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

arisen es early in the proceedings of the session, he was
bound to say that he thought it had oorurred tithe ant of
attention on the part of members to the state panels.
If the hon. member had looked at the lists he would have
seen that his presence was likely to be required.
The motion having been seconded, and the question put,
Sir it. H. INOLIS said that he thought it very desirable
that the notices on members should be personally and
actually served by an officer of the house. If
case such
would n bad beeot
n
done in the present instance probably this
have ootureed.
Lord H. VANE thought four or five days' notice should
be given.
Mr. AOLION BY thought the suggestion of the right on.
gentleman who strived the committal was insufficient.
Merely looking at the panel would give little information.
In the present cow very short notice had been given. lie
himself did not get his notice until late last night.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE said, if there was any hardship in
the matter it arose from the fault tat the act of parliament,
and not from the proceedings of the general committee. The
latter body had no voice in the matter.
Dr. BO W RING thought the hardship might be very con-
siderable. In another ease likely to occur to-night, an hon.
member was at Hereford, and it was impossible for him to
have received his notice.
Mr. FORBES hoped the house would have some conside-
ration for the ease of his hon. friend who was absent. He
was sure it was not by his own fault. lie moved that the
debate br adjourned.
The SPEAKER did not know whether the question on
this amendment could be put; fur the act of parliament was
imperative that if the member aumnioned to be sworn was
not preterit, he mast be taken into custody.
Mr HORSMAN thought the case was undoubtedly one
of great hardsht
p; but the house seemed
then
have no power
in the matter. fie would suggest that the amendment be
withdrawn now, and that on Monday the hon. member for
Stirling do move that the fees charge .ble upon the absent
member be remitted.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that they were wasting time. It was clear the hon. member
must be taken into euetcely.
Mr. HORSMAN —ls the hon. member, then, to be kept
in custody all to-morrow, Sunday, and Monday ? (Cries of
"Yea.")
The question was then put. There were some cries of
"Aye," end a cry of " No" from Mr. FUUBES and other
members.
The SI'E 1K ER repeated the question, when the cries of
" Aye " were more general ; but there were numerous excla-
mations of '4 No."
The SPEAKER decided that the " ayes" had it.
An Hoy. 11/4i RYMER The " noes" have it.
The SPEAKER: Strangers must withdraw.
Mr. FORBES rose to .peak, but
The SPEAKER said that the question before the house
was not one in which an boo. memo, r would be in order in
addressing the house at that stage.
Sir ft 11. INGLIS essayed to speak, but there were cries
of " order," and strangers were again ordered to withdraw,
Strangers withdrew, and during our absence the motion was
agreed to without a division.
GREAT MARLOW ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The members of this committee were then again called to
the table. On the name of Sir Robert Price, Bart., being
called, thet hon. member did not answer.
Mr. FOX MAULE then moved that this hon. member
be also taken into the custody of the sergeant-at.arms.
On the question being put,
Mr. V. SNI ITII begg‘d to ask the chair how the law stood
about this maitre: if the act was that a member should
be taken lute co to ly ?
Mr. AGLION BY—Should be ordered to be taken into

of delicacy which applied to the established church.
These were very ambiguous phrases, and he trusted
that his right hon. friend would explain his very
delicate speech, which nobody. had plainly understood.
When they recollected that ministries had been kept in
their laces by majorities of three or four, it should not be
said that the admission of four or five Jews could be of little
importance. The right hon. bonnet the member for Tam-
worth had not yet declared why he bad changed his opinions
with respect to this question. The speech which that right
hon. gentleman made in 1830 on this very subject appeared
to him meet convincing, and he did not believe that any one
but the right hon. gentleman himself could answer it. If
they made this concession to the Jews, they could not stop
there. (Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped the house would
pause before they consented to the second reading. (Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL.—It was with great reluctance that I gave
a silent vote on the hest occasion when this subject was
Crider the consideration of the Imam, but the peculiar cir-
cumstances under which the debate arose before the Christ-
mas recess, and my unwillingness to delay the house from
coming to a practical conc'usion, induced me to be silent.
