinion of Dr. Arnold; but it should be remembered that that gentleman was alike opposed to the admission of Unita rians to Parliament. Of the valuable services of that persuasion the House had had one instance that evening. —(Hear) But was the Parliament a Unitarian Parlia• ment because there were one or two Unitarians in it? Was it a Roman Catholic Parliament, an Independent, or a Methodist Parliament, because it contained a few members of those persuasions ?—(Bear.) He did not believe that any danger couldtesult from the admis sion of two or three Jews ; they could not possibly effect an alteration in the form of prayer with which the House commenced its proceedings ; nor was it likely that they would take any decided share in the discussion of religious questions. The citizens of Lon don had compelled the House to turn serious attention to this questi on . W as the House prepared to do as was done in the case o f John Wilkes : or would they not rather accede to th e views of one of the most i mportant constituencies of the empire?—(Hear.) This was not a question affecti ng J ews only ; everyone, whatever his religious belief, if elected by the voices of his fellow-citi zens, ought to be eligible to a seat in the Legislature. This could not be denied without injustice ; and by ad mitting the principle the Legislature would confer great benefit, not alone on the Jews themselves, but on the country at large, by securing to it the hearty co-opera tion of a large class of its most industrious and intelli gent citizens.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GOULBIJIIN regretted to differ on this question with many in whose views he had generally coincided. lie regarded it as a qu est i on o f pr i nc ipl e; and h e op posed the admission o f J ews to Parliament, not on any of the grounds which h ad been assigned or i mputed, as promoting the fulfilment of prophecy, or as believing the Jews to be destitute of that industry by which others were animated. He resisted their admission on account of the position of this Legislature as a Christian Legis lature. They ought not to be influenced by what had been done by the constituency of London; the House ought never to surrender an existing law because large bodies in the country chose to act contrary to it; other wise they might at once surrender all their functions as a Legislature. If this principle were sanctioned, its ap plication would be most extensive. Already we heard of jurors refusing to convict on the clearest evidence, be cause they disapproved of capital punishments. Instead, then, of yielding this point out of deference to the electors of London, the House ought rather to make a more de • tided stand against the threatened encroachment. This question did not rest on the same ground as the ad mission of Roman Catholic; for between Protestants and Roman Catholics there w as the common bond of a belief in Christianity, which did not exist in the case of the Jews. In their case exclusion was essential, if the Legislature wished to preserve and carry out its Chris tian character. From the earliest period two tests had been required of Members of the Legislature—alle giance to the sovereign and a belief in Christianity.— (Hear, hear.) It was true those tests had undergone various modifications in favour of dissenters and Roman Catholics, but still the two great tests were preserved. at the instance of the might very soon be asked by some other or perhaps.the.same constituency, to dis dthisepeHnoseudsewith , the allegiance to the Hear.) There Sovereign.—(were many foreign mer elplfeenoe dis pense eeer with fi oft theseh London,the o was th mer chants in London as well qualified to Serve in Parlia ment as Baron Rothschild, but whose allegiance was entirely given to foreign powers ; and in his opinion it would be just as safe to dispense with the test of alle giance to the Sovereign as with that of belief in Christianity. thoseC wrihsetiawnere other obligati on Allusion had been made to the prac tice of the House commencing its proceedings with prayer ; and tll numerous other public devotional proceedings with ii which the House connected Legislature.—(Hear, lature.—(Hear, not bound by the had been said that these tests were ineffica ciousc?ase, ought they, therefore, to dictates of their conscience from entering that House. it hear.) self f s e t stamped Itm The fact of Gibbon having taken the oath was a bad ar gument for the repeal of the law ; because the power dispense with it altogether To do this would not only affect the Christian character of the Legislature—it would ppreedvetnhtisingasa. give a s hock to the Christian feeling of the na tion, and would discourage. the efforts of all who were Christianity. He seeking to promote . , did not fear that was not sufficient in every the few Jews to be admitted would seek to overtulln the established religion ; the great_ danger to b e appre h en d e d was in the public feeling. The necessary impression on the public mind would be, that the Legislature bad be com e indifferent to the great truths whi c h they professed to believe.