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

election of every Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland or in England, the new prelate took en oath of canonical obedience to the Pope, and yet they were told that the Pope had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in these realms. $o as to spiritual dominion. The Pope imposed, say, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and it was believed by Boman Catholics. How then could it be said that be bad no spiritual jurisdiction ? (Hear.) He (Nlr. 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 eccle siastical 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 cenntry, of the gentlemen of this country, he called on the house not to allow the words to be retained. (Hear, hear ) Mr. NAPIER.said the hen. 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, be Gould not give him jurisdiction, which flowed only from the sovereign. Lord Cloncurry and another noble lord had made the same objection as the hon. gentleman ; but then they made it before 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 awl unambiguous oatb, that they would make no attack on the purport of the oath. With respect to the oath of sus premacy, he wieil I 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. THEOIGER, explained that when the Queen's counsel referred to by Mr. Roebuck objected hi 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 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 been 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 .. 68 Against it — 243-175 Sir F. THESIG ER 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 tru'y, on the true faith of a Christian." The 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 abare den 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 shoal l haveeanticipated support to his amend ment from Mr. Gladstone and Lord J. Russell ; for, in 1819, when the noble lord introduced one of his nume rous 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 th it Louse who, although they desired to see the Jew admitted amongst them, wool i yet be unwilling to re nounce the profession of their faith. (Tear.) 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 cussed 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 ordinarily called " begging the question." They had supposed that the native-born Jew had an inherent rigtet 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 up in 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 was 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. Tresham, 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 contenilei that those words in the act were intended at all to be directed against the Jew ; for at that time there was .scarcely one, if one, Jew in this country. But they a , right to contend that by the insertion of those words the strongest proof was given that no person could be a member of the Legislature unless be held the faith of a Christian. That Legislature had been hemmed in with Christian ceremonials and observances. The oaths mem hers were required to take were taken upon the Gospels; they begau their daily labours with prayef, offered up in that only name which could render 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 was ' true that by legislative interference in other directions, persons were now enabled to to se an oath upon any ee l' cssion (for those were the word-) in the form which was •- most binding upon their conscience. But those words, "on the true faith of a Christian," bad 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 person acquainted with the history and the position of the Jews is this country, that it was only by the accidental insertion of those words that he was excluded from admission to Parliament. Banished if, the reign of Edward 1., returning to this country after the Restoration, they were regarded, not as citizens, but as aliens. In the time of Will ant 111. an endeavour was made by that monarch to relieve the Jews from an alien duty which was imposed upon theta in the receipt of cus toms; but he was compelled, by the remonstrances ofthe merchants, to restore that duty, which remained upon them for a very considerable time after. Every one knew that in the reign of George If. a 111 v a ire reduced fer the Purpose of enabling Jews to prefer hills of naturalisa tion without taking the sacrament, Tho act passed, but created so much clamour. that it was repealed in the fol lowing year. Down to 1836, when Mr. Robert Grant i- - troduced the first of the series of bi is for the admission of the Jew - s, they were excluded from all offices, civil and military, and from corporations, and from first to last upoo the ground that they were infidels and aliens. It was not peeeible, under these circumstances, for any one seriously to contend that it was by reason of these words in en 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 lisbing their right must be upon those who sought to ob tain their admission. The Christian character of the Ls gislature had been established and continued to the pre sent time ; and it was necessary for those who thought that persons who were no Christians should be entitled to the honour of a seat in that house to eOahlish it by argument—to prove that, under the circumstance, either the forms of the helve offered no impediment to their admission, or that the time had come a hen all those die tioctioos should be swept away. (Hear, hear.) The advocates of the Jews had offered arguments 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, ha-.l 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 poliOcal power and autho rity were the creatures of the S ate, and no person could be entitled to that power and nut ,ority 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 had so declared. If such was the relation in which per sons stood to the legisl a tu re , a person who was not a Christia n might complain of, the condition, and might seek to have it altered, but be could have no anteced en t right to that Whi c hwas as prohibited by th e cons tit u ti on . e a laaids " We ought to respect th e o pi n i o n . who have respect a bl e a constituency as th e City o f London, returned a Jew to P ar li amen t . " Th a t, evas an ar gumeht that already referreir trey much of the same character as Perfectly well that by la. The citizens of Landon knew ,Tew could not take his seat in that house, notwitte7tena that they chose to elect hire as their representative (iwg then they endeaveured to urge the circumstance, e 4 a h n a d , 'institulbtlioYrisfor of pnicuring an alteration of tn e the purpose Theyof the country u o - have ty s h own m ere deference to the y avail manner to if they had endeavoured hi ever change ti , e law, buttnhdeytho o headin,:isrtigohnt ftooricua oet-803%i disqualified by law, a legislature by that mea ns an alt eration of the lappwo, It was a bad ex amp i le htto haven oatphererfecroene for n : titue uzi ro ee: o f t t h h e e r country. They mg disqualified person, might select him as their representa tive, and might then insist, as the citizens of L ondon had done, that the law should be changed to secure their object. The citizens of London had shown that they were determined to pursue a course which h e thought was perfectly unconstitutional ; and, at the same time,- having chooen to lose, now for a period of ten years; one of their representative?, they had prribably suggested to the noble lord at the head of the Government, and hems ght attend to it when he br ou g ht in his measure of reform, that three members for the city, by their own confession, were perfectly sufficient. (Leuritter.) Arrether argument usually urged on these occasions.