The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-08 00:00:00

T LrES A. Y EVENING, MAY 8, 1249

Member of the House of Commons. So soon as
the report appeared, the directors took the only course
they could to inform the public of the real state
of the facts ; and, with the permission of the
House, he would read the remarks that the
Eastern Counties Railway Company made in re-
ference to the 7,6001. (The remarks substantially
were that there was a committee sitting in April, 1846,
celled the Size lane Committee, formed for the purpose
of carrying out a scheme for amalgamating the Eastern
Counties and the London and York, which
had been propounded by Mr. Hudson in 1845,
and that had that committee been successful, a great
amount of the legal expenses would have been saved.)
He could only beg to assure the House, which he did as
a man and as a gentleman appearing before that
assembly, that there was not a Member of that House,
directly or indirectly, who had had the benefit of
a single shilling in reference to that 7,6001. He
thanked he Honourable Member for giving him an
opportunity for contradicting the rumour ; an if such
a statement had been made before the committee, he
would have repelled it with indignation.
Mr. CHARTERIS said he was in the hands of the
House as to the course he should pursue. With all due
respect to what had fallen from the Hon. Member, which
he in some measure believed, he thought it would be
saiisfactory if an inquiry took place into the matter—
(Hear, hear)—and, believing the House to be of the
.eauae opinion, he begged to give notice that on Thursday
next be should move for the appointment of a Committee
of Inquiry.
The matter then dropped.
THE SICILIAN PAPERS.

In reply to Mr. DISRAELI,
--
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the
papers would be placed immediately in the hands of
lion. Members.

PAR LIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the second reading
of the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS rose to move that the Bill be read
a second time this day six months. He complained that
the real nature of the 13111 could not be satisfactorily
traced from its title. None save those who had bad an
opportunity of reading the Bill could tell what was its
object, and indeed he thought it would have been more
consistent in the Noble Lord if he had favoured
the Romeo with some statement as to the
exact purpose of the Bid—what the object was that it
had been introduced to effect. If, however, they took
the Bill under what he supposed was its true designation,
the " Jews' Bill," they should perhaps gather its an an•
ing ; but though they had had opportunities every year
of discussing the objet; it had in view, for the last 30 years,
yet they had never discussed it under circumstances so
likely to affect its ruceess, end therefore the Christian
character of that House, as during the last two
years. Indeed, he apprehended that no Bill
of this nature would have been brought forward
but for the recent election in the city of London.
Though the avowed object of the Bill had been re-
jected by the House of Lords, it had been re-
introduced into this House tinier a new name.
Now this Bill was brought forward for the second time,
and it proposed in a whelesele manner to deprive the
Crown and the country of one of the safeguards of the
constitution. It proposed to remove altogether those
oaths which had hitherto been held essential for the
maintenance of the constitution; but they had not
hoard a single argument to show for what good
purpose the alteration could be made. The oath
to be substituted for those already in existence
ought to contain all the provitions of the present oaths.
The oath of allegiance remained unaltered for sax cen-
turies, till the year 1688, when certain alterations were
made in it to give more latitude to the consciences
of those who took it. At that time the words heirs and
successors were left out, but they were retained in the
oath of abjuration. Surely, then' if they were retained
in one they ought to be retained in the other; but still
he did not propose that they should be re-inserted. This
was a Protestant country; the people in it were
not ashamed of professing Protestantism; and
so long as the country existed as a Protesant
state there could be no jast ground or reason
to change the Protestant oaths which a Member
of either House of Parliament took on entering
his neat.—(Hear, hear.) A very important element
in the discussion was, that in the oath which his
Noble Friend proposed to substitute, there was no re-
ference whatever to the Protestant character of the
Sovereien. It was as a Protestant, and as Protestants
only, that the illustrious family of her Majesty ascended
the throne, and not only as Protestants, but as Pro-
testants of the Episcopal Church of England and Ire-
land. In fact, his Noble Friend had hoisted neutral
colours, simply that he might cover enemies' goods.—
(Hear and cheers.) The fact was that the Bill was
gospels,
hacoue:
eseclphrilus
al
asaosst
ntr twenty
to take away from the Legislature the essen-
tial portion of its Christian character.—(Llear, hear.)
ngeoantunritmelytttehih:n,eaaet
ttameratrahliolgeetibhr,anutal
ttt
alteration
it:iveoans had badmades
tabtteheedenr madeoenn,
aa
s former
wr withinina3e
some Christian rite. The oath was taken either upon the
,b
eor b
yu somepsoonme cconsidered
sriedl
ei
isrrr
ee
vl
ic.
e-
lant, but irrevelancy by no means diminished its force.
He had the opinions of several eminent men of 1773,
and it might be said the opinions of those who lived
a century ago, but it should be recollected that although
abroad power might be vested only in those who were
seated in positions of authority, in this country it was
distributed throughout the whole of the community, and
was especially assigned to these who in that House took
part in the government of the country—(Cheers.) His
Noble Friend had last year asked,' with more of an air
of triumph than the occasion justified, what good the
oath had donei—(Hear, hear.) Why it had at least
done this good, that it had served as a bulwark in the
attacks on our common Christianity.—(lfear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. BERESFORD seconded the motion, and said he
had failed to see any sufficient cause, or any just reason,
for hazarding such a great experiment as the admission
of Jews into Parliament. Ile supported the doctrine
that those in the possession of the administrative
should sheer at least an acknowledgment of the Christian
faith in their measures. Upon that doctrine they had
hitherto acted, and under it they had flourished, and he
would not now participate in that which he considered
morally and religiously wrong. It was strange
that the Government, instead of fostering and shielding
their faith, should be the first to give offence to it. He
had a strong confidence in the religious feeling of the
people of England, who would struggle and prevail in
spite of every obstacle, and he trusted, that with the
blessing of an All-merciful Being, they would continue
still to be, not a professing, but a faithful and Christian
nation.

