The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-12 00:00:00

par icipation in the making of their laws, and the endan-
germent of their institutions.
Mr. CRO 'N DER was somewhat surprised at hearing
the sentiments on this subject which had been expressed
by the Hon. SL=mher who had just sat down.—(Hear.)
lle confessed he was astonished to hear from lion. Mem-
bers of that House that the Jews entertained no consei-
entkus scruples in matters of religious belief, whereas
the fact was that a class more conscientious could not be;
and it was those conscientious feelingi that operatxd to
keep them out of that House ; and did they not enter-
tain such, there would be no necessity for the measure
now before the House for altering the Parliamentary
oaths, so as to admit them to seats in the Legislature.

No class had been more subjected to persecution than

the Jews fe. their conscientious adherence to their reli-
gious principles.—(Hear, hear.) On what ground,
then, could it be said that the Jews had no conscientious
regard to religious scruples ? The Jews were admitted
to the rights of citizenship in many Christian countries,
and to the highest offices, and he was at a loss to
know—seeing how they conducted themselves—how
their admission to this House could have the effect
of unchristianising it. He denied that it would have
any snch effect, or thet there was any ground for
saying or apprehending that they would not act in har-
mony with a Christian legislature. The Bishop of St.
David's, but a few evenings ego, said, in the other House
of Parliament, that in matters relating to the interests
of the established religion of the country, he should
prefer seeing a Jew have a seat in that House to a Dis-
senter—( Hear, hear)—for the Jew might be supposed to
have a more impartial feeling on the subject. Then,
looking at the conduct of the Jews in the discharge of
their duties as fellow-citizens, were they not admitted
to the possession of the elective franchise for the return
of Members to that House, and did they not exercise it
in as free and impartial a manner as any men of the
Christian community in which they lived, moved, and
conducted themselves, in every respect as good citizens?
They were appointed to the office of magistrates, and
to corporate dignity, and would it be said that they in
any way suffered their religious principles to interfere
wiLh, or mar, the proper discharge of their duties in
those positions? The experience and observation of every
day showed that they had not. With respect to the
Roman Catholics in that House, he had a strong opinion
that they would, to a man, support this measure, and
endeavour to obtain for the Jews that full measure of
toleration which was so long and so unjustly withheld
from themselves.—(Hear.) He felt strongly on this
subject, and that he would not be performing his duty to
himself, the community in which he lived, the Jews, and,
he hoped, the increasing liberality of the age, if he did
not give his vote in favour of this measure.
Mr. GORING was surprised at the opinions of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just sat down
respecting those expressed by his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) on the question
now before the House. He (Mr. Goring) felt no sym-
pathy with the opinions expressed by one Roman
Catholic against the opinions of another. He owed a
duty to God, before binding himself to do an act of
kindness to his neighbour; and he believed he would
offend God and our Saviour if he consented to admit the
Jews into that House. He should, therefore, oppose the
Bill now under consideration.

