The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-02 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY lIYANIZJG, MAY 2, 1851.

their mossilig, rod did M ass Wail .hinnolf in tbirworld
add Ow mat dos strougest pessibissikick
211. amid sew ? What, then, wee ' of au,
1f Os Jew teal one, it was as I. nen • epos
Ids renseassee as it would be upon that Olio mongolian*
Christian. Tho Jew bad lsizaselk,. If th 6 with mewl our.
thing at all, to be oindiout ih:odhowtovervign of thr
lbeme elms of Jews bong Sheep that elifhllis
lam
2;ia they we* won sort& Another claw-be-
im the ineasrldity of the soul, thought that the
tow of Ood would panne them in life and after death if
thy, Win it Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rende-
ssaid that the legislature was Christian. He
Roebuck) wished that a 1 the hon. members of
house were judged
_by *sir deeds and not by their
prothigions, by their kind's* towards othen, and not by
this doloitioo which might be pot opon their deed,. Ho
desired sissothing that would onnothes their asperitieserf and
prowast don from ling, they possessed perfect
masgoiy of wisdom: 'no Itaa. •,pirmin (Mr. Newde-
gate) seemed to mono M bistolftlso character of infalli-
bility. But, did it never occur to his mind that a man
might be brought up is the Jewish religion, amiable in
character, commanding in intellect, perspicacious and in-
quisitive in finding out what was true? And if so,
why should the hon. gentleman, because he was
educated in the Christian faith, stamp the Jew
with ignominy? (Hear.) Let the house think of
what they were doing. He (Mr. Roebuck) acknowledged
frankly all the wonderful consequences of the Christian
dispensation, but could be shut his eyes to the fact that the
Jews were not bad subjects, bed fathers, bad husbands, or
bad citizens ? He supposed that in the ordinary class of
life they were not inferior in intelligence to other people.
If, indeed, they resembled the hon. gentlemen (Mr. Ncwde-
gate) he should hold a very poor opinion of them, for of
intellect and charity he had given a strange example. He
(Mr. Roebuck) did not agree with the hon. gentleman in
any of his opinions.
- -

Mr. WIGRAM said he could not understand why any
legislative distinction should be made between the Jew and
the Mahomedan in a bill of this description. As the law at
present stood the Roman catholic could not take his seat in
that house without swearing that he ,4 (mid not use his pri-
vileges against the institutions ot• the country. (" No, no.")
He thought that if the principle of the present bill were
sound persons of every religious creed ought to be admitted
without exacting from them any pledge whatever. If they
could convince him that Baron Rothschild's religious
opinions were to be no bar to his civil privileges, be was not
sure that he would decline to vote in favour of the bill.
He, for one, looked upon the representatives of that house
as the servants of the public, and the house was
bound to decide the present question with a view to
the benefit of the nation at large. In framing the consti-
tution of the English senate, hon. members should always
endeavour to command the respect and confidence of the
people at large. He would give his vote against the prin-
ciple of this measure, because he was convinced that if that
house were to be constituted without any reference to the
profession of christianity amongst its members, the respect
and confidence of the people of this country would not be
obtained. (Hear, hear.) In a great country like England,
there were large divisions of the people who always re- I
garded christianity as of great moment; and in that house
christians hart ever sat, and none but christians
had ever had seats in it. The words in the
oath, "on the faith of a true Christian," had
been inserted, because it was taken as a matter of
course that none but Christians could sit there. If
this bill should ever become law it could not but be con-
sidered as a most impolitic act towards the people of this
nation at large. (Hear, hear.)

The SOLICITOR•GENERAL had listened with satis-
faction to the speech of the hon. and learned member (Mr.
Wigram), though he certainly could nut concur in its senti-
ments. With regard to the observations of the hon. mem-
ber for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegatc) he had taken what
might be termed common ground—he had cited the Scrip-
tures as the guide which they ought to take in dealing with
this question. Did he (Mr. Newdegate), however, suppose
that other members of that house would profess to be less
guided by Scripture principles than himself, and was
at right in him (Mr. Newelegate), in an assembly
which he boasted was Christian, to assume, as the
foundation of his argument, a ground which he
knew could be equally assumed by every member of the
house? (Hear, hair.) He (the Solicitor General) would
not enter into a religious discussion, but he would remark
that the arguments now urged by honourable members op-
posite were very silllll.lr to those urged on the occasion of
the proposal to admit Homan catlio:ies to those privileges to
which they now proposed to admit the Jews. They had
then been told that the doctrines of the Roman catholic
were immoral—that the Roman catholic, were guilty of
. . .

