The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-25 00:00:00

even convict labour ; but they had been proof. against it, 1
and had unanimously asked for the system to be given up.
It must, as he understood, be still carried out to a certain
extent. He was sorry for it, because, although Western
Australia might be looked on almost as a different country,
yet, as South Australia, which was more guarded than any
other colony from this infliction, had suffered froth the im-
migration of convicts, and recollecting that this was a mat-
ter of feeling and sensitiveness on the part of the colo-
nists towards this country, he was convinced that it would
be impossible to maintain very long a system of transporta-
tion to Western Australia. So long, however, as it was
made a depot for the worst criminals from this country, in
order to prevent the recurrence of those crimes which were
so gross as to be thought unmentionable, but which had ex-
isted under the same system, he would propose that they
should grant an annual vote to send out the very lowest out-
casts of the women of this country, who might perhaps
be suitable wives to such persons as were transported to
Western Australia. He would only add his hope that the
noble lord would carry out and realise those high expecta-
tions which his opening speech at the assembling of Par-
liament had raised, and that, as transportation had failed
and broken down, the Government would deal with the
whole question of secondary punishments. They
,had the
power to do so, and he hoped they would do it'without
delay, One of the principal subjects, however, for their
consideration was, whether a better system for the treat-
ment of juvenile offenders could not be adopted,
Lord J. RUSSELL—The right hon. gentleman who
brought this subject forward having, as I think, been jus-
tified in calling the attention of the house to the present
state of circumstances relating to those colonies, and hav-
ing stated what the preceding Government intended as to
those colonies; I should have hardly thought it necessary to
trouble the house at all, had not the hon. gentleman who
has just spoken made, as I think, some extraordinary mis-
takes upon this question which it would not be right to
leave uncorrected. Now, the colony of New South Wales
was founded, not as many of our colonies have been by
emigrants, but for the purpose of transporting thither con-
victs from this country. In 1786 it was formed in that way,
with a despotic Government, differing very little from the
Government of that day. In 1837, when my right hon.
friend, now the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Works,
whose absence this evening 'regret, pressed fora committee
of this house on the subject of transportation, a committee
was appointed, and all the evidence taken before that
committee, and the general opinion of that committee,
did but confirm that wise opinion of Lord Bacon that it is
an unblessed thing to plant with the scum of your popula-
tion. The most dreadful crimes were found to result from
that system of transportation. Some three years
later, being then Secretary for the Colonies, I procured an
order in Council by which transportation to New South
Wales was to cease, and from that time the character of
the colony was changed, and it became, from having been
a large prison, a colony which was thenceforward to
run the same career which our free and noble
colonies have run. In 1842 Lord Derby, being Secre-
tary for the Colonic., introduced measures which I
think had been partly considered by his predecessors,
being measures for the sale of land at certain fixed
prices, and by which a Legislative Council in those
colonies was to be formed, to consist not entirely of no-
minees of the Crown, but to be partly elective. At a later'l
period Lord Grey proposed to extend the representa-
tive principle to Van Diemen's Land, South Australia, and
Western Australia. He proposed also to divide Victoria
from New South Wales. It was on that occasion that the
debates arose to which the hon. gentleman has referred,
but I don't think in a very accurate manner. The ques-
tion at that time was whether we were at once to change
the whole constitution of that colony by Parliamentary
authority, or whether we were to continue the existing
constitution of that colony, leaving it to the colonists to
frame institutions fitted, it might be, for their government
better than anything we could frame in this country. The
latter view was what the Government took, and an act was
passed accordingly. -The proposition certainly was made
of a constituent assembly for those colonies, and that pro-
position was not approved by the house. The question
now raised has done so within the last year ; and perhaps
the right hon. gentleman the late Secretary of State for the
Colonies will recollect that when he first came into office I
took the liberty of informing him that he would find the
subject of transportation most deserving of his attention,
and that the question of the constitution of New South
Wales and of Van Diemen's Land was worthy of his con-
sideration. I must say that I think the late Government
acted wisely, according to the circumstance of the time, in
the resolution to which they came. They gave it as their
opinion that the Land Sales Act should be altered, and that
the colonies themselves should have the power of control-
ling the sales of land, and the distribution of the proceeds.
The hon. gentleman seems to think that the present Govern-
ment have rather restricted the resolution come to by the
late Government in that respect ; but, in fact, they have
not restricted it, and if they have altered it, they have
rather enlarged the scope of the resolution. What the late
Government stated was, that they wished a constitution
to be framed in which there should be a legislative
council appointed by the Crown, and a popular assembly
representing thbnuept respect to
ndthethat
a particularconstitutionnumber
n beinger
so framed, of
members in the legislative council or in the representative
assembly, the Government intended to introduce a bill giv-
ing power to the colonial Government and Legislature to
dispose of the waste lands. The present Secretary of State
for the Colonies, the Duke of Newcastle, has said that if a
proposal should reach this country for a change of constitu-
tion, he should consider that proposition, and that there
would be introduced a measure giving certain powers to the
colonies. The difference between the two measures is not
much, and the proposition of the present Government is not
less liberal than that of the former. With respect to that
great question of transportation, I hardly can deal with it
at present, but the hon. gentleman has scarcely in this re-
spect either fairly represented the conduct of my noble friend
(Lord Grey) when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies.
What he proposed soon after entering office was, that per-
sons convicted in this country should continue to be sent to
Van Diemen's Land, but should not be sent in the character
of convicts, but in that of exiles. There would, according to
this plan, be about the same number sent to Van Diemen's
Land—only under a different name—that there would have
been sent before under the name of transported iconvicts.