Mr. PEEL and Mr. TRELAWNY rose together, but
The SPEAKER called upon Mr. Pecl,and immediately
the utmost silence and attention was manifested by the
House.

Mr. PEEL said, he rose on the present occasion
to express his sentiments upon the question
I ' under consideration, and which had already occupied
, so much the attention of the House; and he felt at
the outset that he should net duly show his respect
to the House, which lied so much considered that
' subject, it he did not confidently rely upon the indul-
gence which they were always disposed to extend
to those who had occasion for the first time
to express their sentiments.—(Cheers.) Indeed he
stood much in need of that indulgence, because he
had the misfortune to follow a Bight Hon. Baronet
well known in that House, and whose personal character
entitled him to its respect ; and the more so because
he had arrived at a conclusion directly opposite
to that which he had come to on the facts which pre-
sented themselves for their consideration—(Hear,
hear)—he had come to tho conclusion to vote for the
second reading of the Bill, under cover of which
it was sought to relieve the Jews from those disabilities
which attached to them as subjects of this realm, and
which, let the House recollect, a:tached to no other
subject of the realm. He wished, by the
permission of the House, to state some of the grounds.
He supported the Bill on the broad fundamental principle
of our constitution, that all its privileges ought of right
to belong to every natural born subject of the realm—
they belonged to them, not because they were cumin uni-
cents of a particular sect, but because they fulfilled all the
obligations which devolved upon the citizens of a free state.
Indeed Parliament had recognised the rights of the
Jews by conferring upon them all the offices of the
state—civil, military, and judicial. As a magistrate
ho ought to administer the law judicially, and
ministerially as a sheriff. Almost every
office of trust and authority which he
could name were open to the Jew. They had given him
votes at elections, both parliamentary and municipal, hut
nevertheless he was disqualified from sitting in that
House. The constituencies might elect him, and the re-
turning officer must return him as a Member of Parliament,
yet he could not take his seat in that House as a Mem-
ber of Parliament. It was true a distinction had been
drawn between the holding of the two offices. The Act of
Charles 11., on which much stress had been laid, did
not prevent Protestant Dissenters from sitting in that
House; yet those cases appeared in no wise different
from the case of the admission of the Jew. The law
to which he would now call attention effected the Jew
so as to prevent his admission into the House, as he
was called upon to take the oath " on the
true faith of a Christian." In the reign
of James the Yint an oath was required to be
taken by Members of the House of Commons previous
to entering the House, and no further legislative mea-
sures were made till the reign of Charles IL, when a
more stringent measure was passed requiring
Members of both Houses of Parliament to
take the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and
supremacy, and to sign a declaration against tran-
substantiation. These oaths did not at all contain the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian," and there-
fore, as fir as the legislative disabilities of that period
went, the Jew was not disabled from taking his seat in
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Louis XIV., however,
having recognized the Pretender, an Act was passed
imposing upon the Members of the Legislature an oath,
which declared that King William had lawfully suc-
ceeded to the throne, and no one else had any right or
title to it, and then it was that tho words " on the
true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the
oath. The design of the oath, however, was not to ex-
clude the Jew, and it was not the oath which now ex-
cluded him, but the fortuitous circumstances which led
to the introduction of these words. Upon political
grounds, therefore, the Jew ought not to be ex•
eluded. But it might be argued upon political
grounds that it we e irn;-ortant that before any
man was admitted to Parliament that his con-
science sleeild be first bound before he entered
upon his hee;,letive le:foa:me Well, the Jew diet
not ohji et to thee. not- :1.,1 he c.bject so telro the
oat!i pleaddeci they jeerede..... :;he, to tee:: h: in a eelerent
shape,— (Hear, Lear.) That they could bind the con-
I
science of' a Jew was generally admitted, and as the i
words " upon the true faith of a Christian' were purely •

