The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 17, 1847.

were present with leisit diked up their daily supplications
to Almety GoA 61` • bingos on theta, would be en-
ds/Mien • II this WWI 110, it would be • consideration
affecting • few Jew ea the sae hand, and a large number
of Christiaas 11l thootair. Hs had thus endeavoured to deal
with the unauptione elide aside friend, and to show that, lie
regarded the red auswas of the law they were about to pus
they wenunfieended. BO theeenere others who stated their
olgiens to the VOIMOPWO in hapage still stronger If they
had~ot Wm told, they min mace to he told, that this was
an unekirlatiaa seasen, and one which would call down the
judgment of Ood lapse them He admitted it would be
difficult to dal with such arguments in the tone befitting
such subjects, but if It was true that civil justice required the
, admission of the Jew into parliament ; and if there would
be no great practical evil to the legislature, or grievance to
any other class, then he said that this was not a quagliekel
expediency, but of principle ; and in proceeding to Man
justice to any class of his fellow-subjects, he haws her 0
drawing down the vengeance of the Almighty ; bat
feel more fear if, from the dread of olusoar a la
prejudice, they refrained from doing jostle,. ' ,hats.)
It was too late to use that argument now. Wl=
too far with the Jew to take that
he (Mr. Gladstone) opposed the bill or the wheiwien
of Jews into municipal corporations, he said that it Involved
the principle of the admission into that house. His noble
friend (Lord Ashley) drew • distinction between executive
and legislative fuucuons. Yet, municipal offices involved. the
functions of the magistracy, the administration of the jai- 1
cial office, and the administration of laws which wenl
christian laws, be could not find any ground for so
that the Jew was fit for the administration of the laws and
for the administering of oaths to Christian men, and yet wee
not fit to come into that assembly. (Hear, hear.) But it
was not only to executive offices that the Jews were Od.. I
mitted. What did they say to the franchise? Who WON
the makers of the laws? Was it not from its periodical
return to its mother earth that that house received BO
vigour ? It was not the fountain of power, bat
the organ of power. The fountain woo the oar
stitiency, to which the Jew bad been admitted.
It could not be contended that the constituency was net
Christian because • few Jews were admitted to the fees-
chise ; and how could it be contended that parliament was
=christianised if • few were admitted there? His noble
friend had referred to the authority of Dr. Arnold. He was
an able and excellent man, who had some favourite theories,
and one of them was to embody the general ideas of
Christianity, apart from what was held particular denomina-
tions, and he endeavoured to terry out that ides in the esta-
blishment of the London Univereity. His notion was, that I
the church and the state were one. It followed from this'
peculiar view that he was compelled to reject all who did
not acknowledge themselves to be Christian, and his autho-
rity must be weighed by the practicability of his idea, and
not by the weight of his personal character. Up to do
present time the constitution did not require that men
should be Christians, but that they should make • pre--
fusion on the true faith of a Christian, and that
oath ens the same in all cases, " on the true faith of a Chris-
tian." But they must read that oath by the light of his-
tory, and see what successive parliaments had done. They
began by requiring that all dissenters should take this oath.
Concessions were made one after another granting toleration,
and among others to the unitarians. Whatever was the ori-
ginal meaning of the oath, the unitarians acted on the spirit
of the constitution when they took it ; and it must be ad-
mitted that the constitution had ceased to adhere to any I
fixed body of truths as the teat of admission into parliament.
