The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-16 00:00:00

doctrines, if a measure were brought forward which did
not suit the taste of certain persons, the House of Lords
was in effect to be got rid of. Two modes were pro-
posed for doing this. One was the creation of a large
number of peers, which would overule and override the
conscientious convictions
ouprecedent,
ofthat o
rassembly
d;
oneth e other, not
precedent o
absolutely with
for it in their history, namely, making this house supreme
through its own resolutions, whatever might be the opinion
of the House of Lords. The hon. member for Manchester
might recollect that there was once a tine, and only once
in their history, when this house declared itself indissoluble
by a resolution, and it followed up that resolution by two
others which soon succeeded it— the one, to say that the
bench of bishops was useless; the other, that monarchy was
-unnecessary. (Cheers.) There was one point, and only
one, on which he agreed with the hon. member, and that
was that if gentlemen would take his hon. friend the mem-
ber for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) for their
model, sound principles, if they did not march quicker than
they did, would at any rate be maintained longer than they,
are. (Cheers.) The hon. member began his speech by tell-
ing them that he could never catch hold of a single fact
with which he could grapple so as to enter the lists fairly
in a controversy with the opponents of this bill. Now he
(Mr. Walpole) did not know whether or not the hon. mem-
ber was present in his place during the early part of the
discussion this evening ; but that discussion reduced the
measure to two points—the one a matter of fact, the other
of theory and speculation. The matter of fact was this—
whether this country was not, and had not been, a Chris-
tian nation, in such a sense and to such an extent that
nobody except a Christian was ever allowed either to rule
over it or to legislate for it. (Hear, hear.) He challenged
the hon. member to grapple with that fact. (Cheers.)
Assuming that to be true, then arose the other question—
whether as a matter of theory and speculation, they should
make any change in the constitution like the one now pro-
posed ? These were really the two points in issue between
them ; and as the hon. member for Manchester wished the
question to be thoroughly grappled with for the last time,
and he (Mr. Walpole) hoped sincerely it was the last time,
—(cheers and counter cheers)—he might, perhaps, be par-
dolled for a few moments whilst he endeavour to address
himself to those two questions upon which their decision
must depend. For the sake of clearing the ground, he was
willing to concede to his hon. and learned friend the Soli-
citor-General, that religious liberty must be the principle
upon upon which the affairs of this country were to be con-
ducted. But when he looked at this question, he denied
altogether that religious liberty was involved in it, since
the admission sought for the Jews did not affect the rights
of private conscience, but, as it had been proved over and
over again, related to qualifications for an office of trust.
And even if the question of religious liberty were more or
less involved in this debate, still they, would be bound to
consider whether, under that plausible plea, they could
sacrifice the higher obligations which he (Mr. Walpole) be-
lieved to be incident to religious truth. There was another
concession which he was willing to make. The Solici;
tor-General had told them that he suspected the opponents
of the bill were animated with prejudice, by by
animosity against that extraordiny people the Jews.
New, so little was he (Mr. Walpole) animated by any
such feeling, that be thought there was much in their
history and condition which naturally prepossessed him
most strongly in their favour. But it was that history
and that condition from which he drew the strongest argu-
ments against this bill ; for it was from that history and
that condition that he could not fail to draw this important
political axiom, that nations, like individuals, had their
religious responsibilities—(hear, hear) ;—and these were
responsibilities which must be discharged not only in our
individual but in our national character. (Renewed
cheers.) He adverted to that point because he believed it
was the main point of difference between the noble lord
and those who opposed this measure. The noble lord had
always admitted—indeed nobody could admit it more con-
sistently with his own high character than the noble lord
—that religion should influence in all the relations and
conditions of life. (Hear, hear.) Well, that was admit-
ting the whole of his (Mr. Walpole's) case • and he could
not understand how the noble lord and his supporters
could shrink from acknowledging the consequences of that
admission, that a nation, which was merely an aggregate
of individuals, must necessarily be bound to recognise that
principle and to act upon it. (Hear, hear.) The President
of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cardwell) shook his head at
that. He (Mr. Walpole) challenged him to produce from
the history of the nations of the world any different result
than that. Every nation that he was aware of, whether
ancient or modern, especially our own, had acted on
that principle. From time immemorial this country
had been a Christian country, governed by the autho-
rity of a Christian king, with legislators and rulers
recognising their Christian principles, not from any
fanciful theory, still less- from intolerance or persecution
—(hear, hear, and oh !)—but in order that their laws
might be made to harmonise with the habits and institu-
tions of a Christian people. Here, then, he took up his
stand, and he defied the noble lord to displace him from it
unless he could prove either that he (Mr. Walpole) was
altogether wrong in this theory of the constitution, or else
that there was some good reason for modifying and alter-
ing it. Now they would find that Christianity pervaded
every branch of our institutions. The monarch on the
throne was obliged to swear at the time of his or her coro-
nation that he or she would maintain the true professions
of the Gospel. (Hear.) Our oldest maxim held that the
Scriptures were the common law, for upon them all other
laws were founded. (Hear.) Our ablest judges had con-
tended that Christianity was part and parcel of the law in
the sense in which it was applied by Lord Hardwick, that
" the constitution and government of this country hang
thereon." These were the words of LordHardwick, and Sir
Matthew Hale and Lord Raymond concurred in that opi-
nion. Did they want another proof ? Let them look at
their own forms and mode of proceeding in that house.
