The Sun. — London, England, 1857-06-16 00:00:00

R THE SUN, LONCON ) TUESDAY EVENING, JUST r' 16, 1857. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. e'ection of every Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland or in England, the new prelate took en oath of canonical rdinelience to the Pope, and yet they were told that the Pope had ne ecclesiastical jurisdiction in these realms. So as to spiritual dominion. The Pope imposed, say, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and it was believed by Roman Catholic. How then c.mld it ho said that ho bad no spiritual jurisdiction ? (Hear.) He (tlr. Roe buck) perfectly understood the sneers of the learned gentleman—he knew what that meant ; but why should they be called on to swear that the Pope had no ecele staeticA jurisdiction in these realms when they all knew that be had ? (Hear.) He wanted to be put in this matter on the same footing as the Roman Catholic members ; and in the name of the Protestants of this country, of the truth-loving people of this country, of the gentlemen of this country, be called on the house not to allow the words to be retained. (Hear, hear ) Mr. NAPIER said the hon. gentleman within the last month had taken this oath. He (Mr. Napier) denied that the Pope had any jurisdiction in this country. (Laughter.) Jurisdiction and orders were, too, quite different things ; and though the Pope might make a bishop here, he could not give him jurisdiction, which flowed only from the sovereign. Lord Cioncurry and another noble lord had made the same objection as the bon. gentleman ; but then they made it betore they took the oath—they did not take the oath and then make the objection. The Duke of Norfolk, Sir R. Peel, and other eminent gentlemen ' did net understand the oath as the hon. member for Mayo did. In 1849 Sir R. Peel stated that there was a solemn compact, and that the Roman Catholics had offered to give the security of a plain and unambiguous oath, that they would make no attack on the purport of the oath. With respect to the oath of su premacy, he would remind the hon. member (M. B. Hope) that in 1854 Archdeacon Wilberforce wrote a book, in which he spoke of that oath as the national sin of Eng land, because it was the embodiment of private judg ment. (Hear.) Against the papal supremacy the oath was an emphatic protest, and he hoped the house would not interfere with words on which the whole fabric of the constitution stood. (Hear, hear.) Sir F. THESIGER explained that when the Queen's counsel referred to by Mr. Roebuck objected to take the oath, the benchers discovered that they were the only society which imposed it; and feeling doubts whether they had any right to exact it, they discontinued it alto gether. (Hear, hear.) The committee then divided— For the amendment Against it HOUSE OF LO RDS YESTERDAY EAST INDIAN JUDICATURE. The Marquis Of CLANRICARDE', in moving' 1)r a copy of the minutes of the Lieut.-Guyer for of Bengal on the criminal administration of that country, and other papers on the sane subject, took occv.ion to obqerve that the measures a+lopted by the Illst India Company ware a mockery of jeA'ce, and tended only to secure deby. The Company's court-4 were objected to by the natives generally, and by Eiropeans especially. Many of , the j adges were no!oriously unfit for their function , . The direct , r3 wero a fiction, which cams between the Gdvernment and India, and alone saved tae former from the indignation of tbq country. Toe kart of ALBENIARIE would not present cer tain petitions on the subject at that time, 33 there were only two or three peers present. ,The Duke of ARGYLL consented to the production of the papers requested. Their lordihips then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) OATHS BILL. (Continued from The Sun of last night.) Ur. ROEBUCK said there was no doubt that an oath ought to be short, but there was another qualification in an oath which the light hon. gentleman left out, and that was truth. Now, he wanted to know if the oath as pro posed was true. It said that " the Pope or any other foreign potentate had no power or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, in this realm." Now, was that true ? (Hear.) He wanted to know if the Pope had any power ecclesi astical and spiritual in England ? He was called on in that house, and he was called upon twenty tim-s in his life actually to swear to a lie. (A laugh.) It was a fact. There was not a man in that house who did not know that the Pope has spiritual dominion in this country. Did he not parcel out this kingdom into bishoprics, and did they not pass a law concerning his doing that which was no law, and which they dare not enforce against the authority of the Pope of Rome. Why they knew that at this very hour there were people in this town who exercised ecoles:a-tical dominion therein. More than that, the Pope of R iroe had declared in favour of the doctrine of immaculate conception, and did he not impose it on Cathol cc in this city ? Was not that spiri tual dominion ? If it were not, he wanted to know what was. Then he, knowing that the Pope exercised that dominion, was asked to swear that he did not. If he did swear that, was be not swearing to a lie, and to what he knevi to be a lie ? Inasmuch as he dMiked that for mal mode of lyinz, he should vote for the amendment. .... 80 .... 373-292 Owing to the number of members in the house, and the great preponderance on one side, this division occu pied upwards of 20 minutes. Mr. ROEBUCK moved, after the word "spiritual" to insert the words "by law." It had 'len stated by Sir F. Thesiger that the meaning of the oath was that the Pope had not by law any jurisdiction in this realm; he therefore wished to introduce those words into the clause to render that perfectly clear. The committee again divided— For the amendment .- Against it •Sir F. THESIGER sail Mr. Roebuck bad put a con struct-ion upon this oath which bad perfectly a , tonished him. His hon. and learned friend said any one who took that oath swore to a lie, his hon. and learned friend h m self having taken that oath. Nothing could be more satis factory than the mode in which Mr. Deasy had moved this amendment, and if he had any compleint to make against him it was that, having addressed himself to the various objections that recurred to him with re gard to the Roman Csthrlie oath, he never once ad dressed himself to his own amendment. He was in hopes thet when the noble lord at the head of the Government rose for the purpose of answering him, be would have explained why it was that he objected to the amend ment. The noble lord ought perfectly to understand that the r -ason why this amendment was proposed was for the purpose of rendering the oath one which it was possible for Roman Catholic gentlemen to take. It was quite clear that Roman Catholics did net deny that the Pope " has, or ought to have, jurisdiction, power, pre eminence, and authority ecclesiastical and spiritual with in this realm." Therefore, in order to have one form of oath which the Roman Catholic might take as wed as the Protestant, it was necessary to divest the oath of these words, they being a recognition of the supremacy of the Crown, which was denied by the Roman Catholic. Let them see what was involved in this question, which might become a serious one. Mr. Roebuck said it was a lie to say that the Pope has not spiritual jurisdiction within this realm, and he referred to a movement called papal ag gression, by which some time ago the Pope endeavours I to parcel out this kingdom into bishoprics. Now, his hen. and learned was entirely mistaken, as it appeared to him, in his understanding of the oath. In the first year of the reign of Queen Rizaheth this oath was introduced for the purpose of upholding the supremacy of the crown and the act said it was introduced to the intent " that all usurped and foreign power and authority, spiritual and temporal, may for ever be extinguished, and never used in this realm;" and then it enacted "that no foreign power shall use, tejoy, or exercise any jurisdiction, power, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm." There was the explicit declaration of the supremacy of the Crown, not estab• lished for the first time, because on the highest authority he stated that was an essential point of the constitution of this country from the earliest times. But it was felt that thereshould bean explieitdeclaration against the innovation of any foreign authority. Then followed the oath of supre macy, and tooled np with that declaration of supremacy,if he might use such an expression, was the declaration that the Queen was supreme in all spirituel as in tempo ral matters, and then it went on to state that " no fa reign prince bath or ought to have any power ecclesias tical or spiritual within this reale)." Now, what was the fair construction of an oath framed in that particular manner at that particular time. Did it mean to say that de facto the Pope had no jurisdiction, pre-eminence, or authority ; or did it declare, that according to the con stitution he bad no such authority ? Therefore, so far as his hon, and learned friend's construction went, be was happy to relieve his conscience, it ha would be relieved from the painful impression of having sworn to a lie. (Laughter) This declaration embodiet a principle that '`no foreign prince or potentate was legal auth rity in this realm." Mr ' Deasy, without any explanati o n o f hi s rea • eons, proposed to omit the words "ecclesiastical or ritual." He (Sir F. Thesiger)appealed to the Protestant members of the horse—not that ha wished tot xcite any unpleasant religions feeling, but ha appealed to them, as he toasidered these declarations to be the keystone of the archof Protestant supremacy in this country—whetber they would s i lo wit to be swept away. But that was not the worst, because the hon. and learned gentleman proposed not merely to omit those words, but to insert the words "temporal or civil." They would th:rehy virtusby ad mit that a foreign potentate had ecclesiastical and spi ritual authority, (Hear.) In 1822, when it was proposed to introduce the words " temporal or civil," Sir R. Psei said he would infinitely prefer that there should be no oath at ail because it was impcasible to admit those words without recognising spiritual authority. Then, if the Protestant was not disposed to give up this portion of the oath which ha must consider as of -uch great im portance, was there any reason why the Roman Catholic should ask that the settlement of 1829 should to in the slightest manner interfered with! It was perfectly clear that that oath was one of the securities which were taken at the time, and Sir R. Peel said—"lt is an oath to which the Roman catholics can have no valid or con scientious objection, and which is as great a security as an