The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-12 00:00:00

election committee. en Saturd ? (lieu, hear.) The
ni at wh eh bad bee h put f Tweed by the
by
porter. P
of the 101 l we. tft.e election et Baron lt...thsehild by
Bie of L islon. Archbishop Whitely, for instance,
had sot that the real question was, whether tie Christina
ehetors of tl.i. Christian nation should have the ri4ht
e„,..•h00s they would as their representatives ? (hear.)
Now, anything route llSTOU4StettOnnt than that could
1y,:4 be enegined. It sesaseil to be Supposed that a
c„o.t.tio Ley wrie It their will end pleasure to thee se I;
ale ra they ;Armed —(i.!wer.)—that it they were enly large
en.t -fel trough. their select:on WAS tope law. (Hear,
)Mar) Now 3A involi ites comparisons wero sometimes male
inSAArn lier4e end atnail ematitsienciet, Le wished hon.
rrtiont ..ed.: turn their Mit ation to what hal been I
remained by Bufae. That distinguished men had said, •
..I,4lli.mea; we a e'llgrt'S of amhass :dors trona different
loci. is dad
m,eilie interest., which 111 t, rests each must
tin . • an a ,nt and who're** against ot..er age et. arid
but parh inn iit i. a deliberative arsenitiiy of one
min Antert AT, where, not local put pose:, and not
loc•
al ; rjudiceo, are to be ronsidend. Lut the general good
• e.tio aeon the cener..l rens in of ties whole. Sa that
-7 vete.' you have chosen hint, is not
(Cheers the
B etel, but a member of parliament. .)
▪ ,
Tho .un:ry had an [merest in even member ashen
la, 11, TACT Worried ; end if iii whims anti caprices of
hid shwas.. emery to br regard. d, they might have
them i,ieetirit a ekrgyenan, an ahem, tar a re turniug officer.
.f, t "alt Bit now ha tame to that part ef the quce.
yes *Li ti hr eensid.r.d the strona,st, Lamely that which
TTISZ..nr4 grounds. If this li It were passed, it
en„,l t... Inc first thao tuey had evolve* admitted an
• ..I.9,lChri.ti ro fa.th, end so it would strike at the
• jadati.m of the constitution. (11, ir, be.a.) Ile W. 1.1
armee this eubject upon t:.c high grounds
w▪
hich rine too. member+ .eel taken. If,, did not say
yt.st to pess SOP WS WOK would be to interfere in
the decree eith the divine will. (Hear, hear.)
St eras •tr..e teat were the stele:gest prophetic de.
against the Jews, sad threats that they should
be .tatter, d over every lead rued should Nose to be a nas
Istit it would be presumptuous tel suppose that any-
elm: :eel soulet co would either forward or retard Ike cle-
aves ati Therefore,
Let net hk seekers cedes head
Iteerame as bate to throe.
Bu: it ppeared to hiss that there was IS lower and safer
positi n which they could take. The who'," framework of ,
the cuostitution we. formed upon Chrietiou vies a. Every
WAtio2 of the house wes commenced by inv.•king the ble ss-
jar of Geld through intercession or our Lord; and be-
*. why member eineld tale" his mat he must talc an oath,
that safe him aesurn at 1. oat the character of a professing
CATl`ti•fl. But if the hill were passed all that system
wield he entirely desdreye.l. (Ilea) lie had heard übje e-
llen' to the phrase t• usehriatianizing the lei/led:dere ;" but,
tnasaincli as the iatroduetion of a single Je w would abrogate
Me principles it an which their procetilini,s were C.lU-
ducted, it would be melt true that " a little leaven would
leaven the whole lump." (Hear, hear.) Dr. Arnold had
decreed that it s man tilt himself bound to refuse obedi-
ence to 'La law of lhla, acid would not pledge himself to
beret re paramount the authority of that law, he could not
tool:, he a member of a society which conceived itself
to reralute all Ps rroeeedines by that law. (Hear,
hear) Bat it was slid that tee exclude Jews from parkas
USIA see 'ir.f,ent:MS. (Hear, hear.) This was a great
abuse of ti rios. Ilv persecution he unelerstood the inflic-
tion of pain as the penalty of religious opinion, or to
ladwe persons to adopt any religious opinion*. ((leer.)
Be: S. • ileltition couid not spiel; he this case. They only
reinoel to admit the fees in B.l(4le:cote ; and they might
m well sac that TA pill 1.. r, bolts and ben for the purpose of
step' ice the entrance its,/ a Louse of rersons that were
:Lair to do mischief was persecution. (Cheers.) But the
noble :not, ii he caned his bill, wouhl not be able to stop
here. The tronscientieas deists were IT daohly a larger
titsiy thay. the Jews, and there might be cones of them whe
rosin refuse to act the put of Bolinbroke tad Gibbon, and
to take their meta under any false pretences. How would
the sitei!e lord be able to resist their claims ? (Hear, hear.)
