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

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 cif
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 lam 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 with
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, wi
nsti,
übeeni ne
eg
tnholt very
.oug c h
ur
ts
hi dee r considerable
yn n, uhnLbee rn,
ont o rt
hpeo wmeer fa
nu
sl
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 tho 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 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.) lam 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. (Hoar, 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, one 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 Popery and Prelacy=
thus intending the oath as a test of religious faith. But
upon the Restoration of monarchy that oath was laid
riansitdroed,
uaeendd
religious faith. In the reign of Charles 11., when it was
fw o nt h
t thhaet
viewe to o
ft hme a pentk
ne sgit naon o
ea
xt hp r he
Bassi
obne eonf
saoglaelny proposed
the
eto g r
oexcludef tthe he Rp oo nl
ittai li Cae a
I cl tho
oe
trl
nc se,s it
whichwa s
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
etaroralsclerguhip:eile,
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 even 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 bo-
belonging to certain religions, whether dissenters from the
Church of 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.) 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 hold those opi-
eajthesetyfu—ll
nions are British subjects, who hold land, who are in the
courseey to
u deprive herp Ms
possession of property, who exercise many civil privileges
connected with local affairs, who hold offices in corpora-
tions,who discharge duties for their fellow-citizepnitys,poolainseod,fpbteihe-
form them faithfully and honestly—they are men who are
ruepaodny
whom,at al
if;
alleged
lteog
e(i them,
hieosutht doswub
share of the burden of taxation, and you h.ave, there-
fore,may noho
w, righteverto b
be
a
privileges and rewards which your station as British subjects
against‘W the entitles you to enjoy.", (Hoar.) Some special gebunds
I own that they have been so thoroughly
disposed of, on
former occasions when they have been alleged, that I shall
only allude to them very briefly. In the first place, it is
alleged alleged that the Jews are not British subjects like s
our-
selves, that they aro a separate nation, and as such, we
cannot give to them the privileges of B
rl
But what is the fact ? They are not aliens, subjects.
ens, and if they
were they could neither take their seats in this house, nor
hold office ; they are therefore British •
force of the proposition. If you subjects by the very
have descended from persons selesl4ln37 that indeed they
that therefore they cannot hold offi other nations, and
maintain that which will ap 1 to ce this country, you
admit without scruple. If many others whom you
grounds of national characteristics—of put the question on the
Marlines in other countries, then th their connection with
this country to whom your distinctionere are many families in
ap-
ply. I may refer to those who would equally
cation of the edict of Nantes, cameo over here at the revs-
cation from other countries,
herefo
driven by religious persecutions, or who settled

even convict labour ; but they had been proof against it,
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 from 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 assemblingiof 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 these 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,
that wise whose absence this evening I regret, pressed for a 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,
andbut unblessedconfirm
popula-
tion. is
The most dreadful crimes were found to result from
wpilsaenotpwiinitohnthofe
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 Colonies, 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
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 'vh ether 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. Tho 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 the people, and that a constitution being
so framed, without respect to the particular number 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 tho Colonies, the Duke of Newcastle, has said that if a
proposal should reach this country for a change of constitu-
Mon,-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 representedthe conduct of mynoble 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 convicts.
So far from it 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 Ire 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 the
concurrence on both sides of the house in the propositions
and principles which the hon. member for North Staflbrd-
shire, and others had attempted to impress on her Ma-
jesty's Government. Recollecting the early attempts he
(Mr. Hume) made to impress on the Government the pro-
priety of leaving the colonies free from 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.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.
On the order of the day being read for the house going
into committee, for the purpose of taking into considera-
tion the civil disabilities affecting the Jews,
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
tho 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 himself strongly opposed to such a course, because
he felt it to be a concession of the first step, and he was
not prepared to allow the noble lord to advance that step in
a course which be believed detrimental alike to the religi-
ous interests and feelings of the people of the country and
to the civil rights of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL then said—Tho hon. baronet having
objected to my taking tho 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 11
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

. , ,
purposes of trade, and whose descendants enjoy all the country, because one-fourth or one-sixth of her 3111V/cs/
privileged of other British subjects. Take, for instance, subjects were Roman Catholics. In resisting this proposal,.
