The Press.
London, England, 1854-05-27 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

pensable ; and by Mr. LIDDELL, who could not con-
sent to disturb the compact made in the Catholic
Emancipation Act.
Sir J. WALMSLEY energetically supported the bill,
and urged the Government to a display of equal
vigour by making it a Cabinet measure.

Mr. NEWDEGATE refused to unchristianise the
Legislature. The last attempt to dispense with the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy was designed, he
remarked, to pave the way for making England
Papist, and resulted in the abdication and exile of
the Sovereign who hazarded it.
Mr. MIALL was convinced that political restric-
tions were utterly inefficient to avert a spiritual
danger.

To this argument Mr. WHITESIDE replied that
mankind could never be governed by abstractions :
they required some more positive and material
restraints. He proceeded to describe the nature of
the securities which the bill would abolish, and
enforced the necessity of maintaining them in full
operation. The proposal to abolish the Roman
Catholic oath reopened the whole question of
emancipation, and violated the promises given with
so much solemnity by all the advocates of the act of
1820 at the time it was passed. Adverting to the
speech of Mr. Gadstone, he declared that Rome
looked with hope and expectation to Oxford Uni-
versity, and the incidents of the present debate had
justified the anticipation.

Lord J. RUSSELL remarked the measure had been
discussed almost entirely as a Roman Catholic
question. The case of the Jews had been almost
overlooked. He then pointed to the precedents
which bad been set in former times of change in
the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, whereon he
had been so heavily impugned for laying an irreve-
rent hand :

" His object had been to concentrate and simplify the
expressions used in the various forms of obligation pre-
scribed to the members of different faiths, and to form
them into a single oath which should be offered to all
alike, and contain only those propositions which all could
accept. The present forms comprised much that was
obsolete, impossible, and ridiculous, tending to imbue a
most solemn act with levity. There were only certain
matters that could be made fit subjects for an oath. No
obligation, however stringently framed, could restrain men
from performing what they thought their duty. Under the
last Stuart Sovereigns an oath was drawn up with great
care, and exacted from the whole population, binding
them not to take up arms against the King. Yet the oath
availed nothing when the great mass of the people be-
lieved that King James had forfeited the crown, and it
was their duty to dethrone him. With respect to the
Roman Catholic oath, the Whig party and the friends of
the Catholics generally had accepted it in 18'29 as a
palliative to their Protestant opponents, but without ad-
miring it, and they contended that now, after a lapse of
twenty-five years, it might be expediently abolished."
Lord J. Russell then examined the oath set forth
in the bill before the house, which was founded on
the old oath of allegiance, and embodied all the
obligations it was desirelle to retain. On behalf of
the Jews he had no new argument to offer. The
Legislature had adopted the principle that reli-
gious distinctions should not be marked by political
disabilities, and he urged them not to deny its
advantages to the members of a single faith merely
because their numbers were too few to render them
formidable.

Mr. DISRAELI drew distinctions between the three
separate consequences which the measure was calcu-
lated to evolve—the abrogation of Jewish disabilities,
the concession of ampler licence to the efforts of Ro-
rnanising Protestants, and the promotion of Roman
Catholicism itself. Towards the first object be had
on former occasions contributed his vote, and now
urged the claims of the Jewish people to full political
privileges on account of the vast debt which all other
branches of the human family owed to them:—
" I cannot say that it is on the ground of religious
liberty that I have felt it my duty to advocate the political
emancipation of those who profess the Jewish religion. I
have always held that opinion, and advocated their claims,
because I have believed that the Jewish race was the
family to which the human family in general has been
most indebted ; and, when I am told that by admitting
Jews into Parliament we shall destroy the Christian cha•
racter of this assembly and community, I must say that it
is because this is a Christian assembly and community
that the claim of the Jews to be admitted to all political
and social privileges appears to me to be irresistible.
(Hear.) When I remember how much we are indebted to
this people—when I remember the ineffable blessings of
which they have been the human agents—when I remem-
ber that by their writers of history and of poetry, and
their laws, that our lives have been instructed, solaced,
and regulated—when I recollect other considerations more
solemn and reverential, to which, at this moment and in
this place, I will not advert, I confess that I cannot as a
Christian oppose the claim of those to whom Christianity
is so much indebted. (Hear, hear.) If, in regarding
their claims to be admitted to this house, I look to modern
history, it is my belief that, if the Bible had not been trans-
lated and printed, there would not have been an English
House of Commons at this moment—(Hear)—and I may
remind hon. members who represent Scottish constituen-
cies how much they are indebted for the liberties of Scot-
land to the Jews—how much they are indebted for their

SATURDAY,

liberties to the sword of the Lord and of Gideon. (Hear.)
There is another reason why I more particularly wish that
the granting of these immunities to English Jews, which
will place them on a level with their fellow subjects in
every respect, should not be denied or delayed, and that is
because I cannot conceal from myself that of the coun-
tries in which the Jews have been persecuted there has
not been one that has not suffered; whose energies have
not been withered ; whose political power has not decreased ;
end in all this there is to my mind evidence that Divine
favour has been bequeathed to this people."

