The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-12 00:00:00

was not one of those who believed that religion had no-
thing to do with politics ; but he said that sectarianism
had nothing to do with them. In a free country like this,
where the religious body was divided into, innumerable
sects and denominations, that house must reflect these
differences, and it would not, upon the theory that the
Legislature would be unchristianised, exclude a British
subject from a political right on account of his religious
faith*. He did not believe that this measure would tend
in the slightest degree to impair the interests of Chris-
tianity, while it would show to all the nations of the
world that we believed religion and liberty to be indis-
solubly united.
Mr. HENLEY observed, that it was argued by the sup-
porters of this measure, that every man had an absolute
right to enter that house, and that to require the qualifi-
cation of being a Christian was to evince a persecuting
spirit. He thought this was not a political but a religious
question ; this might be called prejudice, but he deemed it
principle. If Jews were allowed to make laws binding the
Crown and its advisers, why should they be restrained
from advising the Crown on religious matters ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said—Having been heard on a for-
mer occasion on this subject, I trust the house will allow
me to give some answers to the arguments that have been
used against the proposition I have brought forward. Be-
fore doing so, may I be allowed to mention a matter which
is personal to myself, and which has been raised in the
course of this discussion on the last night of the debate, in
regard to my position in respect to this question. It was
represented by an hon. member who doubtless had heard
it out of doors, that I had introduced this question solely
out of regard to my constituents, who had elected a Jew to
represent them in Parliament. Now, it so happened that
before there was any question of the election of Baron
Rothschild, I had been asked by the Jews to undertake
this question, and if I am• asked why, I can only say that
I have always taken a part in questions of this kind—that
I had spoken on the second reading of a bill introduced by
Sir Robert Grant, in 1833 or 1834, and it so happened that
I spoke on a question of a similar kind in 1846. Many
years ago I undertook a question of a similar kind for the
Protestant dissenters—namely the removal of the disabili-
ties imposed by the Test and Corporation Acts, and I
imagine that I acted in that case from the same motives.
I had no personal interest in the matter, (Hear.)
But feel-
ing very strongly the reasons urged against persons being
excluded by. what I considered an unjust restriction, and
being called upon by the persons suffering under these un-
just restrictions to undertake their cause, I did not hesitate
to do so. With regard to the historical portion of the
question—namely, the object of introducing the oath, I
believe we are all agreed. The hon. and learned gentle-
man near me said that these words were not introduced to
exclude the Jews, but for a different purpose—to impose a
more rigorous test upon the admission of Roman Catholics.
If an application had at that time been made for the ad-
mission of the Jews I think they would not have admitted
them, but then it would not have been upon religious
grounds, but because they were aliens; and that objection
was taken so late as the reign of William 111. I will not
contend that the Parliament of the day, if the question
had been brought before them, would not have
excluded. 1
the Jews ; what I contend is, that, in point of fact, Parlia-
ment never introduced that declaration or test for the pur-
pose of placing
a religious bar to the admission of the Jews.
Therefore, it remains for us to consider, not whether we
will remove what was a bar for the purpose of excluding
the Jews, but a bar for a different purpose, which n'olor
operates to their exclusion. If we take the opinions of
those who oppose it from the opinions of the hon. member
for Surrey, there would be very little difficulty, because he
admits that on political grounds he sees no reason for their
exclusion. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last took
a much less strong ground, because all the arguments on
the subject go much more to the exclusion of sects different
from the Established Church than to the exclusion of the
Jews. Because it is obvious that the "questions brought
• into this house are much more likely to lead to opposition
from others than from the Jews. Take, for instance, the
question of the union of this country with Scotland.
Presbyterians were admitted into the house, and questions
arose upon episcopal authority, according to which Pres-
byterians were totally unfitted to decide, being opposed to
episcopal authority altogether. Take, for instance, the
question of the extension of the Protestant Church—the
Roman Catholics can have no sympathy with us in any F
bill which may be introduced into this house for that pur-
pose. The argument, if good for anything, goes to the ex-
elusion of the Roman Catholics ; but when we come to the
question of the Jews, there are few questions on which
they will feel an interest contrary to the majority of
Churchmen. ,An hon. gentleman suggested the question
of the observance of the Sabbath ; but I cannot say that ]
we have made much progress in that question, or that the
discussions on it have been creditable to this house. As
regardi the maintenance of the Protestant Church and
clergy, we should have far less enmity from the Jews than. 2
from many sects whom we have already admitted. The 2
question is simply reduced to this—that there is a differ-
ence of religious opinion. It is on account of the religious k
error of the Jews that you propose to maintain their exclu-
sion. Upon that question I feel that it is too late in the /
day to argue. Those who maintain that on account 2
of the wide difference between Jews and Christians
the Jews should be excluded, go upon a principle which 1 2
cannot urge, but against which I have the strongest
opinions. My belief is that the imposition of political 2
disabilities on men bemuse of a difference of religion, is 2
exactly the same in principle as if you visited them with fi
fine and imprisonment. The difference between persecu- 2
tion in former times and the present had been pointed out, l
but those who condemned the Madiais, did it upon precisely 1
the same principle as those who excluded the Jews. For S
my part, I cannot agree in it because it is a religious per- 2
secution. Here are the two principles opposed, and you 2
must take either—you must stand upon one„or the other. S
If you take it upon the one, then all religion,. persecution
may be justified—all penalties may be imposed which have
led to those dreadful scenes of civil war and dissension and ji
desolation which have prevailed from the beginning of
history to the present time. The other principle is that s
which has gradually grown up with our civilisation—which
tends to make men love one another—which induces them su.
to lire in harmony as one family, and in concord with the 15
state—which leaves every man in possession of the inde-
pendent exercise of his own religious convictions,
and which thereby removing all penalties and dis- 64
abilities, all punishments for the profession of faith, does,
I believe, conduce more than the severest punishment, gi
more than fire and rack—(oh, and cheers)—more than 5
solemn oaths and declarations, to the diffusion of just 7i
opinions. (Cheers.) It is because I hold these opinions— 6-1
because I am not indifferent to the triumph of Christianity
—because I believe that Christianity will triumph amidst ei
the greatest liberty and the free diffusion of opinion—on 10
these grounds I believe that its triumph will be aided and 20
crowned by the removal of the last remnant of disabilities.
(Loud cheers.)
St.
Mr. NEWDEGATE asked, if all political disabilities 5
were considered persecution, why retain the disabilities in St.
the bill ? If people of all religious opinions were to be re-
presented in that house, why not Atheists ? He prayed st,
the house to retain its religious character, and not create a St.
new religious qualification.