--something in the nature of the argumentunb ad hominem —was this ; "You have admitted Jews to exercise the elective franchise; how can you refuse to a f reit them to seats in this house?" (Cheers.) Hon. (made nen seen Lad to think that that was a very powerful and eine°. bison argument; bus tc would submit for their cen sidei.ttaou theli2tize.liu L:r.t7.teJa a peolote 144.7i0g ifs THE SUN, LONEON, TUESDAY EVEN 1 NG, JUNE 16, 1857 finitesimal right to elect a Christian as a member of the Legislature, and himself having a seat in that Legislature, and being able to make the laws which had higher eanc thong than those he acknowledged. He did not know whether that distinction was satisfactory to those why. eemed 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 an al dertnan—(hear) —you have advanced thus far ; how can you then exclude him from taking a part in 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 acd conduct being governed and regulated by that law end allowing him to be one of those who should make the laws that were to regulate a Christian community. Put ting the question upon the low ground 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 wbioh was pronounced upon him so many years ago—" Lo, this people shall dwell alone, and shall nothe reckoned among the nations"--had 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. , eparatefromthetn by custom and habit, and by the unsocia. 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 ; se they must inevitably 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 ? 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 commixture, they bold communication without union, and may be traced as rivers within banks." There was something in theircustoms, 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 of 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 posed to be removed indicated the character of the Legislature. They must therefore take up the other ground. Now, who were the advocates of this measure ? The sup porters of civil and religious liberty, the Roman Catho lics, and those members of the Established Church who were ar xioue to see a separation of Church and State— all these were united together for the purpose of accom plishing a common end, the destruction 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 hel I that religion had nothing to do with the councils and business of this house. Many of them, no doubt, agreed in the opinion of Burise, who said that religion, so far from being out of the sphere of the duty and province of the Christian l-- gielator was and ought to be not only his care, but the prncipal 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 Whetely, who was a sincere and consistent advocate of the claims of the Jews,. found himself greatly perplexed 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 bad a right to a room in a house, but who had no right to any otherpart 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 could be 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 control the various interests—ecclesiastical and se cular—of the country, religion ought to control and in fluence the decisions of the legislature. 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 nothing 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 best 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, how 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, nr 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 impossible to abandon that bulwark of the constitution, the Christian character of the leeislature of this country. It would be said that all this was the result of intolerance and a spirit of persecution. (Bear.) 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 having the passport they had a right to ask the Jews why they came there. He asked the house to pause before it took the step de manded of thern—before they abandoned that which f.r 250 years had consecrated them to their duty, and be f re they proclaimed openly that they bad been mistaken ia 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 doned. He earnestly implored hon. gentlemen to bold 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 guided. (Hear.) Mr. STANHOPE seconded the amendment. He ob. jested 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 Around of a common Christianity. This made a great distinction between the case of the admission of these bodies and the ad mis sion of the Jaws, and on this ground he should oppose their adsni-sion. Mr. KINGLAKE craved that indulgence which was always extended to a member who addressed the house for the first time, and remarked that the observations which he intended to make, with the exception of a few comments on the speech of the hon. and learned member for Stamford, would be applied, net to the old-contested point involved in the Jew Bill, but to, the new phasa of the question opened up by the amendment before the house. He did not question some of the positions laid down by the hon. and learned member for Stamford. He did not think we were bound to admit Jews to Parl ament because the city of London had thought fit to.elect a Jew as one of its representatives, and still less did be found himself upon the argument that we were bound to admit Jews because some of th .t people were already electors and entitle, to vote for members of the Legislature. It was competent to us to exclude from political power any class r denomination of men—to du 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 riehte 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 S amford fir exclusion of the Jews ? He had told them that Chri tiaeiry established a higher standard of mora lity than any other form of religion, and then, with a fallacy which appeared strange in one so learned and in g. nious, he went on to assume that this test bad a tend ency to give us, not only persons who called 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 had eetabl.shed themselves. They - were to all in ents 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-ed a faith shocking almost to all who beard 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 fee 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 Ce r n. 