oath can give, that the difference in religious Nth will not affect their allegiance to the King, or their ca,a,- city for civil service." And the Ronein Catholic arch bishops and bishops in their pastoral letter, issued at that time, sad, " Sores we last addressed you a great and beneficial and heailig measure has been enacted by the legislature for your relief. We trust that your feelings on this sulject are in unison with our own, and that a steady attachment to the laws and can=titutien of your country will be manifested ha your condue.” S.) that at that time every one was satisfied with what was done. And when the president of the Board of Control at a sub sequent time proposed aeother form of oath, the noble lord the member for London said he thow 4 ht it not wise to disturb the settlement which after so touch considera tion had been come to. Now there was an assumption of ecclesiastic and spirituel, if not rf temporal authority, in the endeavour that was made on the part of the Pepe to divide this country into districts. It was quite true that the measure that was passed to prevent the aggression was not perfectly satisfactory, but it had some effect in 68 _ 243-175 Sir F. - THESIGER then rose to move his amend ment—after the word " realm," to insert the words, " And I do make this promise, renunciation, abjuration, and declaration heartily, willingly, and truly, on the true faith of a Christian." Tho noble lord at the head of the Government had proposed a new form of oath as a substitute for those they had previously taken ; and he was disposed to allow that it was a great improvement on the old oath But the noble lord proposed to aban don a profession of faith which had been taken for 250 years, without objection or scruple by the Christian members of the house. (Hear.) Considering that part of the oath to be solemn and essential, he desired to retain it. (Hear, hear.) If the times had not sadly changed, he should have anticipated suppert to hisaraend meat from Mr. Glad - stone and Lord J. Russell ; for, in 1849, when the noble lord introduced one of his nume rens bills for admitting the Jews to Parliament, he framed an oath for the Christian members of the house, containing precisely those words which he now proposed to add ; and Mr. Gladstone said he rejoiced that the noble lord retained those words, and that ho had acted wisely in not reducing the high standard they had hi therto maintained. There were many Christian members of that house who, although they desired to see the Jew admitted amongst them, would yet be unwilling to re nounce the profession of their faith. (Hear.) They would desire to " profess and call themselves Christians," at the same time that they considered that the question of the admission of the Jew to Parliament ought to be dis •ossed and settled as a distinct and separate measure. In the former discussions on this subject, the advocates of the admission of the Jew had used the fallacy which was crdinarily called " begging the question." They had supposed that the native-born Jew bad an inherent right o a seat in the legislature ; and they called upon the_ opponents of the Jew to establish or justify his exclu sion. But the supporters of a long established course of things had a right to call upon those who were desirous of disturbing it to bring forth their reasons. Those who supported existing institutions had nothing to do but t maintain their ground ; but it was asserted that there aas an exception to this rule in the case of the Jew, be cause he was excluded merely by the accidental insertion of certain words in an act of Parliament which were directed to a totally different object. And then they re peated the history of Sir F. Treshain, of the Treatise on Equivocation of the Jesuit Garnet, and of the gunpow der plot. But it was a great mistake to suppose that the opponents of the admission of the Jew had ever contended that those words in the act were intended at all to be directed against the Jew ; for at that time there was scarcely ore, if one, Jew in this country. But they a rignt to contend that by the insertion of those words the strongest proof was given that no person could he a n ember of the Legislature unless be held the faith of a Christian. That. L , gislatu:e bad been hemmed in with Christian ceremonials and observances. The oaths mem hers were required to take were taken upon the Giepels; they began their daily labours with prayer, offered up in that only name which could renc!er them acceptable; they were compelled to observe certain festivals and fasts; and they could turn in no direction without being reminded that they performed all their functions under the sanction and seal of Christianity. (Hear.) It ivas true that by legislative interference in other directions, persons were now enabled to tare an oath upon any oc casion (`or those were the words) in the form which was most binding upon their conscience. But those words, "on the true faith of a Christian," had remained in their oath to testify that they were a Christian Legislature, and that no person who was not a Christian had a right to a seat in that house. (Hear.) It was perfectly idle to contend, to any persen acquainted with the history and the position of the Jews in this country, that it was only by the accidental insertion of those words that he was excluded from admission to Parliament. Banished in the reign of Edward 1., returning to this country after the Restoraio , ?, they were regarded, not as citizens, but as aliens. In the time of William 111. an endeavour was made by that monarch to relieve the Jews from an alien duty which was imposed upon them in the receipt of cus toms; but he was compelled, by the remonstrances oftbe merchants, to restore that. duty, which remained upon them for a very coeslderatle time after. Every one knew that in the r:in of George H e a hill v a introduced for the aurpoee of enabling Jews to prefer bills of naturalisa tion without tekiag the sacrament. The act passd, but created so much clamour, that it was repealed in the fol lowing year. Down to 1836, when Mr. Robert Gra:it in troduced the first of the series of bi le for the admission cf the Jews, they were excluded from all offices, civil and military, and from corporations, and from first to last upon the ground that they were infidels and aliens. It was not possible, under these circumstances, for any one seriously to contend that it was by reason of these words in an act of James 1., "on the true faith of a Christian,' that a Jew was prevented from becoming a member of Parliament. Therefore, the onus of establish belling their right must be upon those who sought to ob tain their admission. The Christian character of the Le gislature had been established and continued to the pre sent time ; and it was necessary for those who thought that persons who were noi, Christians should be entitled to the honour of a seat in that house to establish it by argument—to prove that, under the circumstances, either the forms of the house offered no impediment to their admission, or that the . time had come when all those dis tinctions should be swept away. (Hear, hear.) The advocates of the Jews had offered afguments in favour of their admission, but had never approached the vital part of the question. In the first place, they contended that the Jew, as a native-born sub ject, had an unquestionable right to admission to all offices and all authority in this empire. That was entirely a misapprehension. That the Jew and every subject of this realm was entitled to an equality of civil rights no one ever denied, but political power and autho rity were the creatures of the State, and no person could be entitled to that power and autoority but he on whom the State conferred it. No one would deny that it was competent to the State to declare that no person should be a legislator who wasnot a Christian. Perhaps it would be hard not to admit that the legislature of the country bad so declared. If such was the relation in which per sons stood to the legislature, a person who was not a Christian might complain of the condition, and might seek to have it altered, but he could have no antecedent right to that which was prohibited by the constitution. Again, it was said, " We ought to respect the opinion of so large and respectable a constituency as the City of London, who have returned a Jew to Parliament." That was an argument very much of the same character as that already referred to. The citizens of London knew perfectly well that by law a Jew could not take his seat in that house, notwithstanding that they chose to elect him as their representative, and then they endeavoured to urge the circumstance, unreasonably for the purpose bf procuring an alteration of the law. They would have shown more deference to the institutions of the country if they had endeavoured in every available manner to change the law, but they had no right to elect a person disqualified by law, and then insist on forcing upon the legislature by that means an alteration of the law. It was a bad example to the other constituencies of the country. They might have a preference for some other disqualified person, might select him as their representa tive, and might then insist, as the citizens of London had done, that the law should be changed to secure their object. The citizens of London had shown that t o : f ey tveenr i n e y re determined to pursue a course which he thought was perfectly unconstitutional ; and, at the s pr am o,b e ab tl i m y e, having chosen to lose, now for a period e ea , r it s , , one of their representatives, they had suggested to the noble lord at the head of the and he might attend to it when he brought in his mea htr s e nre of r e f orm , th at t h ree mem b ers f or the city, by t (Laughter.) own confession, were perfectly sufficient. sornwearatli this i Another usually urged on these occasions— n the n a t ure o f th e argumen i um , ad leoraineni— hfirBa:ne'n' You ie; h h w av c e an a y dm ou it r t e e f a us J e e t w o s a to ad s orcise the ele c ti ve. alit them to seats in thi s house?, . o (Cheers ) Hon. gentle men seemed to think th a t that was a very . powerful and conclusive argument; bus Le would submit for their con a person having an in sideratiou the distinctio4 between . _ checking that aggression. It they were to adopt this amendment it would be admitting the Pope was justified in that act of aggression. He otject..d to this amendment, in the first place, because it interfered with the supre macy of the Crown, in the next place, because it would amount to a virtual admission of the Pope's supremacy, and in the third place, because it would amount to a sane tion of the aggression which the Pope had male. Mr. B. HOPE said he looked upon the claim of the Jews as an abstract necessity, as a mathematical, so to speak, demand of justice. It was at no little sacrifice of feeling that he could not act with the hon. and learned member for Stamford on this occasion. Ho regarded the question in an aspect in which it had not been regarded by any member—an aspect in which, as an honest and sincere member of the Church of England, he had a right to regard it. He must say the noble lerd at the head of the Government had paid but a small compliment to the Protestants of England by requiring of members of the Established Church and the Jews one form of oath, and requiring of Roman Catholics another. It was like the Inscription which used to be written over a certain door— "A Jew, a Turk, an infidel, an atheist, (Lenglet er M T ay he meae enter here,ure bwasut no a t retr a papirade one—a re actionary me l og 1829 wa s asure from that Act of Toleration whi c h i n att r itztorted by fear and not conceded from con viction ; fo r w ag would not fete the saying that if tbeee Roman Catholics oaths thus °drove to them, they should not ent er at or two Jews founeeall. (Hear.) If through the bill one their a way into the house, it would be at the expense of inflicted upon millions of their feilow-count r y me n n. in iu , Y irreatin T ti l :e harm the bill would do, in short, would be an the benefit. It op posed to civil freedom, and wastothat toleration which, as a churchman, he had at heart. (Divide. The would only The cause of toleration world not profit by a bet which perpetuate religious animositie s , and year after year tsev must look for ward to a recurrence of timil..ar questions.