So far fromit being a benefit to the colony that they should
bear the character of exiles, it was thought better that the
authorities of the colony should have the power over them
which they would have over men who had been guilty of
crime. The system was adopted of tickets of leave. That
was the change made. Two circumstances,however,occurred
worthy of notice. One was, that Sir W. Denison, who is
an able and efficient governor, unfortunately mistook the
instructions, and gave intimation to the Assembly that,
transportation was about to be abandoned, instead of ex-
plaining that the same number, or about the same number,
would go to the colony under a different name. The House
of Lords resolved to inquire into the subject, and the im-
pression produced was unfavourable to the punishment of
transportation. It is obvious, from the circumstances
stated by the right hon. gentleman, that the late Govern-
ment had resolved at the end of last year that, as soon as
possible, they would discontinue transportation. That de-
termination having been deliberately adopted, there arises
here a most important question with respect to the substi-
tution of a secondary punishment. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies,
asked us what was our decision on that point, and what
was our opinion ; but at the same time no one is more
competent than he is to see of how great importance a
decision on this subject is, and that the Government
ought to take full time for deliberation before their deci-
sion is pronounced. I only ask that the Government may
be allowed that time to consider this important subject.
No unnecessary delay will occur; and as soon as we decide
on the substitute that is most efficient for the purpose, we
shall lose no time in laying a measure before Parliament.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME expressed his satisfaction at observing tho
concurrence on both sides of the house in the propositions
and principles which the hon. member for North Stafford-
shire, and others had attempted to impress on her Ma-
jesty's Government. Recollecting the early attempts ho
(Mr. Hume) made to impress on the Government the pro-
priety of leaving the colonies free froni the trammels im-
posed by Downing-street, and recollecting that he had been
called a rebel because he advocated reform in Canada, he
had the greater satisfaction in perceiving how matters had
come round, and would say Let bygones be bygones."
Sir W. Denison made his statement on the 24th of July,
1847 ; but last year a sum was voted to take out convicts ;
and the thanks of the Colonial Assembly had been given to
him (Mr. Hume) for having pointed out what were their
wishes to the people of England, ineffective as his opposi-
tion had proved. No man in this house had more clearly
expressed the principles on which our colonial policy ought
to be conducted than Lord J. Russell, especially in the
dispatch written by the noble lord when Mr. P. Thomson
was appointed to the government of Canada; and when the
constitution for the Cape came under discussion last year,
the noble lord, in an excellent speech, laid down the prin-
ciples which he (Mr. Hume) had always thought might be
most beneficially applied to the colonies, as to this country.
What he complained of was, that the noble lord had not
been consistent ; one year suspending the Canadian constitu-
tion, another year resorting to coercion. But he (Mr. Hume)
should bury in oblivion what was past if the noble lord con-
tinued to act on the principles. he had laid down. There
was reason to complain of the vacillating policy that from
time to time had interfered with emigration—the best
remedy for the evils arising from reduction of wages and
other causes in England. He did not see the brother of Sir
W. Denison in the house, but he must say that no man
stood more in opposition to the feelings of the people in
Van Diemen's Land than Sir W. Denison. The Govern-
ment ought to have people there who had the talent for
conciliating and making their counsels and feelings accord
with the wishes of the inhabitants. The Under-Secretary
for the Colonies, who had to-night made an admirable ex-
position, and with whom he differed on a few points, would
learn from experience that when colonists in meeting after
meeting, and Legislature after Legislature, persisted in
asserting their views, the best course was to remove the
causes of agitation. Whenever there was a colony with
whom the Governor could not act in harmony, one might
depend upon it there was something wrong. He hoped
the present Government would be in advance of the late
Government, and he should rejoice if every one of our
colonies were allowed to manage its own affairs.
The motion was then agreed to.
On the order JEWISHDISABILITIES.
Onread for the house going
into committee, for the purpose of taking into considera-
tion the civil disabilities affecting the Jews,
of the day being
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he trusted the hon. baronet
the member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis)
would not object to going into a committee of the whole
house, for the purpose of affording him the opportunity of
stating his views on the subject of the civil disabilities of
the Jews, such a course being similar to that adopted by
the house in 1830, when Sir Richard Grant brought for-
ward a motion of a similar character.
Sir R. INGLIS, in reply to the appeal made to him, ex-
pressed feltresse it to b
dhim see a concession of the firstlfstronglyopposedto such
step, uch
sacz and he wasse,because
notpreparedeenr course which
t o
beallowbelieved the
noble oble lord
detrimentalto
to
thattbe step
a
the civilreligi-
ousinterestsriagieta of thefeelings buoeftal (H e peopelaer,obfea.thre) country and
to
•- • '

Lord J. RUSSELL then said—The hon. baronet having
objected to my taking the course allowed to be taken more
than twenty years since,
it is necessary that I should state
the nature of the proposition I wish to make before the
house resolves itself into a committee. In so doing, I shall
state, in the first place, that it would have been more
agreeable to me if, acting according to the view which I
explained to my constituents, I could have brought for-
ward at this time a proposel with regard to the mode in
which we take the oaths in this house before being entitled

to take our seats. I have stated my opinion that the oath
to be taken ought to be but one, and that one simple in its
character, applicable to persons of all religions, not entan-
gled with provisions affecting the various professions of
religious persuasions, and that it should not be necessary
for Protestants to avow one thing and Roman Catholics
another, and for both to affirm certain propositions with
respect to a person calling himself the successor of James
11., with regard to whom the house need trouble itself but
very little indeed. (Hear, hear.) But I am aware of the
fact—and the discussions of yesterday and the previous
day have convinced me more strongly of the fact—that I
could hardly propose to alter the law with regard to the
oaths of Roman Catholics without raising a discussion wi th
respect to the Established Church and the intentions of
Roman Catholic members, and thus producing a great
deal of heat and personality upon a question which is not
immediately the one which I propose at this time to bring
before the house. What I propose to myself by this
separate measure is so far to complete the edifice of
religious liberty as to allow to the Jewish subjects of
her Majesty the enjoyment of the same rights and
privileges of British subjects which are at present
enjoyed by Protestant dissenters and Roman Catholics.