—(Hear, hear.) It was most important to preserve the confidence of the nation. Many measures brought before the Legislature d eman d ed i mp li c i t confidence from the people ; and were the measure now proposed to be adopted. would any one doubt that a fatal blow would be given to the public confidence ?—(Hear, hear.) This nation was one which wielded the most mighty influence ; it was a deeply religious nation, notwithstanding the existence of much ignorance and crime, which the most enlightened were daily striving to remove; and would the Legislature proclaim to those benevolent individuals their disregard or indifference to the great princip!cs of Christianity? Not only at home, but in our distant possessions, would the effect of such a measure be severely felt. In the east, the British nation earnestly inculcated the truth o;' Christianity upon its millions of Hindoo subjects; and of what avail would be those efforts and professions if the Hindoos learnt that at home no diUrence was re cognised by the British Legislature between those who held Christianity and these who denied it? After this, how would it be possible to persuade the Hindoos that the English were sincere in their professions of Chris tianity ?—(Hear, hear.) The greatest obstacles to the diffusion of Christianity had always arisen from the inconsistent conduct of its professors; and if the step now proposed were taken by the Legislature, it would weaken the efforts of all the promoters of Christianity in every part of the world.—(Hear, and cries of " Divide. ') He looked upon it as a question of a reli gious nature, and viewing it in this light, he cordially concurred in the sentiments of the learned body he repro stinted, that if this measure was passed into a law, it would be calculated to shock the religious Peelings of the country.—(Hear, hear, and loud cries of " Di v ide.") Mr. PLUMPTIZE opposed the motion. . Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I observed that the Noble Lord who introduced - this question to our consideration tonight introduced it to our consideration as a ques tion of principle. I have just heard the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) oppose that proposition in a very able speech, and he grounded that opposition also because it is a question of principle. The principle of the Noble Lord is the principle of religious liberty; the principle of the Right Hon. Gentleman is, I apprehend, the prin ciple of religious truth. The Noble Lord, in applying to the solution of this question the principle of religious liberty, has adopted a principle which, in comparison with the subject on which we are now deliberating, is one of novel introduction into this country; a principle which in its application has effected very great ends and very great results—a prin ciple which the Noble Lord has a right, almost above all other men, from his descent and his personal exploits, to look up to with respect. It is not, Sir, for me on the present occasion to give any opinion upon the validity of that principle. I am not here to impugn its sound ness, and I do not find it necessary to say anything in support of it. I am satisfied that a great body of gen tlemen in this House will allow that opinion on the present occasion to be decided by their belief in the principle of religious liberty. But, I may say, for my self, that I am one of those who believe that there is something more excellent than religious liberty— and that more excellent thing is religions truth. I may be , permitted to say, also, that religious conformity—re ligtous truth taking the shape of religious conformity— is in my mind unquestionably a very great blessing; and though I am not here to impugn for a moment the validity of the principle on which the Noble Lord has founded mainly his argument in support of this measure, at the same time I beg to state that it is not upon that principle that I shall be in fluenced in giving my vote this evening. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge has told us that this is a question of princi ple, and a question, indeed, whether this is to be a re ligious or a non-religious country ; and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) is going to support the proposition of the Noble Lord—although he declared frankly, and in a manner that did him, under the circumstances in which he spoke, the greatest honour, that he found it necessary to excuse the vote that he was giving from the character which that vote might assume from the more superficial circumstances of the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman gave us a philosophical description of the consecutive development of the circumstances in this country which rendered it, in his opinion, most politic and even neces sary in him to support the proposition of the Noble Lord, though, at the same time, he seemed to conceive that a state of affairs might exist which would be snore agree able to his feelings and more consentaneous to his wishes. The Right Honourable Gentleman con fessed it was the progress of events that rendered it necessary for him to give that vote, and—l appre hend