The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 12, 1818.

custody.
Mr. V. SMITH (in continuatlon)—Then it seemed
to him that there was no use in putting any
question from the chair. A member moved at amend-
talent, and was told thst it could not be put. An-
other tried to speak, and was told that he could not
be heard. What was the purpose then of putting a ques-
tion to the house ? He thought they should know what
the precise law was, and in conformity with what system
they were acting.
The SPEAKER said the frith clause of the act declared
that if any member chosen to serve on a committee was not
in his place within one hour afar the meeting of the house,
or departed from the house before being sworn, he should be
ordered to be taken into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms.
According to the ancient usage of the house, not only under
this but under previous acts, whenever a member was so
ordered to be taxon into such custody. it was usual for the
question to be put from the choir. 'He had thought it right
upon this occasion to follow and adhere to the ancient cus-
tom, although certainly it might be a question whether it
was neceso,re to put the questi in at all.
Mr. HORSMAN said this really appeared to be a very
bard case. A member was ordered to be Wien into the cus-
tody of the sergeant-at-arms for being absent when he did not
know he was required. It wes the duty of the sereeant-st-
arms to pursue him and s fleet his capture forthwith. If he
was in So 'dant or in Ireland the sergeant-at-arms must go
there, and all the exp.nses devolved upon the member; and
this was done without any opportunity for that house to con-
sider the propriety of the act. A question was put, no
amendment was permitted to he moved—the house was
called upon to say " aye" or " no," and yet it appeared that
they must say " eye." Surely if they were to be squired
to say " aye" or " no" at all, it was open then to move an
amendment. If not entitled to say "aye" or " no," where
was the use of ceiling upon them to say either ?
Mr. HUME ',Omitted that it was imperative to take a
member into custody under the act, and thought it desirable
that it should not be in the power of the house to have any
choice in the matter. He thought the order ought to issue
without any question being put at all. With regard to the
question of costa, that might be considered when the mem-
ber was brought up in custody.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR, on the con.raty, thought there was
a question to be put ; because the question of punishment
was left to the house.
Sir G. GREY soid the punishment was a matter to be
disposed of after the member was in custody. The object of
the act was to prevent the parties keing put to the inconveni-
ence of members being absent from the performance of
their duties. With regard to what had been said by the
hon. member for Cockermovith, he ape ired to have over-
looked the fact that a fortnieht's notice was given to s mem-
ber that tnere was to be a billet from the panel on which
his name was insert., d.
Mr. MUNTZ thought it very desirable that members
should be kept to their duty.
The question was then put by the chair.
Mr. HUME said it ought not to be put, but there were
cries of " Order," and he sat down.
The motion ft r arrest corned.
AGRANCY.
Mr. W. MILES wished to ask the hon. gentleman, the
Chief Commissioner of Poor-laws, whether any measures
were to be brought forward respecting tramping vagrants ?
Mr. C. BULLEIt said this subject was a very serious one,
and one to which his attention had been for some time pain-
fully called. He had taken some pains to obtain information
from all parts of Eneland upon the subject, and he feared
that the house would find that this system of tramping va-
grancy won a great and a very increasing evil. He did not
pledge himself at present to the application of any remedy,
but if the action of the house were required, he enured
the hon. member that he should not shrink from the re•
sponsibility of introducing a measure on the subject.
NAVAL OFFICERS.
Capt. PECIIELL inquired of the Secretary of the Admi-
ralty if it was intended to make provision in the estimates for
completing the retired list of paymasters and pursers to the
numbers re cemrcended in the report of the committee of flag
officers iu 1842 ? And also, if the board of Admiralty had
taken into consideration the Beyond memorials of the com-
manders and lieutenants with regard to a retired list, and of
the masters with respect to the rank they hold in the service?
Mr. WARD said that with regard to the paymasters and
pursen, no further provision would be recommended, as he
was prepared to show that they had already received a full
equivalent fur what they had given up. With regard to the
memorial of the musters, the subject had been under the
consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and, in the opinion
of all the naval lords, it was impossible that the suggestions
of the meet, Ti could be aecoded to. As regarded the me-
moriel of the comamoders, he could only express the regret
of the board that they did sot feel justified in proposing to
parliament to make a further provision for that class by an
augmentation of the retired list.
THE SEE OF CANTERBURY.