Or sr lit:. there might be some person elected so wretched
aid toe.ish as to e iy, in his heart, "There is no God."
each a person might say that every person in the realm,
Many riligion, or tai nn religion had. a right to equal poll.
teal privileges. (Laud cheers.) Ile understood that Chen,
and he hoped the noble lord would be warned by it. At
nil events, it wan an relditional reason why he (sir F.
These,ter) should vote against the admission of Jews Sr
parl..anut. (Hear, hear.) If the hall were paned, the,
would have to give up everything that consecrated their
dine s, fee the purpose of completing what the noble lord
called the edifice of eel giou, liberty. The noble lord, in
fact, solid give them so much liberty, that be would not
Agent the slightest semblance of religion; and ho would be
eompeiled to banish everything which gave grace and dig.
city to their proceedings at legislators. (Hear, hear.)
With these fueling*, therefore, be earnestly trusted that
the house would join with him in moving that the bill be
teed that day •:e months. (Cheers.)
Lid filtAllAll seconded the motion.

Ur. OSBOILNE.—Sir, however I may differ from the
major portion of the positions laid down by the hon.
ad learned member for Stamford, I concur fully with
Lim is the observations with which he commenced his
speech, audio which he told us that it was totally impossible
to 'ratite,: any novelty in the discussion of this much ex-
hausted subject. Ile has himself, however, been an excep-
tion to the rule, and has at least introduced a novelty in
the debate, for ho has given us a reading of
Inquiry such LI at least I had never heard before.
('• llear," and a ',ugh.) The hon. gentleman has told us that
there were no Jew io this country until the time of Charles
11. ; but if the hon. suit learned gentleman had read
history aright, he would have found that they were acne-
SOUS in the Land in the time of Oliver Cromwell ; and, if he
had used as mach research in getting up his facts as he has
in preparing his legal erguments, he would have found that
in thu time of the Protector the Jews were sufficiently
numerous and wealthy in England to propose for the pur-
chase of St. Paul's, ill order to convert it into a syaagogue.
(Great laughter.) I merely mention this to show that the
hon. and leaned gentleman has succeeded in intro-
ducing novelty into the debate —a debate which I
confess I approach with feelings, if not of de-
spair, at least of deep mortification. (Hear, hear.)
1 consider that it is little consolatory to the friends
of political liberty and of religious equality to con-
sider what is the present condition of this question. (hear,
hear) For upwards of 20 years It has been dammed in
puliament—for I believe It was in 1830 that Mr. Grant—
to his eternal honour be it said—first introduced the quer
Ova to the House of Commons. Since that time it Mahan
frequently debated, the principle has always been acknow-
kilged by triumphant majorities in this house, and MOTO
than that, the moat distinguished members on both
sides of the house, however differing on all other sub-
jats, have agreed on this, one with the other—in the
sentiment of political and religious liberty. (Cheers.)
1 he wisdom and eloquence of Mackintosh sad Macaulay,
en this side of the house, have been resp 'tided to by Lord
Geo. flintlock and the present Mr. Disraeli on the other.
I say, thin, it is not a consoling reflection that in the year
bid trim question should be " dragging its slow length
along," while the same miserable arguments are used in
opposition that were possibly used in the 13th century as
• reason fur banishing the Jews from the hingeless. We
have now the same arguments used to refuse them a seat in
this house, urged with the same relentless spirit, and, I
mar add, with much of the ignorsnee that was displayed
in tae persecutions of the middle ages. (Hear, hear.)
T'ue hun. and learned member fur Stamford has used
almost the same terms, and certainly the same arguments,
which another great light of the legal profession used in
justification cf the statute, is heretic° comhurendo. The
louse will recollect the arguments used in advocating the
propriety of burning heretics, by Lord Coke, that bright
ornament of the legal profession, but they could little have
crewed to hear an equally bright luminary using in 1853
aeuly the same argument. But, In addition to this,
the hoe. and: 1 d gentleman, in despair of intro-
(hieing any novelty into the debate, has taken a weapon from
the armoury of the hon. baronet the member for Oxford
auiversity, and says that if we admit the Jews into paella-
meet we shall unchrietianise the legislature. (Conservative
sheen) I ask the hon. and learned gentleman, can
be really be in earnest in urging this argument? (Loud
their.) Uses he not think that if the nation was to be me-
an:itemised by making concession, to the Jews, the fatal
!hugs would have taken place when the crown permitted
•ar, to become magistrates and sheriff*? Nay, have not
the City of London and the borough of Greenwich become
asehristianised, since they have returned members to this
house And has not even parliament mad* great
its the heathenising operation, since it has 17, thevl
spur of twenty-three years consistently voted for the ad-
• .o of Jews into toe House of Commons ? (Hear, hear.)
