The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-27 00:00:00

opinion and tomb. It would offered them to say that they
were act Christie's; and yet fame ought to he mentioned.
(Hear, bear.) What waa it that constituted men Cheistiane
It was not the circumstance of their having been born of
Christian parents or in a Cristian land. It was held that no
one was a cleristian until he had undergone the ordinance of
baptism ; bat it was well known that the Quakers
did not recognise such an ordinance. (Hear, bear )
He could have had no interested niceives for changing his
opiates' upon the subject, for he had scarcely any intimacy
with any member of the Jewish prelusion ; but he felt that
he was oinscientiously discharging his duty in giving the
present amours hie contort. (Cheep.)
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that unwilling
as he always was to trespass on their lordehips' attention,
and having declared last per the reasons upon which he
felt It his duty to vote against a similar measure to the pre-
sent, he should consider himself bound by the opinions
which he then had the honour of laying before their lord-
ships', even if the circumstances of the times had been
exactly the same as they were twelve months ago. But, i•
appeared to him, that the circumstances which had
taken place within the last twelve mouths afforded
reasons for believing that this would be • par-
ticularly dangerous season for making that change
in the legislation of the country which was now
contemplated. (Hear, hear.) The principle of the bill
had been stated by the noble earl who opened the debate
with a clearness which he (the Archbishop of Canterbury)
would endeavour to imitate in the few remarks he intended
to offer. The distinctive character of the measure was to
lower the vocation of memhers of both houses of the legisla-
ture, SO as to make it a matter of indifference whether these
who had seats in either house should or should not be mem-
bers of the Christen religion. It was to place in the same
class the Christian who received the whole revelation of
God, and the Jew who did not receive it; it was to say
that each or either of these parties was equally fit for the dis-
charge of the highest duties, end the most important relations
which were in existence An these realms; that they were
equally fitted for an honour highly prized, and the possession
of which was considered as a compensation for laborious
duties and heavy responsibilities. (Hear, bear.) Such was
the principle of the bill; and now be would consider the
particular season at which their lordships were called upon
ft pais the measure. Englaad at the present time stood
Y a very peculiar 'caldron compared with the rest
of Europe. She stood alone—a remnant, a Mall-
mat, and an example of freedom and metal order.
Ike stood as a column among other columns, which
a short time ago seemed es erect as her own and to have the
same foundation, but which, having now tottered to their
611, had shown that their foundation was different from
mass. (Hear, hear.) Their lordships were aware of the
marked contrast this courrry presented to other states, and
they hesitatated not to attribute the difference to our na-
tional and scriptural religion—that religion which cementing
together the various orders of society, and givingr
stability to our social institutions, imputed a sanction
to our laws which nothing else oould give and
enebled us to stand secure against the storms of snatchy.
(Cheers.) It might not bo unnecessary, in • very few
words, to advert to an argument already used in the
course of the debate, and which he had often heard
in answer to relearning such as that which he bud
ventured to lay before their lordships It was this—that
we bad already, notwithstanding our present oath, " on the
true faith of a Christian," admitted those to the legislature
who were not leas hostile to religion, and not less likely to
injure it, than the Jew". He hoped this was not the case.
But granting, for argument sake, that it might be so,
such parties were not in parliament as the professed enemies
of Christianity, still less were they there with their lordships'
permission for sanction. Parliament bad done all it could
do when it required the profusion of Christianity. Beyond
that it could not go, without adopting an odious inquisition.
It was one thing to admit persons who came under the
name of professed friends of Christianity, and another to bar
the gates without distinction of friend or to. Let the house
on it commit that solecism in legislation which, in endeavour
lost* gabs pigsties to principle, lower the principle because
it motet mbar obtain the practice. There might be a
wry low practice where there was a very high standard,
bat the moment the standard was lowered the foundation of
all true principle was upped. (Hear.) These were the
reasons which induced him to trust that their lordships would
' pause before they paned the present bill. He had stated
the case as it appeared to his own mind. He was not insen-
sible to the arguments which were used in favour of the
measure ; but he consoled himself with the belief that their
lordships' minds had not undergone any change since the
present subject was last before them. (Hear.)
The Archbishop of DUBLIN raid he took a different view
of the measure from that taken by many of his right reve-
rend brethren. The question was not whether the Jew was
• fit or the fittest person to sit in parliament, but whether
the electors should decide that point according to their
judgments, or whether the hands of the electors should
be tied by restrictions. (Hear, hear.) Persons might
entertain different opinions on such a suij ct
without being indifferent to religion ; and so far
as he was concerned he would not wish to impose re
striations on the electors upon whom the choice
ought to rest. He came forward now, as he bad done 16
years ago in a similar case, not as the advoette of the Jews,
but to remove Christian disabilities—disabilities which lay
on the great mass of this professing Christian nation, and
which were a stigma upon the Christian religion. It was at
variance with the principles of that religion that we should
consider it either nec.ssaty to its flourishing or consistent
with its great troths to impose my sort of disabilities or
penalties upon those who did not conform to its views. He
we old appeal to any person holding the argument, that by ad-
mitting a man not a Christian to parliament the lelealature
showed an indifference to Christianity, how would he meet
the position that by admitting Roman catholic' they showed
leo iuslifforence to the protestant religion ? (Hear, hear.)