Mr. HORSMAN wished to give notice that on Monday
he should ark an important question of the Firet Lord of the
Treasury. Within the last few hours an event had occurred,
which he Olt sure that every one in that house and without
it would deeply deplore—he meant the death of 1
his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, Now, in the
course of the di•cuesion which they had had some few weeks
since upon the revenues of the archbishops end bishops,
and the mode of paying them under the ecclesiastical com-
mission, it had been admin. el, loch by the noble lord at
the head of the government and by the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, that there were great defects in
the existing system, and that it was advisable some change
should take place. (Hear, hear.) Now, when the Bishop of
Durham wes appointed to his see it was notified to him by
the then government that he must consider himself subject
to arrangements not then having the effect of law, hut
which were then intended, and subsequently were made
law. The question he should ask on Monday wan, if her
Majesty's present government would contemplate filling up
the archiepiscopal see subject to such changes and modifica-
tions as parliament
ST mightEAM hereafterßOATS. determine I (Hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ asked if it was the intention of her Majesty's
governmene, in consequence of the explosion on board of
the Cricket steamer in the rivet Thames, to take any mea-
sures for the riorulat:on of steam-boats ?
Mr. LABOUCHERE 'aid he was scarcely prepared at
once to answer that question. The board over which he
presided had the power at present of regulating steam-
boats. They could oblige them to take out certificates, and
could subject them to inapeetion.
ADJOURNMENT.
It was agreed that the house, at its rising, do adjourn to
Monday next.
JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
The order of the day having been read, and questions
haring been put upon this bill,
Mr. C. PEARSON rose, and commenced by entreating
the confederation of the house for a new member, and an
orator widunit recent practice. He regretted that the sub-
ject was war which it was impossible to separate from reli-
gious topics unsuited to the atmosphere of a political amena-
bly. It behoved them, if the question must be so
discussed, to deal wits great candour and kindness by the
views of those opposed to them. lie felt it necessary to my
at once, that though he should vote on the E 8.014; Aide with
the hon. member for Buckingham, •,t he should de
Ile so on perfectly different grounds. Ile held that the
state had no right to coerce the consciences of
men —to mould them into tonftstmity —by holding

out to them the objects of political ambition. Ile
held that no man ought to be disqualified for any office on
account of his religious opinions. He did not from
the extreme of that proposiion. It was said Earamobtoz
Roy might be admitted upon such a principle. He did not
hesitate to say that, if a son of Rammohun Roy, inheriting
his father's talents and his father's virtues, had been re-
turned to that house by a large constituency, the parliament
ought not to refuse him a place within their walls. It was
said by the member for the university that the Jews ought
not to complain because we did not " spit upon their gaber-
difte and call them Jew." But, if that conduct was consi-
dered a reflection upon the rsce, what were they to may to
the imputations which fell from members of that hones in
I the progrees of debate ? An hon. gentleman, whose speech
the ether night would be glassed nmong the standard litera-
ture of the country, spoke of the tests to which they
MOM now subjected upon election. But what was asked
be the Jews was not election, but eligibility for election.
Zs vindicated, for the first commercial city of the world
the right to sleet, as it had elected, for its representative one
of the most eminent merchants in the whole commercial
weeM, a man of the highest honour, of the greatest moral
wastilt. It was said that Jews could not be present at the
.....!".Idered up at the sitting of the house without fearful
y towards God. In the first place he denied that
thiigree over, in word or deed, offered the slightest insult to
tles mime or the creed of Christ, but, in point of fact, there
misted se reason why a Jewish member of the house should
be peacoat at prayers at ell ; there were, certabily, very few
days ea which even twenty Christien members considered
it necegoary to attend them. The authority of Lord Coke
had bees referred to, but this authority was by no means
inefragable in cases where thiology was 'hied up with law.
He had carefully searched the rolls of our early parliaments,
and he had found no exception to any max, a. member of
parliament, on the ground of hi. creed. Up to the period of
James 1. Jews in this couutry might have been admitted to
the house on taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy
on the Pentateuch, net was it until 16 William and Mary
that the words "on the true faith of a Christian," were in-
troduced even into the oath of abjuration. lie contended
that these words, on the true faith of a Christian," were
no essential part of the oath, end he quoted the opinion of
I Mr. Serjeant Heywood, that Jews are entitled to vote at
elections, leavir g out these words from their oath. He
denied that the country was opposed to the passing of the
bill. The mere fact of the election of Mr. Rothschild by the
votes of 7,000 electors, was in itself a sufficient proof of the
opinion of the city of London on the subject, were not that
opinion further evinced by the repeated admission of Jewish
gentlemen to sheriffdom', to alcisrmanthipe, and to other
places of high trust. As to the petitions on the other side,
they were utterly insignificant as compared with those which
bad besieged the house against the admission of catholic', or
against the Ma) pooch grant. As to the church of England,
he believed it had much lass to fear from the Jews than from
many of the mete, whose representatives had seat, in that
house. lie referred to the great disadvantages which not
only the city of London, but the country at large experienced
from Mr. Rothschild's nut being entitled to sit upon the
committee appointed to inquire into the eau/es of the public
distress.
The SPEAKER here summoned the deputy terjeant to
the bar, and asked if Sir Robert Price was in the custody
of the serjeant.
