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

discharge of lie own duty to the end it had sworn to cirri out.
Though he f. It it painful to cite scripture in the heat of
debate, he felt Wood, especially after what had fallen from
the noble earl, to call their attention to the command,
• Remember that whatsoever ye do, in word et in deed, ye
anti to do it is the name of the Lord Jesus." Seeing that this
was their plain and express duty, it appeared to
him cha: they could not consistently admit Jews to assist in
the dischae-ge of it, and he earnestly hoped that their lord-
ships would reject the bill.
The Earl of SEREWSBURY.—Notwithstandiog all the
assertions to the contrary, he could not but look on the mea-
-1 sue more as a political than a religions question. It was
nothing more than the natural development, the necessary
carrying out of the great principle of civil and religious liberty
which was now so intimately woven in the constitution.
Ile knew of object more important than to conciliate and
to attach to our institutions all classes of our (slow-subjects.
His chief object in rising, however, was to point out the short-
contiags of the bill, and to proud against the irjustice
and inoonsistency it propcsed to perpetrate. From the very
title and preamble of the bill to the last clause it was but too
clear that its principle was the emancipation of the Jews and
the restriction of the astbolies. (Hear, hear.) The quaker
had been relieved by being allowed to substitute a declaration
for the oath. Now the Jew was to be relieved by the oath
being altered to suit his conscience, and he hoped it would
be so. But the Roman oath, lie was to remain where
he was, subject to the conflicting interpretations put
upon the meaaing of the oath he was required
to take, and must either cease to exercise the func-
tions of a member of parliament on some of the most im-
portant questions that came befogs the legislature, or must do
so by what some charged upon him as the evalon of his
~nth. (Hear.) The quaker, the dissenter, end the Jew
were declared much more trustworthy than the Roman ea.
tholic, for they might deal with church questions without let
or hindrance *bile the Roman catholic, if n3t absolutely re.
*vitiated, was liable to reproach, and to the charge of availing
his oath, if he exercised his privilege as a member of parlia-
ment to speak or vote on such questions.
- -

-- •
The Earl of WINCHILSEA opposed the bill. He eon•
eeived their lordships were called en, by this measure, to
renounce opealy, in the face of the whole world, their atria.
tiara character, for the purpose of admitting into the legisla-
ture of this country a people who denied our Saviour, and
stood forth as a warning to all the nations of the universe.
The noble earl besought their lordships to beware of the
consequences of passing such a bill, and said he would give
it his unqualified opposition.
The Duke of ARGYLL expressed his high respect for the
noble earl who had just sat down, and trusted the noble earl
would extend to others the coosideration to whit h he was so
much entitled himself. For his own part he must at once
avow his opinion that he was most anxious to sweep from
the statute-book every vestige of a d's'inction upon account
of religious opinions or tenets of any sort. He had in his
own person experienced what such distinctions were—(hear,
hear)—and be should ask their lordships to consider the pre-
sent question by their judgment as well as by their f• flings.
He did not assent to the position that religious opinions
might neser form the ground for political disability. There
might be instances in which religious opinions might warrant
political disability, but in his opinion the preponderance
of argument wee in favour of the measure now be:ore the
house. There was a great distil ction between judgments of
law and political disabilities. The noble duke then referred
to a case in which a young man of character and respecta-
bility had recently been ordered by a learned judge to prison
for tux months, for not consenting to be sworn, on oath, con-
trary to his conscientious opinions. Would their lordships
say that was not persecution ? Yet what distinction could he
drawn between that non-juror and the non-juror now before
their lordships? There was this d.fference certainly, that
the latter was one of the representatives of the first city in
the world, and he was also the colleague of the present '
prime minister. He supported the measure, and con-
eluded by assuring their lordships, if their object was to
secure the Christian character, either cf parliament or of
the country, they must work lower dawn and begin by
educating the people.