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 ? (Hear, hear.) Approaching the new question operhai up by the amendment before the hou.e, he might venture to 81 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 oricinally framed, and had ever since been used, as a prof, s-ion 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—not the Jews, but the Roman Catholice. The words bad continued, and we had them, as it were, adhering 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 ; hut 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 — wemight or we mi g ht no t a p p ly a re li g i ous tea t t o t'iose claiming to sit in Parliament. Those who agreed with him *laid they would be content to continue the oath with the words "so help me, God t" avoiding al together any religious test. Those who took the oppo ,ite side of the questio • said there ought to be a re • and yet, having n h a n established church, they ligious test, the religious test should beefruarmeehda.s took no counsel from that church H to o t w he w w as ay it i p n o w ss h ib ic l h e that a state of thing s so ng alarmiand so inconsistent with the dignity of the establisbedchurch could co-exist w ith the possession of the revenues which it enjoyed ? If at,;444.1g1et well say ho was learned gentleman t;uo at; : p o! , t s l .i s of 2 t u L ec. I 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 should be applied to those who came to take seats in Parliament, and if the test were determined without counsel of the church in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, an Uni tarian might say they bad deliberately setiled 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 he placed ? They would leave it in the enjoy ment of its revenues and decline to take its counsels. The boo, 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 Par Lament, 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 perse cution he thought no man need be ashamed to find him self called a bigot in company with the late Dr. &rnold. Mr. EVANS said that as a new member he had ex pected to bear 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. Thesiger) he thought he had left the main question untniched. He 'hough; it was a very small argumnsnt 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 it there was any chance of Jewish members becoming a majolty 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 had been forct,d 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 duced 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 coclil be held to establish that the admission of Jews to a scat in Parliament would be attended with danger to the c netitution. In reply to that observation he would say that the objection to such admission was much mere a question of feeling-than of argument. Re ligion, after all, was a matter of faith rather than of reason ; it concerned more intimately the heart than it did the bead of mank ad. 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 ' p , sition which did ouliage to the real sentiments of the English people. (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 al ways entertained. A certain apathy upon the ques tion might appear, indeed, to exist out of doors, oiling 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 fir 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 was absurd to suppose 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 op-ration they turned round and maintained that the legislature had no Christine character at all. (Rear.) 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 asktel by the noble lord to derange that mainspring of our whale social system, without which it must crumble into nothing. (Hear, hear.) If the tomtnittee 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 ? The reult of such a step would be the creation of a deadly feeling of indifference in religion—(hear)—and the destruction of that confiience 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 W ens l e yd a l e i n 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 ?" and the right boo. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford, whom he (11r. Warren), in common with others, regretted not to see in his place, had, 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 highquarter 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, notwithstanding 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 possessed a deep int eres t f or th ousan d s throughout ie 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 te, and they knew that He made the tenure of the advantages which had 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 write " Ichabod, the glory is departed." He could not sit ' down without saying that in this chamber of the Legisla ture, the centre of the operations of the civilised races of mankind, if the veil were still upon the heart of T , rael, the sceptre would fall from our hand, and we should see with dismay the words, "Mena, Alene, God bath num bered thy kingdom and finished it." (A. laugh.) He hoped that every Christian member of the house would remember. in giving his vote, not only his individual responsibility, but also the claims of the Christian con stituency that sent him to that house. (Hear, hear.) 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 learned member in having rever 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 Crave given a silent but not unhesitating vote in support of the principle embodied iu 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 bad 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 has been brought before us. I deeply regret the manner 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 Ctiristiane" • - They give addi tional solemnity to an oath to which it most desirable to impart as much solemnity as possible. Tam 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 Je..R, l•ke the Roman Catholics, might have been re stricted from holding those higher offices of the State, the holder of which is brought into direct connexion with the established church. If the Government had 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 admis 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 religious 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 displays on all questions, has never taken this ground of argument. If I remember aright, he has declared that it is absurd, and worse than absurd, to suppose that we, the poor 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 hon. an, !earned friend has always avoided this subject, I will not advert to it, and there only remains the argument, o which we have heard a good deal to-night, and which ha: be.:4 ;4;.