The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-08 00:00:00

laud for Woad Cam or particular iadividuala Thera was
moths( Lansaw of a:clacks, spa a quarks which
the home !mood desirous to caswider.. this ascul?a,

be the
enos which tws (Lori dishos) row offered to the bill
wr Pirreatly eoasisteret with the support whisk be
years les had given to the elitism of the Baa.e ealhoiloyier it
should be weelleated they were, at ell swat•. &Arian& The
remittance he wonld give the present amours end the eon-
cessions he had assented to in favour of the Bases minas
were feuded epos what he conceived to be *psi& prin-
ciples. He bad considered the natter sandy end dehbastslY.
end be was Nero tbet the vote which we be sow remedial
against the bill would be based spout the nest upright mo-
tives, sad net /a the slightest degres_preentillaff from Pall'
neel hostility ass religiose meow. (Rm. beer.)

The Marquis of GRANBY thought the question as to the
alienate of tha oath had very little to do with the
important question before the home. Ho nought it
was only toe Banana to an end—that end Wait the
introduction et Jews ae reembens of that house. He
dieapproved totally of the prinaiple sad °Meant the bill.
From his earliest nen hi Dal boss taught that it was un-
wise, and Itafee Steil, to allow the Jews, who were dinar
Wall append to the Misting religion, to ginto in
their legielatin grosgrain.
the *Men upea this esigest hileMilisarwaisarmaatertaiallys
In coselndo• no would
to
tha Mese, whilst they
treated the Jews with all , to take OM that osier
the sane of that Arne they not ►
peal their Manisa
hitk es whisk depended then hopes of engin salvation.
(Rear, hear.)
Mr. FAGAN, se nib:roan catholic acting upon the prin-
ciple of doling sat Others as be would be ooze nano, was
enzione to give to ell hie fellow creatures otesplete religious
libettl. He congratulated the motile lord that by this sea-
son he had pissed the arowslag asp spot the great alma
of civil sad raging liberty. He union to me also to
his place the right has. hart. the member he Tanweetb,
whose ockinansats is the same gloriosa eases were if pert.
lie neater then these of the noble lord, sad it
must be gratifying to that right km. gentleman
that one of his run • who hog would vesture
to say gemmed • lane portion of the rain of his father,
sad was likely to take • prominut ponies is that home,
was there also to aid to the promotioa of that great masa-
sum (Ham.) He objeand ntogethee to the oath taken by
Roan Whelks, sad believing that the oath of allegiance
should be such es every loyal man might take without doing
violence to hie enowdenee, he should support the Knead read-
lag °lns bill.
Mr. PLUMPTRE teas amidst very genial grin for a divi-
sion. He &clad that those who opposed this 111111111111, were
amend by any hostile, hitt:r, or perucatiag spirit towards
the Jews.

Mr. X. lIILNES was unwilling that the house shmld
go to • division when thus were so few suraters present.
as It would effort but a very poor illustration of the great
interest taken is the question by the etenta7, bath ea me
tide and the other. The qualm they had se dims was
not the eenjeetaral ntara of some member hy a *um sea-
stituesey ; but whether a =a of the hyper* Medea and
there ter, elected to that house two years ige by the mot
powerful and Intelligent constituency et tbb Iraqi= was,
be the legislation of that boom. to be debarred hem taidag
his seat and joining in their deliberadeast If sash were sew
to ha resolved it would be a direst thane wield the
iie. ei of London that they were imapahle of ItX .t.
. with propriety their gleam! privileges. The real
Band intention of the bill was that them timid sew
to any body of men shut oat free in the
logielatare. They had propated step ehep, and their
advance had beta upward until now ;with thie saga excep•
Um, the legislature was open to all. Ia acting as they had
done, he believed that they bad acted wisely, because he
believed that by enlarging the base of the constitution they
had added to its permanent security. Let them follow up
that principle—let them peas this law—and there would
not remain one class of men who could complain of ex-
clusion from our institutions. (Hear, hew.) They could
not continue upon their present principle ; they must go
forward, or they oust go back. It was impordtde to say
that they would hold every other intercourse with the Jew,
but would not admit him into the hoses.