I am aware that in bringing forward this question I must
labour under great disadvantages. I know perfectly well
that those who aro opposed to me have to say that the
Jews, being not very considerable in number, nor powerful
in influence throughout the country, have not the means
of inducing their opponents to concede their claims which
others who have urged similar claims have possessed. I
know it may be asked, " Where are the meetings threa-
tening the tranquillity of the country ? Where are the
menaces against the Government, against the houses of
Parliament, which induced us to agree to the concession of
the Roman Catholic claims ? Where is that political in-
fluence—that influence in the elections of cities and
boroughs for members of this house—which made it neces-
sary for us to concede the claims of the Protestant Dissen-
ters, and to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts ?"
" You have," I may be told, "nothing to propose, but
merely reason justice, and charity in your proposal.
(Hear, hear.) And is it to be imagined that.those who so
long used the same arguments on behalf of the Roman
Catholics, and resisted them so long, although enforced by
the most powerful eloquence, and by the authority of the
greatest statesmen in this house, and who so long obliged
the Protestant Dissenters to wear the galling chains of the
Test and Corporation Acts, will yield now, when it is a
mere question of granting rights to men inconsiderable in
number, and who have no means of terrifying the house
into a concession of the demands which they make ?" I
trust, however, although my opponent may urge these
considerations, that the generosity of this house will e
a withoutit
burden
hmufrneetteisral ei
per-
ceive that if these claims are founded in justice—that if
the great principles of religious liberty which we have
adopted enforce these claims—it will be satisfied with
these claims of justice and arguments of reason, and show
that it is willing to grant such claims with due fairness
and impartiality, and, and uninfluenced by any of those
extrinsic reasons which it may be stated are wanting in
the present instance. (Hear, hear.) I am the more per-
suaded that the house will adopt this course because I be-
lieve that the principles of religious liberty are generally
entertained by the people of this country, and that being
so entertained it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that
that the Jewish subjects of her Majesty ought to have
the benefit of them. (Hear, hear.) It will not do to
say that " there is a prejudice against the Jews, that
the name is unpopular, and we choose to indulge
that prejudice, and will not listen to what you have to
say in their behalf," because it will not redound to the
character of this house if it should appear that reason and
justice were in their favour, but prejudice was against
them. (Hear, hear.) The first proposition which I have
to make is, that in no time of the history of this country
since legislative disabilities have been imposed have those
disabilities been grounded upon differences of religious
faith. I speak not of those times when Roman Catholics,
such as Sir Thomas Moore ; or Protestants, such as Bishop
Latimer, were fully satisfied in their consciences with con-
demning and inflicting capital punishment upon those who
differed from them in religious belief; but I refer to times
when, in order to enable persons to hold certain offices and
seats in this house, oaths were first required to be taken.
On former occasions when I have brought forward this
subject, I have stated that the insertion of the words—
" on the true faith of a Christian," in the oath of abjura-
tion, and which are the only words which prevent Jews
from taking their seats in this house, were introduced with
a view to no such purpose, but for the purpose of exclud-
in.. certain Roman Catholics, who at that time it was
thought necessary to distinguish from other persons of the
same religion, ono sect being intent on dethroning the
sovereign Elizabeth and James 1., and the other being
loyal to the Crown and to the institutions of the country.
I endeavoured to prove this from the history of the time ;
but there has lately appeared a remarkable confirmation of
that opinion in the judgment delivered by Baron. Alderson
in the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Mr. Salomons,
who was sued for penalties for taking his seat in this house.
Baron Alderson said—" It is a curious fact only lately
brought to light by the publication of a MS. from the
Bodleian Library at Oxford, by Mr. Jardine, that one of
the main proofs used by-Lord Coke, when he laid that case
(the case of the Gunpowder Plot), before the jury, was the
production of a little book found in the chamber of Francis
Tresham, one of the conspirators mentioned in the act,
called ' A Treatise on Equivocation.' " The writer of the
treatise went on to discuss the question how far a person
called upon, as he thinks, unjustly to make a declaration
or promise, or to depose or swear to a fact within his per-
sonal knowledge, may lawfully equivocate, by using am-
biguous words or mental reservation, without incurring the
sin of lying or the guilt of perjury ; and among other pro-
positions, it was affirmed that he might lawfully do this,
even if he be required by the form of oath tendered in terms
to swear "without equivocation or mental reservation."
There was one exception to this, and that was in cases where
his adherence to his faith was involved, and if he was
called upon to make a promise upon his faith, that then,
and in that case only, was he bound to keep his promise.
It appears, as Baron Alderson stated, that one year after
that case of the Gunpowder Plot an act was introduced
into the house in which the oath was introduced for the
first time with the words " on the true faith of a Chris-
tian." Baron Alderson concluded from this, and very
justly so, that the oath was framed for the purpose of ex-
cluding persons of the 'Roman Catholic persuasion who
were not true to the Crown, and who would refuse to take
the oath in which those words were introduced. " I do
not," says Baron Alderson, "therefore, call this properly
an oath intended as a test of Christianity, which it was
not, nor as a mere test of obedience, but an oath intended
as a test of allegiance, and framed so as to be a test against
all equivocation also." The oath was therefore intended
to be an oath of allegiance, which should bind all persons
who took it, and the words " on the true faith of a Chris-
tian" were not introduced with any contemplation of ex-
cluding Jews, but " for a totally different purpose. This
was now apparent, because in the time of the Common-
wealth an oath was tendered wherein persons declared their
adherence to the Old and New Testament, declared them-
selves Christians, and renounced Popeiy. and Prelacy—
thus intending the oath as a test of religious faith. But
upon the Restoration of monarchy that oath was laid
aside, and from that time to the present no oath has been
introduced with the view of making it an expression of
religious faith. In the reign of Charles 11., when it was
again proposed to exclude the Roman Catholics, it was
solely upon the ground of the political doctrines which
were supposed to be connected with the faith of the Roman
Catholics, and which made them adverse to the establish-
ment in this kingdom of a Protestant king and Protestant
institutions, that the oath against transubstantiation was
introduced. It was the same thing with respect to the
dissenters. Protestant dissenters were held up to odium,
as persons who had lately overthrown the monarchy and
established republicanism ,• and it was said that society,
would never be safe if dissenters, who had thus over-
thrown both the Church and the Throne, were admitted to
political power. Hence the Test and Corporation Acts by
which they were for so many years oppressed. Dean Sher-
lock used the same argument some years after, when he
said it was impossible they could believe that Protestant
dissenters would not endeavour to overthrow their insti-
tutions in Church and State, and therefore that they
could not be admitted to political power. We find, also,
that throughout the reign of William 111., and the first
princes of the house of Hanover, the same ear was mani-
fested with respect to the danger arising from the political
doctrines of the Roman Catholics. We find it oven in the
arguments used when the great question of Catholic Eman-
cipation was brought before Parliament in 1805 and in 1829.