Mr. SADLEIR said the Jews were excluded from the
House by accident—for the words "en the true faith of
a Christians" were intended to bind Roman Catholics in
regard to the obligation of the-oath which they took—as
it was supposed that a Catholic could be absolved from
his oath by an ecclesiastical authority—not for the pur-
pose of excluding the Jews. This being so, he did not
think they should continue to exclude a class of their
fellow-subjects from the privilege, of sitting in that
House. It was said on former occasions that if they
admitted Roman Catholics into that House, they would
destroy its Protestant character, but the result proved
that this was a most extravagant and unjust prophecy.
It seemed now to be admitted that the admission of the
Jews into this House would be perfectly justifiable on
social and political grounds; but it was proposed to ex-
clude them on religious grounds. Now he contended
that no man ought to be excluded on account of his re-
ligious opinions. On all questions of foreign or domestic
policy a Jew could legislate with the same ability and
knowledge as a Christian, and he believed that on a ques-
tion relating to the Church a Jew would act in a manner
perfectly consistent with the rights of the established
religion. He believed the majority of the people of
England were in favour of the Bill before the House;
but this he knew that the people of Ireland were decided
supporters of it. And here he might mention that the
gentleman who was now practically excluded from sit-
ting in that House by an accident, which this Bill was
intended to rectify, was the promoter of; and one of the
most active members in, the British Relief Association,
which had effected so much good in Ireland, by forward-
ing to the poor of that country timely food and raiment.
He should give the Bill his hearty support.
Mr. SPOONER said if he was to give his vote in
accordance with the liberal and high character or the
men of the Jewish religion, he must give it in favour of
this Bill, and if he was merely to consider the interesting
character of the Jewish nation and its people, he should
also be obliged to vote with her Majesty's Ministers.
But he looked upon this question in a very different light,
and he felt that if they admitted Jews into that House
they would unchristiaisize it. Phis was the reason why he
objected to their admission amongst Christian legislators.
The arguments urged by the lion. and Learned Member
for Liskeard in favour of the admission of Jews,
on the ground that Roman Catholics and Pro-
testant Dissenters had been admitted into it, did not in
the least apply. The Hon. Member then alluded to
another part of the Act whichreteased every Member of
that House from taking the oath of supremacy. in a
portion of the Act, which lie highly disapproved of, and
tie declared that he never would consent that the oath of
supremacy should be done away with.—(hear.) He
bull, vol that few of the public knew that the oath of
supremacy was done away With. At the time the Noble
Lord (Lord J. Ruse II) introduced the clause, it hap-
pened by an injudicious enforcement of the standing
order which excluded strangers from the gallery, that
the usual channel of communication with the public was
prevented a knowledge of the proceedings of that House.
—(Hear, beer.) He (Mr. Spooner) supported the Bill
of '29 chiefly on the argument of Mr. Canning, to the
effect, that as an oath kept human Catholics out of the
House the force of an oath would act upon them when
they became Members of that house.—(f-fear, hear.)
But now they had taken away that safeguard, and, as it
was well known that the efforts of Roman Catholics were
directed to promote the ascendancy of their church, he
believed, as was foretold by a Noble Lord, that they
would not rest satisfied till they had succeeded in making
the Catholic Church dominant, and in putting down the
Protestant Church of England. Under these circum-
stances, he should feel it his duty to oppose the measure
of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHEIL said the Bill under their consideration
was a Bill to alter the oaths to those not professing the
Roman Catholic religion, who should be admitted Mem-
bers of that House, the sixth clime enacting that
nothing in the Act should be applicable to R >man Ca•
tholics, nor affect the provisions of the Act of 10 George
IV. It had been argued that there was now nothing
to prevent a Roman Catholic taking the Protestant
oath ; but if a Roman Catholic came to the table of
the House, and took the oaths prescribed for Protes-
tants, it would be a virtu,' rec ',illation of his religion,

-
arid by taking that oath he would at ante show that
he conformed to the Protestant religion.—(Hear, hear.)
He found that the oath proposed to be taken by the
Act was a simple declaration, and was disencumber,d

from superfluous and useless asseverations, while the
Roman Catholic oaths remained uniuterfered with and

untouched. He was sorry to find that angry religious
controversy bad been introduced, and that the
passion fur it remained unchecked ; at the same time
he could not fail to feel that a liberal donstruc-

tion and definition of the Catholic oath might in-
crease the difficulties which this measure would else-
where be beset With, and interfere with those objects
which he owned he had so much at heart.—(Cheers.)

