The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-27 00:00:00

WEIITECEILPEL.

1214

71,s
10%
3,4
3%

Our market today was but moderately supplied with
each kind of meat, the demand for which was in a
sluggish state on the following terms :—Beef, from 2s 21
to 3s 4d; Mutton. 2s 6d to 3s 8d; Lamb, 4s 64 to
os na; -veal, 31 441 to 3S- 8,1; and -Pon, 3s 4d to 4s 4d
per 81bi by the carcase.

Miss WooLGAR's BENEFIT.—The benefit of this
charming, talented, and versatile artiste, takes place
this evening at the Adelphi theatre, and we have no
doubt but that the house will be a bumper.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat
yesterday, and concluded the hearing of an appeal (part
heard), Wilson v. Wilson, from the Court of Arches. An
appeal from New South Wales, " The Marchioness of
Bute v. Mason," was commenced.
GR1311398Y, JUNE 26.—The Kate smack, at anchor on
Burnham Ridge, this morning, was run into by the Her.
cules sloop, of Rochester, and received considerable
damage. The Hercules proceeded.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 26.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that on that day
week he would present a petition from Dr. Rice and
others, on the subject of prison discipline, as connected
with the administration of the criminal law, and he would
then take the opportunity of
their Lordships' at-
tention to the important subject.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of the
Parliamentary Oaths Bill,
The Earl of CARLISLE said that, in asking their
Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill, he could
not but be sensige that he laboured under a source of
much discouragement, as, with reference to one of the
most important a
tmight clausesspareof t h the
himßill,h
ttehe
necessityopinionof
of
going
Lordships was taken last session of Parliament, and given
against it. 'that
into all the antecedent circumstances of the Bill, which
he must have done if it had been brought now, for the
first time, before their Lordships' notice. Although
there were some things to damp the efforts in favour of
this Bill, yet the general spirit of their legislation
tended to favour the object contemplated. It would also
be peceived that the Bill now before their Lordships was
not identical with the Bill of last year, but sought to ex-
tend its remedies and its scope further. The Bill of last
year dealt exclusively with Jews, whereas the present
Bill proposed to extend its provisions to certain
classes of Christians. At present the oaths of allegiance,
supremacy, and abjuration, were taken by all Members
of Parliament. It was proposed to substitute in its stead
a compendious and simple form of oath, which should
contain all that was pertinent and necessary in these
oaths. It might be said that this involved an inquiry
into the propriety of dispensing with oaths entirely. It
was quite clear that the Noble Lords he was addressing
having taken these oaths, must have been persuaded of
the lawfulness of taking them. But at the same time
some of their Lordships had manifested a wish to be
exempt from them, and were not equally convinced of
their lawfulness. But whatever difference of opinion
might exist on this head, he was convinced that they
would all agree with biro, that when an oath was admi-
nistered it ought to be made as binding, as specific, and
as reverential as possible.—(Hear). There ought to be
nothing superfluous or unnecessary in them, and he felt
compelled to state that the oaths taken at their Lord-
ship's table, and at that of the other House of Parlia-
ment, were not exempt from this disparagement. He
felt at all times disposed to regard with reverence the ad-
ministration of an oath, but he confessed he never was
less disposed to spontaneous reverence than when listen-
ing to the phrases in the oath of allegiance relating to
the Pretender, the Princess Sophia, and to a family
which had disappeared from the face of the
earth.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") In the oath of
supremacy the power of any foreign potentate what-
ever in these realms was abjured. Now, whatever might
be the licence of interpretation put upon language, it
was well known that there were peers who had a here-
ditary right to sit in that House, and who were capable
of taking a part in their deliberations with great advan-
vtaignoeetdo
tthhaeti r
those Lordshipswords and
wereth eocpopuonstordy , t
owho h werethe
t r,
o tcho.
—nd
(Hear, hear.) Lord Clancarty, nobleman whoseo ad-
ministration ministration of the poor-law in Ireland had been f
the
most distinguished character, had refused to takeh
oualdsubfe..
oath,taken
plainhe believedsense. thatrrhe
These
ficient ground for altering the oaths administered to the
Christian Members of either House of Parliament. But
hmeaicnoualndd nesostenctoinacleoahl
object
tomof tthheeiruiLllowrdasshitpoi
admittha
the
aeJrfegwtuhsme
einto s
raPeddadrugl Parliament.—(Hear, iduennidnt —00e:wo eshai
itrei,ohnh,et
hahare.t)
reasonses e
wor
ds
formeds
wouldprti He
o was
svii t proposition
hn awarehthaed
been resisted, and if he believed in the validity of the
Bill to be defeated. But he laid down, as the cardinal
principle by which they ought to be guided, that unless
in case of proved and irresistible necessity, religious
opinions should not form a cause for civil disqualifica-
tion. That had been acted upon to a large extent by
the Legislature of late years. Within his own par-
liamentary experience, they had admitted Roman Catho-
lics to Parliament; they had removed many disabilities
from various classes of Dissenters and, in the case of
the Jews themselves, there had been a successive series
of relaxations by the Bth, 9th, and 10th of Victoria;
their schools and synagogues were placed on a footing of
equality with all other Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) When
they saw the Jews exercising the elective franchise, dis-
pensing justice, and practising at the bar—(Hear, hear)
—when they saw them acting as high sheriffs, justices of
the peace, aldermen, and mayors, he thought that the
principle of exclusion was almost given up.—(Hear,
hear.) Indeed, the Jews were the only class of her Ma-
jesty's subjects to which these exclusions and disabilities
now Applied. In their case, exclusion from seats in