I am not misinterpreting him—he feared that the House and the country might misconceive the motives which induced him to give that vote, and the reasons which influenced him in coming to the resolution which he himself was enforcing. Now, Sir, I have arrived at a conclusion entirely contrary. I do not think that the vote which the Nuble Lord wishes us to support him with is one which ought to give an impres sion to the country that there is any deficiency of reli gious feeling in this House. Because, what are the cir cumstances of the case? It affects those subjects of the Queen who profess the Jewish religion. They are not many in point of number—they arc a people who do not hold monster . meetings; they do not form themselves into societies to act against the law; but they are a people who come and make an appeal to this House, and who ask the II )(Ise whether it is prepared—as I hope it will be prepared —to admit that appeal—(Cheers)—and among other reasons on account of the religious asso ciations connected with the subject. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member fur Bath (Lord Ashley) in con sidering this as a religious question. For who are thOse perions professing the Jewish religion? They are per. sons who acknowledge the same God as the Christian people of this realm?—(Cheers.) They acknowledge the same divitse revelation as yourselves. They are, humanly speaking, the authors of your reli gion. They are unquestionably those to whom you are indebted for no inconsiderable portion of your known religion and for the whole of 3 our &vita; knowledge. Well, then, Sir, there is prima facie reason to suppose—looking at the question upon the sur face with regard to its religious associations—that the representatives of a Christian community would nut look with disfavour at such an appeal made by such persons. —(" Oh! oh!") Some gentleman whom I do not know, and whom I cannot see, appears to express dissent. He probably is one of those who look with disfavour upon the appeal made by the Jewish people, but he ap• pears to me to represent upon the present occasion a small minority.—(Cheers.) Because I observed that many persons who have spoken against the proposition of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) have admitted the extraordinary claims of those who profess the Jewish re ligion to participate in the rights and privileges of a Christian society, and they have felt unable to get over that difficulty. The Noble Lord the Member for Bath was a signal example of that position of the debate. I had the misfortune not to hear a portion of that which I will call the noble speech of the Noble Lurd the Member for Bath.—(Cheers.) But I had the gratification of listening to the last and much the larger portion of his address, and if I had not known anything about this House, I might have supposed him to be some person rising with the inspiration of his subject, and speaking with great authority, so irresistible was the Noble Lord's argument and so rich his illustrations, had he not ended by opposing the motion and acknowledging more than once that he felt a great difficulty in assigning a distinct reason for that opposition. The Minister, when he introduced this question to-night, felt it neces sary to glance with some obscurity to the only tangible reason which could influence them and other Govern ments in opposing the admission into Parliament of per sons holding the Jewish religion. The reason was only partly adverted to by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), but the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, with the earnestness of his heart in the subject, told us that the real cause of the prejudice against the Jews is, that they are looked upon by the people of this country—by por tions of them at least—as having incurred a penal retri bution for the crucifixion of our Lord.—(Elear.) The Noble Lord (Ashley) placed that question before the House, and it is only because ho did so that I allude to the subject. But the strange feature in the cash is, that the Noble Lord stated at the same moment that he gave no credit to that proposition, and that he could not bring to his mind to be lieve that the existing Jewish population in this or any other country, were, in consequence of that mysterious and most important event in the annals of the world, liable to any such punishment. It is well known th it long before that momentous event the Jewish people had been dispersed through many lands, and that the Jews of this and other European countries may have sprung from those who had left Palestine long before that event. The Noble Lord said, then, there was no ground for entertaining that belief. But if that is not the cause of the opposition to the present motion—and that is the cause out of doors—what is the definite ground which you bring forward is opposition to the Jewish claims? I leave the question of religious freedom to work its own way, and I will not advert to that por tion of the subject which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) has touched with the ability of a master. But I look to the opposition of Gentlemen on this side of the House who object to this motion on the ground of reli gious truth, and I say that it is on that ground, as Wt II as on the ground of religious freedom, that I feel bound to give my vote for the proposition of the Minister— for if faith is valued as a sanction of conduct, with what consistency can a Christian people say that those to whom they are indebted for the doctrines of their faith—who profess the religion which every gentle man in this room professes—for every gentleman here does profess the Jewish religion, and believes in Moses and the Prophets—have not faith?