(Si any gentleman believe in his heart that by admitting
the Jews M secs in this house we shall unchnstianise the
Intelature ? If the honourable gentleman who used this
annearat be consistent, he is bound to admit that this
matey is no longer a christian country, because if his ar-
gument be e irried to its legitimate conclusion, there are
hut two inrietian countries in Europe—Spain and Pori
urea; and why? Because in those countries alone, not
only is disavowal of the christian religion not allowed, but
ao form of chastise' worship is permitted except that
*leek is the established religion of the respective countries.
(Hear, Lear) The fact was ascertained the other day on
the erasion of a question being put as to the persecutions
in Spain of persons not professing the Roman catholic doe-
Ursa. I say, then, that according to the hon. and
learned gentlemen, the only christian countries in Europe
and l'ortugal, where only one sect of religionists
Si permitted. But in this country, where all sects are tole-
rated, sad all modes of religious worship protected, it is au
arsine*e offsnee against common sense to say, that the ad-
relines, of Jews would uneln istiaoise a parliament which,
if the aguraeut were good for anything, has been uacluii"
Likened already. (Hear, hear.) But the hon. and
learned member for Stamford went on to saz, that it was
see, essary there should be a declaration of Christianity made
by eat, member on entering this house. If the hon.
arsi learned gentleman thinks that, why is he eon-
tested to take this declaration of Christianity at
the fag
.end of an oath, which two portions
if this house, the Roman esthetics and Quake's, do not
• If he is sincere, why does he not;come down to the
house lad put a notice on the books to the effect that this
datiatation of Christianity must be taken by every member
sot at the tail of an oath, but preceding all oaths ? (Hear,
hear) I say that at is incumbent upon the hon. and
leaned gentleman to give notice that he will put a plain
led s:raple form of oath on the books of the house, by which
eetrY clearer on entering shall declare himself to be of the
Christian ligion. But he is not justified in taking advan-
lue of ties oath of abjuration—an oath which every one
arattl wish to ace dose away with—(hear, hear)—for I can
t•es ire nu avec solemn farce than to have hon. members
op at the eommcnement of a session to the table, to ab-
_,l6re siogrish and ilespending manner—knowing the
essariLty they are about to commit. (Dissent from the op-

position benches.) Yes, I say es:Nudity, because gen- 1
tlemen opposite. are perhaps not aware that at
present there
.is not a s:.ngle Wreendent of the'
Pretender in exaetence. (Cheers and leugheera Oerolemeu
are in fact led up to the table to deny allegiance to the de-
seendahts of a Man who has left no descendants. Why,
Sir, it is • positive abt".Mity. (Ilene hear.) I far one—
mid I belie.° the opiidon iv shared by many in this hotiee—
conader that role reeestien ought not to he discussed as the
hon. and learneu member for Stamford has discussed
it—nemely, on religious ground., but that it should be diss
cussed bilnp!y on its political bearings. We should esk
simply if there is anythine in the ecelesiastical polity of the
Jews calculated to endanger the state, or if they tend to the
1 disorganization of our iustitutious. (Hear.) Prove this, awl
; I admit that you make out a ease for excludioe
their, but then I say pm are bound to come down to this
i to use, ...mittent a specific mete it on the whicet, and to
&metre that no Jew shall appear en the hustings, or can-
. vans for the suffrages of the emetens. But you Ore nut to
come here and endeavour by • aide wiud, we result of au
rtcg:teutal combinatinn, to pies. et the Jews from taking
their seats. elleer, hear.) 1 cannot assent to the propesi-
-1 tion that r Igloos adjuration, is a nt emery qualification
for the eettermauee et civil duties. (Hear, hear.) The
It 0,. ant :camel member for eitarolord, adverted, in *1.4
i I conceived to Ise, rather a sneering manner, to the senti-
menu which had fallen in enother place, from one of the
must remarkable men of the day-1 mean the Archbishop
of Dublin, with respect to tee Nene). in which we ehonal
place this question. I join cordially its edruiration of the
position laid elowa by the right rev. prelate—namely, that
thee is not • question of Jewish disabiiiiien but of Christian
claims. The real rim:stem at issue is, why are the eon-
! stituenciee of this country debarred from selecting such men
as their represeu.atives as tecy think fit, proeieled those
men do not entertain sentiments that see dangerous to the
institutions of tho country. (11eter, hear.) 1: is not, la
short, eunuch a question of the &mime of the Jeers, as of
the lights of the Christians. By the course you leave
taken you hive diefranehised ere of the most itaeleonit,
imeortant, and wealthy cou.tituen-ins in the world.