Parliament was the only one now remaining. He could
not see any possible evil to arise from their introduction
into the Legislature. He believed that it had been ably
proved there had never been any direct legislation to
exclude them, but it was by an indirect and inferential
application of words in Acts passed for other purposes
they were so.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe that
their Lordships would refuse their assent to this Bill,
because the Jews were a peaceable people, who would
not descend into the streets, raise barricades, and
cry "To your tents, 0 Israel."—(A laugh.) He
would not have the bad taste to menace their Lordships
with any evil consequences from their rejection of this
measure; but he would cay, that looking at the pro-
gressive liberality of our past legislation, at the deter-
mination of the parties who had taken up the question,
and the feeling of the people at large, he could not but
think that it would be wise for their Lordships not to
embitter this contest by protracting a struggle which
must be ultimately unavailing.—(Hear, hear.) He would
not detain the Houae either by expatiating upon the high
respectability and unsullied morality of the Jews, or the
praiseworthy manner in which they discharged all their
duties of citizens. With respect to the particular views
it was not necessary to advert to them at any length,
were it not that with all the generosity and kiwi hearted.
ness which he knew animated their Lordships, he felt
that it was specially on that ground they felt a difficulty
in agreeing to the measure.—(Hear, hear.) It was not as
Church of England men they refused assent, but because
he thought that by giving a fresh mark of honour to the
Jews they were in fact swerving from the allegiance
they owed to the Redeemer they worshipped. He was
well aware of the difficulty cf arguinte a religious ques-
tion in the presence of the spiritual Peers. But when
he was aware of the resistance of the religious scruple,
ho trusted ha might without irreverence to advert
slightly to it, though it was by no means that point of
view on which he most strongly rested his advocacy of
this measure. The past calamities and captivities of the
Jews, and their present dispersion were attributed by
their own prophets and sacred writers to their disobedi-
ence to the Almighty; yet even in these writings a re-
cognition of the sacredness of the nation itself was re-
corded. It was the like tree stricken with lightning, the
ruins of which were yet hallowed. The question was
what was the line of conduct marked out for us at the
present time ? Whatever might be the censure cf
events, that would bring about the fulfilment of
prophecy, it was no part of our duty to anticipate it.
—(Hear, hear.) It was our duty humbly to fulfil the
letter of the law of Christian love, and leave to the Crea-
tor the accomplishment of his own purposes in his own
time.—(Lend cheers.) He was thankful that the tierce
and undisguised persecution which, acting upon the
contrary principle, had been applied to the Jews in for-
mer ages, was now extinct, but he feared that, congra-
tulating ourselves upon this circumstance, we might in a
more refined mode, still gratify that persecuting spirit,
fer persecution it essentially was, when any body of
men were excluded from the rights of citizens
on account of religious opinions.—(Hear, hear.)
Looking at any possible mischief that might arise from
their introduction into the Legislature, he would ask if
they were more likely to be infected with the doctrines
of Radicalism, Republicanism, or Socialism than other
classes? Ile believed not, but the very contrary; and as far
as any interference with the spiritual or temporal powers
of the Church was concerned, he was convinced that
from no class of the community was that less to be appre-
hended. With reference to the statement that this
was and ought to continue to be a Christian Legislature,
he conceived that the introduction of a few members of
the Hebrew persuasion into Parliament would no more,
unchristlanise the Legislature than the fact of the exist-
ence of a small body of Jewish fellow-citizens destroyed
the existence of the natioa as a Christian nation.--
(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelates, and their
clergy in their pulpits, urged with eloquence, learnine,
and in an evangelical spirit, the great truth of our reli-
gion. This was one mode of making a Christian nation;
but there was, perhaps, even a more effective one
of impregnating, as it were, the whole atmosphere
around us with Christian habits and feelings, and
that was to bring others from the outer fuld into associa-
tion, or at least approximation with us, by the active
exercise of piety and brotherly love. The open exhibi-
tion of that spirit of Christian charity, which was so
powerful, and which, properly followed out by them,
would be so powerful as again to cause them to say—
" See how these Christians love oneanother."—(Cheers )
Our language ought to be—" Come among us; see more
of us." We boasted of having imbibed the lessons of
a sublimer piety and of a purer morality than were ever
taught by any other than the Divine Founder of our
religion, and which, if carried into practice, would realise
all the dreams of poets prophets, and the highest aspi•
rations of legislators. It was our duty to act in accord-
ance with these lessons. They ought to discard all un-
worthy fears regarding the admission of Jews to Parlia-
ment. In dealing with this subject he felt the utmost
distrust of his judgment. He was conscious that to a
certain extent he might be liable to error, but
he had not addressed himself to this high theme in a