I now wish to state the grounds on which I have come to a
conclusion, at variance certainly with my first impressions
—(ironical cheering, and counter cheers)—and the reasons
which have induced me to come into collision with many of
those with whom I have almost invariably acted—(renewed
ironical cheering)—with some from whom I have never
come to a different conclusion, on questions of equal im-
portance. At any rate, every rdinary motive would induce
am to vote with them on the present occasion also—(hear)
—/ will now state why, after mature con-ideration, I have
COM to the conclusion of voting for the proposition before
the kern. And in the first place I with to state, that no
pert of my resolution has been influenced by the
opinion that religion is a matter of indifference,
(Hear, hear.) I am deeply impressed with the con-
viction that it is our paramount duty to promote
the interests of religion, and that the precepts and doctrines
of Christianity ought to influence our deliberations. (Hear,
hear.) lam impressed with the belief that if our legislation
be at variance with its precepts and doctrines, we cannot
expect the blessings of heaven. Be that decision right or
wrong, my judgni. nt is influenced much leas by considers-
thins of politic a expediency than by a deep sense of reli-
gious obligation. I admit that, between the tenets of the
Jews and the Christians, there is a marked and decided dif-
ference—nay, more, that they stand in the relation of com-
plete antagonism. (Hear, hear.) I consider that no con-
currence we to historical truth or the moral obligations of
the New Testament is sufficient to reconcile them with
respect to that which is with us a vital principle. (Hear.)
And if I had any authority to determine religious error by '
the imputation of penalties, if I had the duty of imposing
penalties for religious error, it would be my duty to muds's.
the Jew. But I have no such commission. (Hear, hear )
If the Jews committed an inexpiable crime some 2,000 yens,
ago, 1 have not the awful power given me, after determining
who are the descendants of those by whom that crime was
committed, to punish the sins of the father on the children—
not for the third or fourth generation, but for 300 or 400
generations. (Hear, hear.) " Vengeance is mine ; I will
repay, saith the Lord." Neither I, nor this house, has the
duty or authority to punish religious error ; and I con-1
cider that civil disabilities do partake of the na-
ture and character of a penalty. (Hear, bear.) I speak
of pure religious error—because, if you could inter from the
maintenance of religious error dangerous political opinions,
you may possibly have the right to punish religious error.
In the case of the Roman catholics you did not inflict penal-
ties because they maintain the doctri ,e of transubstantia-
tion but because you thought they were dangerous eulijects,
and because they acknowledged the supremacy of a fereign
power. If you can show that the maintenance of relierbus
opinions by the J. we is a proof of civil unworthiness you may
on that ground have a right to exclude, hut the onus of dis-
proof lies on you. The claim of the Jew as a British born sub-
ject is far entire and complete qualification for offices
and privileges of every kind, and you do not answer his
claim by partial concessions. After admitting him to mu-
nicipal offices, and to the elective franchise, the responsibility
of assigning a reason for withholding him other privileges
remains the same—nay, it then becomes more incumbent
on you to admit him to them. My noble friend the mem-
ber for li nth in his able speech quoted a passage from Dr.
Arnold which made a great impression on the house. Dr.
Arnold said, "For the Jews I see no plea of justice what.
ever—they are voluntary strangers here, and have no claims
to become citizens " I say that is rather presuming lan-
guage for a subject of the British crown. If the
demendunts of the Ancient Britons, of pure and unmixed
blood, could be made out, they might, perhaps, taunt the '
Jews witn being " voluntary strangers," but in any inter.
mixture of the Danish, Boman, or Norman blood, it would
be rather presumptuous to tell the Jews " you can I.ave no
citizenship because you are voluntary strangers," the more
so esthete strangers had been desirous et upeetting the laws
and institutions ut the country, while the Jew obeyed them.
