Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-14 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-LIVERPOOL, TUESDAY, JULY 14. 1857.

principle of the Bill. But to return to Lor
LYNDHURST he spoke as he is even wont to do
an example and an ornament to the order to
which he belongs. He did not stoop to the
shallow artifices adopted by the Earl of
DERBY, or the hypocritical cant of Vis-
count DUNGANNON, nor could the Bishop
of OXFORD manfully, as he controverted the
sensible and well-defined positions put forward
by the Bishop of LONDON in support of the
measure, gainsay the conclusion that this per-
petual assumption of the peers to control, and
assume an exclusive regard for the Protestant
faith, must be distasteful to the people; or that
the Commons are quite as competent and capa-
ble of determining any question connected with
the constitution of the House. It is quite
evident that, sooner or later, this intolerance
of the Peers must be broken down, and the
efforts of a conferated band of blind religionists,
prevented from imposing a veto upon well-
considered and essential reforms.

There is, also, another fallacy connected with
the opponents of the emancipation of the Jews.
They argue as if the exclusion of Baron ROTHS-
CHILD and his co-religionists maintained and
secured a purely Christian Parliament. This is
not so ; Jews only are excluded. It admits the
Deist and the Atheist—men who scoff at every
form of Christianity, and deny the very existence
of a God—whilst the door is shut upon a race of
people remarkable for their industry, their reli-
gious zeal, patience, and long suffering. There
is no hinderance to the Latitudinarian walking
into the House, presenting himself at the
table, taking an oath, and becoming de-
facto a member. An Irvingite finds no di-
fficulty in taking his seat, and the Disciples
of the New Jerusalem sect are represented there,
yea, more; the very class which the obso.
lete statutes seek to exclude, finds its representa-
tives among the present House of Commons.
The Jew, alone, offers himself at Mr. speaker's
table, and with his condentials of election in hand
desires to go through the necessary preliminaries
but he is met at a certain point of this introduc-
tory ceremony, by an insuperable barrier, and is
compelled to retire ; and his constituents lose his
services as their representative. Mark, he
plights his troth to be loyal to the sovereign,
and to support the constitution of the Country,
both as regards Church and State. He calls
upon God in the form that is most binding upon
his conscience; but he objects to adopt a set of
words in his solemn asseveration, which is anta-
gonistic to his religious belief, and then the
blind intolerance of religious bigots steps in,
and denies him the right of further entrance.
Supposing the arguments of such antagonists
to the political freedom of the Jews be correct,
every one of them in both Houses—Lords and
Commons--should, on the same principle, vote
for an immediate repeal of the emancipation Act.
If the introduction of Jews to Parliament would
be dangerous to Christianity, so also must the
admission of Roman Catholics be most detrimen-
tal to the Protestant faith—the best form of
Christianity. Has this been so ? We say not.
The millions of England are not less Protestant in
principles than in 1829. The doctrines of LAT!.
MER and RIDLEY and CRANMER, are not less
respected and firmly believed than they were
before O'CONNELL took his seat for Clare. Scot-
land too still adheres to the doctrines of her
beloved KNOX, and reveres her standard authority
in spiritual matters, the Westminster Confession
of Faith. Aye, and Ireland is as protestant in
heart and spirit as she was before Catholic eman-
cipation. Protestant Churches and Presbyterian
Chapels and Schools have spring up, even in the
Romish region of Connaught. The Relief act of
1829, has not been able to arrest the spread of
Protestantism. If then the admission of Roman
Catholics into Parliament has not injured or
weakened the Protestant faith, the mere intro-
duction of a few Jews could by no means disturb
much less sap the foundations of Christianity
itself. In fact, past experience proves quite the
contrary. Their have been Jewish Lord Mayors,
and Jewish churchwardens. Their official
career has shown that they did not endanger the
existence of Christianity. Quite the opposite.
Their conduct has been such as is worthy the
imitation of the most pious class of professing
Ch ristians.

While we regret the division of Friday night,
and the defeat of the Bill to which our remarks
refer, there are circumstances which afford some
gratification. Lord SHAFTESBURY, the leader of
the Exeter Hall Protestant forays, and the Duke
of NORFOLK, the Premier Peer of England, and a
Roman Catholic to boot, consented to the
second reading. It is true that they sought for
some modifications in committee. They both
however, admitted the principle of the Bill, and
the justice on which it was founded. The
Bishop of LONDON pleaded and cast his vote into
the scale for religious toleration, so that every
thing considered, the House took a higher tone
on the subject than in former years, and re-
deemed itself at least, from the charge of dealing
with a great public question, upon mere techni-
calities and black letter quotations. Now that
the bill has been thrown out, two questions
suggest themselves ;—namely, will Baron ROTHS-
CHILD resign ? and what will Lord PALMER-
STON do ? Will he resent the obstinacy of the
upper House, and appeal against the decision
of an incourageable majority ? The leading
Journal seems to think that the final settle-
ment of the Jewish disabilities, is left to the first
session of Lord DERBY'S second administration,
whenever that may come ; a hint taut the