The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

tics conform to those principles of religious Insiders which
we profess to hold. (Cheers.)
The Earl If SHAFTESBURY said if anything could
add to the importance of this discussion, it would be that
the noble earl who had just sat down, having fee many Years
opposed these claims as • private indiglilual, had now be-
come not only the supporter but the prdpounder of them as
the first minister of the crown. A city that was set on •
hill could not be hid, and he feared that many would follow
the example of so high • personage. The gravity of the
noble earl and the known sincerity of his heart precluded
him from making any observation on the change, and he
would only express a hope, nay mute, a belief, that the
grounds on which he evened is vote this night were as
solemn and as truest' those on which he formerly stood.
He was astonished to hear it said that the popular voice
j was in favour of this measure. Why the popular voice
in the full extent of the term was neither an
the one side nor the other. There was upon the
whole • general apathy on this question. Where any feeling
was entertained, it was deep and serious, but the feeling
did not pervade the whole of the community. It was
argued that the Jews had a constitutional right to sit in
parliament. Ile would undertake to argue that question if
lie thought that they really believed so; but by this bill, so
j far from stating that, they stated the very reverse. For
one enabling clause they bad a dozen disabling ones ; for one
irivilege that they gave there were 8 or 10 that they refused.
They enacted that nos Jew should be Lord Chancellor, or
Keeper of the Great Seal, or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or
Lard High Commissioner of Scotland ; that Jews should
nut present to benefices in right of office ; that if they ad-
vised the crown as to presentation of benefice:, they should
be guilty of a high misdemeanour. If they had a constitu-
tional right to a seat in parliament, they had a constitu-
tional right to all the privileges and consequences of that
right. When Jews were admittedito corporate offices, it
was argued that they had given their sanction to the ad-
mission of the Jews to legislative functions. They replied
that executive and legislative functions were diametrically
different, that they might be trusted with one sad not with
the other. But they (the ministerialists) now ravened
that order. They said Jews might be trusted with
legislative functions, but they excluded them from • large
share of executive power. They were told that this de-
mand ought to be granted in accordance with the principles
of civil and religious liberty. If by civil liberty WAS meant
that every man should be free in mind, body, and estate, he
believed ,they all, Jew and Gentile, were free enough in
that particular. But as to religious liberty, if this bill
passed, the Jew would have his religions liberty, but he did
not see how Christians would have theirs. If it were a
principle of civil liberty that a man should be tried by his
peers, he held it to be an equal principle of religions
liberty that none but Christians should be allowed to make
laws that should bind Christian churches. They were also
told that this was the last remnant of religious bigotry.
It might have been so till they laid this bill on the table
but see the number of " remnants" they had connected b;
this bill. Did they suppose that the Jews would be con-
tented with being admitted to seats in the house, and that
they bad not ulterior views ? The last argument urged on
them by the noble earl was that there would be no peace till
the Jews obtained permission to sit in the other house of par-
liament. It was true that when they regarded these people,
they were few and feeble, and that, politically speaking,
they were not persons either to fear or to pro-
pitiate. (Hear, hear.) It was possible for them to esti-
mate the result of political changes, and to make
preparations for them; but it was not possible for any one
to predicate the coneequences of a wilful departure from •
sacred principle. Then the noble earl said, would they, in
the maintenance of their principles, continue to defy the
recorded wishes of the House of Commons ? While he was
bound from station and from duty to pay the greatest re-
spect to the feelings and wishes of that august body, yet
when they summoned them to depart from • principle
which they held to bo sacred, they paused, and ho told them
(the House of Commons) he was ready to encounter say
consequences of their indignation, and that there was no
power on earth or below it that should turn him
and those who thought with him from the maintenance
of this principle to the last hour of their existence.
(Cheers.) The noble earl said that ell those who were op-
posed to this measure were animated by all the dark filename(
the middle ages---that this was • remnant of the old bigotry
and prejudice which persecuted the Jews, as the authors of
the erucifizion. lie (the Earl of Shaftesbury) could at
iseet answer for himself, that there could not be in the
wbsle range of human feelings one more remote from his
Wart than that ascribed by the noble earl opposite. (Haar.)
Ns geoid not give a stronger proof of this, than by saying
that it was his deep, solemn, and conscientious belief—con-
armed by many devout and learned men, with whom he
had discoursed upon the subject—that the crucifixion was
no more a eia of the Jew than it was of the Gentile, but on
the contrary, that the Gentiles were as guilty of that great
sic before God as the Jews, to whom it was imputed. Those
who resisted the bill were, therefore, not to be considered
as the personal enemies of the Jews. The house might be
wired that there would never arise again in this country
feelings like those which appeared in the year 1753. The
opponents of the bill respected the Jews, they saw them
under • cloud, but they acknowledged them as hereafter to
be the sovereign family of the human race ; they wished
them well, they would not bi.t harsh to them, either in
language or even in thought; but when they heard their
advocates declare 'that for the purposes of legislation all
' religions were alike, then they said, emphatically—No ;
and they said it upon what they believed to be the " true
faith of a Christian." (Hear, hear.) Ilia lordship then
moved that the bill be read that day six months.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE would ask the house, as they
had lately done • great act of justice to their Canaann fel-
low-subjects, to do a similar act towards the Jews. He
asked this the more confidently because a great statesman
bad mama that evening, for the tint time, spoken is defence
of the rights of their Hebrew fellow-countrymen. That
fact alone ought to have weight upon those of their lord•
ships who were not decided in their minds upon this ques-
tion.
The Earl of DARNLEY, in voting against this measure,
wished to state to the house that he aid so solely upon re-
ligious motives. It had been said, that the legislature
already numbered among its memben Socinians and
Unitarians. That might be true ; but it was now attempted
plainly to recognise the anti-Christian spirit in the legis-
lature.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN would detain the house
for a few moments, because the views which he enter.
tined upon this bill were somewhat peculiar, and liable to mis-
construction. lie should be opposed, on Christian grounds,
to any law to exclude religionists of any description from
parliament on the ground of the creed they held,. and he
must say that to be consistent with themselves, those who
spoke of the indifference to Christianity should com-
plain likewise of the indifference to their own form
of faith implied in the admission to the legisla-
hue of those who differed from them, though not
in the manner in which the Jew differed, as to what
was religious truth. (So we understood the most
rev. prelate, but it should be explained that we beard him
very imperfectly.) Now, he would not plead indifference
either to Christianity, to protestantism, or to the church to
which he belonged ; but he did canf.as that he was indif
fermi to Christianity so far as it was a name and not s fact.
They could only be consistent by excluding all who dif-
fered from them; and he must declare that it was quite
Inconsistent with his views of Ohristiaal le have say such
exclusion whatever. It wegata teem bat from
seal for Christianity, and be bad em egad Wen with any
eas else to hold an opinion straggly, that he .agpi en then
Isedshiin the justice and the expediency of mannellegall
rdi-
gieus disabilities. (Cheers.) At the same time that •
it wee perfectly open to any voter ea he in hie
ewes private jedgmest and la his voluble Illelakele of par
Haman, in his matrimonial engesplaleall.rithlvt)--
la his private friendships, sad selecties
of metals sad amosiatas, by religiose easeiderstions ; but
Is pm and tit maintain laws which ezelsiedi, an religious
gram* pecans duly sleeted to parliaesmkemgmd_to him
esstrary to the spirit of Christianity, es deem Med by its
lint founders. (Cheers.) At least, if theiebodeliips thought
it Rosemary that Christianity should ha ected, they
fiaaY take care net only to have a C parliament,
WS a Christian constituency. (Hear, lies.) Jew gentle-
ma were elected by constituencies which were not entirely
Christian constituencies; and if their lordships main-
tained that they fortified Christianity by rejecting
such bills as this, he would say non tali niszilio; they must
go further, and not only have Christian constituencies' but,
farther still, protestant constituencies and church of Eng-
land constituencies. (Hear, hear.) In point of fact, they
must retrace their steps completely, and replace all the no
ligious disabilities which they had gradually swept away.
(Hear, hear.) It might seem strange to some persons that
he should take this interest in • matter which was maialy
one of political importance; but he must aellueilswe
ledge his regret, not only that the bill WO en
called a bill for the relief of elector', instead of
for the relief of Jews, but also because the sneer
sure was not one for sweeping away all this clam of
disqualitintions at onto. (Hear, hear.) He did not Ills
patchwork legislation relieving Quakers one time, Roman
catholics another, Dissenters another, mid then Jews. He
would prefer a comprehensive bill, to do at once what had
to be done in the end. (Hear, hear.) Before lie sat down,
he wished to say one word with respect to an
evil which might arise out of this bill, if it
were proffered and passed as a triumph over Christianity.
The ',riper way to consider it was as a triumph of chns-
tianity—(hear, hear)—and he asked their lordships to sup-
ppnnrt the bill, because it was a measure in favour of the
u b se it was a measure in support of Chris-
tianity. (Cheers )
The Bishop of SALISBURY would attach more weight
to the arguments of the last speaker, if there was no such
thing as a religious truth, and if that religions truth bad
not been embodied in certain distinct institutions. lie
would oppose the bill, on the ground that he
viewcd it as a direct attack on the Christian
legislature ; and if he were toll that that
was not a novel argument, his reply was that the answer
also was old, and was as unsatisfactory as it was familiar.
The Bi,hop of ST. DAVID'S agreed with the most
reverend prelate (Whately), that it was to be regretted
that the title of this bill was such • misnomer,
and that it was not called a bill for the relief of electors.
He had never heard any sound reasons against the measure.
Of course their lordships had heard again that it was a
measure to " unchristianue the legislature;" but, again,
explanation of what that phrase meant was totally omitted.
Ills right rev. friend rested his arguments just on
this, that by this measure they would he permitting
the introduction into the legislature of theses who
blasphemed the holy came which they venerated. Ile
knew this was a prevalent octioc, and it was one which be
himself entertained for some time, and which he had been
slowly lcd to question; hat when his mind had been
led to consider the subject Vie more he was disposed
to question it, and he now found that the charge of a neces-
sary hostility existing on the part of Jews against
Christians was distinctly repudiated by the Jews them-