Three times have the cleaves sent • Jewish gentleman ta
reps., sent them, you Lave preveuted his doing co, and thus
for all practical rug pews the groat city of London is dis-
franchised. Take tens that upcn this question of debarring
the Jews from perlitment, you are not disfraocilising the
Christians. (Hear, hear.) I say again, then. teat this is
not a question of Jewish eisabilitica, hut arm of debarring
' Christians from their rights. After enmbatting some areal-
melds urged at the last debate, the honourable mem-
ber concluded—lf we wish to show the true faitn of
Christians, we at 4 bound to do as we would be teem
by, and when the hon. and learned membe r for Stam-
ford quotes Ilulliegeworth, and other obscure where, I
will take Lave to quete the sentiments of a great man, I
mean Bishop Newton:—" It i. mere fitting that we should
strive to he the dispensers of the mercy of heaven, than the':
executioners of the cruelty of man." Sir, this is a noble,
a great sentiment worthy of a Christian pre: tte. I hope
the house wall echo the sentiment, and pass this 1.-ill by no
miserable mej ,city, but one worthy of them and worthy of
the times in which we hve. (Cheers.)
Mr. DRUMMOND, who was but imperfectly audible,
admitted that on political ett 'ends a single argument could
not be urged against the bill. (Hoar, hoar.) There was
no fear of tee peeks:3,6.m of the Jews, who cased not A
rush for making converts, but all the faithful among them
looked forward to the day when they should Le able to
trample on the lleutiles. They cared little fur principle,
bat a great deal for interest. (Loud laughter.) It was, in
fact, a religious question, hut not for that reason unfit tube
discussed in that nonuse. The highest authority in Christen-
dom, the Pope, said that he was Christ's vicar on earth,
and he was right. Every bishop held that position,
and so di I the sovereign of this country, (elk
the Pow himself. One of the earliest of the
pones heel styled the sovereign of this country
" God's vicar over his kingclem"— Vienrita nei sit terris ;
and not only the sovereign, but the head of every family
stood in the same position. Now, the law of the Cluestien
church—the universal Christian law, not of the middle but
of the young ages—was, that you were not to lie in the
same house with a Jew, not to dine or drink tea with a Jew
—(" hear," and a laugh)—nor to.comreunicate with a Jew,
under the penalties of mortal sin. The sovereign dare not
teke among his councillors ono that refused to how the knee
to Him to whom every knee should bow. Ile might be
told that every man had a right to worship God as he
pleased. He denied that right. That was the argument of
those who called themselves Bible Christians; but, as he
read the scriptures, the way in which God should be wor-
shipped was accurately described, and set down, and de-
decd; man was not left to take his own way in that
neuter. Ile believed the first gentleman who took his
own way, and who was a sort of independent or free
church man, was Cain. (Laughter, and cries of " Oh.")
It was all very well to talk of the universal equality of
mankind, but be believed there was an hierarchy among
nations as in everything, and that, as you could make
a Christian a Jew or a Mohammedan simply because he
might happen to be among Jews or Mohammedan., so
you could Lot phce a Jew on the footing of a Christian in a
community of Christians—each must stand spin the re.
spoosibility he bad incurred, nor could he tall from it
without danger. The time was when the European world
was bound together by one faith, and the centre was Beene.
That was all gone—Europe was still bound 'aged'. r, but
the centre was no longer Rome, but the stock exchange—
and the principle of the union was not "credo." hut
"credit." (Much laughter) Some hon members might let
n the Jews with a safe coascience—ho could net, and would
not. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BALL believed he thread act most in accent:mem
with the principles of Christianity by voting for the re-
moval of the disabilities which affected the Jews. (Cheers.)
Lord A. VANE spoke against the bill, and quoted a pas-
sage from Mr. Gledstone's book, "The Relations between
Chum and State," to the effect that conformity with the
religion of the state ought to be an indispensable qualifier
tion for office. This had now become a cabinet question,
end he supposed it was made one because the cabinet con•
sated of members of all religions, end therefore it was
thought that the Jews should have a thanes of such an
office; but be (Lord A. Vane) was of opinion that they
ought neither to have offices or sit in parliament.