The DEPUTY SERJEANT, having made the inquiry
outside, returned and reported that the bon. member was
not in custody.
The SPEAKER.—Nor Mr. Cumming Bruce
The DEPUTY SERJEANT.—No,
Whereupon the committees upon the West Gloucester and
Great Marlow electionowtitions were adjourned, by hove of
the house, to Monday.
Mr. PEARSON sontinued, and terminated his remarks
by quoting the old fable of " The Traveller and the Sun" in
illustration of the views he hail developed.
Lord DRUMLANRIO asked whether it was to be argued
because such men as Gihl,on and Lord Bolingbroke had sat
is the house, that was to form a ground for breaking down
the barriers of Christianity, with which the institutions of
the country were surrounded ? Was England to be called
I on to follow the example of France, where, within the last
sixty years, the existence of God had been denied, and the
people had worshipped the goddeu of reason ? Oh" and
I,thear.") He felt justified in giving his vote against
the bill.
Mr. W. COWPER said that the noble lord had not rated
one single argument against the bill, which met the ques-
tion on its menu,. If the bill were au isolated measure he
would admit it was startling. But it was only the natural
consecotence of the various stet* taken of late years towards
removing civil disabilities, founded on religious differences.
The Jew* were freemen and citizens of the state, and being
subject to no disabilities as such, they were entitled to all the
privileges of freemen. According to his view of the
subject, the best way was to leave the quettion of moral
qualification of members to the electors, and to throw upon
them the responsibility of having mode the choice of a Jew,
of a Christian, or of any other religious sectarian. It would
be far wiser to throw open the doer of the house to all classes
of persons, rather than for them to assume the task act in-
quiring into and reproving the creeds of those seat there.
Mr. K. SEYMER did not concur in the principles
which had been laid down by the noble lora the member foe
London, in opening this question. He did not think ths
with the settlement of this question the edifice of toleration
would be considered by its advocates to be complete. But is
the concessions which had been quoted as precedents. more
especially those to the Romeo catholies, distinctions had been
preserved. (Rear, hear.) The noble lord had slid that they
could hardly maintain a great principle by fair words at the
fig-end of an oath. Granted. They could not make all
men Christians by imposing a declarationneither
could they make all men moral by a code, and
still they were constantly legislating for moral ob-
jects. (Hear, hear.) lie dirt not see any analogy
between the cases of the Roman catholies end dis-
senters and that of the Jews. He believed that the citi-
zens of London, who arc fond of speculation, hail elected
Baron Rothschild on speculation. They had drawn a hill
on the Lords and Commons, taking their chance of its being
accepted. Too much fencing in might be bad for the church,
but that was no reason why they should rev: its defences
altogether. He feared that if t:ie privileges of the church
were taken away she would soon cease to be an established
church, and that being his opinion he must oppose the
present bill.
Mr. HORSMAN said he should support the bill, but not
on the grounds that it involved merely a political question.
He denied that politics and religion could properly be 'cps-
, rated. It appeared incomprehensible to him how any man
could disclaim religion in public matters without also repu-
-1 dieting its influence in the affairs sf private
life. (Cheers.) The question was, in fact, partly a
political and partly a religious one. It was political and
constitutional as touching the rights of a portion of oar fel•
low subjects, and it must be decided on the maxims of jus •
tiee and sound policy. It appeared to him that with respect
to it the house was called upon to assume the judicial cha-
racter. The question was none of their seeking, it had been
forced upon them by the citizens of London. (Hear, hear.)
They had elected a man as their representative, unit he now
waited at the door of the house for admission. Constitu-
tionally. he was their repreeentative, but • legal objection had
been raised to his admission into parliament. He (Mr. Hem-
men) would decide the question upon high grouads. A
mat fallacy had run through all the arguments which had
been urged against it, more roped illy that of the hon. mem-
ber for Midhurot. It was asserted that Christianity was part
and parcel of the law of England, and that in the present
bill it was thought to annul that law. The plain English of
such an assertion was, that for the purpose of better securing
Christianity we had weed a statute expressly excluding the
Jews from parliament. Why, there was no law of the kind
in the statute book, and therefore there was none to be
annulled. (Hear, hear.) Formerly there bad been
such laws, but those having been it pealed there was little
reason in seeking, to exe'ude the Jews by laws enacted
heart) he exclusion entirely different set of men. (Hear,
The question was, whether parliament, having
repealed every direct statute against the Jews, a member of
that body was to be deprived of his seat its that house under
a statute having no reference whatever to him or hie reli-
gion. (Hear, hear.) The Jews were made to bear their
port of the national burdens ; we compelled them to carry
arms, or to give us money when we wanted it; in fact, im-
posed upon them all the responsibilities of subjects ; but
when they asked for the privileges of citizens, we denied
them, wish the answer that they were only Jews. (Cheers.)