‘;:red to by tbO Lou, a4cl I;4rza9d 4:e Luber t . . Midhurst, that if we admit the Jews to seats in this house we shall theref ire uncbristianise the Legislature. (Hear.) In answer to that objection lam prepared t , advance two distinct opinions, The first is that by ad mitting the Jews we shall not nechristianise the Legisla ture ; 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. (Cheers.) Taking the first branch of this argument, I will not altogether trust to a query put by a right rev. prelate who was argu ing in favour of the admission of the Jews. He said 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 be unchristianised, and he asked,. supposing that in the next Parliament he should lose his seat and that no other Jew should enter the house, whe ther the Legislature, which had b een unc h r i st i an i, ei t while he was in the house, would become a Christian Le gislature again when he was no longer a member of the House of Commons. That seems to be the reductio ad absurdum, and perhaps rather weakens the argument Tne 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 Legisla ture is a body of representatives elected by Christian constituencies. (Cheers.) If I remember rightly, the noble lord the member for 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 tian 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 bad 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 unchristienise toe Legis. lature I think the Legislature is unchristianised already. I would not intentionally give offence to any gentleman, but I think that the true construction and real meaning of 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 not a notorious fact that there are gentlemen in thi, 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 bon. 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 Legislature Again, let me remind the house that, although you debar the Jew from a seat, there is no extravagance of religious belief which, provided it be founded on a nominal Chris tianity, will exclude its professors from Parliament. The hen. member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kiuglake), whom we had the 'pl asure of hearing to-night for the first time, has already alluded to the establishment of which we have doubtless all read,—viz., the Agapemone ; and l ask the house what is there to prevent the Mennonite from taking his seat in this house ? If you look at the creed of the Mennonite you will find that the very first article in it is a professed belief in the Trinity and in the Divinity of the Saviour. The 14Ionnonite would there tore come to your table and take the oath as it non 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 Savieur, 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 me in regard to the maintenance of the Christian character of Parliament, they ought not to content themselves with retaining a few words accidentally 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.. In D.inimark 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 proscription managed ? Not in the indirect and chaocework 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 he professes the Christian faith. Upon these grounds, then, I cannot concur in the argument which is founded on the fear of unchrietianising 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—he belongs to a separate nation—in a word, he is not an Englishman, 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 h ave a s t ronger illus tration of thie argument than that presented by the Rothschilds. When that celebrated brotherhood Went forth from the gabled house in Frankfort, 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 from an isolated ease of that kind, and to apply that reasoning to an entire sec tion of her Majesty's subjects, more especially as w h en once that fa m ily b ecome rooted in a country they remain there and acquire property and all the varione interests which a tech 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 ? Does he not pay taxes 1 D'es he not hold property ? Do you not permit him to fill eeery office in the State excepting those which confer political power ? Is he not a magistrate and an alders man ? Have we not lately seen one of the most respected and most efficient Lord Mayors who ever presided over the city of London in the person of a Jew ? (Hear.) Is there anything, then, in the argument based on the na tionality 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 e 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 band, though there is nolegal right to the possession of political power, I hold that every Englishman has a moral right to all the privilege s enjoyed by others who are simi larly 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 are bound to show that there is something in the nature of his creed which renders the imposition of such a disa bility imperativeonba cannot, I think, be wh o lly ex cluded point which has b een b u t lit t l e adverted from our consider a ti on —l mean the state of the law on this subject in th e o th er C hrist i an nations of Eu rope,this stormed which ar e lat h e enjoyment of constitutional government. What do w o fi n d to b e the political condi tion of the Jews in other parts of Europe? I have already told 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 rejer now to both Roman Catholic and Protestant countries. In France the Jew is free to be elected to the Chamber, and to hold political power. In Belgium he is equally free—in Holland he is equally free—in Prussia he possesses the same privileges. I do not say the British House of Commons is bound to take its rule from the practice of other countries, but it is impossible ou such a question not to feel that some weight is due to the fact that the other nations 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 Mirsisterial) 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 actine together may, as is now the case, fairly entertain different sentiments. Among those, however, to 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 Re 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 my duty as a Protestant Christian. I have examined it as a political question and as areli 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 ) 7 . I. .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 mein hers who could not agree upon the propriety of those words being retained, but upon that ground all oaths might be done away with. It bad been said that the argument that admitting Jews into Parliament would uuctiri-tianiee that Parliament, was an 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 ? (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 anythi ng b e sai d i n answer t o hi s 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 n o man but a professing Christian ought to be a member of that house. The members of that house bad to do with so many mat ters of purely a Christian character, that the thin g was perfectly inconsistent. Would th?y, while refusing t o a d m i t a R epu bli can w h o denied his earthly sovereign, tolerate men who denied the supremacy of Him who was King of kings ? Why had the Jews been scattered through every corner of the globe I 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 aiming nations, and vhich under God's blessing he would defend to the last uornent of his life. Mr. HORSNIA.N said the opposition on the other side lad been conducted by four of the molest lawyers in that Inn3s, who had treated the question simply as one of 110 ple4 of politioal 04sistolpy would agog some justification for the con tinuance_of the present oath, the operation of which did not fall in the direction which was first intended. But the hon, and learned gentleman •he member for Stamford had given up that oath, and proposed another more suited to the present time, in vhich the words were in.erted for a special purpe,,e— or