—Cheers.) I find that there are gentlemen who, it seems, do not believe in Moses and the Prophets, and that gives some strength to the observation made to-night about Gibbon and Hume. But until I heard this scoff I thought this was a position in the argument whieh might be regarded as established and which was too clear to need refutation. Well, then I say if religion is a sanction of religious conduct you have that security in the instance of the Jews, who pro fess a true religion.—(" Oh, oh !") It may not be in your more comprehensive form. I do not say it is the true religion ; but although they do not profess all that we do, all they do profess is true.—(Hear, hear.) You must admit then, that in men who are subject to the divine revelations that you acknowledge—whose morals are founded on the sacred oracles to which we all bow— that as far as religion can be a security for their con duct, for their public morality and justice, you have in the religion of the Jews the best sanction in the world except that of our o vn Christianity.—(Loud cheers.) You will hardly say that the religion of the Jews is not a sanction of their moral conduct ; but then you will say, that if you admit the Jews into this House on the principle advocated by the Noble Lord, you will de- Christianize the country, and the professors of other religions, not like the Jews, and which have not so great an affinity to that which we profess, may enter into the House. But the best evidence in the face of Europe of our Christian sincerity, is that we admit the Jews to the highest privileges of citizenship, and to the highest offices of the State, without so admitting the professors of other religions. The very reason for admitting the Jews is because they can show so near an affinity to you. Where is your Christ, if you do not believe in their Judaism?—(Hear.) Do not mix up, then, the conside ration of a question which is so intimately allied to you with the different considerations that would apply to the Pagan and the Mahonnnedan. I am prepared to lay down the broadest principles as to the importance of maintain ing a Christian character in this House and in this coun try, and yet it is on this very ground you will found and find the best argument for the admission of the Jews.— (Cheers.) I deny that their case, to a Christian senate and people, depends on the same arguments, and re quires the same pleading as the CUP of the Pagan and the follower of Mahomet. But the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for the University of Cambridge says• that the very consequence of your admitting the Jews into this House is, that you are losing your hold on distant countries ; that you aro, in fact, losing your power of conversion in distant lands by admitting them into Parliament ; and that, iu fact, you will no longer recognise the Christian religion. I ask you, on the other hand, to admit the Jews into this House, and into the enjoyment of every social and civil right, just becaure I differ with the Right Hon. Gentleman. Look at it as a religious case. Suppose this was, as it might have been, a Druidical assembty ; suppose you had, as you might have had, a bench of Druids in another place—(Hear, and laughter)—and supposing then that the Jews, a people numbering some 4QOOO or 50,000, had claimed from you an entrance into this House, and demanded the full enjoy m, nt of British citizenship. Then I appre hend that yon mi g ht h ave sa id, " Thi s i s a quest i on of high policy, whether we shall admit these persons, small in number, professing a religion of which we know nothing, and Vito eing perhaps habits of life which may be very dissonent with ours, to a full parti cipation in our privileges, and allow them to sit in the national senate." But a Christian senate and commu nity are placed, in reference to the Jews, in a position quite different, and must not for a moment be confounded with what their position would be in reference to a fol lower of Mahomet or a Pagan. The Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for the University of Cambridge appears to be alarmed lest our 'influence In foreiin countries, our influence in the work of conversion in foreiga countries, sho u ld b e l essene d b y acceding t o the proposition of the Mi n i s t er . Si r , I h ave • that faith in Christian principles, that I think' they will snake their way, and must make their way; by their own essential power—(Cheers)—and that he who preaches them will not exercise great influence in their diffusion be use, according to the view of the Right Hon. Gentlerna* he can intimate to those whom he wishes to convert that they will enjoy some advantages by acceding to the faith he wishes to propagate.