Al the law stood at present they might be magistrates,,
sheriffs, or aldermen, but the moment it was sough, to admit
them into parliament a cry was rained that Christianity was
et an end He felt that such fears on he part of Christians
were more degrading toChristianity than would be the incur-
sion of a whole tribe of Jews. (Hear, hear.) Such was not
the weak faith of the devoted men, who had braved the
dungeon and the rack in support of that bele f which they
knew would one day overspread the world. Was the
church, which in the time of i.er adversity had been a fear.
ING martyr, to become in the day of her exaltation and pride
a trembling tyrant ? (Hear, hear.) Could not Caristians in
the per eent day enter into the contest without anticipating
defeat? (Hear, hear.) lie asked that question to hon.
gentlemen opposite, of the hon. barn let below him (Sir R.
Inglis), than whom no man had a higher place in the esti
tuition of the house or the country. (Hear, hear.) That
hon. baronet would forgive him if he said that a great part of
his life had been spent in proclaiming the weakness of his
religion, and its possible, if not probable, downfall. (Cries
of "oh, oh," from the opposition.) He was speaking pto
'Richly, and he asserted that on every occasion of concession,
the hon. baronet had predicted that the nun of proteatantism
had set for ever. And now, it was feared that if but one
Jew were admitted into parliament, the faith of six hundred
and fifty-five Christians would make itself wings and
fly off to Jerusalem or Jericho. (A laugh.) Was
Christianity a thing which would not bear shaking,
imposing when unassailed, but liable to be shaken to pieces
by every wind that blew upon it? (Hear, hear.) He had
no sympathy with thole who doubted the stability of the
religion which they professed, nor would he take Christianity
on their statements. She did not require enactments to en-
able her to prevail. Locke had wisely mid, that the Riven.
tions of men required the inventions of men to sustain
them, bat that the religion of God required not the aid of
human inventions. (Hear, bear.) That was his doctrine.
He believed that it was the function of religion to interfere
with politics, but in a greet, and gracious, and progreesive
spirit ; and in that belief he felt himself justified in support.
in g the present bill. (Hear, heir.)
Idr. SPOONER said that one part of the hon. member
for Cockermouth's speech had completely contradisted the
other. (A laugh.) He had begun by stating broadly that
religion should influence both public and private conduct,
and yet had come to the conclusion that Jews should be ad-
mitted to mats in that house. The hon. member had talked
of the fears of those who opposed the bill. Fears ! They
had no fears for Christianity. their conviction wos,that tenth
would triumph, no matter whit attempts might he made to
put it down. Bat they feared lest &Christian net ton, which had
for so many centuries been blessed with Chri,tort privileges,
should now prove thenrelees so unworthy of them as to ad-

salt these to make laws for that maim who denied the law as
laid down by oar Savionr ; who denied the dity of I
Chriet, and treated the great author of Christianity so II
rifled impostor. (Hear, hear.) The bon. member for
Cockernsouth had called upon the opponents of the message
Wshow
re h how the constitution was
en endangered by its
What weim the words of the compact tered into betweme
the sovereign and the people at the coronation ? The nom I
reign was sworn to maintain the true profession of the gospel
and the pr.testant reformed religion u establiehed in chisel
realms. How could they expect that gospel and that religion'
to be maintained, if they admitted persons to make laws and I
adejae her Majesty, whose religion told them there WS2
ar
truth in that gospel ? (Hear, tear.) Here, then, was the
constitutional danger, and a great constitutional danger It
was. (Hear.)
Mr. HOIRSMAN—But how as to the Roman catholic*?
Mr. SPOONER was speaking of the Jews. (" Hear,"
and a laugh.) But if they admitted Roman catholic., they
had at 1. sat so far preserved the Christian character of the
house as to require the profession of Christianity on the part
of its members; but now it was proposed to abolish even
that test, and permit any man to take his seat es a member
of the legislature, though openly avowing that he was not a
Christian. It they were not to insist on the profession of
Christianity, what was there to prevent the admission, not
only of Musaulmen or Hindoos, as some had argued, hut
even infidels? Depend epee it, if this demand were con- I
ceded, it would not be the last sacrifice that would be re-
quired. The noble lord the member for Bath had alluded to
memberpsis which bail been
.put forth in print by • I
of the cabinet nut now in the house in which he
stated that this question was merely one of police, and eons-
pared it with cooks and cookery. Though Mr. Macaulay
looked on this as a mere police question, the terms of the
coronation oath showed that it was not so regarded in the
compact entered into between the sovereign and the people,
neither did the practice of the house justify such au opinion,
for their business was each day preceded by a prayer
to Almighty God to direct their deliberations for
the advancement of true religion and piety. But taking
the question on :he principle of a police measure, which he
did merely for the sake of argument—how were we to pre-
serve the property, liberty, and lives of our fellow subjects
but by termite; and adhering to a code of morals; and
which code of morality equalled that of Christianity?