There was, however, a real difficulty in the admission of
Jews into the legislature, arising from the mixed nature of
the functions of parliament. So long as these matters re-
lating to the church and religion were liable te be discussed 1
it was • real difficulty so far as it went. Now, what
was its amount, and what was the proper mode of I
solving it? With regard to its amount, he had no
fear on this head of the admission of Jews into parliament,
because, to • great extent, the good feeling of individuals',
and the force of public opinion would retain them from in-
terference in matters relating to the church. This had beau
much the case since the act of 1823 and 1829, and it was
usual to see gentlemen rise and say that they thought it more
fitting to leave such questions to those who had • natural
interest in them. But he should be worry if he were obliged
to say, that because a portion of the duties of parliament
were of a religious character, he must stand between the Jew
and ell civil and political duties. This was a question which
excited greet interest among the clergy, as might be seen by I
the letter addressed to the noble lord at the head of the go-
vernment, by Mr. Trower, who expressed the difficulty he I
felt at the infusion into parliament of elements which had no ,
sympathy with the church. lie (Mr. Gladstone) had in nis '
hand a petition of Archdeacon Wilberforce, the brother of
the Bishop of Oxford, who said that he could understand the
necessity for Jews setting in parliament, and in the present
state of the country he was net prepared to offer any objeo-
tion to it, but he feared that the parliament, by that act,
would cease to be a Christian parliament. They would re-
peal the 26th Henry VIII., c. 19, by which the mode of
appointing bishops was provided for. (Hear, hear.) It re-
quired caution to prevent the effect of the change they were
about to make, being to produce in the country and among
the clergy and the zealous members of the church a desire
for an organic change in the relations between the church
and the state. There might be some in that house who ooh-'
templated such • change ; but he (Mr. Gladstone) was not
one of them. He confessed that the real difficulty
which presed on him was the conviction, on the
minds of churchmen and the clergy, of an increasing
want of sympathy between parliament and the church. His
solution of the difficulty was this: he did not de-'
sire an organic =Lege in the church, and in ,
saying this he begged not to be understood to
allude to recent events. He said, on the part of las
church, that now they were about to admit into parliament
those who had no sympathy with the spiritual interests of
the church, they were bound, while reV that prise
ciple, ,hew that a regard for the f : those een-
ueete to d
with the church guided them in legkinthe
principles, and the ministers of the crown in the falterers
which was placed in their heads. He said that, Writ twat
to the church, they might take one of two COMM IS
popular principles continued to make rapid p thers
might be • majority in that house that would be i to
exhibit • severe policy towards the church; but he expremed
his deep and solemn conviction that the adoption of mash •
course would be attended with deplorable results. Ttwy
must feel that the history of the church in the last century
was a painful one, that the =larch was in a state of decline,
and that when, towards the end of the century, the French
revolution buret like thunder upon the world,the relations be-
tween the clergy and their flocks were reduced to • mere dude-
ton, to the mere dry bones instead of vigorous life. This life and
rigour could not exist under a system of stringent and
coercive policy. There could not be a working and efficient
church unless there was respect for the church and unless
its own real and moderate spirit were recognised, and they
studied to develop it in a spirit of candour. It would be a
great misfortune if the admission of alien religionia a into
parliament caused an organic change in the church ,• but it
i would be • still greater ansiortune if, after having admitted
the Jew to the exercise of the franchise and the magistracy
they took such narrow ground as the principle of „them 1
exclusion. Having thus adverted to the objection of hie
noble friend to the measure, and having shown that the
principles he laid down were not proved, and that he had
overstated the admissions which the legislature would
make by such a law, and having 'hewn that he
was unable to find • practical evil in the ad-
mission of Jews to parliament, which
against that which they would suffer by exclusion aft
admission to functions of ouch importance had been neer
nised, he could only say that he agreed with the noble lug
(J. Russell), this question assumed the shape of one ajar
tice. The more the arguments drawn from former time
and used in successive parliaments were urged, the mire
their thinness was shown ; while, on the other hand, if they
admitted the Jews into parliament in spite of prejudices WO
=actable in themselves, but which reflection would=
they would feel that they had done their duty in
political rights to their fellow-subjects, and, so `r from as-
paraging Christianity or loweringulst in pablie estimation,
they would tend to elevate it, if 'hewed when, in the
lapse of after years, the history. of swesuo was read,
that Christianity. was a religion Willlk MAW them to
fulfil their duty in spite of pnjudices end peopsermioss, and
that, by fulfilling the peirolpLs of juies,ll7 had been also
acting on the principles Meagan. (Mama.)
Mr. BANKS said the meth Lei (Lead J. Russell) ha
armed that infidels had held mete in ale house. It wee
woe that Gibbon had taken the daloweles en the true filth
of a Christian, but he held Ise podgiest la that house, but, as
an atheist he was powerket; and suet Ind& not have been
the case if he had not made that deolenden. It was One
that Bolingbroke had oat there, and exeedsed considerable
power, but he never avowed his infidelity. It was only after
his death that his infidelity had been discovered; but had
it been known before, great as had been his eloquence sad
talent, he would have been powerless in this house. He
(Mr. banks) felt snared that if the existing barrier which-I
excluded the unbeliever, or, if not excluding him, disarmed
him of all power, was broken dowa, a mischief would be
inflicted upon the religious character of the legislature which
never could be remedied.