one great family which came over here in the time of N.Piril- then, he felt, under all the circumstances, that he was not
Liam 111. ; the head of that family has a seat in the House resisting a claim of right. He was satisfied,
of Lords—l allude to the Duke of Portland—some part of resisting it, he had with him an immense rajthon?
his family is still settled in Holland, and the representa- fellow-eountrymen. He felt also that he was doing anin.
tive of Holland in this country is at present a member of tice.to no man ; for he was consultingihu beat • ~__l
that family. Then, a 1 is said—and the argument is one the Church and the people of England. (Hear, t 1.7......
last remainoia
which I hardly dared to touch—that the Jews are doomed The noble lord said, again, ' wipe away this _ ,
__ ill.
tytho.
Lact,h_i;;
to be divided and separated from all other nations, and persecution—this last remaining badge of 'religwens„,,
that they must remain so till prophecy is accomplished. I tolerance." He contended that there was neither p I'S'
have always said in this house that that is an argument tion nor intolerance in retaining the Christian character
aaef
with which it is impossible to deal, and that it is not for the Legislature, and he opposed the proposition, not i." 7...
us to carry out the decrees of Providence. (Hear, hear.) cause he hated Judaism, but because he loved Chria,altwianaiiklYes
What we know is, that the Jews established in different Those who resisted the proposition did so, not
countries are in many of those countries, such as France, and Gibbon might have done from their 'nature, bußtutfrdorld
Holland, and others, admitted to all the privileges which deliberate principle and conscientious conviction.
other native-born subjects of these countries enjoy, and Gibbon ever blaspheme Christianity when he entered the
that it is not because more or less of these privileges are ' house? Did Wilkes ? No. If it were true thatli?YPc.sra;
granted, still less because the number of the privileges crisy was the homage that vice paid to virtue, ll(,, 0
which are granted to them in this country are withheld equally true that the profession of Christianity, an,!...70
there, that you will either promote or frustrate the de- respect which they externally paid to it, bad as it
an
' signs of Almighty Power. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, compared with real religion, was better than one,ntaa
but what doubt is there with regard to the behaviour of avowed blasphemy. (Hear, hear.) But he believer
the
the Jews if they are admitted to Parliament ? (Hear.) this would not be considered, as the noble lord said, ~„
We have had arguments with regard to the Roman Catho- last remnant of persecution. Other cases were rera lF'n
lies, and we have had arguments with regard to Protestant which, if the principle were extended, would outcome '4l
dissenters, intended to show that they would not ful- degrees. Some would say, " the British dominions 4,
ill all the duties ydu wish from them in maintaining your India contain vast numbers of Hindoos and Mah°llro„
constitution in Church and State ; but with reaard to Jews duns." (Hear, hear.) That cheer showed there were,__4„ ,
hardly any person would venture to deny that they would. members in the house who would extend the prin,t:„..
In the first place, their numbers would be so exceedingly But what then became of the great principle of the
theufc:sa
few as to make it utterly wild in them to attempt to over- tian religion being the highest privilege as well as l"were
throw your constitution—(hear)—and, in the next place, sacred trust? (Hear.) If the admission of the Jews
and,
it is well known that the Jews are perfectly satisfied with conceded, other claims would be made as entitled to
toles maintaining their own religious faith without attempting which, he believed, the country would never tow"'
either to convert others, or to gain any supremacy in Chris- • The country would never tolerate the avowed heathen
tian nations. (Hoar.) It is well known that, maintaining ' the avowed Mahommedan ; but to be consistent they, °c.
most rigidly their own religion, they do not attempt to be prepared to destroy, not merely the Protestant c•flarta
make that religion powerful ; and that the last thing they ter of the house (that, indeed, was gone already), nrd so
would think of would be entering into combination for the I destroy the Christian character of the Legislature ; and
purpose purpose of injuring either your civil or your religious li- 1 far as lay in their power, to destroy also the Christiana ia,
berty. (Hear.) With regard, then, to the last question, 1 raster of the depositaries of power. For these reasons for
no man can deny that although the Jews are not man should resist the motion which the noble lord had now,bo
among us—some 30,000 or 40,000—yet they are known in the sixth time proposed to the house • and, under
,a_ht
our social relations as men of great charity, as men always blessing df God, he trusted that this fatal measure 11116
ready to help when any act of charity is to be performed. yet be averted.