In conclusion, he called upon hen. members to remember
the responsibility. which attached to them on this question,
and to give their yams irrespective of party feeling. ex-
pressing, at the same time, his own determination to suppoit
the amendment.
Mr. COCKBURN—As a general proposition, it war im-
possible to deny the principle on which this measure was
eabmitted to the house, that every subject of the realm
bound by the obligations incidental to that character, paying
allegiance to the sovereign and contributing to the gene-al
hardens of the state, bound also in case of national danger,
to defend the country at the risk of his life, and discharging
all the ordinary obligations of a citizen, was also entitled to
participate in all the reeky., privileges, honours, and advan-
incidenial to that position, independent of religious
Opinion. (Hear, hear.) lie admitted that proposition must
be taken with certain modifications—as, for instance, if the
admission of any person, or clas. of persons, to those rights
should be detrimental to the constitution, or that religion
which it should be their first and primary object to up-
hold to the utmost of their ability—(hear, hear)—that case
would be an exception to the general principle. (Hear.)
And when the proposition was stated with this qualification,
much of the argument which had been advanced by the
ether side was totally inapplicable. He denied that those
who advocated this measure were justly chargeable with any
abandonment of the principles of the Christian religion.
They conceded that it the admission of Jews to parliament
should be attended with danger to the state or to the church,
that the oppention to the measure would be just ; but he
denied that the bill was fraught with any such dangerous
conseqoences. Those who would deny to 40,000 of her Ma
jetty', subje cm, not now only, but in time to come, their
rights and privileges as Englishmen, were bound to make
out their proposition that this was a case in which
the exception to the general rule should apply. (Hear.)
The hon. and learned membnuer fur
on thhlidhunit and those who
opposed the bill took their eid e law and constitution.
He denied that the law or the constitution was as his learned
friead (Mr. Walpole) had stated it to be. Nor would the
argument be worth much if it were—for if the law or the
constitution sanctioned injustics, or what wasp. chaps worse,
lolly, the only conclusion he should draw would be that it
required amendment. (Hear, hear.) Having admitted the
Roman catholic claims in violation of the constitution now
to refuse to admit the Jews, against whom there had been
no law of exclusion passed, appeared to him very like swal-
lowing the camel and straining at the gnat. (Hear,
hear.) Since parliament was first constituted there
had never been any law, either in the constitu-
tion or the statute book that had hail for its
end or design the excluaiou of the Jews. Their exclusions
had been the result, not of legislative design, but of legisla-
tive accident. All the laws of exclusion passed by perils-
meet had been directed against parliament, none against the
Jews. According to the aigiuul constitution of parliament,
the eligibility of the representative depended solely on the
' choice of the electors—there was no other qualification ;
neither was there, until the reign of Elisabeth, any religious
test In that reign when the great struggl between
protestantism and leomiunism was still going on,e and when
protestantiem had again obtained the ascendancy, the pro-
teataut party naturally adopted all the means acid engine.
I eircumetances placed in their power to secure thatascendancy
and keep down their opponents. The oath of supremacy was
thus introduced for the obvious and avowed purpose
of excluding Roman catholic, no all rticipation in
political power. This was the only act pa
of exclusion in that
reign. In the 3rd of King James came the oath, which was
the model of the present oath, and in which teethe first time
the words " on the true faith of a Christian" Isere intro-
duced. Tbis, too, was for the sole purpose of excluding
Roman cathihns, and was entitled an " Act for the sup-
premien ot Popish recusants." And these words were in-
troduced in this way. The act was passed immediately after
the discovery of the gunpowder plot, of which the Jesues
were believed to have been at the bottom ; and as it was
known that the joules countenanced the dangerous mo-
rality that they might avoid the obligations of an oath by a
mental reservation at the time of taking it—a doctrine
which was admi ted by Garnett, the Jesuit chief, as one
to which that body subscribed—the legislature introduced
a form of words which should prevent any Roman catholic
obtaining power by talkies an oath in terms which in his
heart he did not hold to be binding. This was the oath
which continued till the celebrated oath against transub-
stantiation in the 30 Charles 11. No one could doubt that
that was directed against Homes catholics only; and in fact
it was expressly declared in the act itselt that its object was
to protect the King's person and Isaias, by excluding Roman
esthetics from power. So stood matters till the reign of
William end Mary. In that reign all these oaths and sta-
tutes acre abolished, and the oaths of allegiance and supre-
macy were substituted as in the term. they now were. The op-
ponents of this hill alleged that according to the constitution no
Jew could be admitted iuto parliament. He asserted that there
was nothing in the law or constitution, down to the lastyear
of William HI , which could prevent a Jew from hiking his
seat if elected In that year, when there was some danger
of the claims of a popish successor to the crown, the oath of
abjuration WO pasaffi. That, however, was passed as against
Roman catholic', and against the house of Stuart in parti-
cular, and that oath continued to be taken to the present
hour. That it was directed against Roman catholics was
clear by the subaequent act ul George 1., which enabled the
erown to s ize upon t.e estates of Roman esthetics
who were guilty of treason, as against the state,
in supporting the claims of the Pretender. The
whole course of legialation, so far as it had reference to
any religious test or opinion as a qualification fur admission
to parliament, was directed nut against the Jews, or in sup- '
port of Christianity, but solely and exclusively against our
fellow Cbriatians the Roman catholic'. (Hear.) He would
point out a still mare striking anomaly. Parliament had
thought it right to change the state of the law in respect to
RIM= catholics, and that per ion of our fellow-sabjects who I
for two centuries and a half had bees excluded were at ,
length admitted to their privileges as citizens. But to do that
it was found necessary to modify the oath, by leaving out the
denial of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, but by !