presumptuous or unworthy spirit. The Christianity
which they professed and regarded needed not any
bulwark or guarantee, and they should bear in mind that
truly Christian doctrine of doing unto others as they
would be done by others. He felt that he was not pro-
posing and urging on their adoption a measure unworthy
of their Lordships, either as Peers of Parliament or as
fathers of the Church. He felt that he was not offend-
ing against any of the most honoured associations of that
aihiembly when lee onaled on them to admit the low pee-
scented race of Jews to the sign and substance of equa-
lity, by removing the disability which now prevented
their sitting in Parliament; and to crown the great mea-
sure of retribution for all the woes and wrongs of the
the past. In conclusion the Noble Earl moved the
second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of EGLINTON said that the present mea-
sure, though it was brought forward under another
name, and though it proposed to deal with the whole
Parliamentay oath, was to all intents and purposes the
same Bill that their Lordships did themselves so much
honour by rejecting last session by a majority very
different indeed from the majorities which they had
lately seen in that House. The Bill was nothing
more nor less than a Bill for the purpose of re-
lieving Jewish disabilities. and enabling Baron Roths-
child to sit in the other House of Parliament. He
objected to the Bill principally on religious grounds, and
also for political reasons. The constituency of London
had chosen a gentleman, however worthy in private
character and worldly position, they knew could not sit
in Parliament. He could not but look on the Bill as a
retrospective measure, and he did not deem it expedient
to go into ex pestfacto legislation to legalise the election
of a Member disqualified from sitting in Parliament.
He also objected to the Bill because the Jews were,
and called themselves, a separate nation. They had no
patriotic or family ties in this country. They were es-
sentially citizens of the world, and if they admitted Jews
he did not see why they should not admit aliens of all
descriptions. Admit the Jew, and you would have the
Mahomedan demanding to be sworn on the Koran, and
the infidel demanding that the words " in the name of
God should be erased from the oath." The consequence
would be that they would have the table covered with a
list of oaths for Members to select, as they would their
coats or their walking sticks. The Noble Earl having
argued that the admission of Jews would materially tend
to lower the character of their Lordships' House, con-
cluded by moving, as an amendment, that the Bill should
be read a second time that day three months.
The Duke of CLEVELAND supported the Bill. He
did not wish to give a silent vote now, because, when a
somewhat similar measure was brought forward in 1830,
he had voted against its adoption on three strong
grounds. Firstly, because Jews did not embrace the
Christian faith, an objection which still existed, but in a
mitigated form; secondly, because there were several
other classes of British born subjects not admitted into
Parliament,' who had stronger claims to admission than
the Jews put forward; thirdly, an apprehension that by
the influence of money they might force their way into
Parliament against the wishes of the independent por-
tion of the constituency. The two latter objections had
been entirely removed, and the first had been consi•
derably mitigated. Quakers, who, at that time were
debarred from sitting in Parliament, had been since ad-
mitted. He thought it a case of great hardship and in-
justice that after te admission of the Quaker the Jew
should be excluded. He was not aware that they had
done anything which caused them to be stigmatised as
bad citizens; and, believing them to bo an industrious,
harmless, money-making class, he did not see why their
disability should not be removed.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that, having
last year given his reasons for voting against this Bill, and
no change having taken place in circumstances since
then, no change had taken place in his opinion. The
principle of the Bill was to lower the distinctive charac-
of our legislators, by rendering it unimportant whether
they were Christians or not. This was a very unoppor-
tune moment to attempt such a change. England pre-
sented a great contrast to the broken and disordered state
of other nations. They stood secure against the storms
of anarchy. That other nations attributed to the Chris-
tianity which distinguished the country. In India, and
throughout the world, most important mercies had been
vouchsafed to us. The Divine favour had been specially
granted to us in the conduct of our national affairs, and
this was not the time to disown the national Christia-
nity.—(Cheers.) Let them not endeavour to commit
that solecism in legislation of endeavouring to lower
their principles to their practice. They should rather
endeavour to raise the standard of their practice to their
principles. These were the grounds upon which he
should entreat their Lordships not to sanction this
measure.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN said the question was
whether the electors should exercise their own judgment,
or whether the Legislature should tie them down to
select from any particular class their representatives.
He thought the electors should have a free choice on
that subject, unless some great public advantage could
be derived from pursuing a contrary course. He saw
no advantage from depriving them of this privilege. It
was contrary to Christianity to impose any disabilities,
civil or otherwise, upon those who differed with them in