It is well known that there are no people who more quietly Sir R. PEEL reminded the house that various functlts
.
and more unostentatiously perform their civil duties to all had been opened to the Jews within the last few Yr
their neighbours, and to the State in which they live. The executive functions of the country were openeli'aea
(Hear.) What, are the arguments—what, then, are them ;,;they might fill the position of magistmates, !Tao
the reasons—why you should not admit them to the full that of chief magistrate of the metropolis—they mighuraie
privileges of British subjects? I really believe there is no chairmen of quarter sessions—the exercise of the elecaaa
conclusive argument, and that there is no satisfactory rea- franchise was of course open to them—and they were:lilt
son why they should not be admitted; and that there re- lowed the free exercise of their religious opinions. PI,
mains nothing but prejudice—(hear)—nothing but the pre- was now argued that to complete the edifice of religta
judice and the notion that, you are a Christian nation and liberty in this country it was necessary that they shcare
a Christian Legislature, and that you degrade the nation be emancipated from the disabilities they laboured 111!"_`„a
and the Legislature by the admission of Jews. If the na- with reference to a seat in this house and the noble p,-..
tion is a Christian nation, as it is, it will remain a Chris- had told them that the last badge of i ntolerancetang
tian nation after Jews are admitted to this house—(hear) men of other than the Protestant faith should now beal,
and if the great majority—nearly all—of the members of once and for ever removed. Now he could not agree
this house be Christians after this law has been passed, the that view of the case. He admitted that, if it were agree,
name of a Christian Legislature can hardly pass away.. there never was a fitter opportunity for marking their
(Hear.) Greatly, indeed, were it to be wished that that hesion to the principles of civil and religious liberty tn,,i;
Christianity which we pray for according to the beautiful at the present moment, when everywhere abroad they ',",;0
form of the Church of England—that "we should hold the spirit of bigotry and intolerance prevail. It was on this
the faith in the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace, account—having been engaged for some years in the diP4ig
and'in righteousness of life"—was the prayer, that it might matic profession, and knowing the good results that sPr.l,
be accomplished for all the members of this Legislature. from a manly and straightforward expression of opill,
(Hear.) I have always said it is no matter of indifference and from the tendering of honest advice, no matter the
whether the Christian character should or should not pre- ther the Government to which you tendered it was ofa ae
Tail in your houses of Parliament. I have always said first order, or whether it was so insignificant as scarciae Jaer
that religion has no business apart from the business affect the balance of Europe—that he ventured tO "fad.
of life ; certainly it has none apart or separate from to the noble lord his thanks far the high-spirited and ata,
the business of Legislation. When I say this, I mean mirably-composed dispatch which he had addressed to a....
that spirit of union to which I have referred. (Hear, Minister at Florence on the persecution of the Madtalo
hear.) But, when, instead of "the unity of the Spirit" (hear)—and if he had not been accidentally debarredi from
you . have diversity of doctrine • when, instead of attending the house on Thursday night last, he would vi-ho
" the bond of peace," you have nothing but contention; replied to the hog, member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), 1,4
and when, in place of " righteousness of life," you have had attempted to justify the Tuscan persecution by Ytra7o.,
such men as Wilkes introduced into this house, I ask, he called the extermination of the Jesuits from Swl 0
what are the benefits of your oath, and in what way does land. He would have told him that the noble lord "do
that oath secure that you are a Christian Legislature? was then at the head of Foreign Affairs had nothing tear,
(Hear.) Let us then not attempt to found our Christianity with the expulsion of the Jesuits—that the British
_rs,
upon so flimsy and so worthless a foundation. (Cheers.) vernment did not support the members of the Confeto
If, as I trust is the case, the Christian character prevails tion against the Bund of the Catholic cantons on relig.l.oo
more now than it did a century ago—if it prevails more grounds only—and that although we took different Yl,:aa,
in the nation, if it prevails more in the legislature, it is of that question from the Governments of Ausu&
not because you maintain this oath. It is because of Prussia, and France, yet that events had shown 1,',10
greater attention to religious duties, and from a better in- wisdom and the justice of the course which the ncvs.