doing that which no legislature, at any previous eeriorl of hi , tory had ever ventured to do, viz., open ly to make religion—without any reference to the conduct of the individual holding that religion —a sufficient justi fication for deprivation of civil office. That made the question more serious than in any shape 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 eras a rule of cenduct, and not as a rule of faith. In the .me 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 oust be left. When proscription on account of opinion could not be justified on account of the danger of the opinion, it became perseculion. The hoe. gentleman opposite had been repeatedly invited to show any plea sf political necessity for excluding 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 bad taken last year ; but . to-night the hon. .nember for Stamford came forward in the character of a reformer and demolished the oath which bad the jus•i tication of political necessity, substituting words which, without re-affirming the necessity for the first time gave , 0 legislation not a political, but a religious basis. It was admitted that there was no political danger to beep prebended 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 orinciples of action, and with oar religious professions, 'hat 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 the course taken by his hon. anti ;earned friend was wise and discreet. He insisted on main raining 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 i n which a Jew would enter Parliament, and said it was ridiculous to leave them there fettered and prevented in raking part in questions relating to the Church of Eng land, and referred to what he termed a similar discussion to this that gook place 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 sael—Sir, had it not been fe. the speech of the bore and lea-tied gentleman, I shoo' f not gave intruded upon the patience of the house at this late stage. It appear s to me th a t t h e arguments wh i ch 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 dime ! - ,o a decision without answering those arguments. But the hon. and learned gentleman who has just eat down, confounding things that are totaly dissimilar, speaking apparently on behalf of principles which we all ackti ow 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 anxious for the suc cess of the bill, I cannot refrain from offering some re marks in reply to him, (Hear, hear.) Before Ido so, however, let 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 go 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 conditions upon which power shall be held or refused by any subject. But, con ceding to him that proposition, he is far indeed 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 be deemed necessary for the fu'filrnen• 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 en 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 p ace, that this exclusion by the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," cannot he shown historically to have been intended. For what is the object of the oath ? 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 ascertain the senti ments, the religious faith of the person taking the oath ; if you are to do that you re ust resort to different means ; you must have some - such means as are required for the ordination of a clergyman. (Hear.) The mere words, " on the true faith of a Christian," wiil not exclude the Nlormonite nor even Deists, for they „ill come to the table and use the words with as much heartiness and readiness as anybody. Therefore, supposing that were your object, your means are insufficient. But besides that. what is your wish ? You ought to wish that the great reajority 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 a' tain by an oath, and I confess I would rather see a Jew seated who was animated by his religious prin ciples and their moral precepts than the Christian who, while taking the oath, does not hesitate to abandon every respect for the Christianity he swears to profess. It is not therefore not by any declaration to be made at the table, but it is upon the influence which religion has 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 concealed the object of it, showed the influence which lead to the establiehneent of the oath, or else why make reference to the time when persons were punished for not holding the opinions of the established church of the period, no mat ter whether Roman Catholic or Church cif England ? Well, then, he was not satisfied with that, but he must go back to the time when the senate of Rome declared in favour of Christianity. • (Hear, hear.) But what happened then ? 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 Christianity was declared for a spirit of persecution became ram pant against those who were not Christians, and persons were imprisoned, or bad 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 follow. 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 punished with fine and imprison• ment those who 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 it will 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 intolerance—it is 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 w o ol i otherwise have the whole property of the coun try in their possession—it 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 ridicule—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 follow, and better precepts to obey. (Cheers ) Mr. NEWDEGATE, 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 fur Enniskillen was admitted by the uti-er able pleas the noble lord had 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 tha' house. Lord PALM.ERSTQN rose amid loud 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— (ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches)—the member for Draitwich for the honourable course a Bich be has pus sued on the present occasion. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) It is honourable to any am 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 the 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 hon. 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 understat' is the conduct of some of those honourable members who support the amendment of the honourable' and learned gentleman. Tuose honourable members to whom I refer admit that the oath which we -now propose is a great -iLpyrovelpnt on tie ezistipt oaths 1111111MII who accept the proposed change as a benefit, but who then turn round and - Want to make di - rect and ex plicit an exclusion which was indirect!y and accidentely made by the terms of the present oaths. (Hear.) Tee oath On the true faith of a Ceri-tiara" was not meant to exclude the Jews, but to make more emphatic tho words of the etrire oat's. Hon: members, by endeavour ing to insert these wor 'FT, endeavour to persuade the house to make purposely en exclusion which it cannot be contended was ever deliberately and purposely made. (Hear, hear.) Sir, we are told that this is a Christiae coentry 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—(renewed cries of " Hear, hear") ; but do hon. members maintain that this is a religious assembly? (Laughter ) It is a poli tical assembly. This is an assembly for political pur poses ; and I say with my right bon. friend the member for Stroud you are not entitl,d to exclude gentlemen front this house by reason of their religious oPinione. You have nothing to do with their religious opinions, only inasmuch as those opinions may sway their political con duct. That is the only principle on which this test could be imposed; and that principle does not lie in the amend ment which we are called upon to discus. I shall not follow the hen aed learned member for Enniskilen in that brilliant speech, parts of which, at least, we must all have heard with gr-at pleasure, on account of the display of talent which they exhibited. (Cheers.) I shall not follow hint 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 hon. 