Mr. Perceval, and others who argued against the Roman
Catholics, scarcely ever alleged that the religion of the
Roman Catholics was alone a sufficient ground for their
disqualification ; but they said that persons who belonged
to that faith did not pay a perfect and undivided allegiance
to the Sovereign, that they would be likely to overthrow
our political establishments, and for that reason they were
not to be trusted either with seats in this house, or with the
duties of public offices. Thus, it appears that, from the be-
ginning of these disqualifications in 1605 to their abolition
in 1829, the argument has always been that persons be-
belonging to certain religions, whether dissenters from the
Church o England as Protestants, or dissenters from the
Church of England as Roman Catholics, had connected
with their faith certain political doctrines which made
them unfit depositaries of power—faith and religion alone
were never made grounds of disqualification. (Hear, hear.)
It was not till 1830 that this special ground of religious
faith was maintained in this house. Those who had seen
the disabilities of the Roman Catholics and of Protestant
dissenters removed, thought that the time had come for
removing the disabilities from the Jews, and in April 1830,
a lamented statesman (Sir Robert Grant) with great power
and ability argued in favour of their removal, and contended
that religious differences were not sufficient grounds for
depriving a man of the priviliges of a British subject.
(Hear, hear.) And that is the question which we have
now to decide, (Hear, hear,) All those temporary dis-
qualifications, founded upon special grounds, of Roman
Catholics and dissenters have been swept away. With
regard to the Jews, no such dangers, no such inconve-
niences, and no such obstacles can ever be pretended. (Hear,
hear.) Are they, then, on account of their religious faith,
to . be disqualified, or are they not ? (Hear, hear.) Can
you, or can you not, maintain that because a man believes
in the Old Testament, and does not believe in the New
Testament—for that is really the question—that this is a
sufficient ground for depriving him of the political powers
and civil privileges of a British subject ? (Hear. hear.) Now
I contend that that difference of religious opinion—that
that complete error in faith, is no ground whatever for de-
priving a man of the right to serve the Crown, and to have
a seat in this house. (Hear.) The men who old these opi-
nions are British subjects, who hold land, Who are in the
ejts
,heet she
it
ebtfyruliie I lst.
possession of property, who exercise many civil privileges
surhepaao:ney twahohtef mo
connected with local affairs, who hold offices in corpora-
tions,who discharge duties for their fellow-citizens, and per-
formrthe
allf,
grounds
fore, no right to say to them, " We will deprive you of the
t
But
allegedn ottwitwnl e
what
ath
thya
atoi
tsu
they
hhi to
eeeo
y fact
Jell neajwvo:sy .
b'
'they
been
ne(
yHn s
are
lta.
er
thoroughly. (Hear.) r : o Some
ttis
h aliens,disposed special
el
Ittnyvl
hoe
eaedagrol and
yfdwutti
abteahkaeero honestly—they
briefly.
tirtenha separate.issaloet eltinler
uryng it:lhaspaeantel
iannteoc
othtc(hsi
allegiance to
eyi toynr
oauasfioertnruheihlsdmit. menesphrppraoovidls
propose,
a, h 0 are
privileges and rewards which your station as British subjects
subjects
i.
fotf o ueryn -
as
house,such, norw
former occasions when they have been alleged, that I shall
somwenelalvryyee,
sat,hlhlotiehiwydaeetevot ote:r:
l' et(
:1 bi
cannot give to them the privileges of British e
'hold office - they are therefore British subjects
force of the proposition. If you by the very
have descended from persons settled 3,51 that indeed they
in other nations,
and
that therefore they cannot hold office in this
maintain that which will apply to many country, you
ot hers whom you admit without scruple. If you putthe
their grounds of national characteristics—of the • question on the •
conn ection with
families in other countries, then there
are
this country to whom your distinction would families
i n
ply. I may refer to those who came overh
revo-
cationap-
of the edict of Nantes, or from ere at the
rom other countries,
driven by religious persecutions, or

purposes of trade, and whose descendants enjoy all the
privileges of other British subjects. Take, for instance,
one great family which came over here in the time of Wil-
liam 111. ; the head of that family has a seat in ;the Houso
of Lords—l allude to the Duke of Portland—somo part of
his family is still settled in Holland, and the representa-
tive of Holland in this country is at present a member of
that family. Then, it is said—and the argument is one
which I hardly dared to touch—that the Jews are doomed
to be divided, and separated from all other nations, and
that they must remain so till prophecy is accomplished. I
have always said in this house that that is an argument
with which it is impossible to deal, and that it is not for
us to carry out the decrees of Providence. (Hear, hear.)