culcation of Christian doctrine. (Hear.) Rely upon this, lord then took. This, however, was only by way of Plos
that though*You may have two or three persons of the thesis—(hear, hear)—but he must say that the introdnao
Jewish faith in your House of Commons, this house will of the Jews to Parliament had nothing to do with t a
bear the character of a Christian legislature far more truly question of civil and religious liberty. He found tha to
than it did when Gibbon was one of its ornaments. And, member of the present Government, who pretendenao.
if that is the case, I ask you to do away with this remain- know accurately and distinctly the views of the Gecl:01
ing persecution—l ask you to do away with this remaining ment on political questions, had deliberately stated thaa_aa
disqualification—and say that your doors shall be open to who opposed the admission of the Jews into
_as
Parliaal7o,
men of the Jewish faith—British subjects—men upon ought never to pronounce the sacred words, "civil an°
whose loyalty you can rely—men of whose co-operation ligious liberty. ' (Hear, hear.) He considered that
_as
you will be glad. (Hear, hear.) So doing, you can then use of such an expression was altogether erroneous ;00,
with a clear conscience say, " Whatever other nations may malicious. (Hear, hear, and cries of "name.") The
abe
do, we hold aloft the principle of religious liberty, and we gentleman to whom he referred was one whom a Pube
grant that liberty to men who differ from us in religious journal had very aptly called "the Jew member for .Ayfi,
opinion." (Cheers.) Sir, I ask the house to agree to go bury"—(hear, hear)—and who now by accident found htaea
into committee upon this subject. I ask you to take away self Solicitor-General. (Laughter.) He had no doubt tn 4
this disqualification, and then you may say with truth, would be told that nothing was intended by these eiParavta
"Having for wise political reasons done away with other sions, and that as as the hustings at Carlisle re-echoed l':sa
disqualifications, we have done away with this disqualifi- expressions of sympathy for forty millions of slaves,, as
cation solely upon the grounds of truth and justice ; " and as the Odd Fellows' Hall at Halifax resounded witn_..a.
that you had no other grounds to go upon ; for upon that precations on the Emperor of the French—(hear, /10:,110.
truth and justice you have founded your truly Christian though nothing was intended by these expressions, s° tot
character. (Cheers.) The noble lord concluded by moving bably the learned Solicitor-General would tell thena,,,,..0
for " a committee of the whole house to take into consi- he did not mean anything by his expression that, till;
deration certain civil disabilities affecting the Jews." who opposed the admission of the Jews ought never to110';0
_ The question having been put, nounce the words " civil and religious liberty." SuPPtaa
Sir R. INGLIS said that before replying to the observa- he wore to say—he being in favour of vote by beeill°,,,a
(cheers)—that all who were opposed to that measur .d
tions of the noble lord in proposing this motion, he would actuated by improper feelings ; and as the Government , red
state why he objected to that speech being addressed to Mr. progress which they now had contained men who oPPIId
Wilson Patton in committee. The noble lord, from the tone and menawho approved of the ballot -such as the rtot
of his first observations, seemed to imply, as he (Sir Robt, hon. members or Carlisle and Southwark--would he 00
Inglis) fully anticipated, that he regarded it as an advan- have a right to say that this Government of progreso,siana,
tago to have gained this one step in the progress of the nentitled to the confidence of the people of gatg
measure ; but he (Sir R. Inglis) would not take off his hat (Cheers.) He did not think the Jews felt dissatisfied ca
2a
being excluded from Parliament. (Oh, and laughte, a
and open the gate to enable the noble lord to get into that They knew perfectly well that they enjoyedoh more sore d, ho regarded as a sacred enclosure. Let the noble liberty here than they had in any otherpirtof the ar°,,sar'-'
lord break down the barriers if he could—God forbid that and therefore he would not consent that laws which --avt
he should—still it should not be through any act of his if been in existence since the Revolution of 1668 should no
his course were made easier than it was. The noble lord be abrogated in their favour. Probably, circurast,newa.
asked, " Why should that be refused which was granted to might require that their oaths should be revised. l'aeaa
Sir Robert Grant in 1830?" Possibly the house was wrong true that there was no longer a Stuart in existence to the
in having at that time conceded the step which Sir Robert test the legitimate claim of the House of Hanover to co.