Mr. BANKES said that he should net offend members
who were most experienced in the bore if be said that In
the present debate the speech white bad pembard mastiff et
had been the speech of ma hon. washer who beg spoken for
the first time fa the house, the lea member for Leominster.
In that speech be found all the argumeet, ever adduced in
favour of the propositiara—argumeate expounded by him
with that diffidesee which belonged to talent,
and that modesty which belonged to the situa-
tion of one who was speaking for the tier time ;
but he did not agree in ell the conclusions to which the hoe.
member had arrived. It was perfectly trite that in early
periods there was no legislative enactment excluding Jews
from seats in parliament; but they had not those rights
which we had found it our duty to concede to them. The
hon. member for Leominster and others of greater ex-
perjure than he had, had argued that there was a period
when the Jew might have taken hie seat in this house of
puliament, subsequent to the time of the revolution when
hon.remben who studied the parklamentasy, legislative, OA
gal history of this kingdom were refeetly aware than
although there were none of those reetristre rules resin
in the statute books, the Jew could mask Moues he masmet
naturalised. Till the year 18110 be seal& not hold frashokl
property fa this real. • ft was, thershre, imrssible for •
Jew to take a seat. When hon.:member talked of disquali-
fication, he asked, was it more an ham& to exclude a Jew
than it wee to exclude a man who had set SOU per annum
freehold property, which qualified him to take a seat? Why
lees that qualification required? Wes It not a test that
members 01 the house should not question or disturb the est-
, dement of property ? If they required security for property,
they should require security for a reverence for ehrutianity.
• seat was no privilege ; it was a duty imposed on them by
thsk seastituents, who were to elect those who were pro.
petty qualified te represent them. Who were those con-
' sift:eats ? Members of the Christian religion, They were
to select persons qualified to sit in a parliament which was
a Christias parliament—which had the duty thrown' upon
it of regulating all matters relating to the Christian
church, and they could not get rid of the obliga-
tion. If they neglected or repudiated those duties,
they had no power to which they could commit those import-
ant questions which related to the stablished church, end a
Jew, however wealthy or benevolent, owed not discharge
those duties when we knew that he regarded our faith, to
say the least of it, as an error. Under thews circumstances,
he could not vote for the bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL, as the house seemed desirous that a
division should now take place (hear, hear), was ready to
offer such answer as he could to the objections that had been
made to this hill. He lamented, however, that in the course
of this debate he had not had the advantage which he
had had last year, viz., the assistance of the hon.
mamba who sat opposite to him, the hoe. member
Ise Ileschieghanulaire—(hear, hear)—who last year with so
web eiromee, sad so much force, argued in favour of the
memense them introduced. He trusted, however, that if the
bar member had forborne from urging any arguments to
eight, ft was that he thought that those arguments urged by
bis be& friend who set near him—(Mr. Baakesj—were so en-
destitute of force that they did not merit the reply
tilde his power and his eloquence could give—(hear) ; but,
if be (Lord J. Russell) hod been disappointed is that re-
=had been gristly gratfied at hearing 'grab from •
who had not before addressed the house—
=hear), bat of whom, knowing his name and
they were prepared to expect much. The
M. member had much to do te fulfil the expectations
of
this bees; bat be mu t say that those expectations
were sure than fulfilled. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentle-
men went completely and accurately over the historical
part of this subject. He should not have alluded again to any
pert of that question were it not that the hon. and learned
gentleman who had just sat down seemed to have fallen into
se error, which be should not have expected. The hon. gen-
tleman hardly attempted to deny that the exclusion of the
Jews was not direct and the result of purp see, but that it
was one effect of the intention of imposing the eanctien of
an oath without say direct in'entien of excludieg the Jew,
and alluding to tbst period of our hbtory in the reign of Wm.
111., when these words, " on the true faith of • Christian,"
were not. contained in the oath, it seemed to be forgotten by
the hon. gentleman that the Jew being at that time unable
to hold land, was excluded by the freehold qualification
which members were obliged to posers. Now be thought
that the hon. and learned gentleman, with his knowledge of
the eortitriens, ought to have reroolleeteii that it was not
till the 9th Lane that the qualification was regulated.
Kr. BANKES—The Jew was not naturalised.
Lord J. RUSSELL—That was another part of the qtrs.
tire. It was not till the 9th Anne that the bill pasted, a
proof of tho jealousy of the landed interest against the com-
mercial interest—a proposition which, so far as regard, d the
cities and boroughs of this country wee totally opposed to
the spirit of our mastication, and was not a point in favour
of the hon. gentleman, as far as his constitutional argument
was concerned. His hon. friend, the member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford, who began this 'discussion, diseased the
proposal which he (bard J. Russell) had made with regard
to an alteration of the oaths, and insisted that it was de-
sirable still to keep that part of the oath by which protestant
members of this house denied that the Pops had any eccle-
siastical or spiritual authority in this realm. In bring-
ing forward this question he (Lord J. Rumen) had
argued that the denial was evident'y intended as
a security against Roman catholics ; that no protestant was
likely to promote the eadesiestical and spiritual authority of
the Pope ; that you hal parted with the ee.urity r regarded
Roman catholic., and as you did not require the security
against Roma catholic,, of whom you might have reason to
be palms, it was absurd to keep it up as to those of whom
yea could have no reason to be jealous. He mild not be-
lieve that toy of or courts, because any member would be
disposed to admit such authority, would own that by law
such authority old exist. His hon. friend in the same way
argued that it was a lees of security ; that in referring to the
act of succession to the croon he had not ment'oned that, by
the act of snoompidon, the inheritance of the crown
was limited to certain persons being protesters. His hon.
friend was so sersonnel of a declaration that he seemed to
think that, where a matter was settled by law, a declaration
ridded to the force of our obligations. If en hoe. member, when
he come into the hours, was to be made to say that two
ad two rade four, there would be the same krai in the
obvious troth that there was now. His hon. friend thoarht
that if they dastard the crown to be limited to protesters,
they added en additional obligation to an set of parlia-
ment; but the act of parliament being good in itself, he
(Lord J. Russell) thought it required no further force. His
hen. friead, and those who care after him, had attempted
Me chew that some peso .ical evil would arise from tuts bill.
They_ oil it would be dermas to Christianity, but that it
soda be Nations to Chtiatianity they by no means proved.
Onlylmigine three or four Jews transit by their Country-
men in making some motion in this house hostile to Cbrit-
tianity, or attemptirg to carry some measure by which