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

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 pocte, prophets, and the highest aspi-
rations of legislators. It was our duty to act in accord-
ance with these lessons. They ought to discard ell un-
worthy fears regarding the admission of Jeats 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 nut addresoed himself to this high there in a
presumptuous or unworthy spirit. Tne Christianity
which they professed and regarded needed not any
bulwark or guarantee, and they should Lear 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 ther 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
assembly when he called on them to admit the low per-
secuted 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 al! the woes and wrongs of the
the past. Li conclusion the Noble Earl moved the
second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of EGLIN fON said that the present mea-
sure, though it was brought fore and under another
name, and though it proposed to deal with the whole
Parliamentay oath, was to ell 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 alas 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. Ho
objected to the Bill principally on religious grounds, and
also for political reasons. Tho constituency of London
had chosen a gentleman, however worthy in private
character and worldly pcsition, they knew could not sit
in Parliament. He could not but lock on the Bill as a
retrospective measure, and he did not deem it expedient
to go into ex pest facto 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 inaaerially 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 bad 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 thouglst it a case of great hardship and in-
justice that after the 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 be 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 thouala 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 or 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 monopolising civil privi-
leges. It was not lawful fur them to keep up these 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
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.) Ho thought there
was no such danger to be apprehends d, and should,
therefore, give his he arty support to the Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER 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 would so far forget
the c, nditioa upon which they were entitled to a seat
within those walls as op?nly to avow their intention to
injure the Church or State.—(liear.) These very oaths,
which were so quietly disposed of, were the conditio❑
upon which Wiltiam and Mary came to the throne.
After making the declaration of rights, the Bill pro-
ceeded to recite these oaths. Having read 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
dietinctiori of the constitution as then agreed to. It had
been contended in the other House of Parliament, that
the oath of supremacy was unnecessary, becatr e 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 different ways, for the Jews did not hold any alle-
giance to the Pope. 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 repudiate allegiance to the
Pope, and affirm allegiance to the Sovereign of the realm
at the same time. Passing by these points, 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 be 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 unchristianiss 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 Chrisian 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 had a faith in one 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 considered this mea-
sure more as a political than a religious one, 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.)
He must, however, point out what appeared ;O 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
Roman 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
violatiou of his oaths.—(Hear.) So that the Jew would

be more trusted than the Catholic. It was not in a spirit one who made no such attacks, because he cared nothing
ot hostility to the Church Baabliahment that he painted aauut ( Hear, hear.) lie be Hayed hat they could
cut the faults of this measure, but in order to force not iailiet upon our Jewish fall.av-subj,es a greater in-
on their Lorchnips the coasideratien of the propriety of jury than by admitting them into Parliament, under the
removing ztil limas distinctians, and makieg but impression that to us all religions were equally inlffer-
one law furl:;,. So sroeg'y did ho feel not this subjeat, eta. Why Tata: it that we were able to give them a re-
that if the went into Com ait;, e, which he str aagly fuge and assure tla in of safety and security for their
hoped it would, he should move an ametaireent to that property? Beaause our Christianity had made us a
t tract. It was sufficient to justify him in that course, to strong and powerful nation, and if they passed this Bill
show that the meaning of the R man Catholic oath was they would injure and destroy that religion which had
contested and doubtful. On the one hand, it was con- made us a refuge fir scattered nations.—(Cheers.)
tended that they were restricted from te.rktua pars in any The Duke of CLEVELAND explained.