of a ceremonial character, intended no doubt to giv.
greater significance and solemnity to the taking of the
oaths, he could see no reason, either in .a religious or
political point of view, why the phraseology should nut be
changed so as to enable the Jew to subscribe to
These expressions showed how strongly the country was
divided upon the subject ; but when the terms wen
considered attentively, it would apptar that then
was contained is them no degree of danger.—
(Ilear, hear.) It was by some others supposed that, as in
the olden time, the State was in subservience to tin
Church, it was not to be denied that there were per
sons who desired that the Charch should be in subser-
vience to the State. But there were facts which could not
be denied, and among them was tais, that they had
deliberately, and after a sufficient view of the circum-
stances of the case, already in two instances altered the
oaths taken by Members of Parliament, and departed
from the old rule which had prescribed that none should
be Members but those who were in communion with the
Church of England.—(Cheers and loud cries of " Hear.")
They had first altered the sacramental test in 1825, tine
again they had altered the terms of the oath in 1828;
and why should they depart from this rule o;
progress on the present occasion, and depart
from that principle which had always been
the distinguishing mark of the British constitution?
Another argument of religious expediency advanced
against the further progres of this measure Was
that the influence which this Bill, if passed
into ha', might introduci into the composition
of Parliament wou:d unfit it for the discharge
of that branch of its functions which concerned the
interests of the Church. He thought it would ho admitted
that there was a community in Parliament, coestituted
as it now was, which dealt a ith the affairs of the Church.
At the same time it rheuld be borne in
mind that Parliament dealt only with the temporal
affairs of the Church. A short answer to an objection
of that kind appeared to him to be that the con-
gruity which already existed was introduces
when the Members of that House ceased to to
exclusively composed of conformists to the
Church. He should pass on to another argument
lie referred to the value which was set on the
nominal profession of Christianity on the part
of the Members of the Legislature. That outward
unioa was represented as part of the law and
practice of Parliament and the • Constitution; bur
when was it, he would ask, that that had been e
guarantee of the Christianity of the nation? The Hon.
Member concluded by saying he would give his cordial
support to the second reading of the Bill.—(Loud and
prolonged cheering.)
Mr. TURNER opposed the measure, and could not
help observing that the House and the country were
much indebted to the Government for the calm and die-
passionete manner in which it was brought forward. It
bad been, for the most part, considered simply as a
question excluding the Jews. He thought it was
question of preference, rather than one of exclusion, or,
in other words, that it WAS to be an admission of Jews
to the exclusion of Christianity. That was not a mea-
sure, he contended, consistent with the policy of this
country. They excluded the Arian merchant and Ili(
Arian gentleman from Parliament, who were as anxious
to uphold the principles of tee British constitution and
the honour of England as any other class of her Ma
jeat)'s subjects ; and on what ground, having excluded
the Arian, vvould they admit the Jew? Beside, the Jews
had, and he trusted would long continue to have, re-
ligious freedom in the fullest sense of the word, and
that no, law whatever interfered with their werahip
or ceremonies. Their marriages had all the social
rights which every other class possessed, and
certainly it was the first time in history that a nation
living within a nation was permitted to enjoy its own
laws and privileges. The business of that House was to
promote Christianity among the people, and could they
expect that if a Jew became a member of that House,
he would promote by every means in his power, or vote
for any measure which would have the effect of extend.
ing that which he believed to be founded on imposture
and fraud? And then see what the position of a Jew
would be, if that Bill passed, on the hustings at an
election. 119 believed that such scenes would have the
effect of rendering persons of that persuasion a bye word
in this country, by the common people of England. A
Jew had never yet taken his seat in that House, and not-
withstanding what had been said by the Honourable
Member who last so ably addressed the Hone, he (Mr.
Turner) contended that Christianity was at all times a
qualification for a scat in that House. The day mighs
come when it would suit the p:casure or the duty of a
Jew to revile Christianity, and how, consistently with
the freedom of debate, could that be prevented ? In
the case of the Roman Catholics they were called upon
to revive a privilege, but in this case they were called
upon to create aright.--(Hear:) Ile further objected to
the language of the Bill. If ou expunged the words
"upon the true faith of a Christian," and left the words
"so help me God," you would put out of view the God
of the Christians, and an individual might substitute in
his mind any other deity. That, he thought, would be
prejudicial in many points of view, and therefore he
could not give his vote in support of this measure.
Mr. J..r. WILLIAMS said that the Jews were not a
proselytizing race, and therefore the danger anticipated
from their occupying seats in that House could not pos-
sibly follow. Seeing, therefore, no good reason why
they should be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by the
rest of their fellow- citizens, he should gives his fervent
support to the second reeding of this Bill.
Mr. TRELAWNY said that the Jews discharged all
the duties which other classes in this country were called
upon to perform, and they should enjoy equal rights.
Upon the 10th of April, last year, were the Jews back
ward in affording substantial aid to the preservation
of good order ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
Honourable Member who spoke last said truly that the
Jews were not a proselytizing sect. It was the last thing
the Jews sought or deired. It seemed to him pure
bigotry to oppose this Bill. It was said that you could
not. induce the Jews to vote in such a manner as would
be conducive to the interest of the community, but i
that were the only objection, the words of the affirm&
Lion or oath might be altered to guard against that con.
tingency.