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman was once a Secretary of State, and Se cretary of State for the Colonies, and when in that office he must have seen, in the West Indies and other places, colonies of ours governed by deliberative and represen tative assemblies, in which Jews. were seated—and not Jews only, but even Pagans.—(No, no.) There are Buddhists who sit in the Legislative Chamber in the island of Ceylon. But lam not adducing these facts as precedents for the guidance of your decision in the pre sent case. I place the question upon the religious grounds on which it was based by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, and I mix it up neither with the principle of religious liberty, nor :with those principles which other Gentlemen have advocated, that you should not look to faith, but admit all faiths alike. I dismiss all those considerations, and I say it is because this is a Christian assembly, and this is a Christian country, that the Jews must find a reception among you. So far as reason is concerned, I say that no reason one can grapple with—no precise and definite argument—has been adduced against the motion of the Noble Lord.— (Hear, hear.) There is one part of this question which has great influence in this country; and allusion has been made to the difficulty which would arise out of the position in which the Jews if admitted here would be placed in connexion with the Church of England. That is a question, as it appears to me, on which great misconception exists. I shall not dilate upon a point already referred to, remarking only that the professors of the Jewish religipn are not thcise who proselytise. So far as my argument is concerned, I place no weight upon that consideration. But observe, the Jew is necessarily, from his religion, et religious being. However he may have been persecuted—however he may have been degraded—however he may have been bruta l , lised by the effect of those dark traditions which have really influenced the public opinion in relation to him to which I have referred, which never existed at the ear lier periods of Christianity, but which are the product of the most benighted part of the feudal ages, he has been sustained alone by the Divine law he obeyak and by the sublime morality he professes.—(Hear, hear.) The Jew has no thought of establishing his - own church ; it is an idea foreign to his own nature— foreign to the result of all his laws, of all his habits, and all his traditions. As such an object is both un desirable and impossible to him, it is his object to support the religious institutions of whatsoever coun try it may be in which he is permitted to enjoy the civil rights of a subject. In China there is a large colony of Jews, descendants of Jews who probably left Palestine thousands of years before Christianity was established, and there they exist, a loyal, religious people, no doubt anxious, as they always are, to uphold the ecclesias tica: institutions of the country. But in Europe—that Europe which you have baptised Christendom—how stands the Jew in relation to the Church of Christ ? What possible object can the Jew have to oppose the Christian Church? Is it not the first business of the Christian Church to make the population, whose minds she attempts to form, and whose morals she seeks to guide, acquainted ,with the history of the Jews ? Has not the Church of Christ—the Christian Church, whither Roman Catholic or Protestant—made' the his •tory of the Jews the most celebrated history in the would? On every sacred day you read to the people the exploits of Jewish heroes, the proofs of Jewish devotion, the brilliant annals of the past Jewish mug nifieenee.—(ll4ar, hear.) The Christian Chureh has covered every kingdom with sacred buildings, over every one of who-e altars, as we were properly reminded by the Honourable Member for Oldham, you found the tables of the Jew ish law. Every Sunday —every Lo 41's-day—if you wish to expre.:s feelings of praise and thanksgiving to the Most High, or if you wish to find expressions of solace in grief, you find both in the words of the Jewish pests. It is in the Christian Church, which )ou persist in believing it must be the desire of the Jew - to oppose, that he must, if he be not persecuted, behold that Divine corporation which t teachee to all the nations oft he civilised world the sublime morality, the beautiful poetry, and the true faith which he pro fesses. And I cannot help believing that a man owning all the traditions, all the habits, all the laws of a Jew a man who wishes to maintain inviolate the religious in stitutions in every country in which he lives—can ever its forms, upon the Catholic Church, whatever may bo forms, with other feelings than those of the deepest in terest, and as I think, with those of reverent affection. An Hon. Gentleman has said that if you wish to convert the Jews it is no hard matter; the first step is to let them become acquainted with you. And it ought not to be a hard matter. All the early Christians were Jews. The Christian religion was first preached by men who had been Jews until they were con verted ; every man in the early ages of the Church, by whose power, or zeal, or genius, the Christian faith was propagated, eated was a Jew, and I cannot believe if you are really anxious for the conversion of the Jews—(" Di vide")—l am sorry gentlemen are so impatient, but I feel that I am pleading a difficult cause—(Cheers)—and I feel it my duty to speak without concealment of my real opinions. Nothing but a conviction of solemn duty has caused• me to undertake a task which I assure the Honourable Gentleman is no agreeable one.