idolatry, and ought therefore to he excluded friim civil
privileges. It was high time that all such arguments
should be thrown to the winds, and that they should come
in a fair and liberal spirit to consider whether a large por-
tion of their fellow-subjects were still to he denied civil pri-
vileges on account of their religion. There might be some
vacuole for bringing forward the arguments which had been
used at the time of the discussion of the cathulic emancipa-
tion question, fur then there had been a policy which was
about to be altered ; but on the present occasion
his (the Sulicitur-General's) great difficulty was that in
place of reasoning on a policy they were reasoning on an
accident. (lien?, hear.) The hon. and learned member
(Mr. Wigram) had, unlike the hon. member for Warwick-
shire (Mr. Newdegate) put the matter on tangible ground.
His (Mr. Wier Ant's) tenet observation was, that if this Meet-
sure were right in principle it did not go far enough—that I
the legitimate consequence was, that if they admitted Jews
they ought nut to exclude Mahurnedane. (Hear, hear.)
lle (the Sulicitordienetal) had been surprisedto hear that
sort of argument from the hon. and learned member (Mr.
Wigram) who knew that in the last charter granted to the
East India Company there occurred the clause, "That
no person whatsoever shall be excluded from any office,
civil or military, by reason of his colour or his religion,"
and that at this moment a Mahumedan might he governor-
general of India. (Hear, hear.) His (the Solicitor-Gene-
ral's) answer to the honourable member (Mr. Wigrum) was
this, that if they permitted a large body of Mahumellans to
live in this country, and imposed on them the burdens of
citizenship, they could not, in justice, deny them its
privileges. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Wirers)
had put another point which he (the Solicitor-
General) apprehended was the strongest view in which
the matter had appeared to the mind of the hon. member.
!le (Mr. Wigram) had said that they ought nut to coned-
tote their legislature so that the public would not hovel
confidence iu it. It was, however, remarkable that the
gentleman whose case had been so much discusses! (Baron
li.thechild) should have been more than once returned to
that house by the second constituency in the kingdom.
Seeing that this was the ease—seeing that public opinion
had thus been tested—he (the Solicitor-General) put it to
the hone- whether the hon. member for the University of
Cambridge (Mr. Wigram) had not begged thu question
when he argued that this measure would be distasteful to
the public. (Hear, hear.) Why, here he (Mr. Wigram)
had the large constituency of the City of London telling
him that he' was mistaken in opinion, and the feeling by
which the constituency of London was influenced was par-
ticipated in by the large majority of the people of
England. (opposition cries of "No, no," and loud cries of
" Hear, hear" from the ministerial benches.) The people
of England were opposed to injustice in every shape, and
would not tolerate the existence of any disqualifications
which did not arise from the incompetency of members to
discharge the duties imposed on them, but were boldly
placed on the grounds of religious sentiment. (Hear, hear.)
At present they excluded the Jew, nut from any legisla-
tive diopialification, and it was • farce to refer that to
legislative disqualification which had happened by mere
accident. At the time when they had been levelling their
legal enactments against the Roman catholics, they had
introduced words which happened to suit the case of the
Jew, and hence the present position of matters. The
honourable and learned member proceeded to argue against ,
the exclusion of Jews from the privileges of citizenship'
on account of their religion, and quoted a pump from
Lord Bacon, which had, on a former occasion, been referred I
to by Sir Robert Peel, to the effect that the law of Eng-
land did not warrant the exclusion of parties from civil
privileges on account of their religious belief. If they
had intended to deny the Jews the rights of citizen-
ship, they ought not to have accorded them admission into
the country, but once having granted them admission they
were not entitled to come forward and say that they should
have nu share in a legislature which they assisted to sup-
port. They ought also to recollect that for 13 years alter
the Jews had been admitted to this country there had been
nothing which could have excluded them from sitting
in parliament, and he had to repett that their exclusion
was the result of a mere accident. The hou. member (Mr.
Nee-dee:etc) Alarmed them with the dread of the divine
vengeance. They had admitted to the country about forty
thousand Jews. They allowed them to trade here, to
pay our income tax, and to sit at our tattles. They al-
lowed them to marry our daughters, and we might
marry theirs. 'limy had already admitted them to serve
on juries, and they had allowed one of them to act as
sheriff of a county, and by virtue of his office to summon
these juries. They also admitted them to municipal corpo-
rations. All this had been done without the di-
vine vengeance falling on them ; but they were told
that if they proceeded one step further, and ad-
mitted the Jews to that house, the vengeance of Providence
would noureelly follow them. (Hem, hear.) He (the
Solicitor-General) had wished that while the hon. member
(Mr. Needegate) had been quoting from the Talmud, he
had quoted that portion where Abraham was represented i
sittoug at the door of his tent, and an old man of fourscore 1
year. asking Admission. Abraham had admitted him, but
seeing that he did nut offer • prayer to God on sitting down
it* hie repast, he had expelled hint. Abraham had then
bean' a voice seeing " Abraham, where is that stranger 1"
1 Abraham had said, " I have expelled hint, because he
I, did out worship thee ;" when the voice replied, " I
(have write with hint eighty ;rears, why could not
you hear with him one day :" (Hear, hear.) If the hon. member (Mr. Needegate) were correct the,
Hews he had exprenell, he ought to introduce a bill to
expel these forty thousand Jews altogether from the roan-'
try, for their admiesiou to the country and the denial to
them of the rights of citizenship could not he properly re-
cow:lied with each other. lie (the Solicitor-General) held
. that is discussing the rights and privileges of the people of'!
this country they had no right to mix ran these demur
C ons the religious element. They had 'already raid that be
4 mass of the church of England, be he • Homan catholic,
be he of the Society of Friends, or be he a Moravian, he
was eqwAlly eligible to sit in, that house. Nay, they had
Iw ad farther than this. They had enabled Quakers and
k
orariane to take their webby making a simple declaration
land without imposing on them the takinitol an oath. They
1 might wy that theywerejuetifinKut gluing tuishceaumeQuakers
and Moravian. were Christians • but Wire had been an act
passed not long since, by which, In consequence of differ-
cures among the Quaker sect, it MS •11180ild
that 4tl aay poem not hr 'emusq issiers or a Mom'