He thanked God he was not like the Hon. Member for
St. Albans—that pure and disinterested borough—
(Hear, hear, and laughter)—who had toll them that
Mammon was not an obj,ce—(Laughter.) He was glad
to be able to state that he duly sympathised with those
who were labouring under disabilities similar to those
he once suffered under. He had not forgotten the pres-
sure of those corroding chains which now galled him no
longer.—(Hear, hear.) He set a proper value on a seat
in Parliament, and he trusted he would be forgiven by
his Hon. Friends opposite if he ventured to say that they
ought to coincide in this Act, and that nothing but
necessity could justify the exclusion of the Jews ; but
so far from that necessity existing it never had been
established, for their denials were not warranted by
their admissions. As high-sheriff a Jew had the em-
pannelling of a jury, by which the highest subject in the
realm might be tried for his life. A Jew could also
hold the office of Recorder.
Mr. LAW—There was no precedent for that.
Mr. SHELL—No; there was no precedent, and he
hoped the necessity for one might not soon arise.—
(Hear, hear.) A Jew could vote for the worst Christian,
and a Christian should be able to vote for the best Jew.
They excluded the Jew from Parliament, who looked
with an eye of profound indifference on both Catholic
and Protestant, while at the same time they admitted the
Presbyterian who had overthrown their Church, and they
admitted the Catholic, whose Church had been over-
thrown.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen had told them
that the House would be unchristianized if the House
did not depend on the Christianity of the country. They
might be told that England was not Christian because
they had not driven the Jews from their shores, as they
had been driven from other shores, where the basest im-
morality and the most merciless persecution prevailed.
He would ask the Hon. Gentleman whether the Con•
gress of America, in which Jews were admitted, or the
congress of Mexico, in which Jews were excluded—he
would ask him which was the more Christian of the
two? In the late Constituent Assembly there were
four Jews. Did any of those Jews ever interfere with
the religious sentiments of any of the Members, or ex-
postulate against the august ceremonies of the Catholic
Church—the celebration of which an eminent statesman
thought was a revival of that which France needed so i
much? Did any one suppose f Jews were admitted into
the House they would indulge in libelling the religion of
those who admitted theca?—(Eiear, hear.) He would
not enter into the arguments of the sanctimonious so-
phistries of men who said that they ought to be the aux-
iliaries of God Almighty in carrying out his behests.
With as little regard would ho treat the arguments of
those who said that the Jews could not be good citizens.
lie (Mr. Shiel) would say that the Jews wore good
citizens, loyal and faithful to their Queen. They
were interested in the prosperity of the country in
which they lived, in which they hoped to be
' buried. They were industrious, end were distin-
guished by their charity, and many of them
by their virtue, and they were ready to render suc-
cour to all—to Jews as well as Christians, indiscrimi-
nately and without distinction.—(Hear, hoar.) As to
the feeling of the country on the present question he
Weald ask, could any One
.6SY that there YeAti not fb do•

cided movement in favour of the Jews, when their cause
was supported by the citizens of London, and by all the
metropolitan districts ? Would any man say that an
unfriendly or indifferent spirit pervad,d the country ?
There was no country in which the Christian religion
was more revered, as he was justified in saying from the
magnificent temple which England had built, and to
which she had given the name of that distinguished Jew
who inculcated the virtue of charity in all his writings—
a temple which looked over the vast expanse of greatness,
of power and grandeur, of their metropolis. The cross,
the emblem of Christianity, was visible on all their

churches. It was the typo of the religion of Christ.
The cause of Christianity was the cause of toleration.
The victory of the one was the triumph of the other,
and for the consummation of that victory he should
anxiously look forward, and hail the triumph with joy
and exultation.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN said, that notwithstanding all that
had been stated, he adhered to what he had already ob-
served regarding this Bill, and which he believed would
have the effect of injuriously altering tho character of
Parliament. That was the great objection be felt to the
present measure. What was the situation on which
they were called upon to legislate? The constituent.).
of London had sent into the House a gentleman who
was known by them to be incompetent to represent them,
and now they called upon the House to pass a retrospec-
tive measure, which was attempted to be forced upon
them by numb.,rs and by wealth. They were now called
upon to admit Jews, not by a direct law brought in for
that purpose, but by an alteration of the oaths hitherto
necessary to be taken by Members of the House. The
Right Hon. Member then referred to the abrogation of
the oath of supremacy, and which, he said, had been
done in order that the Jews might be admitted to Par-
liament. It was admitted that they had to deal with the
temporalities of the Church, and he believed that the
Hon. Member for Oldham had gone so far as to declare,
that he would feel it his duty to deal with the doctrine
and the discipline of the Church of England also, so far
as Parliament could be admitted to deal with that doc-
trine and discipline. Another effect of the Bill would ba to
create distrust in the deliberations of Parliament when
they affected religious matters, and the general interests
of Christianity. It had been said that public opinion
was not expressed against this measure, but they might
depend upon it there was arrayed against the principle
of the measure a numerous class, who did not assemble
at public meetings, or brawl on the hustings, but dis-
seminated respect for the authority of the Church and
State.—(Hear, hear.) Ever since the admission of the
Roman Catholics to Parliament, and the subsequent
change effected by the Reform Bill, which added to the
infiluence of the Dissenters, there had been growing up
in that country a distrust in Parliament to deal in ec-
clesiastical matters; and such had been the conduct of
the Legislature, that it induced a doubt in the mind of
the influential classes whether the maintenance of the
Church with the State was any longer a matter to be
desired. He should regret to see such a separation. He
should be sorry to find that it became necessary, from
the conflict of antagonistic religions, or from differences
between the Jews and Christians in that House; but he
had no hesitation in saying, that if they introduced
the Jews into Parliament they gave the strongest pos-
sible weight to the arguments of those who upheld the
justice or such a separation. Should the House of Com-
mons sanction the measure, he was not without hope
that it would be rejected by the other branch of the
Legislature.