For his own part, he could not understand how those who
made this charge of indifference to Christianity, in reference
to this bill, could themselves escape the charge of indiff-reuce
to the protestant church in having admitted those who were
not only not of that church, but who were its open and
avowed assailants -(hear, hear)—and amcngst whom wen
some who, he believed he was correct in saying, used their
position as members of the legislature to the disparagement
of that church. If they had been wrong in admitting Roman
aagingiee, he did not mean to contend that they should take
another wrong step; but what he held was, that they must
do the one thing or the other, either to undo whet they had
dope or go further—they must either go backward or
forward. For himself, he was for the removal off
all religious disabilities; but it was m-st important)
that having gone as far as they had in the removal of such
restrictions, they should go' farther acd remove this last,
precisely because it was the last, and in order to show that
they were not proceeding upon the principle of indifference
to ell religion. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the propriety
of returning Jews or any other class of persons to parliament,
that was a question which should be left to the electors to
decide.
The Bishop of EXETER observed that the argument of
his most rev. friend seemed to proceed on the supposition
that those who opposed this bill had been anxious to admit
all who differed frum the established church, except the
Jews. That they had Seen their arguments set at nought
and their principles trampled upon from time to time
was too tree, but that was no reason why they should volute.
teeny surrender this last security. The Jews were in a very
different position from all Christian secs. His most rev.
friend had said, and surprised him by saying, that there were
members of that house, amongst those who professed other
religious doetrines than those of the established church, who
exercised the political power they had acquired as memb'n
of the legislature to the injury of that church. He felt
bound in justice to say that he knew not of any melt, and
thou gentlemen who had solemnly pledged themselves not
to use their influence as members of the legislature to the
injury of the church, as by law established, he firmly be-
lieved were men of honour, and would keep their pledge.
(Hoar, bear) His most rev. friend bad spoken of the great
care their lordship" should take of the interests of the elec-
tors—but in his opinion the electors in this cue had very
little claim on their lordships' consideration, inasmuch as that
knowing the law of the land laid it down distinctly that
certain persons shall not be eligible to sit in parliament,
they nevertheless elected • proem so by law disqualified. and
now made such election the ground of endeavouring to form
from their lordships the abandonment of this. as he con-
sidered it, important and necessary restriction. (Hear,
hear.) Ha had listened to the speech of the noble earl (the
Earl of Carlisle) with deep interest, but not without tome
pain. That speech appeared to him to be marked by a
Crtiuty, in which it stood forth prominently singular.
ieras a bill professing a certain rineiplee—sed
the who proposed it told them, this professed
ple is not the principle after all. The real
principle you will find contained not in the preamble but in
the last page. We are attempting what we tied lest year,
it is true, bat we are anxious to succeed by putting forward
a mock principle to web stray votes for the second reading,
intending to alter the bill in this respect
ash:
afterwards ia com-
mittee." He knew hie noble friend (Earl of Carlisle) w
superior to such a trick, but he did sot think those who
IMO the authors of the measure were equally free from the
charge. But there was a still more striking and important
peculiarity about this bill, which was, that by it their lord-
ships were invited silently and secretly—for it was not
avowed—to repeal the Bill of Rights. The oaths quietly
disposed of by this bill were in fact those very oaths which
were aide the condition of placing King William and Queen
Mary on the throne of these realms. Hit were necessary to
introduce Jews into the legislature, lot it be done by a bill like
the one of last year, without trenching on the Bill of Rights.
The noble earl (Carlisle) said it was tyranny where there was
no equality of or joyment while there was equality of
burdens; and asserted the etiolate right of atimiesion unless
sufficient reasons to deprive them of it could be shown. Now
he (the Bishop of Exeter) held that whatever might be
the rights under a republican farm of government, they
had no each right in this country. In a republic
every member bad equal right to admission to
all distinctions and all office", but it was not so under
a monarchy. Then you must consider who were
the parties who would serve that monarchy faithfully.
This, too, was a monarchy of • peculiar nature, bound to
certain duties, and resting en certain conditions entered into
with the nation. Since the restoration, it rested on a con-
tract which was expressed in the coeonation oath, by which
the sovereign was bound to maintain to the utmost of her
power the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel u
well, and, more particularly.. the protestant reformed
religion, as established by law. No one, therefore, under
such a monarchy, could claim a constitutional right to the
franchise, unless they mould show that they could serve the
crown in that particular way, and in furtherance of those
Particular objects to which the oath referred. (Hear, hear )
The parliament of this country was not a mere
congregation of 400 memb•re in one, and 500 or
880 members in another house, without specific doles
and without specific qualifications being required from them.
Parliament in this country was the great oonneil of the
crown, and every ore admitted to that council should be
willing and able to give faithful homage to the awns i 4 the