The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

nested with the Church guided them in their legislative
principles, and the Ministers of the Crown in the pa-
tronage which was placed in their hands. He said that,
with respect to the Church, they might take one of two
courses. If popular principles continued to make rapid
progress, there might be a majority in that House that
would be inclined to exhibit a severe policy towards the
Church; but he expressed his deep and solemn convic-
tion that the adoption of such a course would be attended
with deplorable results. They must feel that the history
of the Church in the last century was a painful one, that
the Church was in a state of decline, and that when, to-
wards the end of the century, the French revolution burst
like thunder upon the world, the relations between the
clergy and their flocks were reduced to a mere skele-
ton, to the mere dry bones instead of vigorous life.
This life and vigour could not exist under a system
of stringent and coercive policy. There could
not be a working and efficient Church unless there
was respect for the Church, and unless -its own
real and moderate spirit were recognised, and they
studied to develop it in a spirit of candour. It would be
a great misfortune if the admission of alien religionists
into Parliament caused an:organic change in the Church;
but it would be a still greater misfortune if, after having
Admitted the Jew to the exercise of the franchise and
the magistracy, they took such narrow ground as the
principle of their exclusion. Having thus adverted to
the objection of his Noble Friend to this measure,
and having shown that the principles he laid
down were not proved, and that he had over-
stated the admissions which the Legislature would
make by such a law, and having shown that he
was unabiii to find a practical evil in the ad-
mission of Jews to Parliament, which weighed against
that which they would suffer by exclusion afti r their ad-
mission to functions of such importance had been recog-
nised, he could only say that he agreed with the Noble
Lord (J. Russell), this question assumed the shape of
one of justice. The more... the arguments drawn from
former times and used in successive Parlia•
ments were urged, the more their thinness was
shown ; while, on the other hand, if they ad-
mitted the Jews into Parliament in spite of prejudices re-
spectable in themselves, but which reflection would mi-
tigate, they would feel that they had done their duty in
conceding political rights to their fellow-subjects, and,
so far from disparaging Christianity or lowering it in
public estimation, they would tend to elevate it, if they
showed when, in the lapse of after years, the history of
this measure was read, that Christianity was a religion
which enabled them to fulfil their duty in spite of pre-
judices and prepossessions, and that, by fulfilling the
principles of justice, they had been also acting on the
principles of religion.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BANKES said the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell)
had agreed that infidels had held seats in that House.
It was true that Gibbon had taken the declaration on
the true faith of a Christian, but ho held no position in
that House, but, as an atheist he was powerless ; and
suck would not have been the case if he had not made
that declaration. It was true that Bolingbroke had sat
there, and exercised considerable power, but he never
avowed his infidelity. It was only after his death that
his infidelity had been discovered, but had it been known
before, great as had been his eloquence and talent, he
would have been powerless in this House. He (Mr.
Bankes) felt assured that if the:existing barrier which ex-
cluded the unbeliever, or, if not excluding him, disarmed
him of all pewer, was broken down, a mischief would be
inflicted upon the religious character of the Legislature
which never could be remedied. This was not a mere
question of the admission of Jews, but whether religion
was to be considered in any respect with regard to the
Legislature. The Honourable Member for Oldham
(Mr. Fox) had alluded to pe circumstance of the last
election for the City of leindon, but he (Mr. Fox) did
not conceive those circumstances iu any degree helped
the argument of those who were prepared to vote for the
admission of the Jews. If a constituency chose to elect
any person known by a law to be disqualified, and that
their choice should be yielded to, a dangerous door
would be opened with regard to other questions. Not
only a Jew might be admitted, but a Mahommedan or
Gentoo, or any other infidel who happened to possess
wealth. If report spoke true, he must be permitted to
to say, thatiwith respect:to the last and previous elections,
it had been stated that money had a very great influence
in determining the issue of the contest, and if money
could have such an influence in London, it would have
its effects in other parts of the country less pure—and
finding what had taken place at Sudbury a few years
ago, there might be some wealthy Mahommedan, having
a claim on the State to some hundred of thousands of
pounds, who would fad it easy to find a seat in Parlia-
ment if the proposed Bill was passed.. The promises
made on the admission Of Roman Catholics had not
been fulfilled, and he felt bound to oppose the motion,
which would still further throw open the portals of
the Legislature, and he was satisfied the more the propo-
sition was considered, the greater would be the alarm
createdlin every part of the kingdom.