(Hear, hear.) Dr. Arnold went on to say that he would
give the Jews se hat the Romans called the jars connubi, and
the jar rommertii, but not the public rights, the fosse/raga
and the fess Aoesorium. But the British law and constitu-
tion recognises no such distinction, and by giving
the Jew the jeer coreitibii and the jos commereii, you
do not relieve yourselves from the onus of assigning a reason
for withholding from him the other privileges which other
citizens enjoy, unless indeed you can show tram past history
that there would be reason to apprehend disloyalty or died-
fection to the stet, on his part. To the opinion of Dr. Arnold
I would °open the opinion of a greater man, that of Lord
Bacon, who in a writing of his on the question of the " post-
nate in Scotland, said that the distinctions of the jos suf.
frafii and the jos petition is were the devices of free states
which were jealous with regard to the persons whom they
would admit to the full rights of citizenship, but that by the
law of England " all natural born subjects had the
capacity of all benefits whatsoever." ( Hear, hear.)
I have heard sonic very nice distinctions and analogies
drawn to show that exclusion was not a punishment. Some
have contended that there was no hardship in excluding the
Jews, because copyholde re were excluded from privileges
which freeholders had ; that minors were excluded from pri-
vileges which persons of full age had; and the hon. and
learned gentleman behind him (Mr. Walpole), who gave
hopes that he would revive the lustre of a name which in
this house of parliament must he held an honour, contended
that there was a material distinction between the elective
franchise and the right of legislation. All these are
ingenious fallacies, for the purpose of concealing from our-
selves the real character of a harsh exclusion. (Hear, hear.)
How did the elective franchise differ from the right to legis-
late. It is not by the common law attached to property.
The elective franchise is the creature of the legislature. If
it belonged to property, why did it not belong to the 91.
householder as well as to the 101. householdei i So with re-
gard to the exclusion of the clergy and minors. The Jew
was subject to all the exclusions to which other citizens were
exposed from want of property, want of age, and other dis-
qualifying causes. But in the case of tne Jew you
superadd another disqualitimtion, which makes his posi-
tion different from that of all others. ( Hear, hear.)
Bat it is also a disqualification of a different cheese
ter and nature. Many of the other disqualifications
are voluntary, as in the case of the clergy, who
know that they are entering a state which will disqualify
I them, You disqualify the Jew on account of opinion,
where the di,qualilioation is neither voluntary-nor temporary.
The exclusion of the Jews, therefore, is both an additional
disqualification and a disqualification different in character
from that to which others are subjected. I conceive, there-
fore, that there is no analogy between disqualifi, sr ions on
account of age, profession, or property, and a disqualification
which implies suspicion and inflicts a stigma. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to political opinions, can I assign any reason
for their exclusion on this account ? The whole ten rof the
debate has convinced me that as far as political
tendencies are concerned, the harsh exclusion of the Jews
would be still more harsh oar this accouut. Almost every
speaker had admitted the moral conduct of the Jews, and
that in point of talent, loyalty, and property, in proportion to
their numbers, they are entitled to every privilege and right
that belongs to other natural-born subjects. There is no po-
tiniest reason therefore, as far as the past conduct of the Jews
and our expectations with regard to the future lead us to infer,
to justify the house in excludiog them on that ground. Nei-
thee therefore on the ground of religious error or political
misconduct ought they to be excluded. But there are two
other reasons assigned for their exclusion, to which I am
disposed to allow great weight. One of these is that you
have had for 300 years a distinct recognition that the pro-
fessiou of the Christian faith wee a necessary qualification for
legislating; and then that if you abandoned it you would
imply that you were indifferent to the Christian reli-
gion, and would thereby relax the energies and
paralyse the exertions of men in this and other
countries who were anxious to propagate the truth.