What we know is, that the Jews established in different
countries are in many of those countries, such as France,
Holland, and others, admitted to all the privileges which
other native-born subjects of these countries enjoy, and
that it is not because more or less of these privileges are
granted, still less because the number of the privileges
which are granted to them in this country are withheld
there, that you will either promote or frustrate the de-
signs of Almighty Power. (Hear, hear.) Well, then,
but what doubt is there with regard to the behaviour of
the Jews if they are admitted to Parliament ? (Hear.)
We have had arguments with regard to the Roman Catho-
lics, and we have had arguments with regard to Protestant
dissenters, intended to show that they would not ful-
fil all the duties you wish from them in maintaining your
constitution in Church and State ; but with regard to Jews
hardly any person.would venture to deny that they would.
In the first place, their numbers would be so exceedingly
few as to make it utterly wild in them to attempt to over-
throw your constitution—(hear)—and, in the next place,
it is well known that the Jews are perfectly satisfied with
maintaining their own religious faith without attempting
either to convert others, or to gain any supremacy in Chris-
tian nations. (Hear.) It is well known that, maintaining
most rigidly their own religion, they do not attempt to
make that religion powerful ; and that the last thing they
would think of would be entering into combination for the
purpose of injuring either your civil or your religious li-
berty. (Hear.) With regard, then, to the last question,
no man can deny that although the Jews are not many
among us—some 30,000 or 40,000—yet they are known in
our social relations as men of great charity, as men always
ready to help when any act of charity is to be performed.
It is well known that there are no people who more quietly
and more unostentatiously perform their civil duties to all
their neighbours, and to the State in which they live.
(Hear.) What, then, are the arguments—what, then, are
the reasons—why yon should not admit them to the full
privileges of British subjects? I really believe there is no
conclusive argument, and that there is no satisfactory rea-
son why-they should not be adniitted; and that there re-
mains nothing but prejudice—(hear)—nothing but the pre-
judice and the notion that you are a Christian nation and
a Christian Legislature, and that you degrade the nation
and the Legislature by the admission of Jews. If the na-
tion is a Christian nation, as it is, it will remain a Chris-
tian nation after Jews are admitted to this house—(hear)
and if the great majority—nearly all—of the members of
this house be Christians after tins law has been passed, the
name of a Christian Legislature can hardly pass away.
(Hear.) Greatly, indeed, were it to be wished that that
Christianity which we pray for according to the beautiful
form of the Church of England—that "we should hold
the faith in the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace,
and in righteousness of life"—was the prayer, that it might
be accomplished for all the members of this Legislature.
(Hear.) I have always said it is no matter of indifference
whether the Christian character should or should not pre-
vail in your houses of Parliament. I have always said
that religion has no business apart from the business
of life ; certainly it has none apart or separate from
the business of Legislation. When I say this, I mean
that spirit of union to which I have referred. (Hear,
hear.) But, when, instead of "the unity of the Spirit"
you have diversity of doctrine ; when, instead of
the bond of peace," you have nothing but contention;
and when, in place of " righteousness of life," you have
such men as Wilkes introduced into this house, I ask,
what are the benefits of your oath, and in what way does
that oath secure that you are ' a Christian Legislature ?
(Hear.) Let us then not attempt to found our Christianity
upon so flimsy and so worthless a foundation. (Cheers.)
If, as I trust is the case, the Christian character prevails
more now than it did a century ago—if it prevails more
in the nation, if it prevails more in the legislature, it is
not because you maintain this oath. It is because of
greater attention to religious duties, and from a better in-
culcation of Christian doctrine. (Hear.) Rely upon this,
that though you. may have two or three persons of the
Jewish faith in your House of Commons, this house will
bear the character of a Christian legislature far more truly
than it did when Gibbon was one of its ornaments. And,
if that is the case, I ask you to do away with this remain-
ing persecution—l ask you to do away with this remaining
disqualification—and say that your doors shall be open to
men of the Jewish faith—British subjects—men upon
whose loyalty you can rely—men of whose co-operation
you will be glad. (Hear, hear.) • So doing, you can then
with a clear conscience say, " Whatever other nations may
do, we hold aloft the principle of religious liberty, and we
grant that liberty to men who differ from us in religious
opinion." (Cheers.) Sir, I ask the house to agree to go
into committee upon this subject. I ask you to take away
this disqualification, and then you may say with truth,
"Having for wise political reasons done away with other
disqualifications, we have done away with this disqualifi-
cation solely upon the grounds of truth and justice ;" and
that you had no other grounds to go upon ; for upon that
truth and justice you have founded your truly Christian
character. (Cheers.) The noble lord concluded by moving
for " a committee of the whole house to take into consi-
deration certain civil disabilities affecting the Jews."
The question having been put,

Sir R. INGLIS said that before replying to the observa-
tions of the noble lord in proposing this motion, he would
state why he objected to that speech being addressed to Mr.
Wilson Patten in committee. The noble lord, from the tone
of his first observations, seemed to imply, as he (Sir Robt.
Inglis) fully anticipated, that he regarded it as an advan-
tage to have gained this one step in the progress of the
measure ; but he (Sir R. Inglis) would not take off his hat
and open the gate to enable the noble lord to get into that
which he regarded as a sacred enclosure. Let the noble
lord break down the barriers if he could—God forbid that
he should—still it should not be through any act of his if
his course were made easier than it was. The noble lord
asked, " Why should that be refused which was granted to
Sir Robert Grant in 1830 ?" Possibly the house was wrong
in having at that time conceded the step which Sir Robert
Grant was prepared to take ; but if the house had done
wrong then, it was responsible only if it continued to do
wrong now. Hisimpression was, that the very course
which he was prepared to take to-night was the course he
took five years ago, in 1847, when the noble lord proposed
the very motion he had now submitted to the house ; for
he felt it his duty, without meaning any disrespect, to re-
fuse, so far as his own individual vote was concerned, the
permission which it asked. The course which the noble
lord invited the house to take he believed to be really hos-
tile to the civil and religious liberty of the country, and
to the ordinary proceedings of the house. The noble lord
assumed, by a convenient petitio. principii, that he alone
the advocate of truth and justice, and that all who
• opposed him were. the bigoted disciples of an obsolete sys-
tem. But his (Sir R. Inglis's) position was distinctly the
trary. It was also assumed by the noble lord that
con •
power was the inherent right of man, and that they who
resisted the grant of power to any individual were bound
to show sufficient grounds for such resistance. But his
(Sir R. Inglis's) argument in this instance, as it had been
in twenty other cases, was that power was a trust which.