— (Hear, hear.) I think, Sir, that if this question be dis cussed at all, it should be discussed with the most per fect frankness. I do not think it in the least advisable that we should discuss it with reference to what after all is the real point, and I for one thank the Noble Lord the Member for Bath for having put the case fairly before the House. If one could suppose that the arguments which he heard, —the arguments actually pat forth—were the only ar guments that influenced the decision of this question, it would be impossible to conceive what was the reason of the Jews not being admitted to a full participation in the rights and duties of a Christian Legislature. In exact proportion to your faith ought to be your wish to do this great act of national justice. If you had not for gotten what you owe to this people,—if you were grateful for that literature which for thousands of years has brought so much instruction and so much consolation to the sons of men, you as Christians would be only too ready to seize the first opportunity of meeting the claims of those who profess this religion. But you are influenced by the darkest superstitions of the darkest ages that ever existed in this country. It is this feeling that has been kept out of this debate; indeed, that has been kept back in yourselves—enlightened as you are—and that is secretly influenci ng -.you as it is influencing others abroad. Why, theon. Gentleman the Member for Kent is a man who ought to be the foremost advocate of the claims of the Jews, un less he believes in what the Noble Lord the Member for Bath calls the base calumny of the middle ages. The Hon. Member for Bath assigned irresistible reasons for not believing it; yet it is that dark calumny of the feudal times, founded on gross misrepresentations of history, geography, and theology, which is the origin of the prejudice against the ancient faith, It would be the most difficult task in the world to present these truths to any but a Christian assembly. I feel, that the race are deficient in many of the qualities which would make a statesman consent to be an advocate of their interests. It is entirely on religious grounds and on religious prin ciples that I venture to recommend the subject to your notice. HI do so with earnestness I hope I may be pardoned. This is not a subject which often comes under our consideration. I hope we shall find occasion to dispense with its consideration again. But it is a ques tion on which men, whatever may be the consequences —on which at least I, whatever may be the con sequences, must speak what I feel. I can not sit in this House with any misconception of my opinion on the subject—(Hear.) What ever may be the consequences on the seat I hold—and I should not have referred to such a consideration un less other gentlemen had done so,—l cannot, for one g i ve a vote which is not in deference to what I believe to be the true principles of religion., Yes, it is as a Christian that I will not take upon me the awful re sponsibility of excluding from the Legislature these who are of the religion in the bosom of which my Lord and Saviour was born.—(Cheers.) This is ti e deration on which I place the questi on , awl so um I of the saer. d truth I have enunciated th at , t h ough sensible there may be a majo r it y of the H o u se , w h o , however favourable to those claim the question on grounds of decide upon political just i ce, expediency, and truth, I will not decide upo n it animated by those considerations. It is on the re ligious ground, on the religious principle alone, that I give my vote for the proposition of the Minister ; and it is to those who have objected to it on that ground that I venture to address a statement of views which I hope they will accept, not from my words, but from the eternal truths on which they are based.