religious opinion. That was contrary to the wishes of
the Founder of Christianity, who declared that his
kingdom was not of this world.—(Cheers.) They
ought then to have no idea of monopol6ing civil privi-
leges. It was not lawful for them to keep up th se civil
penalties for belief in Christianity. But it was said
that this was a question of principle, and that the doing
away with these distinctions would do dishour to Chris-
tianity. He admitted that it was a question of prin-
ciple, but differed with those who asserted this as to
what was doing dishonour to Christianity. It was said
that those who supported this Bill were latitudinarians
and lukewarm Christians. He could not concur in these
views. He felt no indifference to the society to which
he belonged; but if those who were not members of
the Church—nay, open and avowed assailants of the
Church—were admitted within those walls, they ought
either to go forward or backward. Would they feel
inclined to retrace their steps? He thought not.' Then
they should go forward and remove this last disability.
—(Cheers.) He thought if they did not proceed they

t might be charged with indifference. They should re•
move this last barrier. As to the propriety of the Jew
being elected, unless there was some imminent evil of
danger to the Church or State, the electors ought not to
have their hands tied.—(Hear, hear.) He thought there
was no such danger to be apprehended, and should,
therefore, give his hearty support to the Bill.
The Bishop of EXE I'ER said he did not like the
arguments that had just been used in favour of this Bill.
This case stood on clear ground. The Jew stood on a
different footing from the Christian. He did not agree
that any of those now in Parliament wound so far forget
the condition upon which they were entitled to a .eat
within those walls as openly to avow their intention to
injure the Church or State.—(Hear.) Those very oaths,
which were so quietly disposed of, were the condition
upon which Wilburn and Mary came to the throne.
After making the declaration of rights, the Bill pro-
ceeded to recite these oaths. Having reed them, the
Right Rev. Prelate continued—lt was upon that condition
and solemn engagement that the King and Queen ac-
cepted the royal crown and dignity, and their Lordships
were brought into such a condition that night that they
might unanimously put the finishing stroke to the
distinction of the constitution as then agreed to. It had
been contended in the other House of Parliament, that
the oath of supremacy was unnecessary, because the oath
of allegiance contained all that was required. But if that
was the case, the oath of allegiance must be c ,nstrued
in two differ: nt ways, for the Jews did not hold any alle-
giance to the Pepe. If their Lordships passed the Bill,
they would stultify themselves by giving a two-fold and
opposite construction to the words true allegiance," by
which they would be made to repudi ite allegiance to the
Popo, and affirm allegiance to the Sovereign of the realm
at the same time. Passing by these pointe, however, he
would now come to the principle on which the Noble Earl
(Carlisle) grounded the Bill, namely, the equal right of
all citizens to all civil rights, irrespective of religious
opinions. He admitted that principle as applied to a
republic, but it was not so in a monarchy. In a mo-
narchy these franchises and rights were granted to
those who were considered most likely to defend the
monarchy and serve it most faithfully. Our monarchy
was based upon a contract. It was based upon the con-
dition that we would uphold the laws of God and the
Constitution as established, and, therefore, no one
had an indefeasible right to constitutional privileges.
They were enjoyed as of grace under the original con-
ditions, the principal of which was to faithfully serve
the monarch, and uphold the institutions in Church and
State. Now could a Jew give good faithful counsel to
the Sovereign, who, by virtue of her position, was the
head of the Church? He thought not ; and it was in
this way he conceived that they would he abandoning
the distinctive Christianity of our constitution,—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Earl (Carlisle) said that the admis-
sion of a few Jews would no more unchristianise the
Legislature than the existence of a few thousands of
Jewish fellow-citizens unchristianised the nation. But
Parliament differed from the nation. It was a selected
body, upon certain conditions. It was a Christian body
only so long as it acted upon Chrisdan principles and
feelings. It was argued further, as a reason for agreeing
to this measure, that great relaxations had already been
made. But, though the ancient constitution had been
broken in upon, they still bad a faith in ono common Re-
deemer, and they should still retain that distinctive