vian'may he take the Quaker declaration on all aeamites."
Honourablemembm ONISSIIe, to besonaistent,
eseadeavuur ta Areal thalliet be the coelP
Wm, did while partial not over serspulowt, w ad.
witted, SOON who telt and acted socordiag to caillhollh,
were exchada. Ile cauld awn% the honourable 11/1111.
her Newdegate) that he had thought as much
ow Me matter as ha bad dotes, and he conceived it
be Ida Christian duty to place Baron Rothschild on •
level with his tellow.ektisens; he conceived. it his Christian
- -

Os tie as ha would bedons. by. (Hear, hear.) Thiry
Nesomided fa tior all not ontrikan Id
imelens at • but from all corners of the world,
• kip biby of af -intelligence and station to witness
widebsiedisatien bad made in this kingdoot—
to the ellbein of thirttityvenars of peace on
Lip
civilization and plipms of kad. It was true
that they had dam this with re ce to science and
art, and not with newt to legislation. But it was equally
true that Europe had looked to this country fur many years,
and especially for die last three years, and had envied it for
its emestitution, and its steady progress in civil and religious
fremilem, while exempt from the turmoil and contusion by
addikeellue esentika had been distracted. This gratifying
@Mee at maim MI insulted from the concessions made at
ad them le die %lie of public opinion, or, rather, he would
..Meta AM hellos of sympathy which had generally
bait Otinelell for the public opinion of the country. That
Msted hitherto not unfrequently been manifested an
civil and religious liberty ; and he (the Ile&
) should feel as it were degraded if the.
Mempre who had been summoned from all the
deilleod countries in the world to witness our
Is dis other arts of civilisation, should find us retrogr
ii Ike matter of legislation, and falling back as it were into
N. dark ages of persecution instead of advancing in iiv
strsightfora ard and enlightened course, which would
justly secure them in the affections of all the subjects of the
realm, while securing to them the blessing of that Provi-
dence who, dispensing justice to all himself, could not think
it right that justice should be withheld (ruin any sect of hie
1 creatures. (Hear, bear.)
Sir H. INGLIS denied that the Jews were excluded
merely by the terms of the oath, they had been excluded
from the earliest periods in the history of the country, be-
cause they had not the faith of Christians. The hon. and
learned gentleman had referred to the thousands who had
assembled in Hyde Park that day, and had asked what 1
foreigners would think of them if they would not admit a
Jew to take the oaths at the table? Why, so long as the
property qualification remained there were very few of the
community who could sit in that house, and of the half
million of people assembled in Hyde l'ark that day pro-
bably not live thousand had the requisite property qualifi-
cation. Talk of the common right of all subjects to sit in
that house ; Wtiy, it hail always been limited. The hon.
and learned member fur Shethehl talked of the speech of
his hon. friend the member for North Warwickshire in a
manner which did not surprise but which certainly pained
him. He would appeal to any one who heard the two
speeches which deserved the character of being the speech
of a creature .` spit in spite." (Hear, hear.) He would
not follow the speech of the hon. member for North War-
wickshire, but he could not leave it without thanking him
for his appeal to the Cluistian sympathiesof the country. The
further consideration he had given to the subject had only
deepened his conviction that the question was an important
one in its prsetical bearing on the destinies of the country,
and that the Jews were at this moment excluded because
by common consent that legislature was considered Chris-
tian ; and if that bill were once passed, there would be
nothing to prevent any one of her Majesty's numerous
Oriental subjects from being admitted to a seat in teat