question affactieg the temporalities of the Church, Lard BROUGHAM said the debate was sufficiently
chile another party geld that no such restriction ex- exhausted, and he had on former occasions so fully ex-
ia:ted.—( [Lai-, h sr.) Ha desired to remove this anetnaly, planed his views, that he should have refrained from
and ta place the Rieman Cathalica upon an equality with addressing their Lordships, bad not the arguments of
the Quakers, the Dissenters, and the Jews. lie thought the Right Rev. Prelate been of so extraordinary a cha-
it was unbecoming their Lordships' dignity to maintain meter. Attar hearing the tpecch of the Noble Earl
such an inequality, and if they passed the Bill in its who introduced the Bill, the Right Rev. Prelate said
present shape, ho should believe the Boman Catholic that his arguments were inconsistent. We had ad-
oath was for ever fixed in a rastrieted sense, in which witted the Jews to mount, not only the petty, but the
case he should feel that they were placed in far too un high seats of justice, where they held power over the
equal and humiliating a positien; and he for one should lives and property of our fellow-subjects. But all this,
feel that he had no right there, as being placed in a said the Right Rev. Prelate, was nothing; they were
situation incompatible with the free exercise or his ditty merely administrators of the law. hut it was a very
as a legisl Ltor.—(Hear, Lear.) different thing to be aI, gislator. Oh, that he had sat
The Earl (.f. %VINCI-Hi-SEA said it any one had with them that mousing.—(Lettahter.) Oh, that he sat
doubted as to the infidel spirit which had for many years in nisi prius, or in a court of equity, and he would soon
eharac'erised our legieation, that doubt must be re- tiscover how far his innocent imaginiegs were wide of
moved by the Bill on the table. It wag an inset to a the truth.—(clear, hear.) How little a judge was a
Christian people, and to the Almighty, whose Son had mere instrument, and to what an extent the lives, and
come down from heaven to give us that religion which limbs, and properties were at the discretion of judges.
had bestowed upon our country so many leessiags. It But not only hod we admitted the Jew to the judge's
n
was an interference with the rights and permaaeco of seat, hut we had admitted him to the legislative
office of
the Crown—with the rights of that House of which he aa elector.—(llear, hear.) And then the Right
was an humble Member, and of the Lower House of Reverend Prelate talk. d of the influence of money
Parliament. What was the crime of that very people upon the electors. That argument was in favour of the
to which this Bill referred, and which brought down the Bill, and much more powerful than any he could have
judgment of the Almighty upon them, but a warning to used. The Jew was an elector and used his money for
us that all who rejected or despised the Saviour would the furtherance of his views now. The Right Reverend
be visited with the Fame calamities and the same signal Prelate drew an impassable line between all other offices
manifestation of the displeasure of the Creator? Towards and that of a legislator.—(Hear, hear.) It was only
the Jewish people God was his witness he bore no ill necessary to state the argument in order to show its air
will. Hardness of heart and judicial blindness had surdity; it was not necessary to pull it in pieces, because
caused them to reject the God whom we worshipped. the Legislature was, as all admitted, influenced by public
They were once the favoured people of God, but that re• opinion; and Jews, infidels, and atheists, all united in
jection had brought down his judgments upon them. returning Members to Parliament.--(Hear , hear.) The
His earnest prayer was that they might be again re- words "on the true faith of a Christian" might prevent
stored to the fold, hut he could not consent to imitate persons of a tender conscience, but persons who had no
them in their judicial blindness, and repudiate the dis- such scruples were not excluded by them. They really
tinctive character of a Christian. This would be a fatal meant nothing.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelete
measure for England's greatness, should their Lordships had given a very uncomfortable and singular account of
be deluded into passing such a Bill as that upon their the Jewish faith, and one which he confessed struck
table. National sins brought national punishments; and him as by no means a correct one. As to the idea that
it turmoils, tempests, and revolutions had visited other two or three Jews getting into Parliament and unhing-
countries, while ours was the only firm spot amid the ing the whole Christian system, it was one of the most
chaos, it was not because of our own merits, but by the ridiculous and extravagant chimeras he had -
ever
mercy of that God whose worship, with all our back heard, and he really had no patience to waste words
sliding, we still maintained. It had bean stated by the upon it. Why, how could two or three Jews do what
Right Reverend Prelate, that this was not a religious fifty or sixty Roman Catholics, whom they had already
measure, and the Nable Earl had said that if it inter- admitted, had not attempted to do ?—(Hear, hear.)
fered with any religious principle he would rather it did But then the Right Reverend Prelate said he would
not pass. Why, th Lord himself had declared that the rather see earliest Christian men attacking the Church.
people who honoured him he would honour; and he God forbid he should agree with him even though be
would ask in what way they could better honour him was a Bishop of that Church.—(Laughler.) But if the
than by upholding in all its integrity his worship and Right Reverend Prelate bad any fears of the Jews doing
religion.