mark. He would conclude by earnestly imploring their
Lordships to reject this Bill, as a dangerous innovation,
and one totally unjustified by the arguments adduced in
its favour.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY considerei this mea-
sure mere as a political than a religious ore, and in
these days of growing liberalism of opinion and popular
discontent, he thought they were bound to concede every
practicable privilege to the people at large.—(Hear.)
lie must, however, point out what appeared to him the
short comings of the Bill before their Lordships. By the
preamble it appeared that the Bill was intended for the
emancipation of the Jews and the restriction of the
Raman Catholics. To carry out this view, he would ob-
serve that the Protestant, who now takes the oath in its
most literal sense, is by this Bill relieved from all diffi-
culty. The Quakers were by it still further freed from
any existing restriction or difficulty : the Jew was, he
trusted, also about to be released from his disabilities,
but the Catholic was still fettered, and in some important
Parliamentary questions prevented from taking part, or
if he did so, it was at the risk of being taunted with a
violation of his oaths.—(Bear.) So that the Jew would
be more trusted than the Catholic. It was not in a spirit
of hostility to the Church Establishment that he pointed
out the faults of this measure, but in order to force
on their Lordships the consideration of the propriety of
removing all invidious distinctions, and of making but
one law for all. So strongly did he feel on this subject,
that if the Bill went into Committee, which he strongly
hoped it would, he should move an amendment to that
effect. It was sufficient to justify him in that course, to
show that the meaning of the Roman Catholic oath was
contested and doubtful. On the one hand, it was con-
tended that they were restricted from taking part in any
question affecting the temporalities of the Church,
while another party held that no such restriction ex-
isted.—(Hear, hear.) He desired to remove this anomaly,
and to place the Roman Catholics upon an equality with
the Quakers, the Dissenters, and the Jews. He thought
it was unbecoming their Lordships' dignity to maintain
such an inequality, and if they passed the Bill in its
present shape, he should believe the Roman Catholic
oath was for ever fixed in a restricted sense, in which
case he should feel that they were placed in far too un
ema honnilinting a position; and ho for ono should
feel that he had no right there, as being placed in a
situation incompatible with the free exercise of his duty
as a legislator.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WINCHILSEA said if any one had
doubted as to the infidel spirit which had for many years
characterised our legislation, that doubt must be re-
moved by the Bill on the table. It was an insult to a
Christian people, and to the Almighty, whose Son had
come down from heaven to give us that religion which
had bestowed upon our country so many blessings. It
was an interference with the rights and permanence of
the Crown—with the rights of that House of which he
was an humble Member, and of the Lower House of
Parliament. What was the crime of that very people
to which this Bill referred, and which brought down the
judgment of the Almighty upon them, but a warning to
us that all who rejected or despised the Saviour would
be visited with the same calamities and the same signal
manifestation of the displeasure of the Creator? Towards
the Jewish people God was his witness he bore no ill
will. Hardness of heart and judicial blindness had
caused them to reject the God whom we worshipped.
They were once the favoured people of God, but that re-
jection had brought down his judgments upon them.
His earnest prayer was that they might be again re-
stored to the fold, but he could not consent to imitate
them in their judicial blindness, and repudiate the die-
tinctive character of a Christian. This would be a fatal
measure for England's greatness, should their Lordships
be deluded into passing such a Bill as that upon their
table. National sins brought national punishments; and
if turmoils, tempests, and revolutions had visited other
countries, while ours was the only firm spot amid the
chaos, it was not because of our own merits, but by the
mercy of that God whose worship, with all our back
sliding, we still maintained. It had been stated by the
Right Reverend Prelate, that this was not a religious
measure, and the Noble Earl had said that if it inter-
fered with any religious principle be would rather it did
not pass. Why, the Lord himself had declared that the
people who honoured him he would honour; and he
would ask in what way they could better honour him
than by upholding in all its integrity his worship and
religion.
_ _