the State might delegate to those it thought fit—the exer-
cise of the suffrage for example—but that it was the inhe-
rent right of no man. In the same manner property was
a trust and a privilege, and not exclusively a right. Power
in this country was not to be exercised as a mere question
of pounds, shillings, and pence, which appeared to be the
suntinunt bonun of some men. lie would remind the house
that were called together, according to the writ from
the Crown, " upon certain arduous affairs touching the in-
terests of the Church and nation of England." What was
the first estate of the realm ? The first estate of the realm
was the Church ; the first interest of the country was its
religion ; the first duty of every man, in public or private,
was to act in reference to that religion. Having reminded
him of this, he would ask the noble lord whether he consi-
dered that the Jews, who regarded our Lord as an impos-
tor, were fit persons to sit in that house ? He asked the
noble lord whether he, who regarded the gospel as a tissue
of fables, was a person who, in a Christian country, should
be admitted to make laws for. the government of a Chris-
tian people ? Was he who disbelieved in the last day of
judgment, which was revealed to us in the gospel, a person
who could safely be permitted to legislate for the highest
intereses of this Church and nation ? But the noble lord,
without alluding to these subjects, alleged that the number
of the Jews was few. This was one of the arguments for the
admission of the Roman Catholics into Parliament. But
was the noble lord so encouraged by the success of that ex-
periment, as to repeat it upon any scale, large or small ?
Let him (Sir R. Inglis) tell hon. members who were fully
prepared—with one honourable exception, which he would
not name—to vote for this new instance f liberality, that
they, at least, were not disinterested on the subject ; for in
every measure which might be brought forward in that
house against the highest interests and duties of a Chris-
tian people, and certainly against the temporal interests of
tha Church, they would find in the Jews, whether they
were only two or three, as the noble lord fondly imagined,
or whd
take ether, a
is
he believed, unless a very sweeping reform
shoul pace, many more came in the same manner,
as some calling themselves Christian statesmen had come
in lately—they would swell the number of that band
which was already upon the march, united and powerful—
for union, they were told, was strength. (Hear.) This,
however, was a low view of the question. The question
was, the feelinge which really animated the people' of Eng-
land on testion. Did they wish the profes of
Christianity to be the profession of the Legislature ?ione
noble lord wanted, in the first instance, to alter the terms
of the oath under which members were admitted, with the
view of enabling the Jews to enter ; but now, without
altering the terms of that oath, he proposed to, bring in
some measure under which his colleague in the representa-
tion of the city of London might be introduced. But the
noble lord could not de this without deprg the house
of the characteristic which it had enjoyed for a thousand
years. The words, " upon the true faith of a Christian,"
contained in the oath, and which hindered Alderman Sa-
lowans and Baron Rothschild from taking their seats,
were introduced, the noble lord said, in the year 1606. If
he (Sir It. Inglis), admitted the historical accuracy of the
noble lord's statement, he must absolutely deny his con-
clusion. He defied the noble lord to contradict him in this
proposition—that whether these words did or did not exist
in the oath before 1606, no Jew would ever have been in-
troduced to take his seat except on taking an oath upon
the New Testament. There never was a time when the
oath could have been taken by a Hebrew Jew. (A laugh.)
Whether the noble lord was right or not, neither he nor
any other man would deny, this proposition, that upon
some Christian emblem or other (he believed it was almost
invariably upon the open Gospel), was an oath ever taken
by which any judicial or civil office of any kind, or any
admission to power of the very lowest degree, granted
without some such Christian sanction. It had been
said that the Jews were no more a separate nation. But
the more pious Jews contended that they were, and ever
must be a separate nation. You could not destroy their
inherent and absolutely essential character of being a
distinct and separate nation. They had been separate
for 1800 years; they had been separate for more thant
1800 years —aye, for a time which no man could calcu-
late • and certainly they were separate, so fa
highest aspirations, and their return to their own as their
land,of
wore concerned. The noble lord said, the admission
five or six Jews would not destroy the Christian character
of the house. But what said their own writers. There
was a person of the name of Van Owen, who, from his
-name, he had reason to hope was not an Englishman. But
this person wrote in England, and four or five years ago he
published a pamphlet, in which he stated that this country
was not a Christian nation. And what was the ground
upon which he asserted that we -were not a Christian na-
tion 9 Because Jews were admitted to certain offices. He
would
just re • d the house that this was not a Protestant

country, because one-fourth or - one-sixth of her MaiestY::
subjects were Roman Catholics. In resisting this proposal,
then, he felt, under all the circumstances, that he was not
resisting a claim of right. He was satisfied,. too, that ssis
resisting it, he had with him an immense majority of
.sk
fellow-eountrymen. He felt also that he was doing bias-
tice to no man ; for he was consulting the best interests of
the Church and the people of England. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord said, again, " wipe away this last remaining
persecution—this last remaining badge of religious
:in-
tolerance." He contended that there was neither persecu-
tion tion nor intolerance in retainingths ehristizia-c/aaraote!,
the -Legislature, and he opposed the proposition, not
.oe
cause he hated Judaism, but because he loved CbriEtianity:
Those who resisted the proposition did se not as Wilkes
and Gibbon might have done from their nature, but fro
pS
deliberate principle and conscientious conviction. But did
Gibbon ever blaspheme Christianity when he entered the
house ? Did Wilkes ? No. If it were true that VP):
crisy was the homage that vice paid to virtue, it Whaee
equally true that the profession of Christianity, and,. /50
respect which they externally paid to it, bad as it d
compared with real religion, was better than open
avowed blasphemy. (Hear, hear.) But he believed tha
this would not be considered, as the noble lord said, the
last remnant of persecution. Other cases were remaining
which, if the principle were extended, would come out
iY
degrees. Some would say, " the British dominions in
India contain vast numbers of Hindoos and Mahon!