Mr. J. A. SMITH said before he addressed himself tol
the general subject be would, in order that there might be
no mistake, answer the complaint of the hon. member for
Warwickshire, that on the hon. member fur the City of
London coming to the table of the house to be sworn he
concealed a paper which he afterwards produced. Now,
he really did not believe that the hon. gentleman would
condescend to state that which he did not believe to be
true, and he therefore wished to 'peak in the most tem-
perate manner of the unhandsome insinuation which the
hon. gentleman had thrown out. lie had no other means
of repelling that insinuation than that which he now
adopted, namely, giving it a most explicit and positive de-
nial. He had this further corroboration of his assertion in
the fact that the precedent followed by the hon. member
fur the City of Loudon cowing to the table of the house was
us closely and as strictly as possible that which had been
taken by Mr. l'ease, the member for Durham. Mr. Pease
came to the table of the house and took the oath in the
form in which the house permitted him to take it, and
signed a declaration prepared and written out, not by the
officers of the hums; but by himself, and having signed
that paper he placed it on the table of the house and tilers
left it. It was not for him to complain of the decision of
the house in not dealing with Baron Rothschild as they did
with Mr. Pease, but he thought an equal measure of justice
had not been dealt out to them. As the chairman of the
committee of the electors of the City of London, he would
now allude to an insinuation also thrown out by the hon.
member for North Warwickshire, that bribery existed at
the election of 1848. He begged also to meet that assertion
with a full and explicit denial, and he would further tell the
honourable gentleman that in that election bribery would
have been as useless as it would have been un-
lawful, when there was a majority approaching to 3,600.
Mr. NEWDROATE said he alluded to the election of
1847.

Mr. J. A. SMITII said he begged the hon. gentleman's
pardon, but he referred to a story as to the withdrawal of
witnesses, which he applied to the election of 1848. lie
would tell him that the election of 1818 was conducted
with the most urgent desire that no imputation of bribery
could be made. With regard to the election of 1847, he
could repeat with equal confidence that pains were taken to
avoid the imputation of bribery. With regard to the gene-
ral question, he had for some years taken an active part in
promoting the object of this bill. lie claimed fur himself
as earnest and as sincere a devotion to the faith which he
professed, as had any of the opponents to it ; but he had
done his best, and would continue to do his best to promote
the admission of Jews into parliament, because he believed
it was inconsistent with the Christian faith to allow
of civil disabilities, lie agreed with the Solicitor-
General that the shreds of argument opposed to this
bill were such as to give hopes that there would be no
collision between the two houses on this subject, and he
trusted that the members of this house would not be de-
terred by the timidity of those who counselled them not to
pass the biU lest there should be a collision. A great majo-
rity of the people of this country were desirous that they
should remove the last remaining acts against civil and reli-
gious liberty, which, he regretted to say, still disgraced their
statute book.