The Duke of ARGYLE regretted to have heard the
Noble Earl who last addressed the House, stating that a
measure supported by a large number of their Lordships,
and by distinguished Fathers of the Church, was founded
on a spirit of Christian infidelity. While he made that ad-
mission, he confessed he could not concur in some of the
grounds on which that measure had been defended, and,
among others, that religious opinions and religious faith
should not form the ground of political disability. The
great preponderance of argument, however, was
vour of the measure. The question before their Lord-
ships was, whether in the existing circumstances of the
country, those political disabilities were justifiable or
not? It was said that they were a Christian people, and
a Christian Parliament. Were they a Chrisjan people
then, and in what sense were all the people of that
country Christians, either in reality or in name? Were all
the Members of both Houses of Parliament Christians,
in the high sense of the term? Could they think of se-
curing their Christianity by the continuance of religious
or political disabilities? He contended they could not.
It appeared to him, that if they could not effect the ob-
ject for which the disability was professedly kept up,
they ought to remove it. It appeared to him to be most
unjust towards those who were now the only party ex-
cluded, that that exclusion should be continued. There-
fore he supported the Bill, but not, he admitted, with-
out reluctance and some regret. They could not secure
the Christianity of Parliament by the imposition of such
oaths as the tJew objected conscientiously to take, and
the sooner, therefore, it was altered the better.
Lord NELSON opposed the Bill, and in doing so re-
peated almost all the arguments that have been ad-
vanced over and over again by the opponents of the
measure, both in this and the other House of Parliament.
He laid peculiar stress on its tendency to unchristianise
the character of the Legislature, and gave it as his opi-
nion that the Dissenters evinced their anxiety for the
success of the measure simply because they believed it
would lead to the separation of Church and State.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that none of the argu-
ments he bad heard urged against the Bill were suffi-
ciently strong to alter the impression left on his mind
by the able speech of the Noble Lord who had moved
the second reading of the Bill. He should give his
support to the measure, but it was not as a Jewish Bill
that he desired it to be considered. Ho looked at the
title of the Bill, which was one for altering the Parlia-
mentary oaths, and there was only one clause in it which
related to professors of the Jewish religion. While he
was anxious for the removal of the disability which
prevented Jews sitting in Parliament, he was still more
desirous that the other portion of the Bill should be
carried into effect. It was quite competent for those
who objected to the admission of Jews into Parliament to
support the second reading, and move the rejection in
ionr
Committee of the clause affecting that body. He had
long been anxious to see a measure introduced into Par-
liaMent for the alteration of the Parliamentary h
he felt that in many respects it required alteration and
modification.