Mr. ROEBUCK said that, in consequence of the ex-
ample set him by the gentlemen on the opposite side of
House, he intended entering into a discussion of the
measure before the Houae. If the measure had been of a
purely democratic nature, respecting an alteration, for
instance in the constitution of that House, they would
find Hon. Members objecting to its being brought for-
ward repeatedly; but though the House had discussed
this question three times, Hon. Gentlemen on the oppo-
site side were not yet satisfied; they dug up their old
arguments, reanimated them, put life into them, again
before the House and the country, to influence, he sup-
posed, the other House of Parliament. The Right Hon.
Gentleman spoke of the vote on this Bill in the other
House of Parliament less despondingly, as he considered
that House more given to listen to arguments on reli-
gious questions, and better capable to judge of what wes
fit for the religious government of the country than the
representatives of the people. He had the greatest de-
ference for the Louse of Lords, but among its virtues he
did not give them credit for religious observance above
other classes of the community. It was not among
that class that he found the peculiar devotion
which characterised the people of England,—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite said
it was not to a body like the House of Commons that a
question of the present nature should be referred, but if,
as Sir George Grey stated, the House of Commons ac-
tually represented the people of this country, he did not
see why it was not a proper tribunal to decide on the
Bill. He would say that he accepted his (Sir George
Grey's) proposition, that this Houae does represent the
feelings of the country, and that those feelings are in
favour of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He would travel
back a few years in memory, to 1828, when the Right
lion. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) then argued with. re-
spnt to the admission of Catholics, and he would strike
out of his spvech at that period a few words, namely,
" Christian," and put in " Protestant," and the speeches
of the two periods would be found to be almost the
same. In 1829 he (Mr. Goulburn) voted under his
master (Sir R. Peel), and should have stuck to his text
and nailed his colours to the mast; but no, because two
or three Jews are required to be admitted to the pri-
vileges of the House he alters his principles; that is,
ho admits, as a matter of constitutioaal right, over
100 Roman Catholics, and refuses these rights to
a few Jews. lie also recollected that the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) said, in 1828, that by
the Emancipation Bill the House would be unpro-
teaatantised, and now he attempts to argue that it will
he unchrtstianised. He was at a loss to know the
meaning of unehristianising the House, for many at pre-
sent sat in the II ruse who did not profess Christianity;
and ho would ask could half-a-dezen infidels unchris-
tianise the House? Was the House to be made an as-
sembly that should do unchristian things ; or do the
people send representatives to do unchristian things?
The Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) atalee
inits that those few Honourable Members are not likely
to cause any danger, because they take an oath that,
according to their belief, cannot obligate them; but he is
very apprehensive of danger from the Roman Catholics
taking the short oath, lie was well aware how he (Mr.
Goulburn) was obliged to take the repeal of the Test
and Corporation Act as a model for a clause in the
Roman Catholic oath, in 1829, which he then stated
was to be considered as a safeguard. And what, he would
ask, was the result of the words of the clause introduced
into that oath? Some one or two Roman Catholics felt
a twinge of conscience in consequence, ;as they thought
that this oath_ precluded them from taking any part in
m.king any alterations in Church matters, and usually
retired from the House rather than compromise
their conscientious conviction by speaking on
any subject of that nature. Lie did not see
that any good was effected by the continuance
of the Roman Catholic oath, and therefore thought
that the short oath should be substituted. In fact, he
I,oked up ia that clause, introduced in the oath by the
Right Hou. Gentleman, as a mere web that could not catch
strong flies, but trek the weaker ones. Another Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) had recourse to dipping
law the Talmud. He took a text from that sacred
work, and wished to make the House believe, that
the Jews received a dispensation from all oaths and ob-
ligations through the authority of their rabbis. But he
would ask, what was the object of their present legisla-
tion ? Was it not to admit to the privileges of the
House a few Jews, who would not do anything by com-
ing into the House that would impeach their honour,
their honesty, or their veracity. These men value too
Memberand giveor no
oNewdegate)
has represented to be theirs. What right, ho would ask,
t highlys
uch the
a doctrine a obligation
as the no
n. oath,
had he (Mr. Newdegate) thus unjustly to stigmatize any
class of his fellow-subjects and fellow-men with such
imputations of dishonour and dishonesty ? He believed
that he did not understand the extracts which he read to
the House—(Laughter)--and would ask him, were such
doctrines to be found in their Bible ?