Mr. ROMILLY said he woo anxious to explain the
reasens why he thought the proposed measure ought to re. ,
ceive the sanction of parliament. lie denied the justice of
the principle laid down by the hon. baronet the member for
the University of Oxford, that before any British born sub- '
ject could obtain his rights as such, he must prove his quell-
&anon. Such a principle was contrary to the vigour of the
constitution: it was not for him to prove the qualification
incidental to his birth-right ; the burden of proof lay on the
opponents of the bill to show that the individual was not en-
titled
to the rights and privileges, and to participate in the
honours which belonged to the rest of his fellow-subjects.
The question was not so much one of substance as of name.
Those who opposed this measure formed a poor estimate of
the vigour of the church of England, when they entertained 1
the notion of the slightest possibility of the Jewish religion
ever becoming dominant. It had been asked, what would
be the state of things if a Baron Rothschild became Prime
Minister, and as such have to advise the crown on the issue
of *owe d'elire fir the choice of a bishop ? His answer was,
that already many Jewe possessed the right of presenting to
lawmens and now presented to ecclesiastical preferments,
but had there been the slightest objection urged to the man•
' nor in which they had exemeed the right of presentation ?
Allusion had been made to the opinion of Dr. Arnold; but it
should be remembered that that gentleman was alike opposed
to the &design= of Unitarians to parliament. Of the valu-
able services of that persuasion the house had hadone instance
that evening. (Haar' hear.) But was the parliament a
Unitarian parliament because there were one or two Uni-
tarians in it ? Wu it • Roman catholic parliament, an Inde-
pendent, or a Methodist parliament, because it contained a
few members of those pervasions 1 (Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN regretted to differ on this question with
many in whose views he had generally coincided. He re-
garded it as a question of principle; and he opposed the
admission of Jews to parliament, not on any of the grounds
which had been aseigned or imputed, as promoting the fulfil-

mile ,alleey, or as lielkodeg the Jews Se be destitute
by whirl elltineenneenimerisel. He re-
-2041611-77., im on made et She peel*. deli legis-
Winn se a . They ought not to be 1
filtannistd byCl=anheiVdOne by the constituency of
Leedom the home ought never to ',mender an existing
--w Wee ill the country chose to act contrary
to al Oleg aught at once surrender all their fuse-
= If this principle were sanctioned, its
I' 1161/61is.
be most extensive. Already we heard of
jades its somict an the clearest evidence, because
tillseggemed of capital gnu. Instead, then, of
this point out of dieftenes to the Becton of Lon
the hones seed rather le mike a more decided stand
a the throdenell easamehmens. (hear, hear.) This
vendee did not rest ea the eme ground as the admis-
sion of Roman catholies, keheemen peeiestanta and Roman
catholics there was the memnsei bend of • belief in Chris-
tianity, which did not mist in the ors of the Jews. In
their case, exclusion was essential, if the legislature wished
to preserve and carry out in Christian character. From the
earliest period two taste bad bean required of members of
the legislature-I'll*mm to the sovereign, and a
belief in Christianity. (Hear, hear.) It was true
them nets had undergone various modifications in
w of dissenters and Roman catholic*, but still
ale nee great testa were preserved. If one of these was die.
=with at the instance of the electors of Loo
might very soon be asked, by some other or
thso awe essastituency, to dispense with the other obligatioe,
et elleggeme to the sovereign. (Hear.) There were
may hedge merchants in London as well qualified to serve
in parliament es Bunn illinehild, but whose allegiance wee
entirely glees to for powers ; and in his optima it would
be just en cafe toe diymel with the test of allegiance to the
sovereign Is Ida dot of belief in Christianity. daisies
had been nide to the practice of the house comomedag its
re=e with prayer; and the numerous other pulls'
proceedings with which the house connected
inelfsesneed this as a Christian legislature. (Hear hear.)