- formidable dif - Mr. G. H. MOORE thought the to v eey. _between Mr. prettytaqknea:rte3yl ference of opinion which seemed Roebuck and Sir F. Tbesiger formed ~at:e1...y....1it such elabo as it atbod ;" and it ought to be a warnin g to e on. en. tlenaen against being too dogmatic on the oath g athers, when they were obliged to resort . to rn2e ves. : rate casuistry to defend that taken by the 1 i (Sear s bear,) • Mr. HOE BY.TCK said that when a well-graced actor simulated a part, and so imitated truth as to wring from every mettle acknowledgment how like the truth it was, they admired the actor and they felt wonder at the simu lation, but they were net taken in by the attempt. He misfit bring to the recollection of his learned friend (Sir F. Theisiger) a circumstance which had occurred within his own knowledge. The hOn. and learned gentleman would recollect that when an eminent Queen's Counsel was desirous to be admitted a bencher of one of the lens q ICaurt, .he was required to take an oath that the Pope had. no ecclasias;ical or spiritual jurisdiction in these realms. That eminent Queen's Counsel eaid he could not swear that, and the benchers dispensed with the o ale. ' (Hear. The ecclesiastiastical jurisdiction of the Pope ick tlcso realonwas a matter of f ac t. U poa tD o .... . finitesimal right to elect a Christian as a member of the Legislature, and himself haviegasest in that Legislature, and being able to make the laws which had higher sanc tions than those he acknowledged. He did not know whether that distinction was satisfactory to those who seemed to consider the argument powerful ; if not, he was afraid nothing he could say would have the slightest influence on them. (Laughter.) Another argument used was something of the same nature: " You have admitted the Jew to be a magistrate, to be a sheriff, to be au al derman—(hear) —you have advanced thus far ; how can you then exclude him from taking a part hi the formation of those laws which you permit him to administer." (Hear.) But there was a clear and marked distinction between permitting a person who was not a Christian to exercise a subordinate office under the law ' all his acts rted conduct being governed and regul a t e d by that law, and allowing him to be one of those who should make the laws that were to regulate a Christian community. Put ting the question liven the low eround of citizenship, it had always appeared to him that there" were peculiarities in the Jew, and his relation to the nations amongst which he dwelt, which rendered him quite unfit to be a member of a national legislative body. The prophecy which was pronounced upon him so many years ago—" Lo, this people shall dwell alone, and shall nab° reckoned among the nations"—hacl been fulfilled in the whole course of his marvellous career. Scattered over the face of the world, distinguished from the people amongst whom they dwelt, separate from them by custom and habit, and by the unsocial character of their faith, they had been not a part of the nations amongst whom they had lived, they had been sepa rate and distinct ; so they must ilevitably remain. He could not help reading to the house an eloquent descrip tion of their position, which he found the other day in a work that was probably familiar to most present : " For, where is the other country in the world, and in what quarter of it, which lies so vacant, so thinly occu pied, whilst its proper race are to be seen everywhere else, a despised and distrusted population, abounding anywhere rather than in their own land 1 In that di vided state they remain, present in all countries, and with a home in none—intermixed, and yet separated, and neither amalgamated nor lost. Like those mountain streams, which are said to pass through lakes of another kind of water, and to keep their native quality, and re pel comm;xture, they hold communication without union, and may be traced as rivers within banks." There was something in the:r customs, their habits, their exclusive character—in the nature of their institutions— in their holidays—which appeared to incapacitate them from taking a competent part in the councils o' a Chris tian assembly. (Hear.) But these arguments were mere skirmishes outside the barriers of the constitution. The advocates of the admission of the Jews, must maintain either that it was a mistake that this assembly was one • of a Christian character, or that the time had arrived when they must sweep away all Christian distinctions. II was impossible to contend that this assembly was not Christian in its character, because the words pr peed to be removed indicated the character of the Legislature. They must therefore take up the other ground. Now, who were the advocates of this meahure ? The sup porters of civil and religious liberty, the Roman Catho lice, and those members of the Established Church who were anxious to sea a separation of Church and State— all these were united together for the purpose of accom plishing a common end, the destrucion of the Esta blished Church, to which this measure would. be the first approach. He did not mean to say that all those joined in this combination held that religion bad nettling to do with the councils and business of this house Many of them, no doubt, agreed in the opinion of Burke, who said that religion, so far from b-ing out of the sphere of the duty and province of the Christian I-- gislator was and ought to be not only his care, but the principal thing in his care, because it was one of the great bonds of human society. The opinion of Dr. Arnold on the subject was well known ; and Archbishop Whately, who was a sincere and consistent advocate of the claims of the Jews, found himself greatly perpi xed by the fact of the Jews having seats in an assembly which had to deal with a religion to which they were hostile, and he compared their case to the case of a person who had a right to a room in a house, but wha had no right to any other part of the house, or to a person who claimed a right to land on which there was a building, but who had no right to that building. Now if the most rev. prelate meant to apply his observations to the legislature there coul Ibe no such division. Such was also the opinion of the noble lord (Russell) himself, for he said, when speaking of a legislature which had to dispose to and' contr., 1 the various interests—ecclesias.tical and re enlar—of the country, religion ought to control and in fluence the decisions of the legieleiure. If that were so, how was it possible that a person who was an unbeliever in that religion which was the constitutional sanction of their proceedings and measures could properly be ad mitted to form a part of that legislature ? Those gentle men who believed that the legislature had no' hing to do with the religion, yet believed that it had to do with the morality and happiness of a people. But a Christian people considered Christian morality to be the beet se curity for the peace and happiness of a nation. But Chris tian morality was founded on Chritian faith, and these together constituted the Christian religion. Now, if that religion must depend entirely on the truth and office of our Saviour, bow could those who considered that the morality which he inculcated, though of the most sub lime description, was that which they were ca led on to enforce, or that they would not give the preference to that which was said to them of old time and choose an inferior standard I He therefore ventured to maintain that it was impressible to abandon that bulwark of the constitution, the Christian character of the lnzis'ature of this country. It would be said that all this was the result of intolerance and a spirit of persecution. (Hear.) They might just as well call it persecution to refuse the admis sion of men to the citadel who had not the pass word. They refused to admit the Jews to Parliament because they had not the passport. and not baring the passport they bad a right to ask the Jews why they came there. He asked the house to pause before it took the step de manded of them—before they abandoned that which for 250 years had consecrated them to their duty, and be t' -re they proclaimed openly that they had been mistaken in supposing that this was a Christian assembly, or that they had been taught by the wisdom of the world that it was time these distinctions should be entirely aban Boned. He earnestly implored hon. gentlemen to hold the profession of their faith without wavering, and to consider that they were performing their duty under the highest sanction by which their consciences could be enlightened and gu•ded. (Hear.) Mr. STANHOPE seconded the amendment. He ob jetted to the admission of the Jews on political and reli gious grounds—on political grounds because they were a distinct and separate race and nation—on religious grounds because he thought it essential to the constitu tion that its Christian character should be upheld. How. ever much they differed from the Roman Catholics and the Dissenters, there was at least one common ground on which they could meet—the eround of a common Christianity. This made a great distinction between the case of the admission of tht se bodies and the ad his sion of the Jews, and on this ground he should oppose their admission. Mr. KINGLAKE craved