HOPE said that this Oaths Alteration Bill was
brought in to cover a very different thing. It was, in
reality, a Jewish Emancipation Bill. He thought that
most objectionable in a Christian country and Legi.,la•
ture. Ho must, therefore, oppose the second reading of
the Bill.

Mr. ROBARTES raid that this preposition was no-
thing more than to do an act of social justice to a
class of fellow citizens, and he did not think that
there was anything in Christianity opposed to that, and
therefore he should give his support to the Bill.
Mr. NEW DEGATE said that a seat in that House
was given by the public for the public good, and for the
public good it should be continued. The words "on the
true faith of a Christian" were introduced originally in
times of danger as the test of the sincerity of each man's
actions, and were these words expunged he thought they
would have no claim to be considered as a Christian na-
tion. The removal of the present oath he regarded as a
temptation to the Roman Cathol-cs to take the oath
which they were now obliged to prescribe. The present
was not a period to remove the safeguard provided fur
the maintenance of the Church as by law established.
Evidently it was a denial of justice if they admitted
the Jews to Parliament, and refused admission to
the infidel. They should bear in mind, too, that at
the end of the last session of Parliament the Duke of
Wellington had proposed the insertion of a clause in the
Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill declaratory of
the rights of her Majesty as the ecclesiastical as
eel as civil head of the country. Tao necessity
for such a clause was admits: d, and the House of Com-
mons adopted it by a majority of 77 to 4. Ile knew not
what were the circumstances which had since occurred
to induce the Noble Lord at the head of the Government,
who voted for the clause, to sanction the removal of the
oath maintaining the supremacy of her Kijesty.
An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted,
but forty Members having been found present,
Mr. NE WDEGATE resumed—Coasidering what was
passing in another place, where the fate of the Ministry
hung in the balance, he was not in the slightest sur-
prised at the comparatively small number of the Mem-
bers present. If they admitted the claim of the infidel
to sit in that House, they should determine that the
House of Commons wes no longer a Christian assembly.
The Jews were aliens by birth, blood, and religion, and
as such, not entitled to sit, he contended, in the British
House of Commons.