this, why not introduce in Committee a similar pledge
The Duke of ARGYLE regretted to have heard the as that introduced with reference to Roman Catholics
Noble Earl who last addressed House, stating that a into the Act of 1829. With respect to what made _a
measure supported by a large number of their Lordships, Christian Parliament and a Christian nation, he utterly
and by distinguished Fathers of the Church, was founded denied that the words "on the true faith of a Christian,"
on a spirit of Christian infidelity. While he made that ad- constituted the foundation of either. The oaths of
mission, he confessed he could not concur in some of the abjuration, supremacy, and allegiance, were merely pro-
grounds on which that measure had been defended, and, fessions of political faith, and obedience, which were
among others, that religious opinions and religieue faith made "on the true faith of a Christian," by those who
sheuld not form the ground of political disability. The held that faith. But the Jew in this House, using
great preponderance of argument, however, was in fa- these words, gave no guarantee of that political fealty;
your ot the measure. The question before their Lord- and, if he could get that allegiance by a form of words
ships was, whether in the existing circumstances of the which would be solemnly binding upon his conscience,
country, those political disabilities were justifiable or he would da so.—(Hear, hear.) Refusing to allallownot? It was said that they were a Christian people, and the Jews seats in Parliament was withholding.
a Christian Parliament. Were they a Christian people en important privilege under the false pretext of
then, and in what cease were all the people of that religious disability. It was taking advantage of a phrase
country Christians, either in reality or in name? Were all introduced into an oath for a different purpose, to exclude
the Members of both Houses of Parliament Christians, a certain sect. The proposed measure was, in polute
in the high sense of the term? Could they think of se- fact, tearing the last leaf out of the book of intolerance,
curing their Christianity by the continuance of religious and restoring it to its original and pristine purity- It
or political disabilities? He contended they could not. was absurd to state that Parliament was in danger of
It appeared to him, that if they could not effect the ob- ceasing to be a Christian Legislature if they removed the
ject for which the disability was prof ssedly kept up, disabilities under which the Jews now laboured._athlics The
they o :
they ought to remove ir. It appeared to him to be most admission of the Dissenters and Roman C
unjust towards those who were now the only party ex- Parliament had not proved dangerous to the Protestant
hadstaiit
eluded, that that exclusion should be continued. There- religion or to the Established Church; but if there
fore he supported tee Bill, but not, he admitted, with- been any danger from the wealth, activity, and
.t zealeere of
out reluctance and some regret. They could not secure these sects exasperated to the pitch of bigotry,e Roman
the Christianity of Parliament by the imposition of such would have been exhibited in Dissenters
.a d
oaths as the Jew objected conscientiously to take, and Catholics being admitted to the full and er.t.u.ehperlieveilteogrea
the sooner, therefore, it was altered the better. of exerciAng the rights and privileges of Britt-
far they
Lard NELSON opposed the Bill, and in doing so re- and British representatives. Having
peated almost all the arguments that have been tide must go farther, to be correct with themgseolnveessancds
vanced over and over again by the opponents of the the permission to the Jews. They admitted the_
because
measure, both in this and the other House of Parliament. because it was wise, just, and honourable—because
He laid peculiar stress on its tendency to unchristianise it was good policy, and good for the empire,
the character of the Legislature, and gave it as his opi- able for themselves ; but, if they nodwaree
excluded
to exclude
nion that the Dissenters evinced their anxiety for the Jews, it would only be bscausentohke
past con-
success of the measure simply because they believed it them while they cast behind a Yon their
would lead to the separation of Church and State.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that none of the argu- to the British Legislature.
replied, but in so low a
meats he had heard urged against the Bill were soils The Earl of CARLISLE extend
duct, which did the Jews less harm than it daicdnelud—ddihesdocnreodtuhirt;
ciently strong to alter the impression left on his mind tone, and speaking with his back-to the
state be
by the able speech of the Noble Lord who had moved almost inau,!ible. lie was understood, however,
the second reading of the Bill. He should give his that, with regard to the present form of
oftheCatholoicf
support to the measure, but it was not as a Jewish Bill oath, he would hail with pleasure e
that he desired it to be considered. He looked at the planing the Roman Catholics on aperfeeen._
t l opportunityev(leicalofr.erality
title of the Bill, which was one for altering the Parlia- with their Protestant fellow-countrymen.—(Hear.)
mentary oaths, and there was only ono clause in it which Their Lordships then divided. F or thesecond reading—
related to professors of the Jewish religion. While he Contents .
was anxious tor the removal of Aho

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

..e, _sty which
prey. nted Jews sitting in Parliament, he wits 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
Committee of the clause affecting that body. He had HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 26.
long been anxious to see a measure introduced into Poe- POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
lir.uient for the alteration of the Parliamentary oath, for (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
he felt that in many respects it required alteration and Mr. E. B. ROCHE felt convinced it any attempt wag
modification. made to diminish the area of taxation, encouragement
Earl DESART said he would venture to say, in a few would be given to unprincipled landlords to exterminate
words what he conceived to be the substance of the the people of Ireland.