EariTiESART said he would venture to say, in a few
worth, what he conceived to be the substance of the
Bill. It was simply that principle which their Lordships
year. He should be glad to rec ive the
Jews
rejected
as
fellow countrymen and fellow-citizzns, Lut not
last year.
as fellow-legislators. A seat in Parliament was conferred
for the benefit of the nation, and not of individuals.
Tl•re were strong and ample reasons why their Lordships
should at once reject the principle of the Bill. If they
denied admission to Parliament to a man not stiffi&iently
interested in the welfare of the country, from the small
amount of property he possessed, how much more should
it be refused to men who had no permanent interest in

any single country, but were mere citizens of the world?
How could these men legislate properly on subjects con-
nected with the Christian Church? The Jew c ,nsiders
us as idolaters. There was af, cling among the best
part of the community against the Bill. They might
receive the Jews as guests and as friends but they might
go no further.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that, he had no idea of.
troubling their Lordships at any 'length ; indeed he
knew not that he should have troubled their Lordships.
unless an almost personal allusion had been made to,
him. They had been told by the Noble Duke that the
arguments of the Noble Earl who had moved the second
reading had, been entirely ungrappled with. His first
and weightiest argument was, that as we had already ad-
mitted the Jew to a community of civil privileges, we
ought to go further and admit him to equal rights and
privileges with his fellow-citizens. Now it seemed to;
him that the position of a legislator or law-maker was
entirely different from that of a law-administrator. This.
was not calling upon them to do a thing in degree, as alleged,.
for the privilege sought for was different in kind. The
office of legislator was one given for the nation's good,.
for the state's good, and for the good of the Church, and,
not for the delectation of any individual. Was it con-
sidered an injury to the lower clergy to exclude them
from the Commons' House of Parliament? Certainly not.-
That exclusion was justified upon various grounds. Why'
should a Jew sit in Parliament. Was there any Jewish.
constituencies in England? How, then could they fully'
represent the Christian tendencies of their constituent's..
How otherwise would they be elected but by the money
power which they represented? How could the State be
administered on Christian principles by Jews? As soon.
as Christian principles could be brought into legislative,.
Christians were bound to introduce them. And now,.
having been introduced, were they prepared to abolish
them? The Most Rev. Prelate told them for the honour
of Christianity, and in order to prevent the early Chris-
tians from being considered deceivers, he would carry-
the principle out and exclude no one whatever. The'
Noble Lord, in moving the Bill, said that there was no'
direct law against the Jew being admitted to Perlia-
mew!, and only by recent legislation they were so ex-
eluded. Why, the Noble Earl might as well argue that;
because at one time there was no law against parricide..
that therefore no law should ever have been enacted.
against it. Why the possibility of Jews being admitted!
into Parliament was at one time never thought of, their
personal safety was not even protected. As to the argu-
ment that there was no danger from their admission, he,
throught there was great danger, looking to the money'
power, and the influence of that power upon many of the'
constituencies. 'When they considered the relations of
the Jews to affairs on the Continent, there might be a.
strong !nterest on their part to secure a powerful party'
in Parliament, and where there was both a strong into-
rest and a great money power, it was evident that the:
danger was by no means theoretical or imaginary. He)
objected altogether to their admitting that money power,,
apart from general character and principles, was to give!
the right to admission to Parliament.--(Hear, hear.);
They could not deal with motive?, but they could with..
professed principles. There might be many in bothi
Houses of Parliament who cared nothing for religion„
some who did not believe in it; but they did not come ilk
on a profession of their unbelief—(Hear, hear)—and they
could be prevented from acting upon that profession; but;
if they lowered !down the necessary profession, they,
lowered down at the same time the character and profes-
sion of the body.—(Hear, hear.) If they passed this:
Bill they indeed professed unbelief, and if there was this;
danger, it should surely be the last time they should'
seek to lower the character of that Christian assembly,
by admitting those who rejected those principles whicha
alone could raise them as a religious people. The indoor
mitable obstinacy and perseverance of the Jews wass
one reason why he would exclude them. It was because,
he believed they had the will and the power to act upoat
these principles, that he felt, without any disrespect tee
them, they had no right to seats as legislators for es
Christian nation. If the opposite view was maintained,
it must be on the ground that the Hebrew persuasio n
were losing the firm faith which had been transmitted ter
them, and thus the dogmas of Judaism were held in le: Is
respect than before. If such was argued, he would st
those were not men who should be made legislators.-
(Hear, hear.) What they wanted above all things was
earnestness of character, and he would rather have a n
earnest Christian in Parliament attacking the Churc b,
because he was conscientiously opposed to it, the al
one who made no such attacks, because he cared nothii tg
about it.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that they covld
not inflict upon our Jewish fellow-subjects a greater fin-
jury than by admitting them into Parliament, under the
impression that to us all religions were equally indiffer-
ent. Why was it that we were able to give them a re-
fuge and assure them of safety and security for the ir
property? Because our Christianity had made us et
strong and powerful nation, and if they passed this Pill
they would injure and destroy that religion which bad
made us a refuge for scattered nations.—(Cheers.)
The Duke of CLEVELAND explained.
Lord BROUGHANI said the debate was sufficiently
exhausted, and he had on former occasions so fully oz.*
plained his views, that he should have refrained from
addressing their Lordships, bad not the arguments of
the Right Rev. Prelate been of so extraordinary a etre-
meter. After hearing the speech of the Noble Earl
who introduced the Bill, the Right Rev. Prelate Laid
that his arguments were inconsistent. We had ad-
mitted the Jews to mount, not only tho petty, but i;he
high seats of justice, where they held power over the
lives and property of our fellow-subjects. But all this,
said the Right Rev. Prelate, was nothing; they were
merely administrators of the law. But it was a very
different thing to be a legislator. Oh, that he had sat
with them that morning.—(Laughter.) Oh, that he sat
in nisi prius, or in a court of equity, and he would soon
discover how far his innocent imaginings were wide of
the truth.—(Hear, hear.) How little a judge was a
mere instrument, and to what an extent the lives, and
limbs, and properties were at the discretion of judges,
But not only. had we admitted the Jew to the judge's;
seat, but we had admitted him to the legislative office of
an elector.—(Hear, bear.) And then the Right
Reverend Prelate talks d of the influence of money
upon the electors. That argument was in favour of the
Bill, and much more powerful than any he could have
used. The Jew was an elector and used his money for
the furtherance of his views now. The Right Reverend
Prelate drew an impassable line between all other offices
and that of a legislator.---(Hear, hear.) It was only
necessary to state the argument in order to show its ab-
surdity; it was not necessary to pull it in pieces, because
the Legislature was, as all admitted, influenced by public
opinion; and Jews, infidels, and atheists, all united in
returning Members to Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) The
words " on the true faith of a Christian" might prevent
persons of a tender conscience, but persons who had ne
such scruples were not excluded by them. They really'
meant nothing.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate
had given a very uncomfortable and singular account elf
the Jewish faith, and one which he confessed struck
him as by no means a correct one. As to the idea that
two or three Jews getting into Parliament and unhing--
ing the whole Christian system, it was one of the most
ridiculous and extravagant chimeras he had evert
heard, and he really had no patience to waste words
upon it. Why, how could two or three Jews do whet
fifty or sixty Roman Catholics, whom they had already'
admitted, had not attempted to do ?—(Hear, hear-)
But then the Right Reverend Prelate said he would
rather see earnest Christian men attacking the Church.
God forbid he should agree with him, even though he
was a Bishop of that Church.—(Laughter.) But if the
Right Reverend Prelate had any fears of the Jews doing
this, why not introduce in Committee a similar pledgee
as that introduced with reference to Roman Catholics