In England, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to remark, the
Jews had received more liberal treatment and Eng.
land had become free and flourishing. At present he
noticed a great change in their favour in public
opinion, and, although their claims to the full mea-
sure of political privileges had not yet been allowed
by the Legislature, the aspect of the question gave
them no cause for discouragement. Compared with the
Catholic claims, those of the Jews had advanced
much more rapidly towards a satisfactory solution:—

"No one can pretend that the position of the Jews in
England is to be compared, as far as public opinion is con-
cerned, with what it was twenty or even ten years ago.
They are infinitely more considered, and the prejudices of
which they were the victims have rapidly and considerably
disappeared. The discussions and debates of Parliament
and the efforts of literary men out of the house have thrown
much light on the question, which was at first, of course,
complicated and involved from the unhappy confusion
which has existed as to their general condition ; but this
will, to my mind, disperse and disappear before the influence
of research and the spirit of charity and philosophy—(Hear)
—and I think that it is no exageration to say that there
never was a body of men, or a body of her Majesty's subjects,
who have been subjected to prejudices and political dis-
qualifications who have in so short a time inclined public
opinion to their favour, or made such considerable advances
to the ultimate object to which they wished to attain. I
confess I have always taken—and taken naturally—a deep
interest in this question, and 1 have always felt confident
that the course of time and of discussion, and the human-
ising influences of 1 iterar y research and public debate, would
bring opinion about in their favour—(Hear, hear)—re.
membering that they belong to a religious country deeply
interested in their religous creed ; and that between the
Jew and the Christian, whatever race the Christian may be
of, there must be intimate relations of sympathy and pious
sentiment. (Hear.) I must say, feeling myself that this was
a question which was advancing in the most legitimate
way, and approaching, as I thought, to a most satisfactory
issue, I deeply deplore that the noble lord hos mixed it up
with questions that must greatly embarrass the solutionof
that which he had at heart, and which may postpone and
throw back the accomplishment of the purpose he wished
to achieve. (Hear, hear.) Because I must remember
that the race fur whom the noble lord is peculiarly inte-
rested is not a race that cannot afford to wait—that they
are not a new people who have just got into notice, and who,
if you do not recognise their claims, will disappear.
(` Hear, hear,' and a laugh.) They are an ancient people,
a famous people, an enduring people—a people who, in the
end, do generally attain their objects. (Laughter.) lam
sure I hope that Parliament may endure for ever, and
sometimes I think they will ; but I cannot help remem-
bering that the Jews have met Assyrian kings, Egyptian
Pharaohs, Roman Caesars, and Arabian caliphs , and, there-
fore, I have thought we need not precipitate their claims
in the face of public feeling, but that we might fairly lease
them to that result which argument and the spirit of fair
discussion would facilitate, and which they would not only
facilitate but accomplish."

Passing on to the other objects of the bill, Mr.
Disraeli observed that it contemplated startling
changes, which there was no necessity to warrant.
The oaths it was designed to abrogate should be ap-
preciated, not by their phraseology, but their associa-
tions. They were bound up in the minds of the
people with religious liberties and with national in-
dependence. Against these a great Papal conspiracy
was still organised, rendering it most unwise to re-
linquish any iota of our Protestant securities. Vin-
dicating his consistency as an advocate of Jewish
rights, he felt compelled to perform a painful duty in
opposing the present measure.

--- . -
Two brief speeches, uttered amidst impatient cries
for a division, followed from Mr. MUNTZ and Mr.
GOULBURN. Both opposed the bill because it violated
the solemn compact of 1820. The latter right hon.
member spoke most energetically in defence of the
Roman Catholic oath included in the Emanci-
pation Act, having himself aided in its preparation.
The house divided and threw out the bill by a
majority of 4, the votes standing 247 against 251.
Great excitement and cheering accompanied the pro-
clamation of this result.

SCOTCH SCHOOLMASTERS.
Replying to the Duke of Buccleuch, on Monday,
The Earl of ABERDEEN stated that the salaries of
schoolmasters in the Scotch national schools would
now be reduced to a maximum of 271., the bill by
which their incomes would have been increased
having been rejected by the House of Commons.
The Government would, however, at the earliest Op-
portunity take steps for restoring the schoolmoters
salaries to their former amounts. A bill was in pre-
paration for that purpose.
After some conversation between the Marquis. of
Breadalbane, the Earl of Eglinton, Lord Kinmurd,
and the Duke of Argyll,

.

r

MAY 27, 1854.

Lord BROUGHAM suggested the introduction of two
bills—one for the towns, the other for the rural dis-
tricts. He trusted that Government would consult
the cause of education rather than the advantage of
any religious body.