Mr. V. SCULLY, on his own part and on that of the 6,
Roman Catholic body generally, gave his cordial support
to the bill. 60
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading 263 a.
Against it 212

16
Majority for the second reading 5l St.
St.
COMBINATION OF WORKMEN.

-- • -
Mr. DRUMMOND obtained leave to bring in a bill to St.
amend and explain an act passed in the sixth year of 50
George IV., to repeal the law relating to combinations
amongst workmen, and to make other provisions in lieu st.
thereof.
The Consolidated Fund Bill passed through committee. so
The Metropolitan Improvement Bill, as amended, was n 2;
considered, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
The Land Improvement (Ireland) Bill, as amended, was 12
considered, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
The Oaths in Chancery Bill went through committee. 25
The Indemnity Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The house adjourned at five minutes after twelve o'clock. 10

ROYAL lIUMANE SOCIETY.

12.
The seventy-ninth annual dinner of this admirable c 8,.•
institution took place on Thursday at the'Freemason's °"
Tavern, the Right Hen. the Earl of Powis in the chair.
The company was very numerous. After the usual 16:20
loyal toasts, the chairman proposed the health of the 5
Duke of Norfolk, and prosperity to the Royal Humahe 2
Society. He urged in warm language the claims of so
beneficent an institution to the support of the public. St.
Among other circumstances, he stated that during the 20
last year 273,000 persons had bathed in the Serpentine, St.
of which number 20 had been rescued by the officers of
this society. During the nine weeks' frost which they 15
had recently experienced, 110,000 persons and upwards 8
had amused themselves upon the ice. Of that number,
229 were rescued by the officers of the society, and only 10
one case had proved fatal. It was very much to be 10
desired that all inventors of apparatus for the pievention 25
of loss of life upon the water, or upon the ice, would cause 10
a complete set of it to be forwarded -to the Exhibitions of 10 6
London and New York, for investigation ; and he trusted;
as a collateral object, that they would interest themselves 214?
in the support of the Irish Exhibition, which promised
to prove eminently serviceable to the future prosperity '"
of Ireland.
The toast was received with the greatest enthusiasm,
25 17
and afterwards came the interesting ceremony of pre-
senting medals to the various persons who had been the -
means of rescuing human lives from drowning. Accord-
ing to the usual custom the individuals whose lives had 10 been saved, passed in procession round the room, fol. 5 ,
lowed by the various persons 'to whom they owed their 20
preservation.
20
The musical arrangements, under the direction of 20
Mr. Hobbs,
20
gave tie greatest satisfaction. Miss Emma
Phillips, Miss Fanny Rowland, Mr. Francis, Mr. Hobbs, 20 '
Mr. Cummings, Mr. G. Buckland, and Mr. H. Phillips, 5
20
took part in them.
20
Mr. Harker was as efficient as usual as toastmaster.

[ADVERTISEMENT. ]— THE ROYAL EXHIBITION. —A
valuable newly-invented, very small powerful waistcoat
pocket glass,
the size of a walnut, by which a person can
be seen and known 11 miles distant ; they answer every
purpose on the race course, at the opera houses, country
scenery, and ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 miles ;
they are invaluable for shooting, deer stalking, yachting,
to sportsmen gentlemen, game keepers, and tourists.—
To be had at 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly-observe,
opposite the York Hotel. Telescopes.— A new and most
important invention in telescopes, possessing such extra-
ordinary powers, that some, 31 inches, with an extra
eye piece, will show distinctly Jupiter's moons, Saturn's
ring, and the double stars. With the same telescope,
weighing only three ounces, can be seen a person's
countenance 31 miles distant, and an object from 16 to
20 miles. They supersede every other kind for the waist-
coat pocket, and are of larger, and all sizes with increas-
ing powers accordingly. Opera and race-course glasses,
with wonderful powers. An object can be clearly seen
from 14 to 16 miles distant. Messrs. S. &B. Solomons,
opticians, have invented invaluable preserving spectacle
lenses ; immediately they are placed before imperfect
vision, every object appears clear and distinct ; the most
aged defective sight becomes bright and brilliant,' is
brought to its youthful, natural, and original state. The
invisible organic vibrator, and all kinds of acoustic in-
struments for relief of extreme deafness.-39, Albemarle-
street, ,Piecadilly, opposite the York Hotel,

10
20
10
20