Mr. GOULBURN said it was important that the house
should rightly know what this measure was, and the actual
course of legislation which had been proposed. The first
measure brought in by the present government was in
1816. That bill was not like the measure now on the
table of the house. That bill began by stating that the
oath of abjuration was required, and was a qualification
fur office ; and it went on to say that because Jews could
sot take the oath a new oath should be formed, which
should on all occasions be applied to Jews. But did the
bill stop there ? By no means. Those who brought in that
bill hail sufficient regard for the constitutional liberties
of the country, and fur the religion of the country, to
introduce a clause imposing restnctions as to particular
offices; they were restricted Item the offices of resent or lord
chancellor, and being the Queen's high commissioner for
Scotland. They were excluded from all ecclesiastical and
university offices, from the mastership of schools with
royal foundations. That bill was rejected by the House of
Lords. After two years of mature consideration, in 1849,
another bill was introduced, differing from the former bill
most materially. This bill still maintained that the oath of
abjuration was a qualification for office, and the bill altered
the oath, and continued the disability of Joss to office. In
the bill now before the house, however, the oath of abjure-
don was not held to be a qualification fur office. The
preamble stated that Jews were by law capable of being
elected members of the House of Commons. Why, who
ca was not pable ? Who could prevent the electors,
if they were wild enough so to use their fran-
chise, from electing a Turk or any one else ?
Under this bill the noble lord admitted the Jews to every
office, even to those from which Roman catholic' were ex-
cluded. This was, therefore, not a mere question of the
admission of Jews to parliament, u the Solicitor-General
had represented it, but to every administrative office from
which they were now excluded by the terms of the oath of
abjuration. They might fill the office of regent even, or of
lord chancellor, exercising therewith a large amount of
ecclesiastical patronage, and being bound to advise her
Majesty in all matters of conscience, and yet the sovereign
was required to make a declaration of her attachment to
the established religion. (Hear, hear.) It would be ex-
tremely wrong fur a Jew to be placed in such a situation of
authority that he would have to act on the religion of the
country. There bon. gentlemen who thought that a Chris-
thin principle ought to pervade the legislation of this coun-
try certainly ought to vote against this measure.
Mr. ANSTEY said that an analogy had been drawn be-
tween the ease of the Jews and of the Roman catholic.;
and it had been argued that this bill should not be adopted
because it would render the Jews eligible to offices which
Roman catholic, could not fill. But the question was not
one of a new constitution of parliament, or whether Jews
ought or ought not to be admitted ; the principle to be es-
tablished was that every one elected by a constituency
ought to be eligible for a seat. They had no right to tender
the oath of abjuration to anybody coming to the table of
that house, whether Jew or Christian ; for the committee
who sat to inquire on the subject had shown that the oath
expired with the decease of George 111., and there was
now literally no authority for enforcing it. The journals
of the house of last session had authoritatively recorded
the right of the Jew to take the oath in the form which
he deemed most binding; for the amendment de-
claring the seat full had been carried by the house. This
led the house into a difficulty ; and the noble lord bail very
properly thought that the best way to obviate the difficulty
was by paining a declaratory act, such as the one now pro-
posed. Baronponnts of the measure did not pretend to
say thatßothschild had not been lawfully elected,
but merely contended that he could not sit because he was
! a Jew. Anciently, when parliament sat in separate estates,
it was well known that the Jews had their representative
. assembly, in which they voted money like all the other
estates of the realm. The writings of Bruton, and other
ancient authors, showed that at their time the Jews had
right of holding land and all other rights pertaining t‘,., the
subject. In the time of William 111. the act wh, di how
created all the difficulty, that containing the 'words "on
the true faith of a Christian" was not forcewh
then, should it now stand in the way of tt,;je...„..joyi4
their just rights? He regretted that this bill should be
thought necessary at all. Ho believed the house
had it in its own power to dispense with the objec-
lionahis amok by declaring that the Q.:..