„.mf.
dans." (Hear, hear.) That cheer showed there were
members in the house who would extend the principle.
But what then became of the great principle of the Chris-
tian tian religion being the highest privilege as well as the roll
sacred trust? (Hear.) If the admission of the Jews were
conceded, other claims would be made as entitled to relief'
which, he believed, the country would never tolerete•
The country would never tolerate the avowed heathen et
the avowed Mahommedan ; but to be consistent they inns
be be prepared to destroy, not merely the Protestant ch. r
ter of the house (that, indeed, was gone already), b_a"u_d
destroy the Christian character of the Legislature ; .
far as lay in their power, to destroy also the Christian
• ratter of the depositaries of power. For these reasons
lie
should resist the motion which the noble lord had now for
the sixth time proposed to the house ; and, under
blessing of God, he trusted that this fatal measure lair
yet be averted.
Sir R. PEEL reminded the house that various functions
had been opened to the Jews within the last few Yieers•
' The executive functions of the country were ()Pelle"
them ;they might fill the position of magistrates, raw
that of chief magistrate of the metropolis—they roigh'•yo
chairmen of quarter sessions—the exercise of the electiai.
franchise was of course open to them—and they were, it
lowed the free exercise of their religious opinions. Buys,
was now argued that to complete the edifice of religiSl
liberty in this country it was necessary that they shetror
be emancipated from the disabilities they laboured and
with reference to a seat in this house, and the noble for
had told them that the last badge of intolerance toEngllsl_l;
men of other than the Protestant faith should now beat
once and for ever removed. Now he could not agree with
that view of the case. He admitted that, if it were ec;',
there never was a fitter opportunity for marking their au_
hesion to the principles of civil and religious liberty tha:
at the present moment, when everywhere abroad they s!';‘,
the spirit of bigotry and intolerance prevail. It was on this
account—having been engaged for some years in the diP.a;
matic profession, and knowing the good results that spires
from a manly and straightforward expression of °pita=
and from the tendering of honest advice, no matter wr
ther the Government to which you tendered it was of the
first order, or whether it was so insignificant as scarcely t°
~es
affect the balance of Europe—that he ventured to tau
to the noble lord his thanks for the high-spirited and el;
mirably-composed dispatch which he had addressed to ?
Minister at Florence on the persecution of the Me,difa-„
(hear)—and if he had not been accidentall debarred from
attending the house on Thursday night last hehe would II;
replied to the hon, member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), vii,„-t
had attempted to justify the Tuscan persecution by
he called the extermination of the Jesuits from Switsa"
land. He would have told him that the noble lord wig
was then at the head of Foreign Affairs had nothing to-
with the expulsion of the Jesuits—that the British u".
vernment did not support the members of the Confedser;
tion against the Bund of the Catholic cantons on relies,o
grounds only—and that although we took different views
of that question from the Governments of Austria'
Prussia, and France, yet that events had shown the
wisdom and the justice of the course which the noble
lord then took. This, however, was only by way of Para";
thesis—(hear, hear)—but he must say that the introductle
of the Jews to Parliament had nothing to do with
question of civil and religious liberty. He found that "to
member of the present Government, who pretended
know accurately and distinctly the views of the Geyer.%
ment on political questions, had deliberately stated that vq.
who opposed the admission of the Jews into Parliamea
ought never to pronounce the sacred words, " civil and re-
ligious liberty." (Hear, hear.) He considered that the
use of such an expression was altogether erroneous at,
malicious. (Hear, hear, and cries of "name.") The 1111
gentleman to whom he referred was one whom a PU1,7
journal had very aptly called "the Jew member for .A.Y.c°'
bury"—(hear hear)—and who now by accident found hires;
self Solicitor-General. (Laughter.) He had no doubt Ow
would be told that nothing was intended by these exPre,r,
sions, and that as as the hustings at Carlisle re-echoed Novi
expressions of sympathy for foty millions of slaves, 01e,
as the Odd Fellows' Hall at Halifax resounded with ire
precations on tho Emperor of the French—(hear, hear)--
though nothing was intended by these expressions, so Prat
bably the learned Solicitor-General would tell them tue,o
he did not mean anything by his expression that, the!,
who opposed the admission of the Jews ought never to Prt,L,
nounce the words " civil and religious liberty." Supe-s
he were to say—he being in favour of vote by ballot
(cheers)—that all who were opposed to that measure W. 'of
actuated by improper feelings ; and as the Governmeab,,,d
progress which they now had contained men who oPrsiit
and men who approved of the ballot -such as the rig
hon. members for Carlisle and Southwark—would he no
have a right to say that this Government of progresas,, „und. not entitled teeoddt :deo n
an confidenceot
Parliament,th nk of
t Jtehowehs,pfati:laedina'ssf n(t
bcehinege res excluded 1 uidi
They knew perfectly well that they litficsillise°t-eciiil
liberty here than they had in any other enjoyedpiirt of the world, and therefore he would not consent that laws which had
been in existence since the Revolution of 1668 should no,
be abrogated in their favour. Probably, circumstance
might require that their oaths should berevised. It ": true that there was no longer a Stuart in existence to c°,),-;
test the legitimate claim of the House of Hanover to -r
throne of these realms ; but surely that was no reason se
doing away with the words " on the true faith of a Chris'
tian." He believed that these words represented a great
principle. He believed that he was expressing—faintlybio
might be, and imperfectly, but at any rate fairly---4,„•d
public opinion, when he said that, denying as the Jesrs":s.