They always commenced in prayer to Him whom they one
and all at present acknowledged. (Hear, hear.) Look at
all the facts relating to -their institutions, and he defied
them to dissociate Christianity from them. Tho noble
lord the member for the City of London had made
two observations one in his first speech, and the
other in his last which it seemed to him (Mr. Wal-
pole) ought rather to be accounted plausibilities than
sound arguments; but as at that time those plausi-
bilitles, such as they were, seemed to make some impres-
sion upon the house, they required to be referred to. The
noble lord said that the bill which they were now about to
read a third time " was the crowning act which completed
the edifice of religious liberty." Now those were fine
sounding words; but let them be analysed. What did the
noble lord mean by completing the edifice of religious li-
berty ? Did he mean, as seemed to be suggested by the
hon. member for Manchester a little while ago, that every
one was equally at liberty to walk into that edifice, and
being there was to be placed upon an equal footing with
everybody else ? Why, if he did not mean that, he would
not otherwise be completing the edifice of religious liberty
But if he meant that, what was the interpretation which
he put upon his own bill? He admitted the Jew forsooth,
but then he only admitted him to some of the privileges
which he himself possessed. (Cheers from the Opposition
benches.) The real truth was, that the argument was a
fallacy—(cheers)--and the fallacy consisted in this—it
assumed that the power of legislating was a matter of
right belonging to all, and not, as he was prepared to con-
tend, an affair of trust which required certain qualifica-
tions for its discharge. In fact, the whole question limited
itself to this—was it a matter of right, or was it a matter
.of trust? For if it was a matter open to all, how would
the argument of the hon. and learned member for Stam-
ford be met—namely, that there was a great variety of
qualifications upon the right, and consequently that it was
not open to all ? Why, was there not the qualification
of age, sex, profession, property,—of country and of reli-
gion ? Did they not exclude minors because of their sup-
posed imn.alairity of intellect? Were not women excluded
because it was considered that they ought rather to be em-
ployed about domestic matters? (Laughter.) Paupers
wore excluded because it was imagined that they did not
hold a sufficiently independent position. Again, clergy-
men were excluded because it was wished that they should
devote themselves to religious and not to secular functions.
And lastly, did they not exclude aliens because they
owned a foreign allegiance, and because—to use the words
of the Act of Parliament—their notions of law and re-
ligion were, or might be, different from those of English-
men. Well, ho would ask if it was not intolerance to
impose these exceptions upon the different constituencies
of the country, how could it be proclaimed to be intolerance
to refuse the election of a person whose religious senti-
ments were entirely antagonistic to that religion on behalf
of which he would be called upon to legislate. To refuse
such a claim might be unwise—it might be inexpedient—
but intolerant it never could be called. (Cheers from the
opposition benches.) And when the house came to look
into this question of qualification, they would find that
this is the origin of the idea that the office of a legislator
was one of right, only because it was an office of trust.
Why even in the very commonest affairs of life, hon. gen-
tlemen would never admit any person to the management
of their private affairs, or to the guardianship of their
children, unless their principles were coincident ? And
what, then, was the House of Commons but trustees of the
people, guardians of the national interests ? (Hear, hear.)
For when they were trustees 'they were trustees for the
whole community, and tho whole community had a right
to say, as they had done, that that constitutional edifice of
religious liberty which hadi always existed in this country,
should not be turned into a pantheon, wherein there were
to officiate as high priests those who had been too long
in the ranks of their most dangerous and inecon-
cileable foes. (Cheers.) Well, then, ho asked them to
consider, when they looked at this bill, which was not
forced upon by them, by any paramount necessity—(loud ,
cries of hear, hear")—which it was not pretended
was recommended to them by any urgent reason of poli-
tical expediency, he asked them with every confidence, had
ever a measure been propounded to Parliament, whereby
the advantages to be gained were so miserably dispropor-
tionate to the sacrifices they were called upon to make?