Members to the Queen, and " on the faith of a Chris.
Tian" expressed that feeling." The Jew might express
his allegiance in any form that— was equally binding on
him.—(Hear, hear.) If they were indeed to go back
to the times of Richard the First, when 1,000 Jews
were sacrificed in cold blood ; if they could restore
the time when the Jews were consigned to the fury
of the people, or when they were kept for the especial
torture of kings, they might endeavour to keep froth
them their civil rights. But these things had passed, and
this country had not been less Christian. Jews were
allowed to hold office in this country, and yet the land
was not cursed.—(Hear, hear.):They had been admitted
into the corporation, and he was not aware that the cor-
porations had become less Christian then heretofore. To
be a Christian was, in his opinion, to do what they were
about to do with respect to this Bill. To act otherwise
would be to violate the principles of Christianity.
Stead of denouncing the Jews, they ought to do as the
Author of our holy religion-did—forgive them. To d°
this would be to show that they regarded Christianity
not as a part and parcel of the law of England, but as
in attribute of our holy religion, and as an example
worthy of imitation.—(Hear.)
Lord MAHON said that this question had a wider
range than that given to it by the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Arundel. The effect of passing this Bill would
prove a heavy blow and great discouragement to the
missionary labours of the army ofe martyrs who were
sndeavouring to propagate the Gospel, when . they
learned that the profession of Christianity was thought
to light of that Jews *ere admitted, into Parliament.
It was urged that the discharge of duties entitled a el"
Lzsti to all the privileges of the constitution, provided
se fulfilled his duty to the State; but to this there were
several exceptions? A clergyman was not eligible to sit
to the House of Commons; a bankrupt, who might not
eave failed in his. ditties to the State, could not sit iu
Parliament. The resistance to this Bill, founded on e
reverence to their own religion, ought not to be regarded
enfavourably; and of this he was convinced, that those
4 hoe ould vote against the Bill would not be influenced
by religious rancour.
The Marquis of GRANBY said this Bill was a meant'
to an end, and that end was the introduction of Jews to'
Parliament. He opposed that measure on religious
arcunds, for he could not think that Jews were fit to
legislate for Christians. In opposing this Bill he dis-
claimed any desire to persecute the Jews or to detract
from their respectability as individuals. They had al-
ready admitted them to all offices; military and civil, and
allowed them the right of worshipping in their syna-
gogues according to their own fashion, -and therefore
they would not be charged with being influenced by a
persecuting spirit towards the 'Jews. It was urged in
avour of the Bill that the Jews . were few in number,
but it was not whether they were numerous er few that
he measure should be judged, but upon the principle that
:heir admission would be a violation of the principles of
the constitution. If they admitted the Jews to Par-
liament they could not limit :the injury they could do
by the fewness of their number. While they acted with
all charity towards the Jews, they should take care not
to break down those barriers which were the defence of
their religion, and the means of its diffusion through'
out the world, arid in which he hoped the Jews would be
included.
Mr. FAGAN said, as a Roman Catholic, he should
support the s. cond reading of the Bill, upon the prin.'
eiple cf doing to others as he would be done by..
Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to the second reading of
the Bill, but he did not do so from any hostile or perse-
cuting spirit to the Jews. He looked back to their peat'
history with a respect amounting to veneration. But
when Members of that House were celled on to intro-
duce into a Christian 'assembly those who denied their
Lord and Seviour, he must be permitted to decline being
participator in such an act. He thought, therefore,
that the Hon. Member for Reading was wrong when Le
asserted that the Jews were not at variance with the
Christians, and believing the measure was one of great
impolicy, and uncalled for, he should oppose its second
reading.
Mr. EONCKTON MILNES would earnestly recom-
mend to the lion. Member for Kent, who had last
,poken, that although persons might itafiviclually oppose
the admission of Jews into that House, yet they had ne
right to assume that others should hallo a similar wish
to promote their return. Bet the question, after aP•
was—whether one of the highest and most influential
individuals in the country, and elected by one of the
most distinguished constituencies in the empire, shall be
prevented by, after all, a question of mere feral, from
taking his seat in that House. And ho was surprised
that, in the deliberations of thLt ..v.ning, a more frequent
allusion had not been made to that fact, so important
in the consideration of the question under discussioa,
TI ey had heard that-evening a history of the mode in
which the oath which excluded Baron Rothschild was
introduced into that House, perhaps in a manner superior
to what had been heretofore done; but the question was,
after all, whether a section of the great British empires
and a nly a section, sl-.ould be exc'uded from the benefits
of the British constitution. He thought they should
agree with him that, amid all the disorders and distur-
bences which had taken place in other parts of the
world, it was not safe to keep any man from such a par-
ticipation. Let them pass that Bill, and no portion of
the inhabitants of that empire, or of the subjects of their.
Most Gracious Sovereign, would have any cause to'
complain of exclusion from such a participation. Where
ever the Jewish nation, or any portion of that nation or,
people, had established themselves, they had invariably,
and without any exception whatever, identified them'
selves with the interests of that nation, and in no ono
instance had opposition come from them, but from those
who governed. If any Hon. Member would take the
trouble of reading the emigration and colonization of
that wcndt•rlul nation they would find that to be strictly
true. He should give the measure every support in his
pow, T.