aer
In whatever torus the party thought
,• . It had been thought better, however, to
''"'" in • and when the measure reached the other
• , law is would Cut be so treatedu to precipitate
• conflict the two houses. Till the question was
settled, the important City of London was deprived of its
I full share of representation. Lord Stanley, when Colonial
Secretary, had sanctioned the passing of a bill by the
Canadian legislature having much the same object as the
measure now before the house, by dispensing with the very
1 words to which Baron Rothschild objected. Were this the
cameo( the Jew alone, he Omura not feel half the enthusiasm
in its supper[, which he did from the consideration that it
suctioned a principle which* would admit Mahomedan
Indians and all other Gasses of her Majesty's subjects to •
free pa)rticipation in the privileges of our free constitution.
(Hear
Colonel SIBTHORP thought the noble lord had taken
what he conceived to he a seasonable opportunity for forcing
on this measure, in consequence of what had occurred at
the Crystal Palace that day, where he (Cu!. Sibthorp) was
not, because paramount duty and paramount considerations
kept him away, in order that he might show that he was
not deficient in the proper feelings of • Christian and in a
desire to maintain fur this country, and for its legislature,
its Christian character. Ile deeply regretted that the head
of a protestant church should there have invoked a blessing
on that which he considered to be injurious to the welfare
of this country. (" Oh," and " question.") Ile should cor-
dially support the amendment of the hon. member for
Warwickahire. If Baron Rothschild were admitted, why
should he refuse to obey the Speaker's order to attend
on the Saturday, as he (Col. Sibthorp) must do? Why
should one man have a privilege which others had not?
(" Question.") lie could tell the noble lord, though he
might pass his bill through that house, ho would not carry
it through the other, where he had not the advantage of a
body of supporters who were bound to follow his bidding.
Lord J. RUSSELL was aware the house was anxious to
come to a division, and he had no desire to detain them
front it, but there were some circumstances with respect to
this questi differing from any by which on any previous
occasion it had been attended. The question in itself
related simply to the admission to his seat of a member of
that house who had been twice elected by a large body of
electors. (Hear, hear.) 110 would not dispute with the
boa. baronet the member for Oxford University whether
parliament had the right, and could with discretion exercise
that right, of placing restrictions on the admission of
lumbers elected by the constituencies. The ques-
tion, however, was, first, whether parliament meant
to make disqualifications of this description, and next
whether it was wise or reasonable to do 10 ? ‘l. it h regard to
the first, whether parliament ever intended to establish restric-
tions, it was important to the consideration of the ques-
tion, to observe that while there were certain matters which
wore matters of substance, and with regard to which mem-
bers were required to take an oath, there was no oath or
declaration now required that the member presenting him-
self to be swain was a Christian, as there hail been in the
parliament of the Protector Cromwell, when it was desirable
that every member should be a Christian aud a protestant.
(Rear, hear.) New, we had, as the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Bath had said, an oath of fidelity to the Queen—an
oath with respect to the supremacy of the crown, excluding
the supremacy of any foreign power—as protestant* took the
oath ; of any spiritual supremacy and of any temporal su-
premacy, as Roman catholies took the oath ; and we had
the oath of alnuratiou, abjuring the title of any other than
the reigning family to the crown of these realms. These
were the three important oaths required to be taken by mem-
bers of that how., ; and Baruu Rothschild having been elected
at two repeated elections was ready to take all the oaths—
the oath of allegiance, the oath of supremacy, either in the
sense is which it was taken by protestant or Roman ca-
tholic members, and the oath of abjuration ; and when he
was called to the table fur that purpose he was penuitted to
take those oaths until he came to the concluding words of
the last oath, the oath of abjuration—vim., the words " on
the true faith of a Christian." Now, these words, be it
observed, were not intended as any part of the substance of
the oath, but to bind the persons who took the oath by an
appeal to a higher power, and therefore only the words ' on
the true faith of a Christian were used." When Baron
Rothschild came to these words he objected that, as he was
not a Christian, he could not conscientiously subscribe to
them, whereupon the house declared that he could not be
admitted to take his seat unless he used the words. But
upon that question considerable debate arose, and
his (Lord J. Russell's) hon. and learned friend
the Solicitor-General maintained, with great poser of argu-
ment, that it was not necessary that the Baron Rothschild,
not feeling the words binding on his conscience, it was not
necessary he should use them as part of the oath, and that
argument was supported by one of the highest authi ) yon
such questions to whom they could look—the authority of
the lute Mr. Charles Wynn, who had long made subjects
of this nuture his peculiar study, and than whom there was
no higher authority they could consult. It appeared to
him (Lord J. Russell), he must confess that the weight of
argument inclined—but only inclined to the side that Baron
Rothschild could not take his seat without using the words'
in question. But there was another reason beyond this,
which made him most unwilling to come to any resolution
by which those words of the oath should be passtal over;
that was that he thought it might appear that by doing so
the house was taking legislative powers upon itself, and
that the Rouse of Lords might consider that on
a question on which their ,concurrence.