—(Loud cheers.) Sir T. ACLAND must on fixed principles rest his objection to the motion. In a constitutional point of view, he denied that it was simply an extension of those r principles of religious enfranchisement which had of late years been developing themselves; it was a wholly new principle, now first introduced. The admission of the Catholics presented no analogy; the - Catholici had aforetime constituted the Parliament altogether, and they were only afterwards excluded from feelings of political danger arising from their presence:. He thanked God that such political danger no longer ex isting, the Roman Catholics had again been admitted within the walls of Parliament. But this was a totally distinct question from the admission of persons whose religion was p er f ect l y opposed to Christianity. The new principle sought to be introduced was nothing less than the introduction of the principle advocated by the Hon. Member for Montrose, who had - openly said in the House that legislation had nothing to do with re ligion, and that the less religion had to do with legisla tion the better. On the motion of Mr. LAW, the debate was ad journed, amidit loud cries of " Divide." NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Sir R. H. INGLIS moved the following s e l ec t Com mittee on the present state of the New Pa lab° at Westminster, with a view to the reception and accom modation of this House therein :—Sir R. IL In g li s , Viscount Morprth, Sir R. Peel, Earl of Lincoln, Mr. Herries, Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Stephen son, Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Osborne, Lord E. Bruce, Mr. Deering, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Tufnell, an d Lord Robert Grosvenor. Mr. FORSTER thought they ought to have some information with regard to the proceedings of the former Committee, and also as to the enormous expenditure of money which was taking place, before they consent e d t o the present one.—(Hear, h ea r.) He should therefore move that the motLn for the Committee be postponed. Sir R. H. INGLIS said that all those whose names were on the y Committ ee were on t h e f ormer one,, With the exception o f M r . S tep h enson, and no persons could have devoted more attention to the discharge of their duties. Dr. BOWRING thought that a statement with respect to the proceedings of the former Committees should have preceded the present motion. Mr. BANKES was of 'the same opinion, and thought that they should htivtsiame account respecting the.enor mous expenditure which had taken place, and he was afraid, not very satisfactorily. !Lord MORPETH said that the Hon. Member for the University had shown him the ,games, of the Committee before he made the motion, ancl., he considered them in every respect well qualifiecrror the discharge of the duties that were to, deVolve upon them. He, therefore, could have no objection to he appointment. Mr. B. OSBORNE thought it was high time that this job of the new Houses of Parliament was stopped.— (Laughter,) A more wasteful expenditure of public money had never taken place. The original estimate was 780,000/. ; 1,500,0004 bad already been expended, and yet the building was not near completion. On the bringing up of the report he would state all the facts o the case. Lord H. VANE believed no advantage would arise from the appAntment of a Committee. It would he better to leave the matter entirely under the direction of the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests. - Lord LINCOLN defended the parties engaged in the management of the new erections. If any job had been perpetrated, those who had held the office of Chief Co mmissioner were blameable. As regarded expense;there were many items not contemplated in the original esti mate, including the river wall and ventilation, for the latter of which 50,000/. or 60,000/. was added to the estimate . at the suggestion of a Committee. The inves tigations made on this subject had shown that Mr. Barry bad in no material instance exceeded the estimate. Colonel SIBTHORP advocated inquiry. Viscount MORPETH, after the charge brought for ward against Mr. Barry, and the uncourteous way in which it had been pressed, had no hesitation in saying that a Committee ought to be appointed,' before which Mr. Barry should have an opportunity of rebutting the very coarse attack that had been made upon him. He had no hesitation in saying that he. regarded Mr. Barry as honourable a man as any he know. Mr. B. OSBORNE said he had brought forward this subject as a public duty, and he was determined to prosecute it. He did not charge Mr. Barry more than her Majesty's Government. They were equally culpable. Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the appointment of a Committee might hftive the effect of itifling inquiry. Go where they might out of the House,''they heard of no thing but complaints of the lavish expenditure on this building. Sir 117. PEEL expressed an opinion that it would be desirable to have a full inquiry into the whole subject of expense, works, the probable period of completion, and causes of excess upon the original estimate. Such an inquiry, if entered into in a good spirit, might be very useful in its results.? Mr. B. OSBORNE on his part, was determined that the matter should not be hushed up. After one or two further observations, it was agreed that this question be adjourned until to-morrow (this day.) - THE RAJA OF SATTARA. • Mr. G. THOMPSON begged to ask whether it was tha t intention of her Majesty's Commissioners for the atthtrs of India, in conjunction with the court of directors, to send out any orders cr instructions to the Govern ment of India in Werence to the future support Of tho family and relations of the deceased Raja of Sattarh, and of his numerous dependents ? And also, whether any digpatches have been tcceived from India, stating the atop, which have been taken by the Governor-General of India, in cons(.queoce of the death of the ex-Raja of Sattara ? Mr. C. LEWIS said the Board of Control and the India board had not I ece red official inimation of the death of the Raja, but when they ci:d tLe subject would b? taken into consideration. Tfic House adjourned at Ten Minutes to One o'Clock, HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 16. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Lord FARNHAM presented a petition from An dover, praying their Lordships to adopt measures to prevent the Roman - Catholics priests of Ire-land from denouncing persons from the altar. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Cricklade, praying for a consolidation of turn pike trusts. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from Downpatrick, complaining of the ad ministration of the poor-law in Ireland, more parti cularly as regards out-door relief. He had always been a friend to the poor-law in Ireland, so far as out-door relief was concerned, but he considered that the system of out-door relief tended to encourage pauperism. CASE OF DR. HAMPDEN. The NOBLE MARQUIS than gave notice that, to morrow, he should put a question to the Noble Mar quis, (Lansdowne), as to the authenticity of the cor respondence alleged to have passed between the Prime Minister and certain of the Bishops, as to the pro posed appointment of Dr. Hampden to the bishopric of Hereford, and whether it was intended to persevere in the appointment. CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into Committee on this Bill. The commission of those crimes in Ireland which it was the object of this Bill to repress was too notorious to call upon him to go into any lengthened details. It was one feature of these crimes, that while the victim almost invariably fell, the murderer almost as invariably escaped with im punity. He should have felt it his duty to recite and describe those murders to which he had al luded, and to comment on them in the language they deserved, but these crimes were matters of public notoriety ; he should not, therefore further al lude to the murder of M a j or M a h on an d o f other vic tims of these outrages, but should allude to other crimes of less magnitude, which, in conjunction with these murders, proved the existence of a conspiracy against human life s against the existing state of so ciety, against the rights of property, and of industry itself. In the month of Novem ber, l,33s crimes had been committed in Ireland against 1,035 committed in the preceding month. These crimes consisted principally in the sending of threatening letters and in robberies of arms. One of these cases took place in Cavan. Two small farmers, more industrious than their neighbours, had raised crops, and had each provided himself with a gun to defend himself from outrage. In one night the dwell ing of each of these persons had been broken open, and their guns taken. In Monaghan a fishing company had been established. Their establishment was attacked and their property destroyed. In Limerick a man's horse had been destroyed because he had let out the horse to draw meal at a lower rate than these legis lators chose to determine. This Bill was a Bill not for t w h a e s d h e o fe n n e c s e t oafuthe industrious,r ichm an, but an o d f poo r envoeroyne cld on , object to it to see the rights of propert y and the rights did not desire riguanfindu man wh o industry destroyed. In a recent case Mr. Johnson, a most popular magistrate, had been fired at, because, as a magistrate , he persons had.b had fined n C e o d unty acrn a e shot , for ooon, fibr because cda uast trespass. ei‘,hier. Barlow, and another at his had Georgerlen. fused to employ a man named Fegan. In Monaghan an attempt had been made to shoot two far mers, named Blane (father and son), because the son had presumed to discharge a servant-maid. These cases were sufficient to .5h iw the objects and extent of this dark and sanguinary conspiracy. Ile would now describe the character and provisions of the Bill which gave the Lord-Lieutenant power to adopt measures to put down crime and outrage in disturbed districts.—(The Noble Marquis then pro ceeded to de. cribe in detail the provisions of the Bill, with which the public are already acquainted.) In alluding to the provision rendering it a misde meanour in persons refusing to join a hue and cry against persons who had committed outrages,- the Noble Marquis paid a high compliment to those among the peasantry who had nobly done their duty by opposing, and in many instances apprehending, Persons who had been guilty of outrage. I n all these cases the parties so acting had been sought out and rewarded by the Lord Lieutenant. The desire of the Government In p_roposing thi s mea sure had been to .provide an effeaftal rktuedylor the deplorable state of things existing in Ireltuld but in •