retaining the words "on the true faith of a Christian.'
An oath framed to exclude one class of persons, and who by
the alteration in that oath had been admitted, was made to
oper ite as against soother clam in reference to whom it was
never directed. The Jew could take the oath of allegiance
without hesitation, (or no man was more loyal or attached to
the sovereign. He could take the oath of supremacy, for he
did not amen that any person had any authority over the
resist but the Queen. lie could also subecribe to the oath
of abjuration, so far as its substance went, for he did nut
admit the claims of any pretender to the crown. All that he
objected to wart the form, not the substance, of an
oath denying the claims of a l'reteuder, who had
been dead nearly two centuries. (Hear, and a laugh.)
It was really an insult to the loyalty of the subject and the
dignity of the crone, to require an oath to be taken which
implied that the sovereign needed the mockery of such
pro-
tection aga.nst the unknown race of a pretender who was
upwards of a century in his grave. But were the Jews ex-
eluded from that house upon the merits of the question ? If
they were it mattered not how they were excluded, whether
by such an oath or by direct legislation. Now if, when they
admitted the Roman esthetics, they had so altered the oath
as that it might be taken " by the rest of her Majesty's sub-
jects," they would have been under the necessity of bring-
ing forward a measure directly to exclude the Jews, and in
the present state of the House of Commons they must know
that it would be impossible to pus such a measure.
(Hear, hear.) Ha, therefore, submitted that, upon the
merits of the question, the Jews were entitled to
the rights and privileges of British subjects. But
were they British subjects ? They were certainly
amenable to all the obligations incidental to such. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer put his hands as willingly into
the pocket sit the Jew as that of the most orthodox Christian
Non okt. The tax paid by the Jew was in quite as good
odour at her Majesty's Exchequer IS that paid by any other
inhabitant o the realm. But it waa said by hia hon. and learned
friend the member for Midhurst that the Jew warn only a
naturalised alien. What were men whose fathers had
been established in this country for two centuries to be only
regarded as naturalised aliens Had not the Jew the same
interest as ourselves in all that related to the welfare of the
state, in good legislation, and in the proper administration
of the laws? Had he not the same inducements—the same
sensibilities—to attach him to the country personally, politi-
cally, and domestically ? and looking at the conduct of the Jews
as a body, who could say that they were not animated by the
same degree of patriotism ? If the countre, were invaded,
they would be equally interested in repelling the invades_ *
and he who doubted that they would assist in do' so, bed
only to look at the active part taken by the Jews of Germany
in the war of liberation to which that country had recionnes
when seeking to throw off the yoke of France. His Ma.
and learned friend said that they had not the same ma-
detainr as us; that their thoughts and affections were ilzad
upon the land of their tethers, to which they hoped one day

to be recast& That such formed part of the poetry and
aspitatioss of the Jewish people might be tree ; but
to suppose that it could have the slightest prac-
deal effect arm their conduct as citizens or subjects
istmginative. Asunting, then, as he
was
"Gihalreieedtellpynrllioytidathaird ;Wrotthihmeeltiocnomtowaepereonrso4riehnitiidshopfrossupuebbjetrts; ?.butnwtheereayt
was not the eonstitution of the country afforded to free
subjects. It was not only for the benefit of the subject, but
of the state itself, to increase as far as possible the number
of pemons eligible to offices in the state. In the case of
minors, of persons of inadequate property, of ecclesiastics,
and of jades, there might oe remonable grounds for exclu
sion. It might be unadvisable to mix up the sacred calling
of the ecclesiastic or the impartial character of the judge
with party strife ; but in these cases exclusion was justified
solely upon considerations of public policy and advantage to
the lame. (Hear, hear.) But we had no right, arbitra-
rily and without specific reasons, to exclude from a full
rticipation in the honours and privileges of the state any
y of her Majesty's subjects. What would his hon. and
teemed friend think if it were suggested that all the mem-
bers of the legal profession should be excluded from that
house. (Much cheering.) lie inferred from the cheers that
each a proposition would not be altogether unpopular.