Mr. NEWDEGATE—No, in their prayer- boA.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he could give proofs that
men in other religious denominations are strongly of
opinion that they could be relieved from the greatest
crimes, and that when Paschal wrote a Christian work
against a similar doctrine, propagated by the Jesuits and
other religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church, he
attacked men, and not Catholicity, for the promulgation
of such opinions; and such was the case with the Jews.
There might be some opinions of that nature prevalent
with a few of them, which was strongly repudiated by
the immense majority of that creed, for they are as
honest and conscientious as the Hon. Member might
himself wish to be. He did not see why a body of men,
who are distinguished for their honour and honesty,
should be deprived of the privilege of sitting in that
House, and would, consequently, support the present
measure. Were they not men of education? Yes. Did
they not possess the necessary qualification in money?
Yes. Some Honourable Member had denominated them
aliens. Why, the father of the Solicitor-General was
an alien; and was the Honourable Gentleman to be
objected to because his fattier was an alien ?
(Hear.) Certainly not. Or were they to be objected
to because they owe spiritual allegiance to an autho-
rity other than the Established Church? If so,
the Roman Catholics are in the same position. The
Jew paid all giance to no earthly body, but to their
sacred volume, to an idea—the Godhead. He also re-
collected that at the time Mr. Pease, the Quaker, was
asked to take the oath at the table of the House,
he refused, and that the result was that this form was
necessarily altered by Act of Parliament, and he (Mr.
Pease) was then admitted by making a solemn declara-
tion. He would ask, was not this form of declaration
also allowed in the two hi: aest courts of the realm?
Was it not considered by the Lords to be equally
stringent as an oath, and why, therefore, object to one
or two Jews acting according to their consciences in
taking a seat iu this House? He, therefore, in addition
to his former arguments, contended that the assertions
of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) were not
tenable, t,ecause persons, such as Qiakers and Unita-
rians, come t) the table of the House making a declara-
tion, which does not tend to demoralise or unchristiatii.ce
the House in the least. He would ask, was not the very
I fact of a Jew being sent to Parliament by the people a
sufficient guarantee for the entire trust and confidence
of the people in the honesty and principles of the Jews?
On a late occasion it had been asserted, that the people
were not in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member
for Montrose, because there were no petitions presented
this session in its favour. Such would not be the case
at a future time, and such was not the case on the pre-
sent occasion; and he hoped, that the great desire of the
people to see their just and honest principles carried out
would be acceded to by Parliament.
Mr. NAPIER said he concurred fully with the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman who had just resumed his seat,
in thinking that this question ought not to be con-