Mr. S. HERBERT was anxious to make some observa-
tions which bad been suggested to him by the speech of his
hon. and leaned friend who opened the discussion. He
would net go into the history of these oaths, or the inten-
tion with which they wereoriginally devised, or the changes
which had been made in them. All that part of the
question had been decided by a court of law in the
case of Mr. Saloniens, and the homes had not now to de-
ckle whether, under the existing oaths, the member for the
City of London could come to the table and take that oath,
but on the question of policy, as to whether this last sole
restriction on the score of religion was to he continued.
(Rear, hear.) If he alluded to the history of those oaths,
it would be only for the purpose of showing the confusiea
into which the house had got by the adoption of different
oaths, and the distinctions which had been made on ee-
-1 count of different persuasions. It was by the act of James
I 1., which was passed for "the better discovery of Popish
recusants, who, by the devilish arts of the Jesuits, had
been perverted from their loyalty," that words were added
to the end of the present oath which would prevent mental
reservation. That portion of the oath, which was the sube
stance and not the form, was prescribed to be taken only by
protestant' and not by Roman catholies ; and there
was then sitting under the gallery of the house an
eminent merchant of the City of London, who had been I
three times returned by the votes of 7,000 (he would not
say of the rabble)—(cheers)—but of the citizens of London,
who had been accustomed to exercise the franchise on be-
half of very eminentmen, and who had sent that gentleman
again and again to parliament in defiance of the restriction
contained in that oath. (Hear, hear.) The intention of
the government was not, as bad been said, to propose,
in eonsequenee of that election, the law should
be changed, but they took it as an indication of the feeling
on the subject which existed, and which had induced then
to consider the question. For many yeasts the
Jews had been degraded in this country and la
Europe. Had there been no change in their modern
'since they had received better treatment, and since milder
laws had altered his relations with this couetry ?
It was admitted that the Jew had cast off his anti-secial
feelings, and the wish he expressed to enter parliament was
• proof of his desire to become absorbed in the netion,—',
but had all been done ? It was true the Jew bad bella ad-
mitted to civic offices. He did not know why kis Ma. sad
learned friend did not move tore
_peal the acts which ad-
mitted them to those offices. Why should there be •
distinction as regard the Jew between civil and political
qualifications. (The tight honourable gentlemen then read
a passage from Lord Bacon expressing an opinion that the
law of naturalisation should be eon extended as to give every
man ability for the discharge of all functions whatever.) If
the °Weiss to the creed of the Jew was a right one,
how could his admission to executive offices
be justified ? The discharge of the duties of those offices
was more dangerous, for they affected the rights of Chris-
tians, and iuvolved the administration of oaths to Chris-
tians, and that without any control, and could that be com-
pared to the position which two or three Jews would oc-
cupyin parliament? Vas it not idle to suppose that the
admission of two or three Jews into that house would work
such a difference as to justify its being said that it would
be unchrietianised ? What did his hon. and learned friend
mean by saying that he would limit the admission of Jews
to civil rights? Once admit them to civil offices, and how
could they be excluded from a share in the legislation of
the country ? He (Mr. Herbert) was willing to admit that
these who desired to admit Jews into parliament laboured
under great difficulties, for abstract truth and right had to
contend against long rooted religious prejudice. The num-
ber of Jews was few, and their strength could not be talked
of, as was that of the Roman esthetics of Ireland by Lord
Plunkett, nor could it be said of the Je MP, as O'Connell
also said of the Roman esthetics of Ireland—" They are
six millions." But it was, therefore, that you were bound
to entertain their claims in a more generous spirit. Ono
by one the opponents of this alteration in the law would
find Weir leaders leaving them. Lord George Bentiack
had left them ; their moat brilliant orator had left them—
(hear, hear)—and even in the old stronghold of religious
prejudice, the University of Oxford, there had been a
change of opinion. Yesterday there had been a atoning
of Convocation at Oxford to petition against this bill, and
for the first time there had been resistance offered to
such a measure. ("Oh, oh," and cheers.) Gen-
tlemen opposite seemed to have a worse opinion of
Oxford than he did. ("OD, oh," and cheers.) Did
they think that Oxford was impervious to the truth
There had lately been a meeting of Convocation, at which
it was proposed to petition parliament in favour of this bill.
In the division there were 31 votes in favour of the motion,
and 73 against it, but the minority included seven heads of
the liebdemadel Board. (Hear, hear.) His Ilea. and
learned friend said he would not attribute to that side of
the house, an indifference to religion. So far from think-
ing that religion had nothing to do with politics, he (Mr.