The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

weion••••••"—"'--
midi saver these nista have sueceeded for a time in
hog rarity ' The bon gentleman
1..2=a sra' • •
chews, by thanking the house for
tb,▪ Waggle with which it had heard him.
Lad ASHLEY coanessuod by saying that on=
as he meld aseartain, there was a in
*it" lir either great indlff
rases. There was arena, or gnat
When hie noble Mend talked of the
to
serialise entestainod me this subject, he begged to re.
sows' Dist that they had most of nmemblancie to the pr-
ow
hestilitLexhitsited In the days of the eosinumwealth,
grist 1763. 'fa Jews of the present day occupied a higher
ration in the public respect and in the affectioss of the
▪ maity. Their resistancoLtherefore, woo not founded
sageoul objections to individuals of that remarkable
esiggissaity, but solely on a conscientious adlisanos to the
.thoples which they pectessed, and which they dared not
6,o2das. (Hear, hear.) That was the light in which he
dared that his opposition to this measure sheald be eon-
sigwod. However much the introduction of theology at
tome discussions war to be deprecated, some meatiest of
=was altogether inevitable. Ile was not
for that, but those who sought to disturb an
swth which for the last 150 years had been taken
ss the table of that ham, and this on the pro-
opts that religion had nothing whatever to do
with politics. That assertion put them on their
wattle, for they said that religion had a great deal to do
with politics—(hear, hear)—and in this he was borne out
by the revealed word of God, which said, " The nations and
bagasse which will not serve ens shall utterly perish.;
Ds very fact of the people in whose behalf this mews
was introduced being suppliants at the bar of that
was in itself a proof that religion was identified witte:l2
ray. (Hear, hear.) If religion had nothing to do with
pithy, why exact an oath at the table of the house Why
execi it of the Jew ? Why did the members of the Privy
Caned take an oath ? Why make reference to a superue•
loath( Providence in the speech from the throne, and in
some of their parliamentary enactments ? Was it not per.
hotly clear that in doing so they made recognition of a
weal governor of the world, who superintended, directed,
sad controlled human actions? It was perfectly manifest
also that they recognised the necessity if knowing his will;
aid if they recognised the necessity of knowing his will,
they most receipts* also the necessity of doing his will
es
set 'forth in the particular and revealed word. (Hear.)
That was the cam of the opponents of the measure.
But those who said that religion had nothing to do with
politics, showed by their acts that it had a great deal to do
with it. One of the most distinguished writers of the pro.
sent day, and an ardent advocate of this particular ntereans,
whose loss to the present parliament every one must &gime
—he meant Mr. Macaulay—(hear, hear)—rye is his nay,
" Government is, by its eisantielly indifferent character,
In-
terdietd from the contemplation, and incapable of Abe as
complishmeat of Christian ends." Now, he recollected
having heard from the awns eloquent lips the following paw
sage Everything that tends to lower eltristimuty is
public estimation is high mown against the civillastion of
mankind." (Hear, bear.) How, he would ask, conklthes•
two statements co-exist ? What could so much tend to lower
Christianity in public estimation as to declare that &dr
dimity was not to preside over the government, and to be
their rule in their intercourse with other nations ? It
would not do to answer hint by saying that they would govern
themselves by the law of nations, because every writer
on the law of nations bated his arguments on arils-
thin principles, and even drew his instances from the
scriptures themselves. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Macaulay in the
same essay says, "To seek for an essentially Christian
government is about as wile its to seek for an essentially pro-
tenant cook." He thought it was unworthy of the great
rags of that gentleman, as it was unworthy of his private
end prisono charater,thus to confound, for the sake of a
witticism, the lower operations of the mind with the highest
hoslty of the soul,—(Hear, hear)—and to bring down to
UM same level the spiritual and material character of man.
Bspmience told them it was true that there was such a
thing as a Christian government, and thatthere was no pond-
bility of a comparison between • Christian government and
protestant cakery—u little as there was between Bow
Church and the first of July. If Christianity was not to be
the rule in public life, if it could not superintend and control
public actions,. what could it do ? His noble friend said ft
must prevail tri private life and rule over the dotards)
be irth.
Lord J. RUSSELL—And legislation.
Lord ASHLEY could not understand how Christianity was
to govern their legislation if a large portion of the legislature
were to be composed of persons whose distinctive existence
depended on constant and conscientious denial of the name,
character, and precepts of the author of Christianity. (Hear,
hear.) if Christianity was to rule is private life it 1111181
break out in public life also ; for he would refuse to dis-
tinguieh between a man's public life and bin private life.
(Hear.) His noble friend said that infidels of various Wade
had crept into the house. That might be true. Men like
Gibbon sat in the house, and men like Hume might have
done sot but at all events they must have taken at the table
an oath which recognised Christianity as part and parcel of
the law of the land. And he asked his noble friend whether
it was not better to have even a nominal Christian than a
professor of open infidelity ; just as an external observance
of the rules of decency in a person who internally disre-
garded them was better than open obscenity ? The whole
argument of his noble friend proceeded from first to last on this
—that oaths were altogether unneaseary, because they might
be broken, and were broken. But would his noble friend
abolish the practice of oaths in courts of justice because per-
jury was often committed ? (Hear, hear.) Now he had not
beard from the noble lord any advantages which were to be
gained by the abolition of the oath ; nor, on the other hand,
was he (Lord Ashley) able to point out any great mischiefs
which were likely to arise from such a proceeding ; though
this application of a false principle might eventually lead to
very serious evils. If a case of injustice was made out, that
would have a stronger influence on his mind than any argu-
ment ae to benefit or loss to follow from the passing the mea-
sure. Bet could the injustice be greater than that to which
were exposed the hundreds of nations of different languages
and colours within the British dominions ? (Hear, hear.)
If they. once declared that Christianity was not essential to
the legislative character of that house, from that hour the
exelusion of others besides the Jun from that house would
become a real and substantial injustice. Perhaps his noble
Mend (Lord J. Russell) intended to admit everybody.
(Cheers from behind the ministerial benches.) His noble
Mead was much too candid to say " no." He would, how-
ever, uk him to pause. The steps they had bees taking
appeared almost incredible. They began by standing out
for a protestant parliament. (Laughter and ironical
cheers.) They now stood out for a Christian
parliament. (Hear, hear.) They might next have
so stand eat for a white parliament. (Laughter.)
Asithellool would perhaps be for a male parliament.
• inime
, Let his noble friend consider, before he
geouied_alagl Anther,into what a sea of controversy, dis-
pute, and fear, he would be launched if he once avowed to
the people of this land, that not only Jews, but Mueselamn,
Hindooe, and persons professing every form of faith to be
found in the British empire, ought to be admitted to parlia-
ment. He would quote the words of a very high authority
in England, and especially on the liberal side of the ques-
tion, to reference to the subject under consideration. In the
year 1838, ate time when the Jewish question was before
the house, Dr. Arnold wrote thus:—" For the Jews
I see no plea of justice whatever ; they are voluntary dean-
gen here, and have uo claim to become citizens but by con-
formity to our moral law, which is the gospel. I would give
the Jews the honorary citisenshipl which was so often given
by the Romans, that is, the private rights of citizens, fur
commercii, jut comniwte, but not ;us sufragn and sue
honorarium.' He want on to say " A Jew or a heathen I '
cannot fly to voluntarily I only shay him passively if he
has the rule over me." Such were the opinions of one who
admitted no right to impase. the smallest disability on
any who preferred belief in the name of Christ.
The question was, in fact, altogether one of principle. The
abolition of the oath would be a legislative declaration that
for all the purposes of public government, the making of
law., and the administration of affairs, Christianity, as such,
was altogether needless. (Hear, hear, and " No, no.") In
trying the principle, he bad a right to posh the measure to
the fullest extent as regarded consequences. It was possible
that in this parliament there would be a majority of persons
of the Hebrew nation—that they might assume and retain
the helm of affairs; but it was perfectly clear that the
course which they well about to take would be a legislative
declaration that Christianity, for the purposes which he had
stated, was altogether needless. He expected to hoar it said
that he was very inconsistent in haring offered no opposition
to the bill of 1846, which admitted Jews to corporate offices.
No doubt toleration did involve certain inconsistencies and
inequalities ; but he thought it possible for them to establish
a very valid distinction between executive and legislative
functions. (Hear, hear.) The Jew, on taking say execu-
tive office, knew exactly the terms on which he accepted
it he knew that he assumed an office delegated to
him by a Christian people, and that it must be
executed for Christian purposes • and he also knew
that if he did not rightly administer its functions
he would be exposed to the same consequences as all other
public men. But, in the case of legislative functions, the
Jew would come into that house perfectly free ; he might
there, in conformity with his own notions, endeavour to
repeal old laws and make new one, iniusiog into the latter
his own epirit, and directing then:A° his own objects. This
would indeed be the natural result of the legislative declara-
tion which he had already stated to be the effect of abolish-
ing the oath. Now, with respect to the oath itself, his noble
friend bad truly stated that it was not originally framed in order
to exclude Jews. There never had been a period, however, in
the history of this sou .try, except the short period of twelve
years, during which it was possible for Jews to sit in that
house. By the Act of Supremacy, the first of Elisabeth,
an oath was enjoined so be taken before the Lord Steward.
That oath was to be a corporal oath taken on the Evan-
elists, the party who kissed the book being required to say,
" God so help me and the contents of this book." The oath
thus prescribed continued in force until the first of William
111., when it was repealed, and in the 13th of the same
reign was enacted the Act of Abjuration. It was
clear, then, that the oath was not framed for the
purpose of excluding the Jews; awl he would tell his noble
friend meet explicitly, that if the Jews were in that house
then, if they hail always sat there, he (Lord Ashley) would
not have supported a measure designed to turn them out;
but there was a wide difference between a measure to ex-
clude Jews from rights which they enjoyed, and the repeal
of an oath which had been taken by all parties for so long a
period. He greatly doubted whether, with a view to
the morality and happiness of the people, they would
be acting wisely by declaring that Christianity was no
longer predominant in the legislature. (" Hear, hear," and
cheers.) Now there were some other arguments urged
against the bill, to which he would only allude for the pur-
pose of saying how little he concurred in them. There were
many conscientious people in this country who objected to
the proposed enactment, because they regarded the Jewish
people as the authors of the crucifixion. Now, in the first
place, he would say that even could it be proved that the
Jews then demanding admittance into that house were