The right hon. baronet said he would fairly consider the
weight of these two objections. If it were admitted that
purely religious error ought not to exclude the Jew, and
that there was nothing of political objection to him, the
whole of the ohjectioas resolved themselves into this. Pain
and offence might be given 'o many sincere Coristians, but
upon a deep consideration of the object he was firmly con-
vinced that the popular impression as to the object of in-
serting in the oath those words, "on the true faith of a
' Christian," and the circumstances under which they were
bilierted, was erroneous ; that they never were inserted to
require the profession of Christian testa from those
I who were admitted to the legislature, and that, therefore,
It would be unfair to subject the Jew to this
I continued disqualification. Up to the reign of Queen Eliza-
beth no oath was required of members of parliament. The
principle of the British constitution before that was, that the
will of the electivebody should alone determine the right to a
seat in parliament. It was not until the .sth year of Elizabeth
1 that the oath of supremacy, and that alone, was ad-
ministered. That oath, but for the form declaring it to be
' taken " on the contents of this book " (the Old and New
Testaments), the Jew would have been able to take. Then
the principle of the oonstitution was that every man should
conform to the protestant faith ; for, in the same act which
Imposed the oath of supremacy, every British subject was
required to appear at church once on Sundays, on • penalty
et 12d. per absence. (Laughter.) No doubt the presumption
I then was that every subject conformed to the protestant
faith ; and accordingly an oath was administered imposing
' • form which none but a member of the protestant religion
could take. But to the terms of the oath of supremacy the
Jew made no objection. It was not imposed for the purpose
of excluding him; it was imposed against professors of
Christianity from whom danger was apprehended. From the
sth of Elizabeth to the 7th of James I. no oath of abroga-
tion was ri quired from members of parliament. In the latter
year it was imposed, and it contained the words " on the
true faith of a Christian." The reason for administering
that oath was given in the preamble to the act—namely,
"that there hsa been a meet abominable and terrible plot, by
which it was intend.ol to blow up the King, the Prince,
the Queen, and the Mouses of Lords and Commons." But
this had no reference whatever to the Jew, nor was
the olniet to secure the profession of Christianity by memo
hers of parliament. (Hear, hear.) The exclusion, there-
fore, so far as it turned upon those words, was an incidental

and collateral ooeurrenee. Had importance been attach 4
to those words, as securing the protrusion o! Ckristianity.
wan it not remarkable that, at the time of the revolution,
almost the first act pawed sheald have repealed that seta
The oath of abrogation of King James seas utterly repms4
and done away, and this simple form snbetituted:
promise and swear that I will be M thful and bear true all a,
giance to my sovereign lord the Kinj." In the year 1701
Louis XIV. having proclaimed the Priem of Wales as pre
tender, the oath of abrogation again became necessity, sad
was re enacted. It was only revived on account of
the claim let up by the son of the Premnder, sad
the recognition of that claim by Louie XIV. it
had continued up to this time ; and if the oath
of abrogation had been thought unuecenary for warm
iog off political dangers, 7nd it had been repealed,
_ the Jew
would then he admmaible to parlisrai nt. But it was said,
Tnough we have ceased to be a protestant, or a church of
England parliament, still one bond unites us, the bond of our
common Christiaoity." To this the Jew might answer that
all the teats which precluded him were tests that guazdea
against dangers from Chrotians, and if Christians were blued
together by this bond, and had confidence in etch other'.
good intentions let them do away the teats that implied sue
pinion of each ether, and which had been established, not 61
precautions against Jews, heretics, or infidels, but smarm
professing Christians; and the Jew would then be entitled to
sit in parliament. (Hear) But was not the allegation that
they were united by the common bond of a Christian MAG.
clout me rely an allegation lbr the purpose at excluding the Jew?
The lion. and learned member Mr Midhurst said it was in.
poeniole to admit the Jew, because, by an socket form el
summons ti anal-neat WAS CZISti on to consult for the wet
fare of the church. What was the answer of the Jew to
this ? " Surely, 1 am as well qualified to give advice SOS-
camang the church of England as the quaker. 1 pay tithes,
and du not require the law to be enforced to compel me to
do so ; I have uu scruples about cat ; I am not disqualifies
from serving in the militia " (" lieu," and laughter.) Why
was the unitarian admitted to legislate for the chetah,
who differed on acute essential principles of Christianity?
Why was the quaker admitted Would the house be con.
tent to take the saute declaration from the Jew as from the
quaker, who was not ri quired to make his declaration
"on the true faith of a Christian." Every word of tea
declaration made by the Quaker, the Jew WAS ready toe*.