(Loud cries of " hear, hear.") What were those advanta-
ges, and what were those sacrifices ? They were partly
personal and partly national. The personal advantages
were that they would certainly- give to a few individuals
the gratification of sitting among them—few, indeed, as
their numbers would be. (Ironical cheers from the minis-
terial benches.) But what was the personal sacrifice which
they were making ? Why, they were inflicting a wound
upon thousands, nay, tens of thousands of their Christian
fellow countrymen—(loud opposition cheers)—who now
placed confidence in that house, because they believed it to
be a Christian legislature. Well, what were the national
advantages and national sacrifices ? Yes, they would be
leaving religion to the private consciences of individuals,
and they would be propping up a theory which regarded
government as a spiritless and a soulless machine, only
intended to subserve temporal wants and temporal inte-
rests. That would be their advantage, which they would
be prepared to sacrifice that principle which re-
garded the state in a Christian country as par-
taking somewhat of a divine character—as acting under
Divine obligations, and as comprehending within its range
all the objects of humanity, and among them the spiritual
nature, the moral responsibility, and the eternal destinies
of all mankind. (Loud cheers.) If you, said the right
hon. gentleman, are right, the bill which you propose to
us does not go far enough—it does not go as far as it ought
to do ; for it ought to Ity down the broad proposition
which the hon. member for Manchester has announced,
that any person, no matter what his creed, has a right to
be ele:ted to this Christian legislature. (Hoar, hear.)
telßhuienti,:steierrriy,
ministerial such a right, they (pointing to the
co intry has bee foundationr are going too far, for they are sapping
as a nation is boutultietit.on which the constitution of this
12.AonfedssInational maintain
faith, this
as nationnd
the
responsibility of that Ciistinctive character of a common
for Christianity
the
University w h ch
of— caagrbee with the right hon. member
ridge—has contributed as much,
I firmly believe, to our in
temporal prosperity as to our moral
elevation. (Loud and prolonged
Sir It. PEEL said that hingPelcyhetehroinuggii a minority in
that house, represented the smajory of
.the country. He
once more protested against the abrogation of the laws ex-
quite prepared,
eluding Jews from Parliament. He
in feeling that he was discharging his \a.'l,'
unjustly
taxed with bigotry. He then attacked UWto koleisworth
for language used in the Canada reserves debate
on Lord John Russell to take the responsibility Or it( called
, warn-

ing all honest Churchmen and honest Liberals against sup-
porting a Ministry which sneered at church authorities.
Vindicating his own conduct at considerable length against
a former remark of Mr. B. Osborne, he attributed that
gentleman's return for Middlesex to the exertions of Baron
Rothschild, whom he subsequently called a Goliah of Gath;
and in regard to whom he reiterated the charge of gagging
liberty. He also rebuked the corporation of London for
petitioning for this bill, and recommended the house to
reform that body, against which even Billingsgate peti-
tioned. After an onslaught upon Lord John Russell for
filling a vacuum, and connecting antiquated Toryism and
glorious Radicalism, he once more protested against the
bill on religious grounds.
Mr. FITZROY rose amidst much confusion. He said
he did not mean to enter at that time of night into the
merits of a question which had already been full, and, till
within the last few minutes, ably and properly discussed.
(Hear, hear.) But he had a right, after the speech of the
hon. baronet who had just sat down, to appeal to the
house—to appeal to himself, when he was capable of un-
derstanding an appeal—(loud cheers, and cries of " oh, oh,"
iftollwoawaefidt—bywrhenotehweed ritchweaersspaand rliacmonefnutsionary—)—to
hewhet r
it
twhaaer
consistent with the usages of this house—(great cheering
and confusion)—whether it was decent—(renewed outcries
and cries of " question")—that any member of this house
froms hou should applyo fault too f a
hism own—(ember oo fh eto hi:ho)—uses
ow ht
eormw
sa s absent,
whioh
it
had pleased the hon. baronet to apply to the hon. member
for London. He knew not what might be the significance
of the terms which the hon. baronet used when he said
there was no family who had contributed so much as the
family of Rothschild to gag the liberties of Europe—
(cheers)—but he would tell the hon. baronet that he had
no right whatever to state that his election had cast a slur
upon the electors of the city of London. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL was greeted with cheers and cries of
" divide." He said—l had hoped, after all that has taken
place, that I might be allowed to speak. (Cheers.) With
respect to the honourable baronet who spoke last but one,
though no doubt he has a right to follow his own conscien-
tious convictions on whichever side of the house those con-
scientious convictions may lead him, yet I hope he will see,
on reflection, that it is hardly generous at one and the same
time to vote for the exclusion of Baron Rothschild and to
make a personal attack upon him. (Cheers.) Let Baron
Rothschild sit in this house, as I trust and believe he will,
and then let the hon. baronet direct any reproaches or at-
tacks he may be pleased to make against him, and I will
venture to say the character of Baron Rothschild will not
suffer in the attack. (Loud cheers.) There have been two
speeches made to-night—the one by the right hon. member
for Midhurst, the other by the hon. member for Manchester
—which I can hardly fail to notice consistently with my
duty to this question. The right hon. gentleman argued
with very great ability against the passing of this measure.