Grant was prepared to take; but if the house had done throne of these realms ; but surely that was no reasolra,
wrong then, it was responsible only if it continued to do doing away with the words "on the true faith of a Caat
wrong now. His impression was, that the very courseii tian." He believed that these words represented A Fi; it
which he was prepared to take to-night was the principle. He believed that he was expressing—fain' labs
took five years ago, in 1847, when the noble lordeeroeeosecel might be, and imperfectly, but at any rate fairly ad
' the very motion he had now submitted to the house' for public opinion, when he said that, denying as the ,TW°„air
he felt it his duty, without meaning any disrespect to re- the fundamental principles of Christianity, it was inc°i,ar
fuse, so far as his own individual vote was concerned, the tent with their dignity and character as a Christian 00,
permission which it asked. The course which the noble liament to open to them the attainment of every cu'ila
lord invited the house to take he believed to be really hos- and the exercise of the highest functions of the stateaaaa,
tile to the civil and religious liberty of the country, and thought the present measure was unwise and unnecenP
to the ordinary proceedings of the house. The noble lord aehnadratehteerreffoorreresipmeeptoalibtiilic.ty (Hear, erew,
that he alone
assumed, by a convenient
,petitio principii
was the advocate of truth and justice, an'd that who was ready to admit that their geneehraeinarl .gboloill7cooaant dtwuyelisaaf°ol°r: '
opposed him were the bigoted disciples of an obsolete all
Inglis's) position was dist' lete
etYhee. matter for consideration, but he did not think they of
tem. But his (Sir R. entitled to all the encomiums which were in the 119;aes
eontrary. It was also assumed by the noble tertly that
being passed upon them ; for he found it stated in eviu sias
power was the inherent right of man, and that thel, who before a select committee of the house which sat to in% ia
resisted the grant of power to any individual werei3l;atuhnitsl into juvenile offences, that the chief instigators to crimmaiss
to show sufficient grounds for such resistance.
(Sir R. Inglis's) argument in this instance, as it had been this metropolis were Jews (great laughter --1,?`"4,-01e11
they afforded exclusive facilities for the disposal oi - ill
in twenty other cases, was that power was a trust whichooo
London,goods. (iCt omnitginhutedequlaiaulyghteber.slo
ilfn
mtahanethewsta:r,thLeiveara„ loi
the State-might delegate to those it thought fit—the ciao of the suffrage for example—but that it was inhe-exer Birmingham, Glasgow, and other large coneentratteel'a64
rent right of no man. In the same manner property was
a trust and a privilege, and not exclusively a right. Power population. However, this question, after all, res°i• the
in this country was not' to be exercised as a mere question itself into a consideration of the personal position °t the
and pence, which appeared noble lord opposite. He had the honour to represc°;,llo,
of pounds, shillings, city of London in company witb. a Jew, and he was ,Thulti
summunt bonun of some men. Haeenow
roduii.ndgrteomind to be habitbrin tohfegivinga pledge to his constituents that he ^aa
that they were called together,a Oa i
g question of the emancipation of the Jova lor"
the Crown, " upon certain arduous affairs t the writ from ally before the house. Now this protege of the nobOaa 01l
touching the in- Baron Rothschild, was a wealthy man - but it was, aaja-tiolf,
tercets of the Church and nation of Englad(); What was account of his wealth that he was entitled to consianaltil,
the first estate of the realm? The first estate of the realm because the house was no doubt aware how his grew' 1,10"
was the Church ; the first interest of the coirry was its was amassed. (Oh, oh.) He read in a newspaper On
TIJ ego'
religion ;the first duty of every min
was to act in reference to that religion, Having reminded tiate a loan for the Government of Athens, with con;eojl
him of this, he-would ask the nobleolourrdLworhdetaher he consi-
deredwas that the Jews, who regarded to admit that the noble lord's colleaguePe was a
tor, were fit persons to sit in that house 7 Hee aaaskiend.Ptes. noble lord whether he, who regarded the gospel as a tissuehe —he had not the pleasure of his acquaintance ; but f-caar
of fables, was a person who, in a Christian country, should much had been said by the President of the Board e via