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— (hear, bear)—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 exerci.ie of inunicipel functions, and then say, forsooth, that the existence of the Christian religion depends on our exeluding half-a-dozen Jews from Parliament. (Hear.) The argument of the hon. and learned gentleman utterly fails miler these tests. It is utterly preposterous, and I am sure the country will 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 practi-e of Christianity by making it appear as if the Christians sought to uphold their creed by the maintenance of intolerance and moral persecu tion. (Hear, hear.) Sir, we have of late years made great progress in the principles of civil and religious liberty. This matter still remains in whin these prin ciples may be and ought to be applied. (Cheers ) And I cannot persuade myself that in this House of Corn mono—where I see Catholic members who have within the last few years been permitted to break through the trammel with which intolerance and bigotry had formerly surrounded them—l cauuot persuade myself that in this House of Commune where I see so many dissenters who have been relieved by those principles of civil and reli gious liberty from the injustice that was so long done them—l cannot persuade myself that this House of Cern- MODS, which so fully represents the liberal feelings of the country, can possibly support the amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman, which attempts now, Ix the first time, to make deliberate and exclusive that which 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—(cheers)—feeling confident that by a large majority we shall affirm those principles of civil and religious liberty on which, I contend, the real spirit of the constitution of this conntry depends, and which this house will never lose sight of. We make a boast o our free institutions, but those institutions would lose their animation and become dead if the prin ciples of civil and religious liberty ceased to inspire them. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The committee then divided— For the amendmenf 2Ol Againtit 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 to remain in its present form, because, if so, the Jew and the Roman Catholic would be placed on a different foot ing. To a deputation which had wa,itel upon the noble lord, he bad stated that this bill was but a step in ad vance Re wis , hed to know whether the Government intended to make any alteration in the bill. Lord PALMERSTON said the Government did not intend to make any alteration in the bill. Mr. MAINWARING hoped the noble lord at the head of the Government, now that it had been decided to admit Jews to Parliament, would give greater freedom of action to the Pi ote4ta.nt Church. Lord ROBERT CECIL thought more time ought to be given for the consideration of the clause, because under this bill Jew, might appoint bishop., arid be eligible for the office of Prime Minister ; and, therefore, he moved that the chairman do report progress. Lord PALMERSTON said the motion could be only to ere Ate Mr. DRUMMOND asked if it really was the inten tinn of the Government, under pretence of admitting Jews to Parliament, to give them the nomination to bishoprics ? The committee then divided— For the adjournment Against it Majority against the adjournment —136 Mr. BEN riNca said the minority were determined to have an answer to the question whether it was the intention of the noble lord, it this bill passel, that Jews should be eligible to the offices of Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and wher high offices. Lord PALMERSTON said that ibis bill was not - a bill of this qualification. The bill, as it stood, would not prevent auy of those appointments ; but the Prim.. Minister, and appointments of that character, did not depend simply on the will of the Crown, but on the ma joriry in that house. If any hon. member wished to offer any furtbee amendment, he would not resist the adjournment after , the first clause had been passed. - M r. WALPOLE said after that intiinatiOn he would advise his friend to desist from further oppo , ition. Mr. MOW hRAY thought the adjournment ought to be pressed to a s'ivt,ion again. Mr. MALINS thought no good object could be a tained by protrac•ing the discussion. Mr. ICIILES thought so too, but he believed that the House of Lordi would throw out the bill. After some further discussion, Lord PALMERSTON said it was clearly against the feeling of th, house that the Chairman should report progre , s, especially as any hon. member might move an amendment on the report. The motion for reporting progress was negatived with out a division, and the remaining clauses were agreed to. The CHAIRMAN then reported the bill to the house. The Sound Dues Bil was read a third time and passed. The County Cess (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Militia (Ireland) Act (1854) Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The Fraudulent Trustees Bill was committed pro forma, for the purpose of introducing amendment 4 . The Turnpike Trusts Arrangement Bill was read a second time. The Savings Banks (No. 4) Bill was committed, pro forma, and ordered to be recommitted on Monday next. Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to continue the act for extending for a limited time the provision for abatement of income tax in respect of in• eurance on lives. Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of 1856 to facilitate leases and sales of 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'clock. The Slterborne Journal has an account of a strange occurrence which happen , d in a parish a few miles from teat town. On Sunday last, the Sacrament wa admi nistered in the parish church of -, by the much- , respected pastor of --, in the absence of the vicar of the place ; but, strange to day, instead of thR usual Tent wine be►ng used, mushroom catsup was administered. Several who attended became unwell from the effects of the draught and fear, and to such an Extent was the lat ter carried, that " poison " was whisp , red by several on leaving the church. The matter has since been ex• plained by the discovery that the bottle was labated in error. [ADVERTISEMENT].