It had bee. mid that thew tests were inefficacious for pre-
venting them who were not bound by the dictates of their
modem been entering that house. The fact of Gibboe
having %hen the oath was a bad argument for the repeal of
the law ; brews the power was not sufficient in every case,
ought they, thereicte, to dispense with it altogether ? To
do this would set only affect the Christian cheraater of the
logieleture—it would give • shock to the Christian feeling of
the nation, and would discourage the efforts of all who were'
main to promote Christianity. He did not fear that the
few Jews te be admitted would seek to overturn the 'stab-
fished ref" on ; the great danger to be apprehended was in
the public feeling. The necessary impression on the
public mind would be, that the legislature had be-
Come beallina to the great truths which they pro-
fessed le billowe. (Hear.) It was most important to pre-
ewe the erallileatee of the nation. Many measures brought
Mike the legislature demanded implicit confidence from
tbeimplis; and were the measure now proposed to be
cede would any one doubt that a fatal blow would be
given to the public confidence ? (Hear, hear.) This nation
was one which wielded the most mighty influence , it was a
deeply-religious nation, notwithstanding the existence of
much ignorance and crime, which the moat enlightened
were daily striving to remove; and would the legislature
=
oto those benevolent individuals their disregard or
to the great principles of Christianity ? Not
only at home, but in our distant ponesuo' is', would the
effect of such a measure be severely felt. In the
east, the British nation earnestly inculcated the troth
of Christiasity upon its millions of Hindoo subjects;
and of what avail would be those efforts and profes-
sions if the Hindoos learnt that at home no difference was
recognised by the British legislature between Was who held
Christianity and those who denied it? After this, how
would it be possible to persuade the Hindoos that the Eng-
lish were sincere in their professions of Christianity ? (Bear,
hear.) The greatest obstacles to the Mission of Christianity I
had always arisen from the inconsistent conduct of ill IRO-
teasers ; and if the step now proposed were taken by the
legislature, it would weaken the efforts of all the pendetes
of chrotianity in every part of the world. (Hear, end eels.
of " Divide.") He looked upon it as a question of a N.
ligions nature, and viewing it in this light, he =dieny eon.
curred in the sentiments of the learned body he represented,
that if this measure was passed into a law, it would be cal-
culated to shock the religious feeling of the country. (Hear,
hear, and loud cries of " Divide.")
Mr. PLUMPTRE opposed the motion.
Mr. DISRAELI said the noble brd at the bead of tba
government introduced the question as a question of prin-
ciple, and he had just beard the right hon. member for the
University of Cambridge oppose it also on principle. The I
principle of the noble lord was religious liberty, and that of the I
right hon. gentleman, he supposed, was the principle of re-
ligious truth. The principle of the noble lord was compa-
ratively novel, and one which he from his position and
descent had • right to support. He did not impugn its
soundness, but he might say he will one of those who be-
lieved there was something more excellent than religious
liberty, and that was religious truth. (Hear.) Religious
conformity was • great blessing, and although he did not
impugn the arguments of the noble lord, it was
not on that principle that he should be influenced
in giving his vote. The right honourable gentleman
the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)
confessed it wag the progress of events that rendered it ne-
cessary for him to support the motion. He (Mr. Disraeli), how-
ever, differed from him in supposing that the vote which the
noble lord wished to obtain from the house would convey
to the country an idea of a decrease of religious feeling in
that house. He thought they ought to admit the appeal
which had been made by the Jews on amount of their reli-
gious connexion with them. They acknowledged the same
God, and they were, humanly speaking, the authors of the
Christian religion—of the revelation which had been given
to this world. The extraordinary claims of those professing
the Jewish religion on a Christian society, had been ad-
mitted by some of the opponents of the motion. The noble
lord the member for Bath (Lord Ashley) was a noble in-
stance, and he only regretted that he concluded his able
speech by saying that he should oppose the motion. (Hear.)