Bnt, adverting to the principle which he laid down, I
think that principle can hardly much longer be maintained.
The right hon. gentleman says, that a Jew is not connected
with this Christian country, and in another part of his
speech he said—Let them strike their tents and depart,
they do not belong to this country. (No.)
Mr. WALPOLE What I said was, if they struck their
tents and departed, no vestige of them would remain in this
country. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—WeII, one would suppose by this
that these persons were entire strangers to the land, and
that they had struck no root in the soil—that they were
not connected with the country. But the fact is that they
now hold very important offices in this country. A Jew
may hold the office of magistrate—he may hold the office
of sheriff, or a member of a municipal corporation, and in
other respects they are closely connected with this country.
As to striking their tents, if the right hon. gentleman will
ask his right hon. friend the member for Buckinghamshire—
(laughter)— he will find that it is not mere tents the Jews
have fixed in the ground of this country—(cheers)--that
the foundations are tolerably solid which connect their re-
lations with this country. (Renewed cheering.) The
speeches on this and former discussions all resolve them-
selves into this one argument —that this ought to be a
Christian Parliament. Now, what I wish to ask is, is this
or is it not a Christian country ? (Hear.) If you tell us
that it is a Christian country, then I say that if the Jews
are admitted this would still be a Christian Parliament.
(Cheers.) If you tell me that this is not a Christian coun-
try because it is composed of a mixture of Christians and
Jews, then I say let Parliament be like the country—let it
represent the country—let it be composed of Christians
generally, with an admixture of Jews. (Cheers.) Ido
not see how you can represent that this is a Christian
country though we have Jews residing among us, and yet
maintain that this will not be a Christian Parliament if
Jews are admitted. (Cheers.) Then the right hon. gen-
tleman says—referring to what another hon. gentleman said
on a former night—that Parliament has a right to place
qualifications and conditions on a seat in this house. No
doubt Parliament has a right to impose such conditions,
but then these conditions ought to be reasonable conditions.
It is a reasonable condition that a member should be
of a certain age—that he should not be a pauper—that
he should not be an alien. But it is not a reasonable
condition that Cheshire or that Wales should not be I o
presented. (Cheers.) Now, I say the present conditions
are unreasonable, because there is no reason why a Jew
should not perform the office of a member of Parliament.
(Cheers.) But I said, and the right honourable gentleman
has referred to it, that men ought to be influenced by re-
ligious principles in the business of life. Now, here let me
contrast the system I wish to establish with that which
is at present established. The present system, as you know
well, admitted to this house, and allowed to rise to the head
of the Government, a most able writer, who tried by sneers
and sarcasms to depreciate the books of the Old Testament.
You also know that the present system placed in this
house, and admitted to a place under the Administration,
one who endeavoured by sneers and irony to depreciate
the books of the New Testament. These were the fruits
I may say the natural fruits—of the present system.