—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills surpass every Remedy for the Cure of Wounds.—Ex tract of a letrer from Mr. Hubbard, of Walea'l :—" To Professor Holloway, -- S r,—A. most remarkable instance of the virtue of your medicines has recently come under my notice. A young man a needle maker, at Studley, was suffering from several ulcers upon his legs and other p , r:s of his body, su much that he could not walk without crutches. He had - the benefits of medical treatment for a long time, but gradually got worse. Lie was then advised to try your valuable medicine, and by them he is perfectly cured."—Sull by all medi cine vendors throughout the world ; at Professor Ho! lowav's Establishments, 244, Strand, London ; and at 80, Maiden-lane, New Yirk ; by A. Staiiipa, Constan tinoide ; A. Guidicy, Smyrna ; and E. Muir Malta. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The following is not the least remark able among the numerous extraordinary cures without medi cine effected by Du Barry's delicious Health-Restoring Re valenta Arabica Food, of Indigestion (Dyspepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous, Bilious, and Liver Complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility: —Maastricht, Holland, Aug. 7,185-I.—My daughter Virginie had long been consump tive, with diarrlicea and night sweats, and was in July last reduc ed to such a state of prostration and exhaustion, that our medi cal men agreed there was no hope of recovery left, and that she could not survive many days. Upon the recommenda tion of a friend, we tried Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica, which, to the astonishment of all, caused an immediate change for the better in the symptoms. After the first few meals she felt less miserable,.and in six days the diarrhma and night sweats had left her. Sho gained strength gradu ally, and in two months time was perfectly well, This excel lent remedy deserves to be more generally known, and I consider I am only discharging a m os t sacred duty iu recommending it to all sufferers.—S. ZEGUERS. mipported by testimonials from the celebrated Professors o Chemistry, Dr. - Andrew Ure ; Dr. Shorland ; Dr. liarvev Dr. Campbell ; Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurztr; Dr. Ingram Lord Stuart do Decies; the Dowager Countess of Casta stuart; Major-Gen. Thomas King, and many other respectable persons, whose health has been restored by it, after all other means of cure had failed. For further particulars respecz ing this invaluable food our readers are referred to Du Barry's advertisement in another part of this paper. Ill: .41: -71 •_, Country Markets. C HELMS FOR D—JuNE 12. To-day we had a rather small supplv of wheat, I, ; h reA!is.,d is to 23 per qr mer e f or b es t sample,, awt inferiel were firm at the prices of last week, with a brisk demacu spring corn of all descriptions firm; and the prices w ere unaltered. Wheat, white, old, per s. qr.3l new.... 3 01d..,..29 R. • s. 72 Oats, per qr. ........... 21 71 Peas, Partridge ....... 41 G 2 W hite ............ 39 62 Boiling ....... 39 .. 4G Dun .. ........ ..... 38 54 Beans, Tik‘k ........... .35 46 I Harrow ticks 40 77 I Mazagan ...... . 3 , 79 Ditto, new... 34 red, new 29 Barley 35 C3hevalier 4O Grinding 35 Malt 73 Chevalier 75 ofd nitities of Vorn, Ste., r e "; 00 )m the following l olio, 0. 1 1 7 9 , •;1 1 1 g 1 r,: 44 il io ipa t I 1 I_l—. ---, _____ ( _ ii ov 80 ( 50 ; 150, - - ---. 670- - ' 185 - -- - ,--: ! 430 - --- 35 - -- -- $5 :1214 - , 170 i - ( 157( Official Statement of the Qua . in the port of London, fro June 8 to Juno 15, both in Colchester Harwich Leigh COLCHESTE— JUN 13. A small supply of wheat R to-day ; E which sold A t - to 3s per qr. adv a nce on the l as t wee k, a nd the tr a m was brisk. Beans and peas were the turn in favour of t sailer. Prices to-day were as follow :—Wheat, w hite, 66s t0:25,i red, 56s to 648; barley, 38s to 42s ; o a t s , 26s to 28s ; be v i Mazagan, 40s to 424 ; middle and. small, 44s to 4.63; P e white, 38s to 42s ; grey, 42s to Us. KIRKCALDY—JUNE 13. We had a large supply of whe.tt to-day, which WO 0 , enced a ready sale for best qualities at is per qr. 8 4 ° 1 10 and inferior is lower than last week's prices. A s ': in supply of barley and oats. A slow sale, with Pric e ' favour of buyers. Wheat. Barley. 1 Oats. I 13eaul;,, First 65s Od 1 I 38s 03 33 Od I - ti 04 Second Third 32s Od 3:Zs 0,1 I 27s Od f Ae COAL HARM Prices of Coals per ton at .T.—JUNE 15. the close of the market. s d Bell's Primrose l3 0 Bebside's Hartley l6 3, Haswell Gas l3 3I Canfield %lour l5 0, North Percy Hartley l4 6 Walker Primrose l3 3,' Howard's West Hartley I Netherton 16 0 1 Holywell l6 0! %tailwind, au. s a, . Framwellgate .......... • 15 aswell 9 Lanabton b 15 0 S t il l o e u n t g l t a t i o l n Tees Cassop • 15 9 4eaham ithssell's Helton ...• Trimdon Thornley r e 6 Whitworth 9 ,Eden Main .............. V, - 85 ; sold, 58. Wallsend, Pico Acorn Close l5 3 Braddyll l6 0 Ships at marker ELOPEMENT EXTRAORDINARY.—On Wednesday ing, the 3d inst., a m an an d a woman arr i ve d by rag the Bridlington station, a n d m a d e th e i r wa y by ortin l io ir to an inn in the Mark e t-pl a c e , w h ere th e y took uP t o g abode for the night as husband and wife, stating, a ll ba ti other things, they had been marri e d two month-, an d n et cometo Bridlingto n to o bt a i n wor k, th e man as a leuene and the woman i n an y wa y s h e cou ld b e use ful, e l t r yof ally in the stitching li ne . Th e y h a d a large clue°t—rlr luggage, _com prising female attire and abundance of pe e, visions, consisting of pi es o f var i ous k in d s a nd e ' t o cheesecakes, tarts, ham, bread, a bottle of win e ' no d They ate, drank, and were very merry, and Oa? geA people of the inn seemed greatly taken with their t ha t guests, who intimated their intention of remaining i p et) hospitable domicile for some time to come. At to bed they went, but how they slept deponent kue sc t i t o not. In the morning they r ea pp eare d, an d in due n pf a sumptuous breakfa s t wa s p re p are d, t o w hi c h the i b e t r r ot couple sat down ; but, as it is said, the course „ c ell love seldom runs smo o th, so i n thi s i ns t ance , for set i oill had the revelry begun, when In ! in popped the vg iw n der husband, accomp an i e d by a po li ceman . Now, ti :tbot such circumstance s it i s na t ura l enoug h t o W ee " eif 6 all the crockery on the table and the heads of th e ie ot and her paramour would be smashed to atoms, or a t ' a ll' seriously injured : but no, the tender-hearted, f ° , e , o iclo loving husband merely said, with the utmost stogyer: "My dear, Ize come to t a k th ee hooaliP ; will thou , To which his cars sp osa as cao Lly replied, "No, ne',,eall Yet all was peace and quietness ; the loving °° ,o4 continued doing ample justice to their luxuriou4 recipe while the husband sat looking on and smoking biP h il tDo Atter breakfast some conversation followed, iii urb'fj, bs unhappy husband us e d a ll th e eloquence of w l3 `" fo to was capable to induc e hi s f a ithl ess s p ouse to ret , " .0 01 4 his home, at Sutton, near H u ll, promising, if sh e oil' return, he would freely forgive her and ne veragain lge d ion her misconduct. Sh e , h owever , se emed re f° an d to a ,ide by her choice, and all entreaties, promiee i e ' ng th arguments appea re d b u t a was t e o f wor ds. At i e- ro of threats were resorted to, a n d, se e ing the strong Ibt ,,,teci the law before her, madame most reluctantly con ee ' oj i , to go back, but declared most positively an d det er o l nately that she would never live with him again; of before packing up for her departure shetold , her parel i el t t meet her at Hull, and on p ar ti ng t h ey embraced ",(1! other most 1 ivi ng ly i n th e presence o f t h e busby 'ritr Many ocher sayings and doings connected with thisse,rt comic affair might have been given, some of which of very anuu,ing and some of a contrary character., vgB husband and wife appeared to be about 40 yearn ° each, and the lady's love about 26.