(Renewed cheering, and laughter ) It bad been tried and
effected ie one perliament. The lawyers had been excluded,
but they had their revenge, for they christened it the parlia-
mention iiuloctOMS, sad not without realion, for a 000 d law
had bees made by it. (Leughtera Now, if such a
course were pursued again, would not his hon. and learned
friend have much reason to complain. The general
body of lawyers might be unpopular. but the great 'minting,
the eloquence, and the high character of hie hon. friend
might he referred to as sufficient to redeem them from the
disgrace and injustice of such an exclusion. Surely it would
not be a tufficient answer to say, that, as British subjects,
they had ao political rights, and that, therefore, parliament
was justified in excluding them. The evils or danger ap-
prehended from the admission of the Jews could only be of
two kinds, political or religious. All the zeal of the oppo-
nents of the measure had not enabled them to suggest the
slightest political mischief likely to accrue from its adoption.
Political wisdom rather suggested that they should crown
their conduct towards the Jews by this additional act of
conoeesion. In having granted them civil rights the legia.
lature had either gone too far or not far enough if not too
far, teen should they be admitted to the fullest political
rights as well as civil. In order to justify their exclusion
from parliament upon religious gunds, they must
chow some positive and tengible re
misehief likely or
possible to anise from their admission. Mere vague
apprehension and surmise would not suffice. What did
they fete ? Did they anticipate danger to the established
church, or the religion of Christ, from the legislative acts of
the Jews ? Even supposing the Jews had the power, what
interest had they in doing anything detrimental to that re-
ligion ? Did the house suppose that it entered even remotely
into their thoughts to cor.vert tie all to Judaism? Why, it
was contrary to the very spirit of the Jewish !elision to en-
deavour to proselytise. Its very character was in its exclu-
siveness; for the Jew looked upon it as a sacred inheritance
derived from his fathers, and to which he slid not want to
admit the rest of the world. Besides, the house was not
asked to give to the Jewish people the right of a Jewish
representation. It was asked only ti give to a Christian
constituency the power, it it chose, of returning a Jew as
their iepresentative. And was there anyone inthathouse who
had so little confidence in the religious feelings of the
Christian electors of this counts, as to suppose that if they
tound that the Jews were using their position to subvert the
Christian religion, they would continuo to elect them? He
thought not. Well, then, were they apprehensive that the
Jews would pollute that house by their presence; or did
they imagine that the piety or religious feelings of the hon.
baronet, the member for Oxford University, would be en-
dangered, if a Jew happened to sit beside him? In the
time of the Henrys and Edwards they thought right to
expel the Jew., because as the descendants of those who
crucified the God whom they adored, they saw pollution
in their presence ; and unless the question were put upon a
similar ground now, he could fee no reason for refusing ad
mis.ion to a few Jews into that house. It was said that deing
so would lower the tone of the house. He could notsee how
it would, any mere than admitting them to the magistracy
and the administration of justice had lowered the toue of
Christianity—(hmer, hear)—and to say so would be casting a
serious imputation upon the Christian character of these
realms. In whatever aspect then they viewed the question,
whether p htically or religiously, it was impossible to say
that there was any real or substantial danger to be appre-
hended from the admission of Jews '.o parliament. Fortu-
nately, this country was not called upon to make the experi-
ment in the first instance. Other countries had done so.
Ile would not say anything of France, because France was
not regarded as eminently religious. But in Holland, where
the people were fully as religious as in 'Lis country, the
Jews bad been admitted to all the offices of the state, and
had worked in perfect hermeny with their tellowoubjecta.