that indulgence which was always extended to a member weo addressed the house for the firet time, and remarked that the observations which he intended to make, with the exceptioe of a few csminents st, the speech of the boo. and learned member for Stamford, would be applied, not to the old-contested point involved in the Jew Bill, hut to the new phase of the question opened up by the amendment before the h else. He did not questiou some of the positions laid down by the Lon, and learned member for Stamford. He did not think we were bound to admit Jews to Pail ameet because the city of London bad thought fit to elect a Jew as one of its representatives, and still less did he found himself upon the argument that we were bound to admit Jews because some of th.t people were already electors and entitled to vote for members of the Legislature. It was competent to us to ter:lade from political power any class or denomination of men—to do so might be needful for the safety of the State ; but the question for considera tion was whether, in order thus to trample out the poli tical rights of men, there was or was not a State neces sity. (Hear, hear.) What was the State necessity which bad been alleged by the hon. and learned member for iStamford for exclusion of the Jews He hail told them that Chri tianity established a higher standard of mora lity than any other form of religion, arid then, with a fallacy which appeared strange in one so learned and in genious, he went on to assume that this test had a tend ency to give us, not only persons who caeled themselves Christians, but good Christians. (Hear, hear) It was there that all the difference lay. He happened to be locally connected with a part of the country in which a singular sect bad established them , elves. They were to ail inients and purposes a Christian sect. Their doctrine was that our Saviour was Divine, and that HO founded a tabernacle, as they term it, in the body of one now living. They profes , ied a faith shocking almost to all who heard it, yet there was not one of them who could not come to the table and take the oath in the form which the hon. and learned member foe Stamford pro posed. (Hear, hear.) Again, the hon. and learned gentleman, with the view of influencing the debate, had adverted to the prophesy in which the Jews were represented as a people who should not be reck oned among the nations. Was that an argument which ought to be addressed to the House of Com mons, or could they be expected to deal with the question whether Jews were or were not, upon the ground of an ancient prophesy, to be placed under the ban of the world I (Hear, hear.) Approaching the new question opened up by the amendment before the house, he might venture to say that he differed a little from the hon. member for Stamford in the historical part of his speech. The hon. and learned gentleman had told them that the oath was originally framed, and had ever since been used, as a proftseion of faith. Now, as he read history, the words of asseveration annexed to the oath of abjuration were inserted there for the purpose of testing the sincerity of a particular sect—pot the Jews, but the Roman Catholics. The words had continued, and we bad them, as it were, adherieg to the oath. It was competent to hon. gentlemen opposite to take ad vantage of words introduced for another purpose, in order to effect what they believed to be a good object ; but did not the amendment suggest to the house and the country a totally new view of the principles on which certain persons bad been admitted to the Legislature? We might or we might not have an established church —we might or we might not apply a religious test to those claiming to sit in Parliament. Tnose who agreed with him said they would be content to continue the oath with the words "so help me, God I" avoiding al together any religious test. Those who took the oppo site side of the question said there ought to be a re ligious test, and yet, having an established church, they took no counsel from that church as to the way in which the religious test should ba framed. Sow was it possible that a state of things so alarming and so inconsistent with the dignity of the established church could co-exist with the possession of the revenues which it enjoyed I If the words of the hon. and learned gentleman were accepted au Unitarian might well say he was a member of the church established by the State. Surely, if there were one function of a church more important than another, it was that of determining what test ehou!d be applied to those who came to take seats in Parliament, and if the test were determined without counstl of the church in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, an Uni tarian might say they bad dt-libma , -ly set!led what should be regarded as the true religion for political pur poses, and within that definition he was a member of the church. In what a position would the Established Church ho placed ? They wculd leave it in the enjoy ment of its revenues and decline to take its counsels. The hon. gentleman resumed his seat rather suddenly, notwithstanding encouraging cheers from both sides of the house. Mr. WIGRAM adverted to the argument used by Lord John Russell in a former debate, that it was as much a matter of persecution to exclude Jews from Parlament, as it would be to exclude lawyers ; and said he would be prepared to exclude lawyers, or lords either, if a reasonable objection were urged against them through the country. On this question of per-e -.cution he thought no man need be ashamed to find him self called a bigot in company with the late Dr. Arnold. Mr. EVANS said that as a new member he had ex pected to hear some very strong arguments in support of the resistance of an alteration of the oath. While he admitted the correctness of many of the propositions of the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir F. Thesigei) he thought he had left the main question unt inched. He thought it was a very small argument against the continued exclusion of Jews, that they had been excluded for 200 years, and he thought also that some strong State reason should be shown why those privileges should be withheld. He admitted' also that if there -vas, any chance of Jewish members becoming a majorlity in the house, or that they would destroy the Established Church, or that they would make the religion of the synagogue the religion of the country, there might be some reason for opposing the alteration in the oath ; but he thought no one would for a moment urge that there was any force in such suggestions. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WARREN expressed a hope that the committee would bear with him while he entered into a brief expo sition of his sincere convictions upon a momentous ques tion, the consideration of which bad been forced upon them, not by any pressure from without, but by the whole weight and authority of the Government. When the measure under their notice had been intro dnced the noble lord the leader of the house and the noble lord the member for the city of London had both stated that they had never heard any argument advanced which could be held to establish that the admission of Jews to a seat in Parliament would be attended with danger to the c nstitution. In reply to that observatioo he would say that the objection to such admission was much m , re a queetion of feeling than of argument. Re ligion, after all; was a matter of faith rather than of reason ; it concerned more intirnwely the heart than it did the bead of mank nd, The existence of this feeling, therefore, that Jews ought not to be admitted to the Legislature, was in itself a strong argument against the bill under discussion, and the committee ought, in his opinion, to hesitate long before they assented to a pro r,eition which did nu' rage to the real sentiments of the English per pie. (Hear.) He said the real sentiments' of the English people, because he did not believe that the sedulous and scientific agitation which had been brought to bear upon the subject had in the least degree altered the feelings with respect to it which they always entertained. A certain apathy upon the ques tion might appear, indeed, to exist out of doors, owing to the smallness of the number of petitions which had been presented against the bill, but that cir cumstance was, he thought, to be accounted for by the prevalence of an impression, whether well or ill-founded, that the measure could never pass into a law. (Hear.) Be that as it might, however, it was a matter of some curiosity to observe the mode in which the advocates of the bill met the arguments of its opponents. They con tended that it war absurd to sunpose that the operation of the bill would affect the Christian character of the legislature, and when pressed by argument tending to prove that such must be its operation they turned round and maintained that the legislature had no Christiao character at all. (Hear.) He, however, must contend that it had, and that, moreover, it would lose that cha racter if the bill of the noble lord were to pass into a law. Christianity was inexplicably interwoven with all the institutions of the land, and yet Parliament was asked by the noble lord to derange that mainspring of our whole social system, without which it must crumble into nothing. (Hear, hear.) If the committee were to accede to the proposal of the noble lord then they would have done much to paralyze the exertions of this country in the spread of civilisation, in which she suc ceeded because she was the pioneer of Christianity throughout the world. What would be the feelings generated in the minds of those who obeyed the sceptre of the Queen of England in distant lands when they learnt that men who discarded all belief in the glorious truths upon which our institutions were based, who regarded the author of our faith as a simple impostor, were admitted to the highest places of the legislature I The result of such a step woul I be the creation of a deadly feeling of indifference in religion—(hear)—and the destruction of that confidence which was derived from the pledge that he professed the principles of Christianity which was now exacted from every member of that house. In the celebrated case of " Miller v. Salomon," the present Lord Wensleydale in giving judgment made use of these words :—" How can we say that it is a flagrant violation of national rights that the legislature should make laws the effect of which would be to prevent any one bet a Christian from becoming a member of the Parliament of a Christian country I" and the rioht hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, whom he ('sir. Warren), in common with others, regretted not to see in his place, hail, in a powerful speech, in which he had strongly advocated the claims of the Jews, made the fol lowing