The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 18, 1851.

comeitered with imbrues to the suldeet matter in head,
and te the eraNdista wd eircrartswees under which it was
be he eggibi=haderenrlrren be the ease before these
wire the eilihren el fur atria bib* -Id, if MI se"
tided theinetre le thbreawaleacts et their te
kola ef the co. rid
ere• be whbit wee that
the desired= wilaijn= eked **Ned eelHe
newareggra b wet et dew •ne
bed AM be by ihr
the iihnielen er risbeties
_per= to their goverment .•
but the Mtge = eet et dal red* bad privileges ef
• high," end Aare_hey dressier, whisk timid set dd
raferred ill
et Mir, add
privileges,: id idedireillia, MlONottokes, and eeelw
dim Mari limy wassivia that if Chris-
' *Eby regeirl ttt4 bet derived ken itself to be im-
plied as a eseillien is the trerierilles et worldly works
it would here bass sore is aecerdesee with the true spirit
and gages et Christianity to impels that test upon the
Clof esemiset rather thew es the ground of belief.
itgal .as Mated the sublet* as • question of policy of.
renew led he adverted to the risk they " es
periperredommfre: year arti'll.refusing a her
—(hear, eosatltatiea
Mar —bat he busted their ferillhipewil would give
their resat to this just and neetwary assure.
The Ern of WINCHILSE A earnestly impressed on
their lordships the duty and necersity of rejecting the bill,
and be flit gaits coavineed that the paucity of petitions
was te be berated to the ambience with which the people
inked lerweed te the &shim of their lordships' house. He
Wigged that weeny a begs majority of the public a reli-
giose bang erred whisk would suffer a serious outrage
from the
Bed- et
the present measure.
The Bed WICKLOW referred to the repeated majo-
rities Whisk the principle of the measure hail been af-
firmed in the House of Commons, in the face of which he

maintained their lordships ought not to persist in refusing
to adopt it. He proceeded to argue that the boon now
sought for the Jews had been well deserved by their put
conduct and tried loyalty, and could in no way endanger
the Christianity, of the country. Hut, though differing from
' the principle of the measure, he denied that they were pro.
ceeding in the best manner to remedy the wrong. indicted
on the Jews. There should be, in his opinion, a more

general and comprehensive mode of dealing with these oaths.
The Duke of ARGYLL had been anxious to address
their lordships immediately. lie would go seriatim
through the closely lcgical argument of the noble earl
(Earl Shaftesbury) in order to offer justifications for the
vote which he had now to give. The noble lord stated, in
. .

the first instance, that thii concession the legislature 'was
now called on to make wm a concession different from my
concession yet made. Ile (the Duke of Argyll) admitted
that it was a different concession from all former conces-

;Tons:" but he would contend that the difference was
one in degree. (Hear, hear.) The main argument of the
noble carl wu that the presence of a Jew would be a stand-
ing protest against Christianity. The presence of a Jew—
where ? The noble earl would probably admit that the
presence of a Jew in a court of justice administering the laws
of a Christiana:matey, or lulus own dwelling-house,would not
be • very practical standing protest against the truths of
Christianity. (Hew.) In a certain sense, the presence of
a Jew anywhere, in any satiety, in • Christian country,
was to be regarded as a protest against that individual's
admission of the truths of Christianity. But the protest of
his presence in the House of Commons was not in any
respect greater than his protest on the bench of a court of
justice. (Hear, hear.) It was in this light that they were
to regard the objection of the Jew to taking the oaths pre-
sented to him on his rppearing in the House of Cannons.
The noble earl obviously considered that these oaths
were a religious test. He (the Duke of Argyll) be-
tiered it to be historically untrue that they were to be re-
garded
as a religious test. (Hear, hear.) He was satisfied
that the very form of the wording showed that tho re-
ferences to the faith of a Christian had been introduced
solely as enforcing the strongest possible moral obligation
on the person taking the oath, and who, it was taken for
granted, would be a ChriAitin. (Hear, hear.) The noble
can maintained that to admit Jews into parliament would
be to confer on Jews a power, in degree, of opposing the
maintenance and spread of Christianity. So far as the fact
went, he (the Duke of Argyll) believed it to be altogether
untrue that the Jews had any proselytising spirit whatever.
(Hear, hear.) He did not believe that the Jews were
anxious either to extend their own belief, or to alter