Moravian', Quakers, Separatists, had all been admitted; me
Jew was lett where he was. Was it a suffice nt answer te
say that the Jew should not be admitted, lest, as a matter of
logical deduction, hlueaulm n and others might claim the
same right ? Surely not. Tneposition of the Jew wu net
yet understood. It was said he was entitled to ; municipal
utfice • he might be therili ; and there were two esteems—
Sir Moses Moneefiore and Sir Lionel Moldier:Li i--of hes
being created baronets. (Hear, hear.) At this momenttlis
Jew wile eligible for any executive office to which the cm=
might appoint him, with duties however important, mina
he were precluded by the privy e nincillorM oath. Therewsa
nothing but this oath to prevent him being a secretary of
slate; and there wee nothing in the oath itself to which be
would object, if allowed to take it on the Old Testament,
Save by the indirect operation of that oath, there was net
an office within the gilt of the crown irons which the Jew
we practically excluded. In 1828 a declaration, "on the
true faith of a Christian," was substituted for the declare.
Mon against traneubstantiation. The bill, as it lilt that
house, did not contain those w. rds ; they bad been content
to admit all mrtie s to municipal and executive latices with.
out rt quiriag the profession of the Christian faith. The
words had been ingeited in the House of Lords; ar.d,rather
than lose the b-11, he had thought proper to permit them to
stand. The declaration, in toe case of municipal attire', was
precedent to being admitted to the office—in mecums
offices, a certain time was given tor teeing the
oaths. During the whole of the preseut and the
lust reign a full year had been given, under the
armload indemnity act; and before the year expired another
indemnity act passed. Therefore, at this moment, except
by the indirect operation of the privy councillor's oath, there
Was not au office titmice the cruwu which the Jew might not
hold. Atter these important changes the Jew baring the
elective franchise, haying municird office(he might be
Lord Mayor of London next year), ring every office under
the crown except those to which the privy councillor's oath
applied—was it pueoble permanently to maintain his excho
emu from parliament? (Hear.) litre was a certain non
which he could ouly exercise through the electors, the great
majority of whom professed imauity ; and yet he was to
be excluded by fear, atter quakers, separatist', and moravims
had been admitted to paritameutary ittniCtiODS. Would de
house exhibit such jealouey of the Christian electors? His firm
belief was that the disqualificatio e could nut perinea, ntic be
maintained. (Hear.) He believed that the church of England
was now stronger than at any former period cf its himory.
(Hear.) The disposition shown by the church to supply
timely and salutary reforms, the religious feeling that had
been awakened throughout tee country, showed that the
strength of the church and of religion WAS not dependent ea
the having a few votes more or lees in thambouse. (Hear.)
He believed the church was strong enough to be inde-
pendent almost, in all essential matters, et the decision of
the house. It was rooted in me affectioug of toe people. A
religious spirit was daily increasing; and it woo an no.
necessary daparagernant of religion and the church to make
their safety depend oar the continued exchmion of Baron
Rothschild, or any man professing the Jewish religion.
(Hear, hear ) Were it not for internal dimensions,
is itself the church would be stronger at this tom
meut, alter all these relaxations of disabling laws, than
ever it was, even when conformity to the protestant
faith was required from every member of that house.
(Cheers.) Though he should deeply regret to shock the
feelings of any man sincerely attached to his reliaion and to
the protestant faith, yet—believing that an uuduc weight
was attached to words introduced into the oath for a tempo-
nary purpose, which had not been uniform in their operation,
having been repealed, and then re-introduced, in conatqueuce
of the pretensions of a Stuart to the throne—he did not thine
it just towards the Jew to continue his exclusion, because
those words had existed for some time. lie rejoiced that he
was able toe one to the coot lusion that, by Term:Meg these
disabilities, be did not endanger the church or the
constitution of this country. (Hear, hear.) If ever
there was a class of our fellow-beings to whoa
every Christian state in Europe owed reparation
for centuries of unjust persecution and oppression, that reali-
sation was owing to the Jews. (Cheers.) It was impossi-
ble to read the early history of this people, as narrated by
the most popular Cnristisn historians, without shuddering at
the outragea that had been committed upon them. Hume
gave an account of King John extorting 10,000 marks from
a Jew of Bristol, and extracting from hint a tooth for every
day's delay in the payment of the money. (Hear.) The
Jews were then the victims of an irrational and unjust pre-
judice ; and was it certain that a prejudice, not equal in
extent, but similar in character, did not prompt the
opposition to this measure? (Hear, hear.) Such pre-
judice had undoubtedly iefluenced the legislature on
the lest occasion of this eubject being seriously dis.
aimed, in 1756. The most disgraceful day in the
annals of parliament was the day on which the Duke of
Newcastle hail come down to the house and moved the
repeal of the bill for the naturalisation of the Jews, passed
but the year before. That was a mere concession to popular
prejudice. There was a great ferment in the country, so
great that the member for nectar was denounced as Ming a
Jew, and he was obliged to make this defence to his consti-
tuents, that he was in the habit of travelling on a Saturday.