sari another branch of the legislature had decided
without asking their consent. lie saw great evils
in taking a course which might entail upon them such a
consequence; but he should say now that the house hav-
ing acted with such deference to the other House of Parlia-
ment on this subject, was on a question affecting the right
of members of the House of Commons, and of every elector
in the United Kingdom, entitled to a fair consideration
from the House of Lords in their difficulty. (hear, hear.)
And as they had shown that they would not step an inch
beyond what the letter of the law would authorise, out of
deference to the House of Lords that house ought to con-
sider what was due to the people of the United Kingnum
and the privileges of the Commons House of Pothunter:lL
(Cheers.) It was in this respect, then, that he said that the
question was iu a different position from that in which it
had hitherto been ; and uu man would deny, he believed,
that so far front there being any other objection to
a Jew taking his seat, that had Baron Itorlis-
child, like Lord Bolingbroke er Mr. Gibbon, made
no objection to the words, and used them, that no
election committee would have been able to disturb him in
his seat. (Hear, hear.) This was the position in which
the house stood, and it was one in which they were bound
to consider the claims of a gentleman who had been elected
by a large body of constituents. The only argument he
had heard to-night on the other side war. that urged
by the right honourable member fur Cambridge Lni-
versity, in reference to the position which he (Lord
J. Russell) had always laid down in that house, that
they were not justified in depriving any of her Ma-
jesty's subjects of their political rights and privileges on
account of their religious opinions. The right hon. gen-
tleman said this was begging the question, and that it
wee iaot on account of their religious opinions, that Jews
not debarred front taking their seats, but because the
Mee would not enjoy the confidence of the people if Jews
twee admitted, and that all legislatures were bound to take
am that those who framed the laws should possess the con-
fidence of those who were governed by them. And the
right hon. gentleman added that if he were advising a
Jewish legislature lie would advise them to exclude all
Christians. 'f his at first sight seemed to be merely chang-
ing the question, though in fact it was merely removing it
a little further. For when they considered the
question of how the oath should be framed to
obtain the confidence of the nation they should remember
that they were themselves representing the constituencies,
and were iu a position to judge whether they would or
would not lose confidence by admitting Jews to sit amongst
them. In this respect the presumption was entirely against
the view of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) In
the first place, the Baron Rothschild bad been elected by
a large majority of the electors of the most
=us city in the world on two repeated oc-
(Hear, hear.) Next, they had the evidence of the
repeated elections of members who had voted in favour of
extending civil and political privileges to the Jews; and
frequent as the elections had been he did nut remember an
occasion of a member losing his seat because he hail voted
for the removal of Jewish disabilities. (Loud cheers.) The
real question was whether the Jews should be deprived of
the power of obtaining political privileges by reason of their
religious opinions; and so far from the country being in
favour of that view he believel the general opinion was
in favour of the entire abrogation of all civil and
political disabilities imposed on religious grounds. (Hair,
hear.) The country considered that such disabilities were
no longer necessary, and should be removed. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman had found fault with the tenni
of the present bill. Ile (Lord J. Russell) would not enter
into that argument now ; for though he believed then
were no ground. for complaining of those terms, that
was a matter which had better be discussed in eon-
mitnv. (lieu, hear.) The question now simply was
whether, having removed disabilities from protes-
tant dissenters and from Roman catholies, whether
having removed disabilities from the Jews also in many
instances, so far as in that they were permitted to hoe
the office of magistrate, and other appointments connected
with the corporations—whether having admitted them to
hold municipal and other offices they would now put the
crowning work upon this policy of the removal of dis-
abilities on account of religion—whether they thought it
worth while to keep these 40,000 persons under the -badge
and stigma which the depriving them of the rights of other
British subject, imposed, or whether they were prepared
to carry out the principle of religious liberty. (Cheers.)
The house then divided—

For the second reading
For the amendment 177-25
The announcement was received with loud cheers troll,
the opposition benches.

- - VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for committing this bill bring
read,
Sir D. NORREYS declared his determination to take
the sense of the house as to whether a measure of *rich im-
portance should be entered upon at that hour of thr, night.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE considered a quarter after eleven
o'clock not a late hour to enter on the bid.
Mr. S. Crawford, Lord Naas, Mr. Stalely, and Lord
Bernard, severally urged Sir W. Somerville not to proceed
with the measure, nut so much on account of the hour of
1 the night as the absence of sevens!. Irish iss others, several
of whom had sat on the select committee in reference to the
bill.

Sir W. SOMEAVILLE said that, whilst acceding to the
request made to him, he should 01-„,erse that if Irish mem-
bers did not think it worth while to attend in order tu en-
able important measures, swfu as the present, to reach the
house of Lords at a sufkiently early period of the session,
he should wash his hands of all responsibility in such cases.
(Bear, hear.)