Take Roman catholic Belgium, or the Vnited Stare* of
America, in both of which countries strong religious feelings I
existed and were exhibited, and there the Jews had been ad-
mitted to political power. What were the examples to the
contrary—what the examples on the other side i They were
Austria and Russia ; and the question now was, whether I
this country would take its stand with the enlightened
nations of Europe or give its countenance to the principles
and views of bigots and barbarians? (Hear, hear.) Again,
he might instance that the experiment hail been tried, and
' bad been attended with singular success, in two of the British
ooloeics. In Jamaica and in Canada Jews had been ad-
milted to seats in the legislature ; and it woo well known
that in the Canadian rebellion the Jews had taken a promi-
went part in its suppression, and in upholding the authority
and nghta of the sovereign of this roam. ( Hear.) But
was there nothing to be gained by the adoption of
a measure the effect of which would be to conciliate this
class of the subject of the crown lie would take the
liberty of asking those who supported the church whether
they did not teed that by granting this concession they would
not take the first great step towards bricking the Jews to •
sense of the value and blessings of Christianity? How was
it that Jr vs had lived so lung among Christians, end yet so
late progress had been made in bringing them to the study
of that which made Christians believe their religion to be
the r Upon of God Why, because churchmen and Chris-
tians bad raised an insurmountable barrier, and had taught
them that they, as Christiana, were th it bitter and im-
placable enemies. (Hear, hear.) Let them destroy the
barrier—remove the obstacles—let there treat the Jews as
brethren in humanity—let the Jew learn all that mercy
that there was in the purity of the faith the Christian pro-
fessed—let them bring him within the sphere of its hole in-
fluence—and in time to come he would he brought within
the pale of that holy salvation for the maintenance of which
Christians were so anxious, and fur the extension of which
they professed so much to desire. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKER said that while he did not claim for him-
self or those with whom he acted on thin question any mo-
nopoly of true religious feeling, he disclaimed the applica-
tion to them of the terms bigots and barbarians. Notwith-
standing that the hon. and learned member for South-
ampton (Mr. Cockburn) had bestowed so much historical
and legal lore on this question, he (Mr. Baukes) must say
that hie research did not bear upon the sub(ect, and that his
speech, able and eloquent as it had been, afforded no answer
to that of the hon. and learned member for ?dislhurst (Mr.
Walpole), which on a former evening made an Rupees*w
on the house which would not easily he obliterated. (Hear.)
The honourable and learned member who had just'
spoken had inquired what danger* would arise from
the proposed concession to the Jew. He at once es-
I plied, that from them dangers would arise in the
church itself, and that dangers foss without the pale
Of that church would follow. The danger was of this
*oars ; There had been circulated within the lest
few days a reprint of • very important speech
I eta most reverend prelate—still a dignitary of the church—
dei present Archbishop of Dublin. It was obvious that those
I who entertained views in accordance with those stated
by the hon. and learned member for Southampton (Mr.
Cockburn) considered this speech a very valuable document,
OT they would not have reprinted it and circulated it gene-
, rally. Able as the speech wee, it carried a warning to those
I who belonged to the church, and ought to open their eyes to
the dangers which were hanging over them. The Arch-
bishop of Dublin then supported the measure, and it was to
be presumed that he did so still. Oa the occasion when the
speech was delivered the right rev. prelste said, " I will say
nothing on the political part of the question, because I consider
it desirable to avoid as far as possible touching upon politics;
but the second part of the question is of a religious na-
ture. It has been urged that persons who not
only do not acknowledge, but who renounce, deny,
and even vituperate the great author of the Christian
religion ought not to have a voice in the legislature
of a Christian country. 011 this point there arises a clues-
, tick, which I own I fled it very difficult answer." And
what was the answer given by the right rev. prelate to that
difficult question ? He said, • I admit that the Jews ought
not to have legislative powers with regard to mestere regu-
lating or affecting the Christian protestant church, but I also
think there is an incongruity in admitting any one, whe-
ther Christian or not, to have a share in affairs strictly et:de-
-1 siastical, or in the government of the church, and I take this
opportunity of declaring my opinion on that point to be that
the purely ecclesiastical concerns of the church, apart from
secular matters, ought to be entrusted to some persons, whe-
ther called commissioners or by any other name, to be ex-
pired, appointed for that purpose, they being members of the
elosech," Thwathe right rev. prelate would withdraw front this
and the other house of parliament every motion relating to
the church, and this he would do as a necessary consequence
upon admitting Jews to seats in parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Was the house prepared to adopt this preliminary stipulation
for bother concessions—a stipulation which formed one of
the charges brought against James II , and was declared by
the Bill of Rights to be illegal and pernicious ? This was
then a part of the danger and mischief to be apprehended
from the proposition now under the consideration of the
house. A schism within the church was more fearful than
anything that could result from the admission of • few Jews
into that house. He spoke not as a tractarian or retractarian ;
be presumed not to give an opinion en such delicate
points ; but the house, seeing that they might
encourage schisms such as had arisen in the church
from a recent unhappy appointment made by the noble
lord at the he understood government, ought to pause in
its course. lie that the right hon. gentleman
the member for the university of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone),
on a former evening, had incidentally touched upon a point
which he (Mr. Banker) considered to be of the highest im-
portance, but so slightly and delicately as to render it elan-
cult a understand his right hon. friend's meaning. His
right hon. friend had alluded to the petition from Archdeacon
Wilberforce, who took the same grounds as those adopted
ten years before by the Archbishop of Dublin. True his
right hon. friend said he did not go the length of agreeing
with Archdeacon Wilberforce as to the appointment of a
commission to deal with all ecclesiastical matters, yet he could
not hesitate to say that the general course of events
and the objects now proposed greatly increased the degree