Bill. It was simply that principle which their Lordships Mr. BLACKALL said when the country was in dis-
rejected lest year. He should be glad to ree, eve, the tress and difficulty they gave it an extended law, but
Jews as fellow•countrymen and fellow-citizens, hut not that extended law had entirely failed. If the maximum
as fellow-legislators. A seat in Parliament was conferred rate which was proposed would eventually do great in-
fer the benefit of the nation, and not of individuals. jury to Ireland, they ought not to pass it simply because
There were strong and emplereasons why their Lordships it would give some temporary advantage. To do Ire-
should at once reject the principle of the Bil'. If they land any wholesome good, and improve its social relit.
denied admission to Parliament to a man not sufficiently Liens, they must look to the occupiers, and not
interested in the welfare of the country, from the small to the landlords.—(Hear.) The principle he wished to
amount of property he possessed, how much more should see adopted was to reduce the area of taxation, and thus
it be refused to men who had no permanent interest in to create a local interest, and to secure local supervision
any single country, but were mere citizens of the world? with respect to the support of the poor. He would ra:
How could these men legislate properly on subjects con- ther that this were a temporary measure, for he objected!
fleeted with the Christian Church? The Jew considers to any permanent alteration in the poor-law at
us as idolaters. There was a ft eling among the best the fag end of the session, when there was no,
part of the community against the Bill. They might time tor deliberation, and when many measures of
receive the Jews as guests and as friends but they might immediate importance were waiting to be discussed and
go no further. decided.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that ho had no idea of Mr. SCULLY gavo his support to the measure of the
troubling their Lordships at any length; indeed he Government.
knew not that he should have troubled their Lordships After a few observations from Mr. P. SCROPE,
unless an almost personal allusion had been made to Mr. CLEMENTS advocated the 7s. in preterence to
him. They hut been told by the Noble Duke that the the ss. rate. But the first step to a national rate would
arguments of the Noble Earl who had moved the second be to impose an uniform rate of 2s. upon every union.
reading had been entirely ungrappled with. His first Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT supported the amendment
and weightiest argument was, that as we hay] already ad- on the ground, that if they conceded to the proposition
witted the Jew to a community of civil privileges, we of the Government, they would be acting upon erroneous
ought to go further and admit him to equal rights and principles. In England :he principle adopted was to
privileges with his fellow-citizens. Now it seemed to matte every district responsible for its own poor, but this
idol that the position of a legislator or law- mater was measure proposed that one district should support the
entirely different from that of a law-administrator. This poor of another district, that in fact the liability of the
wasnotcalling upon thorn todo a thingindegree, as alleged, responsible person should be transferred to the person-
for the privilege sought for was different in kind. The who was not responsible. That principle was foreign to
office of legislator was one given for the nation's good, the English poor-law, and was less applicable to Ireland
for the state's good, and for the good of the Church, and than to England, because in the latter country self-
not for the delectation of any individual. Was it con- government had been so long known that a greater extent
sidered an injury to the lower clergy to exclude them of area might be adopted with less mischief and less
advantage to society than it could be in Ireland. Their
from the Commons' House of Parliament? Certainly not.
That exclusion was justified upon various grounds. Why great object cught to be to force home responsibility to
should a Jew sit in Parliament. Was there any Jewish every man's door, end not to impoverish others who had
constituencies in England? How, then could they fully used every effort to support their own poor by placing
represent the Christian tendencies of their constituents. additional burdens upon their thouiskes.
How otherwise would they be elected but by the money After a few words from Sir J. YOUNG,
power which they represented? How could the State be Mr. SHEIL said he represented a borough in which
administered on Christian principles by Jews? As soon there was much poverty, owing to an influx of poor
as Christian principles couid be brought into legislation, from the agricultural districts; an he, therefore, thought
Christians were bound to introduce them. And now, that those districts which had thus been cleared of their
having been introduced, were they prepared to abolish poor ought to be called upon to contribute to the maxi"
them? The Most Rev. Prelate told them for the honour mum rate. This was a case, in fact, of town against
of Christianity, and in order to prevent the early Chris- country. If the amendment were carried, the land from
tians from being considered deceivers, he would carry which the poor had been expelled] would bo when,'
the principle out and exclude no one whatever. The exempt from contributing to the wants of the poor, and
Noble Lord, in movinc, the Bill, said that there was no the whole burden would be thrown upon the towns. He
direct law against the Jew being admitted to pallet- had as much experience as any man of town and country
ment, and only by recent legislation they were so ex- in Ireland, and if he spoke for hours he could not state
eluded. Why, the Noble Earl might as well argue that the case more truly.