observation :—" But I must admit that if we Pass this measure we must be content to. give up the Christian character of Parliament." That was a remark, coming from the hisehquarter from which it did, which he deemed to be well worthy of the attention of the com mittee, and which he trusted would receive that atten tion, notwithst inding that the subject did not appear to excite that degree of interest in the House of Commons which its importance demanded. But, although that was the case, it possess e d a d eep i n t erest f or th ousan d s throughout the country, who professed themselves Chris tians, and who understood its deep influence of Chris tianity upon the great relations of life. Providence, they felt, had not raised up this great nation for temporary purposes, but for the achievement of high and grand obje ts, and they knew that He made the tenure of the advantages which bad been conferred upon her depen dent upon an implicit compliance with His behests. If we thought proper to discard the condition of these ad vantages we should lose the Divine favour, and w rite " Icsabod, the glory is departed." He could net sit down without saying that in this chamber of the Legisla ture, the centre of the operations of the civilised races of m i mankind, if the veil were still upon the he a rt ell'rael, the sceptre wo g ul o d m lal a l , f ( r i on n i ti , i i , u h r e h d ar i i t d, ,, an ( d l w l e au s g b i o L u ) ld tee o with dismay the words, "Mena, Merle, God bath num bered fin h o pes thy thatkit d everyvChristiann his vote, u net 'r of n l the h h is ou ii s l e dil w it o l u ua ld l remember, in g responsibility, but also the claims of the Christian con stituency that sent him to that house. (H ear , h ear .) Sir-J. PA KINGTON — Sir, often as I have been pre sent in this house during these discussions I stand in the same position as the hon. and learued member in having never addressed the house on this subject. I now address the house under circumstances which are to me extre mely painful, and which may possibly inflict some pain upon those with whom I am connected by the closest ties of friendship. Hitherto I have given a silent but not unhesitating vote in support of the principle em b o di e d in the amendment of my hon. and learned friend the member for Stamford, but I have been led by circum stances into which I need not enter to give to this subject more study and more anxious reflection than 1 had yet given to it, and the result is that I cannot con scientiously repeat the vote which I have hitherto given for excluding the Jews from a seat in this house. Sir, having arrived at this conclusion, I cannot think, consi dering the position which this question has . now as sumed, that I am at liberty to shape my vote according to the particular manner in which this question bas been brought before us. I deeply regret themanner in which her Majesty's Government have brought this subject be fore the house. I think it desirable to retain these words —" on the true faith of a Christian." They give addi tional solemnity to an oath to which it most desirable to impart as much solemnity as possible. lam sorry that the Government have decided to change the shape of the oath, and I think they would have adopted a far wiser course if they had allowed Christians to take the oath and to conclude it with that solemn form of words to which we have been so long accustomed, and had proceeded to effect the emancipation of the Jew by a bill similar in principle to that one by which the Roman Catholics were formerly emancipated, which might have gone direct to its object of admitting the Jews to a seat in this house, while at the same time the Jess, like the Roman Catholics, might have been re stricted from holdingthose higher offices of the State, the holder of which is brought into direct connexion with the established church. If the Government bad adopted this course we should have been spared that scene, and a very painful one it was, which we witnessed to-night of Ro man Catholic members protesting against being placed in an invidious position in being compelled to stand apart and take a different form of oath. As, however, the Government have decided upon proceeding in this way, and as I have made up my mind that I can no longer conscientiously continue to oppose the admission of the Jews, it only remains for me—and I do it with regret — to support that form of proceeding upon which the Go vernment have decided. I will not detain the house by referring to the higher religious objections to the admix sion of the Jews to political power. There are still per sons who think that by extending political power to the Jews we are acting in opposition to the divine will and contravening the direct injunctions of Holy Writ. It this be so, the subject is at an end, and we are not at liberty, as relgious men, to enter upon the question. But I am bound to say that my hon. and learned friend the member for Stamford, acting in this question with that perfect fairness and candour which he di-plays on all questions, has never taken this ground of argument. If I remember aright, be has declared that it is absurd, and worse than absurd, to suppose that we, the prior inhabitants of this lower world, can by any conduct of our own influence or control the decrees of Providence, or affect that marvellous fulfilment of the prophecies re garding the Jews which constitutes one of the strongest proofs of the truth of our religion. As my bon. and learned friend has always avoided this subject, I will not advert to it, and there only remains the argument, of which we have heard a good deal to-night, and which has been referred to by th e hon. and learned member for some justification for the continuance of the present oath, tlie - efiefition of whtchedid not fall in - thedire-ctiarrwhich- Wee first intended. But the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Stamford had given up that oath, and proposed another more suited to the present time, in which the words - were inserted for a special purpeee— for doing that which no legislature, at any previous period of history had ever ventured to do, viz., opetly to make religion—without any reference to the conduct of the individual holding that religion—a sufficient justi fication for deprivation of civil office. Theht made the question more serious than in any.sbape in which it had been presented to that house. There was no political axiom more generally received than the one that the State had only to do with a man's opinion in so far as it was a rule of conduct, and not as a rule of faith. In the one case it affected society at large, in the other it only affected the individual in reference to his own conscience and his Maker, and to his conscience and his Maker it must be left. When- proscription on account of opinion could not be justified on account of the ,danger Of . the opinion, it became persecution.. The hon. gentleman opposite had been repeatedly invited to show any plea of political necessity for emending Jews from Parlia ment, but they had avoided the question of political ne cessity altogether, and took refugein Christian theology. .He could understand the line which the hon. gentleman opposite had taken last year ; but to-eight the hon. ' member for Stamford - came forward in the character of a reformer and demolished the oath which bad the justi fication of political necessity, substituting words which, without re-affirmieg the necessity for the first time gave to legislation not a political, but a religious basis. It was admitted that there was no political danger to be ap prehended from the Jews, that their loyal y was un questioned, that their morality was unimpeachable. If we still persevered to brand them and deprive them of civil privileges merely to discountenance their creed, we should pursue a course so inconsistent with our professed principles of action, and with our religious professions, that we really did that which was a reproach to us as a Christian legislature, and must degrade us as a Chris tian nation. Mr. WHITESIDE admitted the momentous character of the question. He hel I the course taken by his hnn, and learned friend was wise and discreet. Heinsisted on main taining the oath which was necessary. The hon, and learned gentleman referred to the arguments that had been made in the course of the debate as to the manner in which a Jew would enter Parliament, and said it was ridiculous to leave them there fettered and prevented in taking part in questions relating to the Church of Eng land, and referred to what he termed a similar discussion to this that look pace 1,400 years ago in the Senate of Rome, when it was proposed to un-Christianise that country, but which was unsuccessful, and he expressed a hope that the same result would attend this measure. Lord J. RUSSELL said—Sir, had it not been f T the speech of the hon. and lea-ned gentleman, I shoal I not have intruded upon the patience of the house at this late stage. It appears to me that the arguments which were used in behalf of the noble lord's bill, were so superior in weight to those which were urged against it, that I thought the house might fairly have been left to come to a decision without answering those arguments. But she hon. and learned gentleman who ha , just sat down, confounding things that are totally diesitnilar, speaking apparently on behalf of principles which we all acknow ledge, but speaking more on behalf of principles which we should all readily condemn, has placed the question in such a false position, that being atixious for the suc cess of the bill, I cannot refrain froen offering some re marks in reply to him. (Hear, hear.) Be fore Ido so, bowever, lee me express my joy and satisfaction that, although be still retains his original opinions upon the great question of Christianity, the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich is yet convinced the claim of the Jew can no longer be resisted. Ido not mean to g' again over the arguments which have been detailed to the house by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Stamford, who says, and says truly, that it is for the State to decide what shall be the cuaidettons upon which power shall be held or ref u-ed by any subjsct. But, con ceding to him that proposition, he is far iedeed from maintaining the validity of the exclusion that affects the Jews. For instance, it is part of the law that no one can sit in this house unless he is 21:years of age ; but if any young man of 18 or 19 claimed to sit on the ground that there was no sufficient reason why a certain age should leo deemed necessary for the fulfilment of func tions so important as those of a member of that house, the answer would be obvious ; it would be that the ex clusion was only temporary, as it affected him along with all others, and that