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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING. MARCH 12, 1853.

IS. Herber.) was of opinion that talus religion were the
animating steeit in oil their proceedings, their legislation
weulil be worth nothing, and the eresterity of the country
would pass away. But he would not cenmund r iiilion with
' seetarianimn—(ltear, hear) ;--and that house weuli not
' he an amurate r. presentation of the country, while peruses
i were excluded on accout of their religion. The theery
, that by admitting Jugs they would uncl • 'anise the lege,-
tome, milit ited against the established aximn of the ere:-
`are,
that no British born stehket should be excluded
I from the enj•iyinent of political rights on account of his re-
littieus faith. (Cheers.) Ate to the intention., of the aity
with regard to the Jure, he thought they might not, by
their legislation, to attempt to make themselves the inetru-
meets of dispensations of Providence which were deleted
by means unknown, and were in themselves incomprehrn-
i eihle. (Hear, hour.) Many persons objected to the word
" otiscrition " in regard to the refusal of pi lilies! Helm to
' Jews. lie could not conceal from hims.lf thst the en-
' lightened end tolerant spirit which war now abroad hail pro.
i btl4 pied:m:4l sine effect un such persons. They were now
, obliged to substitute political disehititii a for heroine, j test as
I society had substituted a penile mode of resenting heeds
for more violent methods. They mutt not, smut the op-
! timisin of the 19th century, imagine that we had entirely
lest the spirit of our ancestor. (Hear, hear.) Sinai re-
atrictions and petty at.neyencee were sig., of se iatentina
to persecute. (!leer, hear.) In a petition (rem •di me-
! crt.i,al slut whirls met for the purpose of ii.daencing
terno,na oy external I%Ra:ion, it aas stated that her Mt-
, jebty's r,vcrenent were attetvir ing to annul the profession
of Christianity. It seen:mu to be fortzutte n that n.. Imo-
femion of Christianity las ri quinel from 11anian util:ice.
; There woo no inteution by this lit:l to annul the proleteiuu
ni Christianity made in the oath. Ile coat wad that he
! wished to ,err mem greedy sirnelitied, hut Amid the present
mortiid ishite of teclir.z on this suoject, he knew not who
would be so bo:d as to confront tee prejudice and invective
I ' which an attempt to simplify them would biiiie upon
' hint. In into ectitiois the limn". WO‘ c.illed linen " not to
; a .crefice the Cliristein ch:,racter of the :neon " by Teeming
this bill. He did not believe the measure hall the least
tendency t i weekeu Clireeismity either in that house or
out of it ; on the contrary, he thought that '.ei paten g it
they would prove to the country and to Vie we Oil that
their Christianity was a matter, net of theory we rt ly, but
,if practice. 'they would thus show to the w tied teat in
th. it opinion religion and liberty, inetead of being opposite
and antagonistic, were necessurEy and ju•Cy nutted;
that the pretestant teeth had a political signification,
as well as a re Niue, one—that signification Wine liberty
of conscience; and that, instead of regarding religion as
a weapon to be used against those who differed from
them is theology, they were determined to carry into Ka
their lceielation the spirit of tee gospel, which was the
spirit of love and gaol will to men. (Chars.)
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY,
Lord J. RUSSELL said alter two nights' debate he
trusted the house would allow hint to give some answer to
the arguments which had been used against the proposition.
1.1.4 ire el .ing so lie ruklit h.: iitlowc 1 to meniien a matter
w hich was eersonal to himself wth regard to his position in
respect to this queetion. It was represented by an hon.
meinber, follow lug no doubt what be hail heard out of doom,
Coat he nod hitt...duce:l this qacrinn solely fr eu a newel to
the constituents whom he seineemited. Now it happened
tF it b Aire there was ady (13041011 of the election of harm
Rothschild ! c hail been asked to introduce this question
He could only any that he had always taken part in qua-
, thins of this kind. Its 'peke tin the second reading
'of the bill which was introduced by Sir Robert
Grant in 1833 and 1831, and it so happened that he had
spokeu on questions of a 'hailer kind a little before that
time. He thought it was in ISM that he was asked by
the protestant deeenters to undertake a bill fur the removal
of the disabilities which were imposed upon them by the
Test and Corporation Acts. He had no personal inteteot in
that question Key more then lie had a personal interest in
this; but feeling a great mud for persons who he thought
were unjustly treated, being called upon by persons utter •
ing under these restrictions, ho undertook their cause.
With regard to the arguments upon this questi! ii,
he thcught they were pretty nearly creed with
regard to ono part of it—indeed, upon all ex-
cept ono point, which now remained for discussion. The
part on which they were now co nearly agreed was tha his-
torical question as to the introiluciien of these oaths. 'the
hon. and learned gentleman wise began the debate to-night
agreed with hint that these words were not intreilucen for
the purpose of excluding the Jews, but for a totally dif-
ferent purpriee, and as a more strineent Let against Roman
catholic,. On the other hand, he was quite willing to
',knit thet if there had been a question as to the Jews at
that time, pal :Lemont would net have allowed them seals in
that house, but he thought tile around would not have been
the religious ground, but that they were aliens. It
therefore rcetaieed for them now to consider, not whether
they would remove a bar deliberately put up to exclude
Jews from parliament, but whether they would remove a
bee out up for another purpose, mud which by accident, as
It were, tended to exclude them. Teens were the historical
pounds on which they all agreed. Then the hon. mem-
ber for Surrey admitted that on political grounds there
were no reasons for their exclusion. Teen, as to the re-
ligious ground, all the arguments went more to the