Mr. BANKES observed that by far the best speech
made in favour of the measure was that spoken by
the Honourable Member for Leominster (Mr. Peel),
characterised as it was by the diffidence which belonged
to talent, and the modesty of one speaking for the first
time in that House. In reply to what that Honourable
Member asserted, that Jews were not excluded from
Parli?ment until modern days, he (Mr. Betakes) had
only to sty that inasmuch as they were not ever al-
lowed to possess a freehold property, it would have
been wore than useless to have introduced a measure to
prevent them, seeing they had not a qualification, and
could not therefore sit. Unless this Bill was consider-
ably altered in Committee, the effect would be that it
would admit not only Jews, but also Roman Catholics,
vtith all their hostility to the Established Church. 11°
thought that the present form was a check to honourable
Roman Catholics, As for persons not honourable, Ile
oath would bind them. The state and condition of this
House was not now what it was before Roman Catholics
were admitted to that House. If he were asked, had he
observed any mischief follow from their admission to that
House, he would answer yes, he had.—(Hear.) This
Bill was more mischievous than the measure of last year.
A seat in the House was no privilege, it was a duty
imposed upon them by their constituents. The elec-
tors had a right to choose them, ,whether they would
serve or not. This eas a Christian Parlia-
ment, and one of its duties was to regulate
the Christian Chu' ch, and it was not proper that
a Jew, whatever might be his qualifications of active
charity, should be called upon to discharge these duties
towards an EAublishment which,lto say the least of it, be
garded as an errcr. In regard to such solemn duties,
was it right to call on one who believed our fath to be
a falsehood to join in legislation? He thought it was
riot, and, therefore, should vote against the measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the House now called
for a division—(liter, hear)—he was anxious to give
some answer to the objections urged against this wee-
sure. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had
fallen into the error of affirming that the oath had not
Is en imposed with the express intention of excluding
the Jews from that House. Such exclusion was totally
opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and it was de-
sirable to remedy that injustice. He did not see that
this I3ill took away any security for tl e Protestant sue-
cession of the Crown, as the Hon. Member tcr Oxford
seemed to thick. The Act of Parliament on that subject
being perfectly good in itself, required no further force
to sustain it. Some Hon. Members had thought that
Christianity would be endangered. Only
imagine three or
four Jews in that House. What would be their power to
overthrow Christianity?---(Hear, hear.) Again, it was
:aid that they would use reviling language to Christie-
ity, but happily that House was nut a theological as•
:ornbly, and was it too great a stretch of charity to sup
pose that they would not?—(Hear, hear.) He wished
that there should be no exclusion on account of religion
—(Hear, hear)—and that there should be no punishment
or penalty on account of religious opinions.—(Cheers.)
They had been accustomed to hear in those debates that
this House was Christian, and that it was proposed to
unchristianiso it; but that had been admirably an-
swer, d by the fact, that the changes in our municipal
corporation; and other civil offices, had not had that
elect. He did not believe that the character of that
House would be altered by the admission of three or
four Jews.—(Hear.) If, while there were 40,000 Jews
in the country, it was still entitled to be called Chris-
tian, so, when there were three or four Jews in that
House, it would still be entitled to be called Christian.
(Hear.) He hoped that this House, disregarding the
arguments against the Bill and acting upon the princi-
ples of charity, which ho believed to be truly Christian,
would admit the Jews; and considering that they were
faithful adherents to the constitution nnder which We
live, and that they were loyal and peaceable subjects.
ready to defend the Sovereign of these realms, and
faithful to the British constitution, he hoped that they
would admit them to all the advantages of that consti-
tution.—(Cheers.)
„___ _