—Yorkshirerria ri ' o r AMERICAN STEAMSHIP —The Vanderbilt hag 61 ,.,,c$ painted tho s e w h o expec t e d h er t o ma k e one of the e o f ocean passages, and the Niagara has succeeded ie ' of ing the ocean in so m e thi ng over 18 d a y s , during toed which she wa s u n d er sa il an d steam. W e wide r :l o d that the astonishing ve l oc i,y o f th e Ni agara is e%l: A ',Ol by Capt. Hudson's very proper dread of losing biel 3 l ,(l o we have no d o ubt th a t th e V an d er bil t wou ld he/ei: tee' as quick a trip as h er f r i en d s pre di cte d h a d not u e 6 o ‘ gineer been afraid of overheating her boilers or °b no t her wheels. It i- a ll r i g h t as i t is ; and people vib u. 4 4 to grumble will be so good as to held their PeO e. „( 0 18 hope, however, we may inquire what become' 1,0 .0 Collins steamer Bl an k, comman d e d b y Captain 'foe/ which leaves on Wednesdays, at blink interval s, .., the foot of Ca na l st r e e t, an d on b ear d o f w hich g rs aro earnestly reque ,t e d t o h ave the i r l ug gage D er early hour in th e morn i ng . I s th ere any suc h ste ll- 0 0/ Does she really leave ? Or would the passenger w ijc :pee t his luggage down in compliance with the a dvertis e d her find hina , elr even thanker than the gallant ship 9 % 0 0 8 noble commander, Captain -- ? It really I °,ol though the control of the ocean was parting ~,frn o , "oo3 l and being securely vested in foreign nations. r Ae ' is crowding the Atlantic with steamers of all siZs e , model-, from the G rea t E as t ern d ownwar d s . rie r lefe l bid fair, at no d is t an t p er i o d , t o monopo li se the „- P it of the ocean, an d, o f course, i n lik e manner to s w , r e in case of war. F rance en t ers th e li s t s w ith three T rans' ‘ , o oo' atlantic lines, to white th e St a t e gran t s 14,00 0 , E as e subvention, nearly 51,000,000 per annum per line' .100 8 Sardinia, Spain, a n d H o ll an d are on th e t rac k. V / Le: g ter e seem to be stationary. The p o li c y o f those ob; and South-Western members of Congress who har o oo tamped from the United States millions of acres '1 ( 01' for the developm en t o f th e i r coun t r y by means ° r iot' roads has always b een t o di scoun tena n ce appr o l/ 0 "ero tions for ocean steamships, on the ground that Viet. itr monopolies—in their nature opposed to the pub" - t bd terest. By this dog in-the-manger system, while, ss B helped themselves to all they wanted, they rui"e'reoti prospects of our steam marine. They induced th e .0 office and Congress to refuse appropriations in, a' ors steamers, and the conseq uence i s t h e decay whiciete see. It will take so me pr i vate energy and eriterPr',4 to raise the Unit e d States to the position she OP occupy.—Nos Fork Herald. 1 1" 1 A curious st or y h as reache d us f rom A rago n. 0 0, said that the alcalde (mayor) of a village bad a Iseol money in his h ous e, an d, h av i ng occas i on to If, himself for a day, he enjoined the strictest vilroci upon his teniente or adjoint, in order that the a' n og might not be stolen. H e then departed, but liseP e ip ee to meet upon the road some civil guards or gen' l93 :ber e he desired them to g o to hi s h ouse , an d remain'oo until hie return. About one in the morning three,cet forced their way into the ho us e,, a n d .. by th e ir Ene n be t compelled the alcalde's wife to give up the raone9 9 oo l brfoie they could take pos , ession of it they we r e 111 0 down by the gendarmes. O n r emo vi ng the mas' on 'oett covered their faces, they were f o und to be the a", 4 alcalde hiros,P, the secretary of the - cOrporation• regidor, or alderman. BIRTHS. OF A SON. On the 13th inst., at Talacre, Flintshire, the 11 011 ' Mostyn. •. On the 14th inst., at 60, Eaton-square, the Wl° Crossley, Esq., M P. Thoo .ol On the 13th inst., the wife of Sir Godfrey J. Bart. • OF A DAUGHTER; var lV On the 15th inst , at 5, Southwiek.plaee, 111u (r. square, the wife of Walker Skit row, jun., E sq . ri bsP On the 14th inst., at Englefield-green, the wife of Barnett, Esq. MARRIED. . 's Fiereolf On the 13th inst., at St. Pancras Church, John u to Mary Ann, only surviving dang,,,P o vier' E J s o q t,ii Cooper, R.q., of H.M. Ordinance , ''" the late White, C W and of Guilford street, Russell-square. f' On the loth inst., at Eye Church, the Rev. G. il soi l ' lear, D.A., Scholar of Trin.Col.Cana., to Christiana ',. ve , e ldest daughter of the Rev, J. W. C am pb e ll, vicar 191 ' Suffolk. DIED. 94 4 On the 13th inst., at Ramsgate, Edward Sharwoc ' „ late of S a v age - gardens, wine merchant, aged 44. olip; On the 15th ms t ., a t 18 , M ar lb oroug h - hill, St• '- wood, A. Rivolta, q. Es, aged 68. On the 14th inst., at 20, Upper Berkeley-stre e , t, t ors P Sydney Wyndham, the infant sun of John Philpot. Esq. On the 13th inst., at Kensington, Mr. Jo Bennett, ar l ‘' On the 12th inst., at 8, Stanhope-terrace, ECYde-, or la Adele, wife of H. Thompson, Esq., of 38, Miociog aged 31. 10 0 On the 12th inst., John Cagey, Esq., of 31, nuit street, Russell-square, aged 54. 10" ' ... On the 12th inst., at 54, Old Elvet, Durham, Jo ° Esq., aged 85. LONDON : Printed and Published by KURD° yO O 14° of No, 112, Strand, Printer, at The. Sun 01 11 ° 44 4 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the co of Middlesex, Tuesday, Jupe 16, 4657. . `4P).< ruE co, T VDT k C kitTE It T,Y G b~idat their itou Jane next, at Eh: ItOYAL „.""ftrh'',4‘M O ,!l : : d ni'gvi l at c hn il 7 l .N d t'') / t 1 b ,„ I :ROFERS'OR ! Mc • ieties at 12 1 111 / 4 ta t ” At one o'c M ESMEI PRESIDENT- TREASURER the ANNUM. °° Zis, King stt c liiArter before at ----- 24 T 1-er A e r , j v K er r E w 1 1 0 the stre . ), w , th all t Zing, salmon. v o: e , ' t . :e Nt k f a a e :: 'co • neer- st alking jail the best co 'alY, When M D. AWIDC With the I:,gernent as Dor 'echarge of T, t il t e kept A cor Present in it "'en —Address sOFINVE] - ' fie 8 of TE the R IT, a eau S , rir , 4 TERS and ' o ttle is protect( I tatt facturers o NI R. HU pi, Street, I w'rAL TEETH preetly resemb e. ' ,se original by t . I .' e, Y, arid will b ' 4l B method doe; 22eratIon, and w to 1", ' , ornate d.e rrarCl . B iMpTO` Z " 141 , he h,,s fix trialed teeth st --52. elect. INN