the time would come when he would begin to be qualified to sit, if he were elected. But that is a totally different thing to saying to a man that on account of his religious faith he should be excluded. It is necessary, before you raise that positive exclusion to show that there are good reasons of state policy to justify its maintenance. I say, then, in the first pace, that this exclusion by the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," cannot be shown historically to have been intended. For what is the object. of the oath I It is not to ascertain the faith of the party taking it, but the exclusion of the Stuart family, or any other pretenders to the throne. (Hear.) Again, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy are of as much importance to the state as this oath, and yet they do not ' contain the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." Well, then, what is the object you seek to attain by the continuance of those words ? You surely cannot pre-. tend at this age that you intend to a-certain the senti ments, the religious faith of the person taking the oath ; if you are to do that you must resort to different means ; you must have some such means as are required for the ordination of a cler,2yman. (Hear.) Toe mere w o rdA, •" on the true faith of a Christian," will not exclude the Mormonite nor even Deists, for they rill come to the table and use the words with as much heartiness and readiness as anybody. Therefore, supposing that were 'your object, your moans are insufficient. But besides that. what le your wish I You ought to wish that the great majority of the members of this house, should be influenced by Christian principles in their conduct and votes in this house ; but that is a security you could never attain by an oath, and I confess I would rather see-a Jew seated who was animated by his religious prin. cafes and their meal precepts than the Christian who, while taking the oath; does net hesitate to abardon every respect for the Christianity he swears to profess. It is not therefore riot by any declaration to be made at tee table, but it is upon the influence which religion has I upon the minds of members, that we must rely for the spirit of our legislation. (Hear.) Now let me observe that the hon. and learned gentleman, while he concea'ed the object of it, shored the influence which lead to the establi-hment of the ow h, or else why make re ference to the time when persona were punished for not haling the opinions of the establiehed church of the period, no mat ter whether Roman Catholic or Church cif Engetnd ? NS ell, then, he was not satisfied asith that, but he must go hack to the time when the senate of Rome declared in favour of Christianity. (Hear, hear.). Bat what happened' then I Why, any one who will read a learned work recently issued from the pen of the Dean of St. Paul's, will see that as soon as Christiani , y was declared for a spirit of persecution became ram pant against those who were not Christians, and persons were imprisoned, or had to suffer the total loss of their goods, because they did not profess or belong to the Christian religion. Now, sir, those are examples which I think we ought not to fol.ow. I believe we have come to better principles—and that we understand better what Christianity really is than the senate of Rome when they began a cruel persecution ; or than those of our forefathers, who punish e d w ith fi ne an d imprison ment those whn differed from them. (Cheers ) So far , from injuring Christianity, you will extend its influence by diffusing a Christian spirit ; for it is only toleration that can cause Christianity to flourish. I think we may safely go back to one of the earliest sayings that we read when Christianity was established, namely, "if it is a God itavill stand." (Hear, hear.) I think we may rely upon the means which are being used with greater acti vity than were ever used before to teach Christian feel ing and Christian practice in this kingdom and through out the world. (Hear, hear) I believe that it is not by intelerance—it ie not by those absurd notions to which my right hon. friend the member for Stroud alluded, namely, that we must shut out the Jews because they woul I otherwise have the whole property of the coun try in their pOssession-4 is not by imprisonment, it is still less by capital punishment—it is by none of these means that the Christian religion is to be promoted. (Cheers.) I believe that if you opened the door wide, if you permitted every kind of discussion that was not of the nature of scoff or ridicnle—l believe that if the Jew was allowed to profess his own faith, and to come into this house, you would be doing more to diffuse Chris tianity than you could possibly do by following the ex amples of intolerance set us in former times. (Cheers.) - I believe that the hon. and learned gentleman who re ferred to those times, and who asked us to follow such examples, was leading the house entirely astray ; and I hope that the majority this night will show that we have better examples to folio w, and better precepts to obey. (Cheers.) . . Mr. NE WDEGATE, amidst loud cries of "divide, divide," addressed the house, in which he said that the truth of the speech of the right hon, gentleman the member for Enniskillen was admitted by the miser able pleas the noble lord bad urged in reply to it. He contended that it was necessary that there should be religious qualifications for persons holding high office, and who became members of that house. Lord PALMERSTON rose . amid•loucl cries of "Di vide." He said—l wish, in the first place, before I make the very few observations which I shall feel it my duty to address to the committee on the subject under discus sion, to offer my tribute to the, right hon 'baronet— (lronical cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches)—the member for Droitwich for the honourable course which he has pursued on the present occasion. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) It is honourable to any man to stedfastly adhere to Any opinions which he con tinues to think right ; but it is still more honourable to a man, when he changes his opinion by the process of reasoning or from experience —(ironical cries of " Hear" from the Opposition and cheers from tthe Ministerial benches) —to boldly and manfully avow that he has done so, careless of the taunts of those who still wander in the regions of error —(laughter, and cries of " Hear")—re gardless of any allusions that may be made to him in reference to distinguished persons in ancient history. (Renewed laughter.) Sir, in common with my right bon friend the member for Stroud, I could understand the course of those who maintain that you ought not to touch the oaths which have.been so long administered to members of this house. I could understand those who might say that, though those oaths contained in them matter that was repugnant to good feeling and right sense, they. were still sacred from their antiquity, and who therefore would not meddle with those oaths, even though to meddle with them would improve them. (Hear, hear.) But what lam at 'a loss to understand is the conduct of some of those hoheurable . menbers who Midhurst, that if we admit the Jews to seats in this 1 house we shall thew fire uncbristianise the Legislature. I (Hear.) In answer to that objection lam prepared to advance two distinct opinions. The first is thet by ad witting the Jews - we shall not nechristianise the Leeitla tore ; and the other is that in the sense in which that argu ment is used by the opponents of the claims of the Jews this house is unchristianised already. Theers.) Taking the first branch of this argument, I will not aLegether trust to a query put by a right rev. prelate who was ereu not in favour of the admission of the J ews . Il e sa id it had' been advanced by the opponents of the Jews that if Baron Rothschild took his seat in the House of Commons the Legislature would he unchristianised, and he asked, supposing that in the next Parliament he should lose his scat and that no other Jew should enter the house, whe ther the Legislature, which bad been unchristianised while he was in thehouse, would become a Christian Le eislature again when he was no longer a member of the Houss of Commons. That seems to be the reductio ad absurclusr, and perhaps rather weakens the argument. Foe right rev. prelate dwelt with more force, and I at tach more weight to another argument that he used— namely, that the true definition of a Christian Lesisla sure is a body of representatives elected by Christian constituencies. (Cheers) If 'remember Lightly, the noble lord the member fir the city of London upon a former occasion declared that a representative assembly could only derive its character and its complexion from its constituencies. The true way to preserve a Christian cha racter for the Legislature is to promote religion and Christianity among the people, and so long as we are here the representatives o` a Christian land, elected by Chris t,an constituencies, I cannot bring myself to believe that the admission of Jews to seats in this house will deprive this house of the character which it has so long had of being in its best and widest sense a Christian Hou•e of Commons. (Cheers.) In the sense in which it is said that the admission of the Jews would unchristianise the Legis lature I think the Legislature is unchristianised already. I would not intentionally give offence to any gentleman, hut I think that the true construction and real meaning I o f those who use this argument in this manner is that no person ought to be admitted to a seat in this house who does not admit the divinity of the Saviour. But is it net a notorious fact that there are gentlemen in this house who belong to the sect of Unitarians, and that they do not admit the divinity of our Saviour ? Therefore, taking the argument of my hon. and learned friend in its strictest sense, the unqualified and avowed admission of the Sociniau to this house does, in their acceptation of it, destroy the Christian character of the Legi-lature. Again, let me remind the house that, although you debar the Jew from a seat, there is no extravagance of religious belwf which, provided it be founded on a nominal Chris tianity, will exclude its professors from Parliament. The hon. inernaer for Bridgewater (Mr. Kiuglake), whom we had the pl asure of bearing to-night for the first time, has already alluded to the establishment of which we have doubtless all read,—viz., the Agapemone ; and I ask the house what is there to prevent the NJ ormonite from taking his seat in this house ? If you look at the reed of the Mormonite you will find that the very first article in it is a professed bell fin the Trinity and in the Divinity of the Saviour. The Mormonite would there , ore come to your table and