the fundamental principles of Christianity, it was inconsl
tent with their dignity and character as a Christian Far-
lament to open to them the attainment of every offifia;
and the exercise of the highest functions of the State. '
thought the present measure was unwise and unnecessl,
and therefore impolitic. (Hear, hear.) What was tfo
character for respectability of Jews in this county ?
was ready to admit that their general good conduct W
matter for consideration, but he did not think they war-1
entitled to all the encomiums which were in the habit °co
being passed upon them ; for he found it stated in evidels
before a select committee of the house which sat to jug ia
into juvenile offences, that the chief instigators to crime
this metropolis were Jews (great laughter beelfo
pa
they afforded exclusive facilities for the disposal of st°
goods. (Continued laughter.) If that was the ease 1,
London, it might equally be so in Manchester, Liverr,sf
Birmingham, Glasgow, and other large concentrations ej
population. However, this question, after all, resolytho
itself into a consideration of the personal position 0f the
noble lord opposite. He had the honour to represent the
i
city of London in company with a Jew, and he was sold
habit of giving a pledge to • his constituents that he s •
bring the question of the emancipation of the Jews aaad
ally before the house. Now this protégé of the noble I,e'oo
Baron Rothschild, was a wealthy man ; but it was
account of his wealth that he was entitled to considerat.lp
because the house was.no doubt aware how his great w clot
was amassed. (Oh, oh.) He read in a newspaper 4:048-so•
night that the house of Rothschild had consented-
tiate a loan for the Government of Athens, with coneLosli
_• dos
able guarantees, at the rate of nine per cent. He was r,s, to admit that the noble lord's coil a,n worthy -51s1
—he had not the pleasure of his aeccriusse.nwtaaances. biltrae9 ;-
much had been said by the President of the Board tus.leg
trol. reslipbeecrttinyg the press of France and of Belgian' ore
mg aegagnesd ,0
fi t
t.arbeaslinobaunEt right to say that nobody had done by
to gag
surwohipeohthatnhothehfaadmilaydvoafnitoodothschils.,„o,
despots. But admitting that hye was in every wayt
'f:rtbei:6l°
of being in this house, he would still ask whether thie,too•
a. question which ought at present to engage their ab
tion ? Now that the leaders of the faction who ot P
o°o-
the last Government were united in the present, n,nore
petted to have received from them some measure -or
nearly connected with the material well-being of the c the
try than this. In 1851 and 1852 they were told hlfoil
noble lord of the absolute necessity there was fora 'lassos°
Bill ; but now that he had become the leader of the
of Commons, that measure was almost indefiniteis• of
journed. At Carlisle, at Southampton, and in the c
London, they had heard of nothing else than of the, tier
scenes of bribery which took place at the last 'general lilt
tion. He did not know whether the noble lord and thfetrlhese
hon. gentleman spoke from personal experience e,srallf
matters, but he did not think that the electors ge,s"-were
had laid themselves open to those imputations while', the
so promiscuously heaped upon them. But whateveis tot
fate of the measure might be in this house he trustecsion
the other house of Parhament would be firm in the "e'd for
which they had already more than once expressed ; an
himself, he could only say, that he would give the row' ht
his determined opposition, as he believed it wais,,`„-tions'
with danger to the Christian character of our insl'""
(Hear, hear.) d .ing6
Lord MONCK said the honourable member who had the
sat down said this measure was a personal matter t 0
noble lord the membet for the city of London. He ttho last
considering that the name of the noble lord had for for the
thirty years been connected with every measure tbe e
extension of civil and religious liberty, there could 11°,001
higher compliment paid him than to say that this r:rootial
of the last badge of intolerance and bigotry was Pioeinhel.
matter to him. (Cheers.) Then the honourable h
told them that this question had nothing to do ,wit (1.40ra
and religious liberty ; but he must pardon lnr°,o with
Monck) for saying that his speech had still less t,° "itthe
the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) He agreed per"lv;i
honourable baronet that religion was of paramours soj in.
tance, whether it was considered in a national or irLugest
dividual point of view, and that was one of the s%
arguments in his mind for the pressing forward of tli,tion
tion, that no man might be under any political temp was
to conceal or to deny his religious convictions. in the
it but persecution, if they allowed the Jews to uv,?rshe„a
country, and to amass money in the country, hntie-srrade'st
their noblest aspirations, and regarded them 9'S 4- 170 had
subjects. (Hear, hear.) It reminded him of what
read somewhere, about the labourers on an estate ,s 0 poor
ginia, he believed in the time of Elizabeth. lII° privi-
creatures petitioned their master to be allowed tibiles to be
loge of education, on the ground that they had s° ue and
saved ; and the reply they received was rather blncl(fles,r,
discourteous—" our souls, grow tobacco.
sur, of
bear.) He trusted the hffiise would accept the wee' anee'
the noble lord, and destroy the last badge of lntuh-
(Hear, hear.)
iteration, to give his assent to the measure Of the•t nor as
Mr. NAPIER was unable, after the most intense c°,lleslie.
aalotcrhdebit‘rianaus
we the noble lord repared to admit a dell.ith
aaspparerehevneladett hen and
ds nnoott.
raThereelytraanetohiiyotaonci
The Jews denied it, and therefore he thought a deist.
no more title to be admitted than an atheistooroonfoisn'
MemboerrsEopifsctohpaatlihaonuss,e,cownhldether Catholics, IsT oonnaci
prayer to their Saviour and God. (Hear, to ,`they
that y
to(Hgeetarh,erbearin would
they ask a Jew, when he entered that house, the
that Saviour whom he conscientiously, denied ?
then to abolish prayer remove all difference,
~eadjuit
Jews, and call that religious liberty' ? It was°o4Btoste he
the Jew had every other privilege. AS a 111