exclusion of other meets dill', rent from the esta-
blished church than they (lid to the exclusioa of the Jews,
because it was quite obvious that the questions which were
brought into the house were much inure likely to meet with
opposition from Christians who differed from the esta-
blished church than from Jew+. Take the union with
Scotland, woich introduced presbyterians into that house
They hod questions with regard to episcopal authority, Lad
those were questions on which, according to tee principles
of his hon. friend, presbyterians were totally unfit to decide
upon, because they were opposed to episcopacy. Then take
the question of the extension of the Presbyterian church,
the Roman Whelk., could hove no sympathy with bills
having that object which were introduced into the house,
and the argument would therefore, if good for anything,
be good for the exclusion of the Beaman catholic'. But
when they came to the question of Jews, there were but few
questions indeed in which they would feel so interest con-
trail to that of the majority. Same bon. gentlemen
thought that they would take is particular course with re-
gard to any bill for the better observance of the sabhath.
He could not say that the discussion of those bills had
been of a very edifying cheracter in that House,
but that wee the only question now on which it was
probable there would be any difference. On the ques-
tie* of the extension of the protestant church they would
find far less enmity from the Jews than from the preaby-
terians or the It man catholics. Then the question was
reduced to this—it was on the ground of religious opinion.
Now, on that question he felt it was too late in the day to
argue. Those who maintained that on account of religions
opinion, on account of the wide difference between the Jew
and the Christian, the Jew ought to be excluded
from a Christian legislature, went on a principle
on which he could not argue, but against which
he certainly had the strongest feeling. His belief
was that the principle of imposing a penalty, of imposing a
disability on a man because he was of a different religion,
was exactly the same u impesing fines, imprisonment, and
death. The great difference prevailed in point of severity,
as his right hon. friend near him proved to his admirable
speech, between the persecution which prevailed in former
centuries and ditabiloties like the present; but in point of
principle, thou who condemned the Media to imprison-
ment on account of their religious faith, were
&tog no otherwise, were acting on no other
=go than that of those who excluded the Jews
parliament. (Cheers.) It was, as the right hen.
gentleman who spoke last said, a question of principle un•
double,. He admitted that there was a principle, but it
was a principle which, for his own part, he could not dis-
tinguish from the principle of religious persecution. Well,
then, he said, here were two principles, and hon. gentle.
men must take their stand on the one or on the other. If
they took their stand on the one principle, it was the prin-
ciple en which all religious persecution must be
justified—(cheers)—upon which all penalties were im-
posed, and which had led to those troubloua scenes of
anvil war, of dimension, and of desolation which had occurred
from the beginning of Christianity to the present time. The
other principle was the principle which had gradually risen
and had grown with civilisation, which tended to peace,
which tended to make men love one another, which induced
them to live in harmony, which induced them to live in con-
cord with the state, and left every man in possession of the
independent exercise of his own religious opinion, and
which, remevipg till penalties, removing Lli disabilities, re-
moving all punishments for the profession of faith, did, he
believed, conduce more then the severest punishments,
more than the fire and the rack, more than the most solemn
oaths and declarations, to the diffusion of just opinion.
(Loud cheers.) It was because holding this opinion,
because be was net indiff rent to the triumphs
of Christianity, and because he believed that Christianity
would triumph amid the greatest liberty and freedom of
opinion—it was because on these grounds he believed that
that trinmph would be hastened by the removal of the last
disabilities, that he hoped the house would agree to the
second reading of this bill. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the noble lord charged those
who opposed the bill with persecution. Ile asked the noble
lord how he reconciled that argument with the bill, which
contained so many restrictions from Jews holding certain
offices ? How did he reconcile it with a Jew being restricted
from holdingthe office of Chief Conomessionerlof aloe:General
Assembly of the Sehurch of Scotland? (Laughter.)
This relic of intolerance, as it was called, was the sole
bar that prevented that house sinking to downright atheism.
Judaism was a religion lamentably intolerant, and it was a
great mistake to suppose that this measure would put an
end to religious dissensions. (" Divide, divide.") He booed
it would not result in making the people of Baia country
indifferent to Christianity. (" Oh, oh.")
Mr. V. SCULLY rose, amidst loud cries of "divide."
lie merely wished to express, on his own part, and on the
part of the Roman catholics of Ireland, that they, as a
Maly, cordially assented to the bill. (Hear, hear )
The house thou divided :
For the second reading 263
Against 212

Majority for the second reading .. LI
CONSOLIDATE]) FUND BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
The amendments to this bill were considered And
agreed to.
LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
The amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to.
CLERGY RESERVES BILL.

This b;11 wag postponed till Monday.
HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN MAIL SERVICE.
On the motion of Sir R.I2I•LKELEY, a return was ordered
of the namiN of do vevels baiunging to the City of Dublin
Steam racket Company conve) ing the malls from Holy-
head to Kingstown, the Zate of tech vessel's sailing from
Holyhead to Kingstown and Kingstown to Holyhead, and