take the oath as it now stands. In the sense, then, in which my hon. and learned friend speaks of maintaining the Christianity of this house I think I have demonstrated that in the first place you admit those who deny the Divinity of the Saviour, and next that, while you shut out the Jew, the state of your law is such that it would let in the follower of Joseph Smith or the adherent of any other form of belief, no matter how extravagant. If the house were to sanc tion the view of my hon. friends near mein regard to the maintenance of the Chretian character of Parliament, they ought not Co content themselves with retaining a few words accidentaby occurring at the end of this oath, but should fairly and explicitly legislate against the Jew in the manner now adopted in one part of Europe, but in one part only, as far as I know. lii Dwirnark Proper the Jew is perfectly free to be chosen a member of the Chamber, or to rise to any political office ; but in the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein there is a very strong law against his admission to Par liament. But how is his proscrtption managed ? Not in the indirect and chanceivork mode resorted to by us, but by express legal enactment to the effect that no man shall be competent to sit in the Legislature of those duchies unless be professes the Christian faith. Upon these grounds, then, I cannot concur in the argument which is founded on the tear of unchristianising the Le gislature ; nor can I subscribe to that other argument, to which I confess I was at one time disposed to attach more weight, and which has been adverted to to-night-- namely, the nationality of the Jews. The Jew, it is said is an alien—he is among us, but not of us—be belongs to a separate nation—iu a word. he is not an Eeglishoiae, but a man who looks forward to his restoration to an other land. Here, again, I hope I shall not, be under stood as intending to say anything that can give pain to any man ; hut perhaps we cannot have a stronger illus tration of this argument than that presented by the Rothschilds. When that celebrated brotherhood went forth from the galled. house in Frankfurt, and one f its members settled in one European capital, and an other in another, doubtless they were a peculiar family, hardly belonging to any one nation. But it is impossible to draw a general conclusion iron an isolated cane of that kind, and to apply *hat reasoning to an entire sec tion of her Majesty's subjects, more erpeciarly as when once that family become rooted in a country they remain, there and acquire propery and all the vat-ions interests which a tack to the residents and citizens of that State. And what is now their position ? Is not the Jew a re cognised subject of the Queen ? Is he not, by general consent, a loyal subject ? Dams he not pay taxes ? D es he not hold property ? Do you not permit him to fill every office in the State excepting those which confer political power ? Ii he not a magistrate and an alder man ? Have we not lately seen one of the most respected and most efficient Lord Mayors who ever pre-ides] over the city of London in the person of a Jew ? (Hear.) is here anything, then, in the argument based sin the na tinuality of the Jew to justify us in telling him, " You shall have no voice in imposing the taxes we make you pay, or in constituting the laws which regulate your pro perty I confess I think there is not. It is said the Jew has no inherent right to political power from the fact of his being born a citizen of this country. I quite admit that ; it cannot be contravened. But, on the other hand, though there is no legal right to the possession of pa laical power, I hold that every Englishman base moral right to all the privileges enjoyed by others who are sitn., lady qualified to himself, unless there is some State ne cessity to the contrary, and that if you are to debar him from those rights by reason of his religious opinions, you I are bound to show that there is something in the nature of his creed which renders the imposition of such a disa bility imperative One point which has been but little adverted to in this debate cannot, I think, be wholly ex cluded (rem our consideration—l mean the state of the law on this subject in the other Christian rations of E - rope, o some of which aro in the enjoymentntjeyeet of conetit u ti one l government. What do wo find tin be the politic a l condi tion of the Jews in other parts of Europe? I have already t r!d you that in the Danish monarchy the Jew is perfectly free to sit, if elected, in the Representative Chamber, and to enjoy political power. In France the Jew is in the same position. And observe, I refer now to both Roman Ca •holic and Protestant countries, Ir; France the Jew is free to be elected to the Criarnher, and to hold po itical power. In Belgium he is equally free—in Holland he is qual'y free—in Prussia he possesses the same privileges. I do not say the British Ilouie of Commons is bound to take its rule from the practice of other countries, but it is ii;tpossible on such a question net to feel that some weight is due to the fact that the other rations of Europe are dealing with it in a more liberal and generous spirit than we do. I may appeal to very high authorities, not on the other (the Ministerial) side of the house only, but among the statesmen who have been connected with the party to which I myself belong. This, in my opinion, is not a party question, but one on which gentlemen sitting on both sides and acting together may, as is now the case, fairly entertain different sentiments. Among those, however, t r whom I have been accustomed to look up with respect in political affairs, I may appeal to the emi nent names of Lord Lyndhurst,. Sir R. Peel, Lord George Bentinck, and many other distinguished gentlemen now or formerly connected with the party with which I generally act, all of whom have uniformly advocated the admission of the Jews to seats in this house. But I confess I think this a subject on which a man's own conscience is a better guide than any authority, however venerable. I can only say I have studied this question to the best of my poor ability. I have regarded it in relation to my duty in this house, and in relation also to myduty as a Protestant Christian. I have examined it as a political question and as a reli gious question, and the result has been that while as a matter of feeling and sentiment I might, perhaps, myself prefer that the Jews should not have seats in this assem bly, I do not think I should be justified in depriving by any vote of mine a considerable, a loyal, and a respect. able portion of my fellow-subjects of the enjoyment of the full privileges of the constitution under which they live. (Cheers ) Mr, NAPIER said the great object of all discussion should he to arrive at the truth. The question then was, not what was the origin of the words " on the true faith of a Christian," but what were the reasons alleged for their being struck out. (Hear.) The noble lord said that one great reason was, that there were certain mem bers who could not agree upon the propriety of those words being retained, but upon that ground all oaths might be done away with. It had been said that the argument that admitting Jews into Parliament would urichri-tianiee that Parliament, was art absurdity. But let them look further into it. Was the house content to abolish its custom of commencing the business of the house with prayer 1 (Hear, hear) But could the Jew pray with the Christian ? Again, at Easter time, when the house separated to celebrate the crucifixion of the Holy Saviour, suppose a Jew got up and Said that he regarded that as an insult to his feelings and religion— could anything be said in answer to his objection ? Were they content to break up all their ancient Christian cere monies ? He had heard the Yen. Archdeacon Hare and also Mr, Holmes, who was father of the Irish bar, say that no man but a professing Christian ought to be a member of that house. The members of shat house had to do with so many mat ters of purely a Christian character, that the thing was perfectly inconsistent. Would they, while refuting to admit a Republican who denied his earthly sovereign, tolerate men who denied the supremacy of Him who was Bing of kings ? Why bad the Jews been scattered through every corner of the globe ? Was it not because they denied the sovereignty of that Saviour who was King of kings and Lord of lords ! Treat them with respect and consideration in all other particulars, but let them not abrogate any of those Christian principles to which we owed our high position among nations, and which under God's blessing he would defend to the last moment of his life. Mr, HORSMAN said the opposition on the other side support the amendment of the honourable and learned had bee n con d uc t e d by four of the ablest lawyers in that gentleman. Those honourable members to whom I house, who had treated the question simply as one of yrefer admit that the oath which we now propose theology The plea of political consistency would afford to a great improvement on the existing oaths , • who accept the proposed change as a benefit, bat vrho then-turn rlutd.anti_vratit_to wake - iiirect - plicit an txciusion which wa- indirectly and ficcideptslly made by the terms of the present oaths. (11,ar„) TllO ath On the true faith of a Chri , tian" wa... not meant to exclude the Jews, but tornake more emphatic the words of the entire oath. Hon. members, by endeavour ing to iusei,t these wori's, endeavour to persuade the house to make purposely an exclusion which it cannot be contended was ever deliberately and pu'rposely made. (Hear, hear.) Sir, we are told that this is a Christian country and a Christian assembly, and therefore we ought not to admit any Jews within the walls. Why, sir, this is a Christian country, and this is a Christian assembly, inasmuch only as that those who represent the, nation are of the same opinion—(cries of " hear, hear, from the Opposition)—of the same creed—(ranewed cries of " Hear, hear"); but do hon. members maintain that this is a religious assembly? (Laughter ) It is a poll' heal assembly. This is an assembly for political pnr: , - poses ; and I say with my right bi.n.'friend the member for Stroud you are not entitl e d to c 'chide gentlemen frig this house by reason of their religious opinions. Yort have nothing to do with their religious opinion, only inasmuch aa — those opinions may sway their political eon' duct. That is the only principle on which this test could be impeeed; and that principle does not lie in the amend ment' which we are called upon _V) discuss. 