The Earl of ARUNDEL briefly replied to the re-
marks of the Hon. Member for Northampton, and con-
tended that where men of different religious persuasions
had been already admitted to the Legislature, he could
not understand why those who professed the Jewish
persuasion should be excluded.
Mr. SPOONER felt constrained to give tho Bill
every opposition. The Catholics, it was true, had been
admitted to seats in the Legislature, but he did not on
that account consider the Catholic religion the less ob-
jectionable or the less idolatrous. The representatives
of a Christian nation should be guided by Christian
principles, and they ought to maintain that constitu.
don which they had received horn their ancestors.
He objected to the alteration made in the oath, by
which they got rid of the purely Protestant form of the
oath, and which was essential to the existence of the
Protestant constitwion of thii country. It was a great
national sin to encourage idolatry, and to discourage
Christianity, which would be the practical effect of this
Bill.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said the state- of the
House (there was but a thin attendance) induced him,
even against his intention, of addressing a few words to
it on the question before it. Seeing that only fifteen or
sixteen of those Hon. Gentlemen were present who re-
presented that, if this Bill passed, this country would be
unchristianised, he was led to think that these opinions
were only lip opinions, and that the feeling which they
expressed did not enter into the moral nature of the
Hun. Geutlernen.—(Dear,) It was a fact that Parlia-
ment existed for ages without any oath being adminis-
tered to its Members, and that oaths could only be
traced back to the period of the Reformation. Why,
then, all this desire to make an oath operate to the pre-
. judiee of the Jew? Instead of exciting hostility to-
wards the Jew, we ought rather to sympathise with
him, for, surround, d as he was from his cradle to the
' grave by forms of religion, it was impossible for him
to escape from that religion in which he was born.
The Jew, was in truth, only an imperfect Christian.
We hold the most of our iaith in common with
the Jew—he only not reaching that diviner simplicity
which was the great attribute of the Christian religion.
—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Warwickshire
(Mr. Newdegate) said that the Jew was an alien in this
country. Was not the Samaritan an alien? And yet
when our Lord weaved to give an example of universal
he,thnrhood, hc; :,I•:_cte,l the conduct of the Saaturitan
;:. FLOZ,. Ile te,T;2-0-(Te e thong
tx.:;ltit any a,iou eivii ri,;fits (n
account of,his religion.—(Hear, hear.) Oaths were not
intended as a profession of faith in that House. They
were intended to express the allegiance of Honourable

Mr. GOULBURN said that so long as the House
was called upon daily to deal with matters deeply and
even vitally bearing upon the Christian faith, he could
not help pointing out the inconsistency of entrusting
those important duties to persons incompetent from
their religious feelings to the efficient discharge of those
duties.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the observations of the Nigh
Honourable Gentleman who had just addressed the
louse would, he presumed, be a lesson to the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, for they bad learned
from him that if the Bill brought under the considera-
tion of the Legislature proposed to admit persons of all
religious denominations to seats in the Legislature, there
will be no objection to the measure. The arguments
used, however, by the Right Honourable Gentleman did
not militate against the Bill, and he could show that all
Honourable Gentleman, when introducing a Bill of this
nature, was often obliged to be inconsistent with himself.
Take the Bill as it stood, and he was prepared to main-
tain that it went the hngth of admitting all men to seats
in the Senate, without regard to their religious belief.—
(hlear, hear.) The fifth clause of the Bill was general
is its eati:roetion; it permitted every person to make
prescribed. The words of the
c'y*Lso were general, and therefore of necessity
t.dmitted ever) body. What was it the Legislature
desired to do when it administerzd the oath which the
Bill prescribed ? In the first instance, 19 enforce the