Earl NELSON oppcsrd the bill upon principle. The
Jews were essentially au antichlistian people, and ought to
be excluded from parliament as long as they were se firmly
attached to their present religious principles. They were
not excluded from municipal rights. Ttey were not dis-
franchise& They might hold the cams of sheriffs,
aldermen, and msgistrates ; but there was a vast dis-
tinction between making the laws ana administering them
The noble mid again declared his intention on these and
other grounds, to oppose the further progess of the bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW considered that the argument
on that part of this bill which related to the oaths to be taken
dad been so fully gone into by preceding speakers that
if he could view the subject in the same light
with the noble earl who had moved as an
amendment that the bill should he read a second
time that day three months, he (Lord Wicklow) should
have abstained from offering a single word on the present
occasion. But it wee not es a Jewish Disabilities
Bill alone that this bill was to be regarded by their
lordship'. The very title of the bill—a bill to alter cer-
tain parliamentary oaths and its preamble sufficiently
established this fact; and there was but one clause in the
whole bill which related specially to theca/. °flew lab subjects.
(Hear.) Theprinciple that excluded one class of her Majesty's
subjects from a privilege which was now conceded to every
other elan was one, undoubtedly, that it was of the highest
moment for their lordships to reconsider; but he we* anxious
that the other—end, in effect, the pervading - principle of
the measure should also be carried out into full effect (11-ar,
hear) Now it would be perfectly competent to noble lords
to give to the bill, involving, as it did, ibis other important
principle, a second reading ; and yet to reject, should they
be so minded, this sth clause, which, alone, regarded the'
admission of the Jews to seats in parliament. For his own
part be had long been anxious to give his support to a bill
that should go, as this did, to the revison of these parlia-
mentary oars. (Hear, hear.) If noble lords would per-
mit him to call their attention for a moment to the
nature of the oaths to be taken in order to
qualify for admission, not into the oiler house ef par-
liament, but into this—he would ask them whether it
was. ither fair or just to require peers to take certain oatts,
in terms to which they could not conscientiously subscribe.
It was, indeed, competent for individuals on taking their
nets in that house to take these oaths in the particular sense
they attached to the terms in which those oaths were con-
solved. Bat there were among noble peers some
who hadbeen born such, but who, on conscientious scruples
as to their own construction of those terms, objected to
take such oaths. It had always been matter of
Zgto him (Lord Wicklow) that the oaths with
lethe bill now before their lordships proposed to deal
should have been allowed to remain so long unaltered ; and
be therefore hailed with great satisfaction the appearance
ef this measure. He now begged seriously to put it to such
d their lordships as were opposed to the admiseion of Jews
Into parliament, to allow this bill, notwithstanding, to go to
a second reading, seeing that, as he had remarked already,
sae clause only—and that bat incidentally, regarded tne
ratter of such admission, whereas the preamble, principle,
and general text of the bill went to repeal those oaths,
th his own objections to which he was Persuaded
that a large msjority of noble lords would b 3 found to c. neur.
The Earl of DESART, however absurd it might be
thought for one who objected to the principle of this undue
to hue his objections hit none of the grounds which had been
alleged in its support by the noble earl who had brought the
messure forward, must be permitted to express his strong
oNections to the oath itself. The noble lord proceeded to
argue that the house was called upon to interfere with that
oath of supremacy against the alteration of which the noble
and gallant duke (the Duke of Wellington), no l,ter than in
the month of February last, had moved an amendment upon
the bill introduced by government to repeal the statutes pro-
hibiting all communication between the serums hf the crown
and the age of Rome. As everything which fell from that
noble and gallant duke war entitled to the best attention
of eke house, he trusted that the analogy which the principle
of his amendment bore to that of the objection be (the Eirl
of Desert) sow took to the oath contained in the big at pre-
sent before them, would have its due effect wi.h noble lords
on this occasion. The real object concealed by the oaths and
forms which enveloped it was, in facto the extinction of the
exclusively Christian character of our legislature. For that
reason he should give the bill his strongest oppoAtion.
The Bishop of OXFORD having so recently, by their
lordships' indulgence, been permitted to exprev his
opinions and sentiments on a measure somewhat analogous
to the present, would not have again troubled the howe
but for some observations that lead fallen from the noble
duke (of Argyll), and a noble earl who had followed
him, that rendered it impossible for him (the Bishop
of Oxford) to give • silent vote on this occasion.
Re thought that the arguments which were adduced in
favour of this bill were not so convicting as the sentiments
which were expressed by those who supported it were allur-
lag. The firstargunent on which he would touch was this—
tlum, inasmuch as they had admitted the Jews to a
great deal of social and civil power, they were bound
in consistency to go on and to admit them into
parliament. He would call upon their lordships
to consi ler that between the course which they had already
adopted and that which was now proposed there was • fun-
damental difference, which was a difference, not only iu de-
gree, but in kind. They had already gilen the Jew the
right of sitting in a seat of justice aa a magistrate, and
therefore it was contended by the noble earl who moved the
second reading of this bill that they shenold give him a right
to sit in the henna of legislature. It was argued
that if you believed that he was an honest man
in his own conviction, sad tb at he knew the law
of the land as • matter of intellectual acquaintance, in fact,
that he is one who is able conecieMboludy to act en the com-
mon principle of justice (in its w,ministratinn, you ought to
intrust him as well as a Christi/on with the forming of these
laws. It was just the same ma if they asked a man to sell
out goods by certain weights and measures, and afterwards
ctnaidared him entitled, 0.1 account of h's honesty in so
doing, to the adjustment of such weights and measures.
In this case the Jew would be called upon to make new
laws, instead of administering old ones ;_ and ha would ask
their lordships whether it was expected that a Jew Could,
confidently with the ta-1 ef which he held, legislate with the
best view to the inumeats and welfare of the adios. In this
instance, the Jew was not to administer any rule made
by another, but to make the rule hinss.lf. (Rear,
hear.) They were calling on him to do a
thing which was not only different in degree, bat
in kind from that which he bad been up to the present
time asked to perform. The noble duke who had addressed
the bond, said that it was due to the Jews and to Chris-
tianity that the former should be admitted into parliament
but he did not give any reason why they should superset that
Judaism was less opposed to Christianily at the present day
than it was 1,000 years ago. The noble duke 0113 said that
it was time that they should now remove that stigma which
rested upon them from their being excluded from parliament.
He begged leave to remind the noble dukethat the clergy
belonging to the Church of Englnud were net admitted into