'I eball not tollow the hon. aed learned member fOr Enniskiilen in that brilliant speech, parts of which, at least, we must all have heard with great pleasure, on account of the display of talent which they exhibited. (Cheers.) ehall not follow him in the ancient examples, which . he quoted ; but I must say that his argument went much further than the amendment which we are now called on to agree to. If the argument of the bon. and learned gentleman should be worth anything we Ought to go beck to the period to which he referred. (Hear.) We ought to expel the Jews from the country— (bear, hear)--or, if by exercise of great_ indulgence and' liberality we admitted them within the realm, we ought to exclude them from every municipal office -- every position in which it would be possible for them to obtain influence. (Hear.) But, sir, it, is not consistent to admit them to the exercise of municipal functions, and then say, forsooth, that the existence of the. Christian religion depends on our exeludirig half.aelozen Jews from Parliament. . (Hear.) The argument of the bon• and learned gentleman utterly fails limier these tests. It is utterly preposterous, and I am sure the country evil concur in thinking that it is perfectly preposterous to imagine that the admission of a few Jews to Parliament could alter the character of this country as a Christian country. (Hear.) In my opinion the only effect the maintenance of the present state of things can have is to cast a slur on the practise of Christianity by making it appear as if the Christians sought to uphold their creed by the maintenance of intolerance and moral persecu two. (Hear, hear.) Sir, we have of. late years made great pregress in the erincieles of civil and religious' liberty. This matter F till remains in which these prin ciples may be and ought to be applied. (Cheers.) And I cannot persuade myself that in this House of Com mons—where I see Catholic members who have within the last few years been permitted to break through the trarnmelevith which intolerance and bigotry bad formerly surrounded them—l.caaiicit persuade myself that in this Rouse of Commons where I see so many diseenters wbo have been relieved by those principles of civil and Tell glow: liberty from the injustice that was so long done them—l cannot persuade myself that this House of C moos, which so fully represents the liberal feelings of the country, can possibly support the amendment of the bon• and learned gentleman, which attempts now, fi r the first time, to make deliberate and exclusive that wbioll is now only accidental. (Cheers.) I cannot believe that this House of Commons will concur in the amend' meat of the hon. and learned gentleman, and, therefore, I go fearlessly to a division—(dieers)—leeling confident that by a large majority we shall affirm chose principles of civil and religious liberty on which, I contend, the real spirit of the constitution of this country depends, and which this house will never lose sight of. We make a boast o our free institutions, but those institution s would lose their animation and become deal if the prin• •iples of civil and religious liberty ceased to inspire thew. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The committee then divided— For the amendment 2Ol Against it 341 Majority The numbers were received with loud cheers. On the motion that the clause be agreed to. Mr. WALPOLE wished to know if the bill was•r A remain in its present form, because, if so, the Jew to" the Roman Catholic would be placed on a different foot' ing. To a deputation which had waited upon the nob le lord, he bad stated that this bill was but a step in ad : vance. Lle wished to know whether the Governme nt intended to make any alteration in the biiL Lord PALMERSTON said the Government did not intend to make any alteration in the bill. Mr. MAIN WARING • hoped the noble lord at the bead of the Government, now that it had been decided to admit Jews to Parliament, would give greater freedom of action to the Protestant, Church. Lord ROBERT CECIL thought more time ought to be given for the consideration of the dense, because under this bill Jew,. might appoint bishops, and be eligible for the office of Prime Minister ; and, therefotes he moved that the chair Man do report progress. , Lord PALMERSTON said the motion could be on ly to cre,te deLty. Mr. DRUMMOND asked if it really was the inten• tin of the Government, under pretence of admitting Jews to Parlfament, to give thew the nomination to bishoprics ? The committee then divided— I'or the adjournment Against it Majority against the adjournment -:-186 Mr. BEN riNca .aid the minority were determined to have an answer to the question whether it was th e intention of the - noble lord, if this bill passed, that Jew! should be eligible to the offices of Prime Minister, Lora Obancellor and other high offices. Lord PALMERSTON said that ibis bill was not,: bill of this qualification. The bill, as it stood, wat u ‘ not prevent any of thwe appointments ; but the Pao: Minister, and appointments of that character, did a ° depend simply on the will of the Crown, but on the n 36 ' jori , y in than. house. If any hon. member wished t° offer any further amendment, be would not resist the adjournment after the 6rst clause bad been passed. id Mr. WALPOLE s a id after that intimation he W OO advise his frien.t to desist from further opposition. Mr. MOW r , RAY thought the adjournment ought to be Ares-ed to a .'ivision again. Mr. MALINS thought no good object could be a t. tained by orotric ing the discussion. • Mr. MILES thought so too, but he believed that th e House of Lords would throw out the bill. After some further discussion, Lord PALMERSTON said it was clearly against tb6 feeling of to.- house that the Chairman should reP° l progress, especially as any hon. member might move a° amendment (tn the. report. The motion for reporting progress was negatived wit h ' out a division, and the remaining clauses were agreed t ° ' The CHAIRMAN then reported the bill to the hoe, The Sound Dues 8.1 was read a third time and pass eu ' The County Cess (Ireland) Bill was 'read a third tio3o and passed. The Mditia (Ireland) Act (1854) Amendment Bill W 0 read a third time and passed. The Fraudulent Trustees Bill was committed forma, for the purpose of introducing amendments. The Turnpike Trusts Arrangement Bill was read • second time. The Savings Banks (No. 4) Bill was committed, P' forma, and ordered to be recommitted on Monday neatts Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill t 0 • continue the act for extending for a limited time th e provision for abatement of -income tax in respect of /o*. surance on lives. Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to bring in a bi ll , to amend the act of 1856 to facilitate leases and Wee (1 ' settled estates. Mr. ADDERLEY obtained leave to bring in a bill for regulating the presentation and withdrawal of election petitions. The house then adjourned to this day, at 12 o'oloelG [ADVERTISEMENT].--Holloway's Ointment and al surpsss every Remedy for the Cure of Wounds.- - ' tract of a letter from Mr. Hubbard, of Walsal :--`` Professor r,—A most remarkable instance of the virtue of your medicines has recently come und er my notice. A young man a needle maker, at Studley', wa'i suffering from several ulcers upon his legs and °til t p-,rts of his body, so much that he could not ico'l without crutches. He had the benefits of medics treatment for a long time, but gradually got worseci He was then advised to try y toour valuable medicine, o n ,, by them he is perfectly cured."—Sold by all an': eine vendors throughout the world ;at Professor t. 1 i,sav's Establishments, 244, Strand, London ; and 11 80, Maiden-lane, New Y,,rk ; by A. S-Ampa, Consttor tinople ; A. Guidicy, Smyrna ; and E. Muir Malta. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 13th inst., at Talacre, Flintshire, the Hon. 14011 Moszyn. On the 14th inst., at 60, Eaton-ER : two, the Wife of I I " Crossley, Esq., hi. P. On the 13th inst., the wife of Sir Godfrey J. Thora oo Bart. OF A DAIIGIFFga. °lithe 15th inst , at 5 , Southwick - place, Hyde - P ar " ' square, the wife of Walker Skizrow , jun., Esq. g On the 14th inst., at Englefield.-green, the wife of Chap' Barnett, Esq. 101.111 MARRIED. - - On the 13th inst., at St. Pancras Church, John Foul White, tO Mary Ann, only surviving daughter c , thela E late John Cooper, Eq., of H.M. O r di nance , TOO" and of Guilford-street, Russell-square. On the luth inst., at Eye Church, the Rev. G. F. g i t c4 lear, 8.A., Scholar of Trin.Col.Cam., to Christiana Scat' eldest daughter of the Rev. J. W. Campbell, vicar of SY" Suffolk. DIED. On the 13th inst., at Ramsgate, Edward Sharwood, 5 134.1 late of Savage -gardens, wine merchant, aged 44. On the 15th i ns t., a t 18, M ar lb oroug h-hill, wood, A. Rivolta, Esq., aged 68. est, On the 14th i ns t., a t 20, Upper Be r k e l e y-street, W S ydney Wyndh am , th e infant son of John Philpot Cnri a 7 q SL Job ler On the 13th inst., at Kensington, Mr. John Edir s ` l.4l Bennett. LONDON : Printed and Published by KURDO YOV l4 , 6f ' of No, 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Mice, l f, 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the coilll'i of Middlesex, Tuesday, June 16,1857 IT° 111 P.. wt racteristie, Morning IN Rtaps may PolY:raphic IS at the] OY) CA: eels' of the 1 et Forty of • 3 1, Bouleou The Lane n 0Y m. , taam3enetm Madame Ri Madame Ca `strand; Mig' 11eichf uouduct ors- A dmission I R 0 Adn This Day Tt e pieces t i r Also Each Events the Great CI general de-li Double Rone dst of a G( Fresco Amt 'tope, Acrob CRYSI Esl F and FRIDA and railway -l erminus, p: leave Lo chl rag th. a; trn Ticke he desert') 4 n-bridge T Piccadill GILEA NOT . 4 , the Of Z_ lo of 'kit DaYa of t welled at Te I gendlng disappoi 7.. 1 1 knee at ti nto themsel Tickets fot uttllery ewit guinea ; Unr 'no e3lO of Dan Nine on Me troP lita n DEPA Z it tOplied bet e dlifter the 8A: THE C c th Lord II Jai, I Nand, do luil,,,. n ext, at I " u t UP to s: eral Lots of Ili i t . p e 'lng In the! rosteosns,fwaisp r t n tare!talog ties e OTICI Tender deplrar-offte 'hext, tor a th* Clo,O a. PoAn cati cloth is i ;I„._re. any neec wrens ard 4t6 the e ih r tender wi o btatne( ?.:Witl ,. ° m ice, r Th e ci Dromo , I t ' ;, )rt aril r e ri" or ri f . enir tl , e 14; 1 ; Ite sP' , ere „,1e , % ttlibl endt tr i g tec i l th e llt t The syn spiritu a l, qr a nd neg . t„"„ic ) IS toe , eas," , Pertlet h e rnYby thi t em '. Alfred 4. 0 Brady, N EW' AN nt Ofn ce t b arrilaci 4eTp'IESEM 01!),.d tut 'RIFE eOl LAX lot z 'qUencei ttr eh r esilen i nom n th and i;,,,1510 the ei ‘l4Grte.rtlMle eg ec fok'cates al t•r Gleeti ne, Pains 1.4t124,tivi and %the, hi tame gre at ;:. It al: bo h ‘4 , 4 e o alE th e -and i m • thr /Ir as of iev tal kh the h e t t- fellin g tt o ,:r - nnitsh t or the orldal hie W C h h_ saves 40 - Thad w• Ttr,L,,adenr ttrh zi ,fa . e!, 'clit!urree, 1r II Mi o rk Price &e. totiteini Who It give e nre 4 .10 Fh 1 41 e:_ 41 ' 4 ' 1, n; ..411, ° " .e0 Pe, • 1441.:,;atcra ~,~