be 'admitted to make laws for the government of a Chris- trod respecting the press of France and of Belg,inta vlor9
tian people ? Was he who disbelieved in the last day of gagged, it was but right to say that nobody had delii.?ia,,l4
judgment, which was revealed to us in the gospel, a person to gag liberty in Europe than the family of Rothsloeiglia
w 000.1.0 00
who could safely be permitted to legislate for the highest means of the loans which they had advanced to nag
intereses of this Church and nation ? But the noble lord despots,of
being But admitting that he was in every wa'YThis l'i'
without alluding to these subjects, alleged that the
forthe in this house, he would still number of the Jews was few. This was one of the argumentsatla question which ought at presenttoasekngwahgeethtehr;s„oiteseuu;
admission of the Roman Catholics into Parliament,who our a,
was the noble lord so encouraged by the success of that eat tion ? Now that the leaders of the faction -"ao °,,a
the last Government were united in thepresent,!c"-
periment, as to repeat it upon any scale, large or small x;~.ir 10a,
pected to have received from them ei— '".
Let him (Sir R. Inglis) tell hon. members who were fully. some rn a 0 oa 0
nearly connected with the material well-being of t' by th
try than this. In 1851 and 1852 they were told 12,000_,
prepared—with one honourable exception, which would noble lord of the absolute necessity there was fora "'lloo'
not name—to vote for this new instancep
tifellnehtty, that Bill • but now that he had become the leader of tlloia acir .
they, at least, were not disinterested o
every measure which might be brought forward ; for in of dommons, that measure was almost indeffnal catl e'
house against the laighost interests and duties of in that journed. At. Carlisle, at Sout . , marten, and in theil gro''
tian people, and certainly against the temporal • a Chri"- London, they had hake ii.....ng else than Of al elecia
, whuretteherresthe
of scenes of bribery which took place at the last
tha, Church, they would find in the Jews,getter e riga
fuoivnedly.imagi. ned, hon. gentleman were only two or three, as the noble lord y tion. He did not know whether the noble lord and the
the'
or whether, as he believed, unless a very.aace of Ant
should take place, many more ca rae in the saemP spoke from personal experlya eat"' ia
rengmraennforraer matters, but he did not think that the electors gob ice
marehanunsit t h
as some calling themselves Christi , had laid themselves, open to those imputations wlarea 01
in lately—they would swella esmen had come so porofmiscuously heaped upon them. But_ what ea.tniooa
which was already upon the the number of that band
t , united and powerful— the other house of Parliament would be firm
fate the measure miht be in this house, he trust!dos -
for union, they were told, -w in the
aria for
however, was a low view of the rength. (Hear.) , This, which they had already more than onceexpressed, ev•sure
was, the feeling which reallyrii
his determined
he could only say, that he would w ri, 0
v.
,e th:snea uoghst.
land on this question.
Christianity to be the d they wish the profesion of • opposition, as he believedourit institutl
noble lord in profession with danger to the Christian
pro on of the Legislatures The
of• af
wanted, the first instance, (Hear, hear.) d line
of the oath under which to alter the terms who ha tiro
Lord MONCK said the honourable member
view of enabli th members were admitted, with thenal matter. ~,,alr f
ng e Jew -down said this measure sat
altering the terra sto enter ; but now, without sof that oath, ho noble lord the member for the city of London. the 0
some measure under hi his proposed to bring inlord a a for ta
considering that the noble .3 for
tion of the city of Londonwhich colleague in the representa- thirty years b name of the
__assure
_t boo
0 1 noble lord could not dotiimsit,lir:hboe introduced. But the extersion of
ei:jelnancr
rnetcteoduszibtehrtevetrhyernieucato ;010.0,1
of the characteristic which it had eat depriving
the house higher compliment paid himgl than to say y that this Forst/
years. The worde " nand th t njoyed for a thousand of the last badge of intolerance and bigotry was a seeln:;,il
contained in theoath, n eru hinderedf ble
romans
ns and Baron Rothschild f Alderman Sa- told them that this question had nothing to clehiaa fi'_.,°h
were introduced, the noble lord said
,taking their seats, and religious liberty ; but he must pard°l2 to d° tl3°
he (Sir R. Inglis), admitted the historical in the year 1606. If Houck) for saying that his speech had still lessd with aa.