because at one time there was no law against parricide, After a few words from Sir J. YOUNG,
that therefore no law should ever have been enacted Mr. MONSELL could not conceive upon what prin-
against it. Why the possibility of Jews being admitted ciple a maximum rate could be recommended, because,
into Parliament was at one time never thought of, their instead of producing confidence among landlords, as had
personal safety was not oven protected. As to the argu. been alleged, he thought it would remove all interest in
went that there was no danger from their admission, he the reduction of poverty in the different districts.
throught there was great danger, looking to the money Mr. CALLAGHAN thought that the measure of the
power, and the influence of that power upon many of the Government would be of great use in the present dig"
constituencies. When they considered the relations of tressed condition of the country.
the Jews to affairs on the Continent, there might be a Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD opposed the propo-
o a landlord's
strong interest on their part to secure a powerful party sition of the lion. Member on the same ground that
in Parliament, and where there was both a strong inte- he opposed every proposition for a rate in aid. If re-
rest and a great money power, it was evident that the lief was given by union rates a national rate must fol-
danger was by no means theoretical or imaginary. He low, which would lead to
btehe uttere.en
fdestruction of all
objected altogether to their admitting that money power, property. This ought to
.e spoken k
apart from general character and principles, was to That House ought to
h relerence to
the right to admission to Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) adopt such a course
wlandlord to landlord and tenant
They could not deal with motives, but they could with as would compel the . give proper remunera-
professed principles. There might be many in both occupier of the
7s 'mei. rate'
eokn
sEtNo Lt
hEeYosuail said
maximum that
give question more than anit occupier
lion to the soil. He should vote for the
those gentlemen who had
Houses of Parliament who cared nothing for religion,
rate were placed in a difficult
some who did not believe in it; but they did not come in
position.nwouni
have to put up with a union rate
disapprovedyt. of, or a 7s. rate, which would
on a pro'ession of their unbeliet—(Bear, hear)—and they
could be prevented from acting upon that profession; but
would
relieve the distress. He should vote,
if they lowered idown the necessary profession, they iitiebebe tshu effiyTcieh
ne t
lowered down at the same time the character and prote-
however, for
skin' of the body.—(llear, hear.) If they passed thisos
principle
Bill they indeed protessed unbelief, and if there was thisa that he would take as much as he could get.
danger, it should surely be the last time
.they should
_Pauperism could only be kept down by the employment
seek to lower the character of that Christian assembl of the people, and the occupiers of the land only could
those prieciples which do so, and
by admitting those who rejected , if they had not the pcwer all classes would
alone could raise them as a religious people. The indo- be eaten.
mitable obstinacy and perseverance
of the Jews was Sir A. BROOKE, amidst loud cries of " Divide," rose
one reason why he would exclude e m. It was because to support the amendment. He thought that as soon as
he believed they had the will amid the power to act upon the ss. rate was exhausted the Consolidated Fund would
these principles, that he felt, without any disrespect to he attacked. He was not opposed to a maximum rate,
them, they had no right to seats as legislators for a but he thought that a sa. rate was not high; 7s.was not
Christian nation. It the opposite view was main tamed, either, and he would have vote I ioif he
fora !. rate
it must he on the ground that the Hebrew persuasion could have got
it. He concluded by calling upon the
were losing the fires faith which had been transmitted to House to vote for the 7s. rate.
them, and thus the dogmas of Judaism were held . 1 The
in less galleries were then cleared, En I the Douse divided.
respect than before. If such was argued, he would say On the original question that ill words " eve" be
made
those were not men who should be • • legislators.— Introduced, the numbers were—
(Hear, hear.) What they wanted above all things
was F ...
earnestness of character, and he would rather have an or the question ... ... 125
earnest Christian in Parliament attacking the Church Against the question ... ... 48
because he was coniitatiously 0- d • h ' Majority for the question ... ---77
doe to •lt, t -tiu ThQ un e usjuielL was Lpas:titi.utly rcjeo:eJ,

-25