But with regard to the Jews, it must be recollected that
the books they acknowledge as of divine origin are also
acknowledged by us, and that the piecepts we read in the
New Testament, sanctioned by the highest of all authority,
are many of them deduced from the books of the Old Tes-
tament. Therefore Ido not see why a Jew, sitting in this
house, should not, from his religious principles, be a
better member of this house than those I have al-
luded to that your system admitted. (Cheers.) I shall
only say further, that those who oppose the admission
of the Jews seem to me to have a great want of faith
in the power and efficacy of Christianity. (Cheers.) It
seems to me they think that it requires the props and but-
tress of old statutes to enable Christianity to have its clue
weight Depend upon it they are mistaken in this want
of faith. (Cheers.) Depend upon it they will find that
Christianity is no loser by -the admission of the Jews, that
the precepts of Christianity wili, be more strictly obeyed
by acting upon the principles of religious liberty, and that
Christianity itself will gain in strength. (Cheers.) Theu
the hon. member for Manchester has addressed to me
certain questions with respect to the mode in which this
question is to be carried, and he seems to expect that I
should adopt certain measures which he thinks ought to be
adopted for the purpose of carrying this question through
the other house. Sir, it is no part of my view, as a means
of carrying this question, to diminish or to degrade the
constitutional authority of that house. (Cheers.) My
belief is, that as many other questions of the same nature
as the present have been carried by the influence of the
people- at large, and by the influence of this house as the
representatives of the people, so this question will be car-
ried, and that before any long time has elapsed. I think
it would be very unadvisable also to attempt by a vote of
this house to set aside that which I believe to be the true
meaning of the law. When that question came on for con-
sideration I consulted many persons—some of the legal pro-
fession, some politicians and statesmen, but all persons who
had voted for the admission of the Jews—and though there
were certainly some of. them, and those certainly of con-
siderable authority, who said that by a vote of this house
the Jews might be admitted, yet by far the greater num-
ber—those, too, being persons, as I have said, of very con-
siderable authority—were of opinion that you could not,
consistently with the law, come to a resolution admitting
them. Now that was my own opinion • and much as I
think it would be for the advantage of the great cause of
civil and religious liberty, great as the value of this mea-
sure is as a point of principle, and glad as I should be to
see the Jews admitted to Parliament, yet I cannot be a
party to a resolution which I think would be contrary to
the laws of the land. These are, therefore, my reasons for
not adopting two of the modes which the hon. gentleman has
suggested. There wasanother mole, that the Ministry should
declare that they would stand or fall by this question. Now,
I think that every Ministry must judge for itself what are
the questions upon which they will place the fate of their ad-
ministration. (Laughter from the Opposition.) With regard
to this question, what I said in the city of London I re-
peat here. What I told them in the city of London was
- -if you can find a general prevailing sense in the country
that this question should be carried, if the country will
send a great majority of their representatives to support a
bill for the admission of the Jews into the House of Com-
mons, depend upon it you will not long have any great re-
sistance in the House of Lords. I believe that the
House of Lords would, on a question of this kind, listen
to the sense of the country clearly pronounced. Now, I
cannot say, though we had majorities for a long time in
Parliament on this question—l cannot say that we have
anything more to urge upon the House of Lords at present
than these repeated majorities. I must say, as the hon.
gentleman has forced me to the confession, that we have it
not to say that the overwhelming sense of the country is
in favour of this measure. What we have to affirm is,
that there have been repeated majorities on this question;
that the carrying of a bill upon this question be quite in
conformity with the bills that have been carried, removing
the restrictions on the Protestant Dissenters, and remov-
ing the restrictions on the Roman Catholic ; that it would
be in conformity with the general policy of this country ;
and that there appears to be—l must again repeat it—
something illiberal in saying to the Jews, " We were forced
to admit the Roman Catholics, because their strength was
too strong for us to resist ; we were forced to admit the
Protestant Dissenters, because their political influence was
such that we could not any longer put restrictions upon
them ; but the Jews are a small and insignificant body,
and there is, as the right lion. member for Midhurst (Mr.
Walpole) said, no political necessity for admitting them,
and therefore, what signifies justice, what signifies reason,
what signifies the argument of what is due to the Jews, we
can safely do to them what we could not do to the Roman
Catholics and to the Protestant dissenters." (Hear,
hear, hear.) I think that Parliament cannot very
long stand upon that ground, and I therefore, do
expect that the Jews will be admitted by a vote
of the other house of Parliament. I have seen symptoms,
even in the present year, of conversions upon this question.
I saw with great pleasure, in the last division that took
place on this subject, the noble lord, the son of the late
Prime Minister, add the weight of his vote, of his distin-
guished name, and of his remarkable talents,' in favour of
this measure. I augur well from that vote— it shows me
that the question is making progress. I find that others
who were formerly opposed to this bill were now voting
in its favour ; and I cannot but consider that when it shall
be carried it will be, as I have already said, the completion
of that system of religious liberty for the construction of
which so much has been already done. (Loud cheers.)
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading 283
Against it 230

Majority 53
The bill was therefore read a third time and passed.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
The third reading of this bill was postponed to Monday.

PILOTAGE BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that this bill would be placed
in the list for Monday, to pass through committee.
KEEPER OF THE PRIVY SEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to abolish the salary attached to the office of Keeper
of the Privy Seal for Scotland, and to enable her Majesty,
her heirs and successors, to nominate a Chairman of the
General Board of Directors of Prisons in Scotland.
The house then adjourned at ten minutes past one
o'clock.