noble lord's statement, he accuracy of the the question at issue. (Hear, hear.) He agree° at inf ar
elusion. He defied the n must absoluteldeny his con- honourable baronet that reli •of ars'nl-u • 5'-
1 pest
glen was p aal ,
oble lord to contradict him in •
rzoposition—that whether these
in the oath before 1606 ese words did or did not exist dividual point of view and that was one of the this le
,no Jew rd of Lotion
trodueed to take his seat would ever have been in- arguments in his mind for the pressing forward tefaP.das
the New Testament. Therexcept on taking an oath upon tion, that no man might be under any political what Las
oath could have been t k e never was a time when the to conceal or to deny his religious convictions. live iili aj
Whether the noble aen by.a Hebrew Jew. (A laugh.) it but persecution, if they allowed the Jews to cras`lo‘l lord was right but I
any other man would deny this or not, neither he nor country, and to amass money in the country,
as deal
some Christian emblem or other hpropnsitioa, that
lupon their noblest aspirations, and regarded then!. what
,earha
invariably upon the open Gospel), ( e behenveodag wevaesratizciesnt subjects. (Hear, hear.) It reminded him 01..tste in ,°
f
by which any judicial or civil oficweaoefaany kin I read somewhere about the labourers on an " Those 17,4.
c or any he believed in Elizabeth. _ _.O
admission to power of the very lowest degre ' feinted ginia, the time of A the IL la,
without some such Christian sanction. It elial been icerztures petitioned their master to be all?`setila woal
said that the Jews were no more a separate nation. But saL:iff education on on the ground that they. hadbrogtikok.
the more pious Jews contended that they were, and ever discourteous—nthe reply they received was ratnal„ace!' (1-110
of
must be a separate nation. You could not destroy their hear)He" D—n your souls, grow tan' rotas 'nee.
trusted the house would accent tilT wales'.
inherent and absolutely essential character of' being a the noble.
distinct and separate nation. They had been separate _
ea lord, and destroy the last badge °'
005 i.
(H r hear I for 1800 years ; they had been separate for more than It 'N- t intens° 000
r. AFTER was unable, after the most , e 0 air
1800 years—aye, for a time which no man could calcu- deration t give his measure ‘a deist'l of
late ; and certainly they were separate, so far as their lord. , 0
admit o,,ai
highest aspirations, and their return to their own land, atheist Was the noble lord prepared to aa,„; true fiaioll:
were concerned. The noble lord said, tho admission of a t ?He apprehended he was not. I° ,_ an op bao
Christian was a revelation, and not merely they . a
five or six Jews would not destroy the Christian character Ta 0 thought a del_a
of the house. But what said their own writers. There e Jews denied it, and therefore h
atheist or aforl''
was a person of the name of Van Owen, who, from
But rgemore title to be admitted thanan Naaacootool
name, he had reason to hope was not an Englishman. But hate mbers of that house, whether Catholics,
to ether in 5, c -07.01;
this person wrote in England, and four or five years ago he ,or Episcopalians, could join ---A___, bear./ oaf a
published a pamphlet, in which he stated that this count prayer to their Saviour and God. ( e',"
_so to P_ tji I
was not a Christian nation. And what was the ground
rY they ask a Jew, when he entered that hon 90y, were rye
denied dot.. tea
upon which he asserted that we were not a Chriatian na- that Saviour whom he conscientiouslytiereee, a lot 0
Lion ? Because Jews were admitted to certain offices. He then to abolish prayer, remove all c 9 yt
..witflto b
would just remind the house that this was not a Protestant Jews, and call that religious liberty 'a inaistl7
the Jew had every other privilege. AB