Setting aside the question of religious liberty, he would
place his advocacy of the measure upon • solely religious
ground. If religion was valued as the sanction of human
conduct, you have in the Jews a people who profess a true
religion, • religion founded on sacred oracles, which every
member in the house bowed down to with veneration ; for,
so far, every member of the house was a member of the
Jewish persuasion,—(No, no !)—at least, all such of them as,
in common with Christians, believed in Moses and the pro-
phets. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) That Christianity was
nought which did not believe in Judaism, its immediate
grow. The question of the exclusion of Mohammedans or
Pagans had no analogy whatever with the exclusion of the
Jews. lie contended that no precise or definite objection had
been advanced against the motion. In every country where the
Jews had established themselves they had been conspicuous
as a religious, a loyal, and a well•disposed people, in no de-
gree seeking to molest or supersede the religious or the ec-
clesuaatical establishments of the land which had noeived
, them. The Christian religion use, above all others, that
which, if not persecuted by it, the Jews would themselves
feel most attraction towards, for it was a religion founded by
their forefathers, taught under divine superintendence by
Jews, and the finest thanksgivings, and praises, and consola-
tions of which were from the mouths of Jewish poets.
Sir T. ACLAND must on fixed principles rest has ob-
jection to the motion. In a constitutional point of view, he
denied that it was simply an extension of those principle* of
religions enfranchisement which had of late years been de-
velopiag themselves; it was a wholly new principle, now
first introduced.
On the motion of Mr. Law, the debate was adjourned,
amidst 100 cries of "Divide."
NEW HOUSES OF PARlis v 5...-

Sir R. H.:INGLIS moved the following select committee 11
on the present state of the New Palace at Westminster, with j ,
It view to the reception and amontmodation of this house
therein:—Sir R. H. Inglis, Visa. Morpeth, Sir R. Peel, ,
Earl of Lincoln, Mr. Bernie, Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Card-
well, Mr. Stephenson, Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Osborne, Lord
B. Bruce, Mr. Deering, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Tufnell, and
Lord Robert Grosvenor.
Mr. FOSTER thought they ought to have some informs.
tion with regard to the proceedings of the former committee,
and also as to the enormous expenditure of money which
was taking place, before they consented to the present one.
(Hear, hear.) Be should therefore move that the motion
for the committee be postponed.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that all those whose names were
on the committee were on the former one, with the excep-
tion of Mr. Stephenson, and no persons could have devoted
more attention to the discharge of their duties.
Dr. BOWRINO thought that • statement with respect
to the proceedings of the former committee should have pre-
ceded the pretest motion
Mr. BANKES woof the same opinion.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought it was high time that this job
of the new houses of parliament was stopped. (Leoghtes.)
A more wasteful expenditure of public money had
taken place. The original estimate was 780,0001. ; 1,500,0001
had already been expended, and yet the building was not
near completion. On the bringing up of the report he would
state all the facts of the case.
Lord H. VANE believed no advantage would arise from
the appointment of a committee.
Lord LINCOLN defended the parties engaged in the
management of the new erections. The investigations made
on this subject had shown that Mr. Barry had in no material
instance exceeded the estimate.
Col. SIBTHORP advocated inquiry.
Viscount MORPETH, after the charge brought forward
against Mr. Barry, and the uncourtsous way in which it had
been pressed, had no hesitation in saying that a committee
ought to be appointed, before which Mr. Barry should have
an opportunity of rebutting the very coarse attack that had
been made upon him. He had no hesitation in saying that
be regarded Mr. Barry as as honourable a man as any be
knew.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the appointment of a com-
mittee might have the effect of stifling inquiry.
Sir R. PEEL expressed an opinion that it would be desi-
mble to have a full inquiry into the whole subject of ex-
pease, works, the probable period of completion, and causes
of excess upon the original estimate. Such an inquiry, if
entered into in a good spirit, might be very useful en its re-
sults.
Mr. B. OSBORNE, on his part, was determined that the
matter should not be hushed up.
After one or two further observations, it was agreed that
the question be adjourned until to-morrow (this day.)
THE RAJAH OF SATTARA.
Mr. G. THOMPSON begged to ask whether it was the
intention of her Majesty's commissioners for the affairs of
India, in conjunction with the court of directors, to send
out any orders or instructions to the government of India
in reference to the future support of the family and relations
of the deceased Rajah of Setters, and of his numerous de-
pendents ? And also, whether any despatches have been re-
ceived from India, stating the steps which have been taken
by the Governor-General of India, in porusquenco of the
death of the ox-Rajah of Setts:l?

7.44110

Mr. C. LEWIS said the Board of Control and the India
Board had not received Oklal intimation of the death of the
Rajah, but when they did the subject would be taken into
consideration.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock.