The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-27 00:00:00

other Melee of parliament was receiving a gradual increase—
it would be well for their lordships to c insider whether the
amegigle, es far as they could see and anticipate, could have
Ihnit see termination ; and if this were so, whether it was not
0111/ desirable that that straggle should not be embittered
by a delay which seemed certain to be unavailing. (Hear.)
It wee not as legislators, it was not as subjects, it was not as
Englishmen, it was not even se churchmen that they felt
constrained to rotate what otherwise he was certain it would
be ratifying sad amseptable to their lorashipe to grant. If
heellglill ventage lioably to interpret the feelings and mi-
lk= by_whioit he conceived them to be actuated, tl ey
stilt na if It would be a failure in their allegiance to Him
they wcrabipped were they thus, by any deliberate
to show • MIA meek of trust and distinction towards
those whom they might look upow as bistlemeltre and essendes;
end they felt that in proineting the Jews to the high cases
of rule and power they might be doing what in them lay
to sully the Isertre of that crowe, which it was their highest
aim and beet hope to lay at the feet of their Redeemer. In
the remainder of his observations be would address himself
to the religious objectifies, and would endeavour to show why
he thought, even upon religious grounds, that they ought
not to refuse the object of the present bill, or the prayer of
the Hebrew people. He haled not the introduction of such
topics, even in that house of parliament, which was com-
posed of lords spiritual and tempral. But, knowing that
religious scruples were entertained, and wuuld be peacefully
marshalled against him, he could nut refsse to state, he
hoped in no light or irreverent spirit, why he conceived tbs.,
on religions (rousts, those scruples ought not to avail.
He might refer to the terms of distinct disapprobation with
which all who opposed or slighted the Jewish peopl^, and to
' the terms of distinct spprobation with which all those who
assisted in befriending them were er.ken of in holy writ in
every period of their history, not only when they were in
favour, but when the countenance of heaven seent‘d to have
been withdrawn—as much in the house of bondage as in the
land of promise—as much In the great wilderness as in the
sunny slopes of Palestine—as much in the busy scenes of
Babylon as in the midst of their own temples. The alkali-
ties which betel them were, we were told, on account of
their misconduct and their rebellion to the supreme rale,
and yet it was in the midst of that eniseon•
duct that the language of warning was addressed
to their oppress are when toll to remember the
children of Ursa. They seem dto be like the tree struck by
litanies& seated and blighted ; but which it was worse than
sacrilege se remove or cut down. It might be said that
the rut notional grimes which fixed these destiny in all
waseedhf time had net then taken pine. Their self.
stwght area divinely ratified doom had been fearfully worked
set in the subsequent condition of the Jewish people; but
was now, as in those times, for us to consider what line of
duty devolved upon us. With whatever clearness and di ci-
sion we might interpret the course of unfulfilled prophecy,
he thought we should leave its fulfilment to divine agency.
It was for us only punctually to obey the principles and pre-
empts framed for our guidance. Formerly every state, as
well as the church, thought it within the scope of their duty
to take a put in those sufferings which created the burden of
prophecy amengst the general people. But their bad ceased
to do so. We had long ceased to do so. We no longer
burned them, nor pulled out their teeth, nor levied extor-
tionate fines upon them. Nevertheless, might not the
notions and feelings whieb led to those gross forms of pees-
cuts against the Jews still lead us to persecute them,
thrugh in a more refined manner—for such must he considir
it, when there was inequality of priviiew a and enjoyments,
and equality of liabilities and burdens. (Hear, hear.) A 9
for any danger to the state from tile admission of Jews to
parliament, he put it gravely to their lordships, viewing
the question fur a moment apart from principle,
whether they conceived, if this bill became law,
and allowed • Jew to represent a constituency which
thought proper to place trust in him, there would be
• mu of men to parliament with more dangerous views and
tendencies to radicalism, republicanism, or socialism than
could be expected from any other quarter. He thought It
might on the contrary be fairly contended that there was no
quarter from which there would be less danger. (Hear,
hear.) With respect to the repose and safety of the church'
he did not think there was any class of men from which a
spirit of meddles, with the discipline, temporalities, or ex-
ternal concerns of the church would be Ices likely to pro-
ceed. (Hear, hear.) Then came the qucition as to the
duty of their lordships as Christian men ; and whether they
should refuse this last measure of emancipation to the Jews
in order to make the legislature exclusively Christian. He
did not think that was the tense and spirit in which they
ought to interpret the oft-repeated phrase of their's
being a Christian legislature sal of Christianity
being the law of the lend. A Christian legislature he
humbly conceived it would remain after the admission of one
ter two Jews to parliament, just as now we considered our-
selves • Christian people, notwithstanding that there was a
c maiderable admixture of Jewish subjects amongst us. No
doubt Christianity was the law of the land; but it was only
as far as blasphemy or violuoe ag tins: her rights, truth', or
mysteries would be punishable by the law of the land;
because the law of the land did not prevent
persons from professing what faith or disbelief they
pleased. The object originally was to create a uni-
form established religion, but that object had been
entirely abandoned. We still, however, retained the
words in the oath "on the true faith of a Chris-
tian;" and he referred with confidence to the right
rev. prelates for concurrence in the opinion, when he said
that the taking of an oath wean be no se-
curity for uprightness of conduct and purity of
heart. (Hear, hear.) The way to secure those
was by so personifying the pervading principle, so impreg-
Dollen the atmosphere with Christian habits, as to make it
the means of successful, because unfor.vel and unbought, in-
fluence in bringing others who differed from us into amocia-
Iron with and approximation to us. The noble earl con-
cluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
The Earl of EGLINTON said that the bill although in
another term teas to all intents and purposes the same as
that which their lordships, so much to their honour, rejec'ed
last seseion. (A laugh.) He opposed it principally on reli-
giose but also on political grounds. He saw no reason
fur passing an es post facto law because the
citizens of London elected a gentleman who they
knew could not sit in parliament. He objected to the
bill, because the Jews were a separate nation, and had
no patriotic or family ties in this country, although they
had considerable possessions, which they were strongly de-
termined to take care of. But if they admitted Jews to par-
liament, ha could not see upon what principle they could ex-
clude Illahonsedans, or any ether race, until their table
would be covered with a string of oaths, from which any
somber might select, as he would his kat or his walking-
stick. He objected to it, because it proposed to decree that
it was unnecessary to invoke the name of Christ, that name
which should be their watchword in all their doings. It
was said, that as a Jew could vote for a member of parlia-
ment, why not allow him to become one ? But there wee a
great difference. The Jew as an elector, however opposed
be might be to the religion of Christ, was obliged to elect
a Christian representative. But admit him to parliament
and he doubted if they could preserve the same spirit of
Christianity even in their language. New, the slightest
erpoesek to impiety or blasphemy would be at
emu mooted by their lordships; but If this bill
pawed they would kayo no guarantee that such
weld be the ease, because that which in a Christian
weed ha horrible would in a Jew be praiseworthy, because
egeosiestious. If a debate arose upon the better observance
of seta et the great Christian ri-uals, what would he the
Mitre of their lordships to he told that it was founded on a
argasles and a mockery ? What would be the feelings of the
right reverend bench if they were to hear the Christian tell-
' gloss reviled and the name of Christ blasphemed ? They were
advised not to reject a bill that had been twice sent up from
the representatives of the people. He did not believe that it
was desired by the people. (Hear, hear) The noble earl
then moved that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.
The Duke of CLEVELAND mid that he was desirous of
explaining why he would support the bi'l, having opposed
the lest measure, he having changed bb opinion he felt only
one regret, that of differing from those with whom ha gene-
rally acted; but in all assemblies of men there must
be different shades of opinion, and if they were
observable sometimes even in the cabinet they were
the more readily justified amongst • larger number.
He fully agreed in the opinion expressed by the noble earl
opposite (the Earl of Carlisle) that religious opinions should
never interfere with civil privileges. It was upon that prin-
ciple be voted f.r the repeal of the Test and Corporation
Acts, and for the emancipation of the Roman eatholres in
1829. In 1830, however, he voted against the bill, then for
the fint time introduced, for the emarcipation of the Jews,
which he did u he then thought, upon very strong grounds,
one of these rounds being that Jews did not embrace
the Christian faith; and although he felt that to he still
the case, his objection on that score was greatly mitigated.
But thus reasons now assumed a different aspect. He
might remind the house that in the year 1830 the very
flexible government and parliament of that day turned sud-
denly round and came to a vote the direct opposite to what
it had previously adopted. Ever since the great political
*pastas:, of 1846 few divisions took place in that house in
which the principle of conversion had not been exemplified
(Hear.) He might also state that in the year 1833 a quaker
had been elected for • large town, although he himself and
those who elected him must have known perfectly well at
that time that, without some thongs in the law, their votes
would be thrown away, and that he could not take his seat in
parliament. That was very nearly a similar case to the
election of Baron Rothschild by the citizens of London
in 1847, because it must have been equally well known at
the latter period that the baron was debarred from taking
his mat. If, however, a special act of parliament were in
Medusa to admit the baron to parliament, ►no new prece-
des* weld thereby be established, Inasmuch as the rashers
had Wm admitted by allowing an sfarsatios to be taken in
their Use WIWI of an oath. In fact, every denomination
of dimesseses, imploding the unitarians, had been admitted,
endue desks clam, as a clear, were now excluded with the
of the Jews. He thought the hardships
safallitirnstice of making this exception were apparent..
Had the Jews ever proved themselves to be dan-
gerous to the state ? Had they done anything to
stigeselige other religiosists ? Thera was no elms so few of
▪ Issi leen ~Wei of listesiors and criminal offences.
He Walways looked epos them es a harmless, industrious,
and momey-making pupa Their were %moue, indeed, for
driv • hard Iberia sesuionally—(a laugh)—but he did
notthaw that that wen a characteristic peeoliarly belong-
ing to atom; ma the outrary, many Christians were re.
multelie Is, driving cruelly hard bargains. (Hurl The
onl reel objection urged against the admission of Jews ince
t was that they were unbelievers, and that, if we
admitted them, we threw disgrace upon the character of
our Christian legislature. Now, we bad never yet
admitted any one into parliament who did not al
himself a Christian. The Quakers, for instance, celled them.
selves Christians; and es be lived amongst them, and know
theists be a very conscientious sect, he bad not the slightest
wish to say s single word effensivs to them. Bat it was im-
possible to deny that they held very realist religion