Another himorian, Mr. Sharon Turner, recorded various in-
stances of wholesale cruelties to the Jews at home and
abroad. Under these persecutions, did they or did they
not show patience? Suppose them a degraded race; could
the opponents of this measure plead that degradation in op-
potation to it ? Who must be responsible for it ? Not the
Jew' (Hear, hear.) If the Jew had been degraded, could
it he attributed to anything elm hut the spirit of prreecution
on the part dl the Christiana ? Could they be sure rased,
after such per« cution, if the flame of patriotism
did not burn very strongly among, the Jewishpeople; if they did net feel much of affection for the insti-
tutions of them amongst whom they lived ; if they sat down
by the waters of a strange land, and wept when they remora-
, bered Zion? (Cheers.) That would be the natural COD.
sequence of treating the Jews as aliens. Admit them se
equals, an I, if the degradation existed, they would, at
least, have done their duty to remove it. But did the de-
gradation exist Ile (Sir H. Peel) answered—No. (Cheers.)
It was admitted that in their mural character—in their be-
nevolence—in their charities—and in their wealth, they were
on an equality with every other class of their fellow-subjects.
It such were the case, and if the Jews, nevertheless, were
exposed to cruel wrongs, that was an element teat entered
into his consideration when digenuing the removal of the die
abilities under which they laboured. But he had still an-
other argument to urge. There were states in which the
Jews were still impressed, In Poland they were at this me
(mein subject to great lardahipe. In Syria, very
lately, they had been subjected to persecutions of
i a severe character on account of the removal of an
infamous calumny that they slaughtered Christian children
to celebrate the remover. Within the last two or three
years that min so distinguished for his benevolence, Sir
Moses Montetiore, had repaired to Poland and to Syria to
rescue his people, and endeavour to effect some imprevemest
of their rosition. He carried with him strong letters °Me-
i commendation front this country. But how much more
strong would these recommendations have been—how much
more forcible would have been his appeal—had he been able to
say that in Great Britain Jews stood entirely upon an equality
with Christians ! (Hear, bear.) Depend upon it, if this
measure was paned, their authority in this respect would
extend beyond the limits within which their legal power war
prescribed. If the Jews were put upon an equality with
the Christians here, it was utterly impossible, not only that
any foreign power would suffer persecution of them under
the influence of British example ; but also it
i was, in his
opinion,
opinion, impossible but that their act would promote nquiry
on the part of foreign states, which would lead to
consequences calculated to carry balm and consolation to the
wounded Jews. (Cheers.) It would not be merely that
they !mould clear the Jews from their disabilities the in-
fluence of their example would rescue them from oppression
lend degradation in every country in the world. (Loud
cheers.) On these grounds, without impairing the fehittint
of the constitution of the country, the British parliament
might, in his opinion, properly admit the Jews
to an equality of rights. He had only further to
refer to an argument which had been somewhat
strongly pressed by his hon. friend the member for the
University. There were, he said, parties in this country
occupied zealously in endeavouring to reclaim the ignersht
and the heathen, whose feelings would be grievously-hurt by
any laxity of Christian principle on the part of a Chrirtian
parliament. Now he (Sir R. Peel) agreed that the occur-
rence of such a circumstance as that would
runsclad a
be
deplored. This country had a duty to perform beythe
aggrandisement of territory and the accumulation of wealth
by the extension of commerce. It was their duty to ha
theve
regard to the consideration that through their measures
spread of Christianity might be promoted and that the
iiiyspring from on high,' might visit mate lands. If,
therefore, there was an. danger of injury to the mule of
iainioaary efforts, it might be a serious reason. for exc
elusion.
as it seemed to him„ no such consequence to Ise