into the Act of 1629. With respect to what made a
Christian Parliament and a Christian nation, he utterly
denied that the words " on the truo faith of a Christian,"
constituted the foundation of either. The oaths of
abjuration, supremacy, and allegiance, were merely pro-
fessions of political faith, and obedience, which were
made "on the true faith of a Christian," by those who
held that faith. But the Jew in this House, using
these words, gave no guarantee of that political fealty;
and, if he could get that allegiance by a form of words
which would be solemnly binding upon his conscience,
he would do so.—(Hear, hear.) liefusing to allow
the Jews seats in Parliament was withholding
an important privilege under the false pretext of
religious disability. It was taking advantage of a phrase
introduced into an oath for a different purpose, to exclude
a certain sect. The proposed measure was, in point of
fact, tearing the last leat out of the bock of intolerance,
and restoring it to its original and pristine purity. It
was absurd to state that Parliament was in danger of
ceasing to be a Christian Legislature if they removed the
disabilities under which the Jews now laboured. The
admission of the Dissenters and Roman Catholics to
Parliament had not proved dangerous to the Protestant
religion or to the Established Church; but if there had
been any danger from the wealth, activity, and zeal of
these sects exasperated to the pitch of bigotry, it surely
would have been exhibited in Dissenters and Roman
Catholics being admitted to the full and entire privilege,
of exercising the rights and privileges of British electors
and British representatives. Having gone so far tbey
must go farther, to be correct with them:elvexesciaunadedext:ned
btheecapuesremiistsiownatso
wthieseJeruss.t,Tahnedy adhmonnoiotdtuaerrdnedbetCesbxoetchcl:uiudiscees
it was good policy, and good for the empire, and__b honour-
able for themselves ; but, if they
Jews, it would only 'be because theyok
t them
whwhileeh
didthey
tchaes
obweah
lessnd a
harmu than on
th
dide r past
duct,discredit

to the British Legislature.
The Earl of CARLISLE replied, but in so low a
tone, and speaking with his back to the gallery, as to bo
almost inau4ible. He was understood, however, to state
that, with regard to the present form of the Catholic
oath, he would hail with pleasure every opportunity of
placing the Roman Catholics on a perfect level of equality
with their Protestant fellow-countrymen.—(Hear.)
Their Lordships then divided. For the second reading
Contents _

Non-contents
... 95
Majority against the second reading
The Bill was, consequently, lost.
Their Lordships adjourned at Half-past Twelve
o'clock.

-25

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 26.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sir A. BROOKE, amidst loud cries of " Divide," rose
to support the amendment. He thought that as soon as
the 53. rate was exhausted the Consolidated Fund would
be attacked. He was not opposed to a maximum rate,
but he thought that a ss. rate was not high; 7s. was not
either, and he would have voted for a 105. rate if he
could have got it. He concluded by calling upon the
House to vote for the 7s. rate.
The galleries were then cleared, t ni the Rouse divided.
On the original questiBn that the words " five" be
introduced, the numbt rs were—
For the question ...
Against the question
Majority for the question —77
The araencluieni was consequently rejsoied.

... 125
... 48