Mr. ROMILLY said he was anxious to explain the
reasons why he thought the proposed measure ought to
receive the sanction of Parliament. He denied the jus-
tice of the principle laid down by the Hon. Baronet the
Member for the University of Oxford, that before any
British born subject could obtain his rights as such, he
must prove his qualification. Such a principle was con-
trary to the rigour of the constitution; it was not for
him to prove the qualification incidental to his birth-
right; the burden of proof lay on the opponents of the
Bill, to show that the individual was not entitled to the
rights and privileges, and to participate in the honours
e hich belonged to rest of his fellow-subjects.
The question was not so much one of substance as of
name. Those who opposed this measure formed a poor
estimate of the vigour of the Church of England, when
they entertained the notion of the slightest possibility
of the Jewish religion ever becoming dominant. It had
been asked, what would be the state of things if a Baron
Rothschild became Prime Minister, and as such have to
advise the Crown on the issue of conga d'elire for the
choice of a bishop? His answer was, that already
many Jews possessed the right of presenting to ad-
vowsons, and now presented to ecclesiastical pre!er-
ments, but bad there been the slightest objection urged
to the manner in which they had exercised the right of
presentation? Allusion had been made to the opinion
of Dr. Arnold; but it should be remembered that that
gentleman was alike opposed to the admission of Unita-
rians to Parliament. Of the valuable services of that
persuasion the House had had one instance that evening.
—(Hear) But was the Parliament a Unitarian Parlia•
ment because there were one or two Unitarians in it?
Was it a Roman Catholic Parliament, an Independent,
or a Methodist Parliament, because it contained a
few members of those persuasions ?—(Bear.) He did
not believe that any danger couldtesult from the admis-
sion of two or three Jews ; they could not possibly
effect an alteration in the form of prayer with which
the House commenced its proceedings ; nor was it
likely that they would take any decided share in the
discussion of religious questions. The citizens of Lon-
don
had compelled the House to turn serious attention
to this question. Was the House prepared to do as was
done in the case of John Wilkes : or would they not
rather accede to the views of one of the most important
constituencies of the empire?—(Hear.)
This was not a
question affecting Jews only ; everyone, whatever his
religious belief, if elected by the voices of his fellow-citi-
zens, ought to be eligible to a seat in the Legislature.
This could not be denied without injustice ; and by ad-
mitting the principle the Legislature would confer great
benefit, not alone on the Jews themselves, but on the
country at large, by securing to it the hearty co-opera-
tion of a large class of its most industrious and intelli-
gent citizens.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOULBIJIIN regretted to differ on this question
with many in whose views he had generally coincided.
lie regarded it as
a question of principle; and he op-
posed the admission of Jews to Parliament, not on any
of the grounds which had been assigned or imputed, as
promoting the fulfilment of prophecy, or as believing the
Jews to be destitute of that industry by which others
were animated. He resisted their admission on account
of the position of this Legislature as a Christian Legis-
lature. They ought not to be influenced by what had
been done by the constituency of London; the House
ought never to surrender an existing law because large
bodies in the country chose to act contrary to it; other-
wise they might at once surrender all their functions as
a Legislature. If this principle were sanctioned, its ap-
plication would be most extensive. Already we heard of
jurors refusing to convict on the clearest evidence, be-
cause they disapproved of capital punishments. Instead,
then, of yielding this point out of deference to the electors
of London, the House ought rather to make a more de •
tided stand against the threatened encroachment. This
question did not rest on the
same ground as the ad-
mission of Roman Catholic; for between Protestants
and Roman Catholics there was the common bond of a
belief in Christianity, which did not exist in the case of
the Jews. In their case exclusion was essential, if the
Legislature wished to preserve and carry out its Chris-
tian character. From the earliest period two tests had
been required of Members of the Legislature—alle-
giance to the sovereign and a belief in Christianity.—
(Hear, hear.) It was true those tests had undergone
various modifications in favour of dissenters and Roman
Catholics, but still the two great tests were preserved.
at the instance of the
might very soon be asked
by some other or perhaps.the.same constituency, to dis-
dthisepeHnoseudsewith
, the allegiance to the
Hear.) There Sovereign.—(were many foreign mer-
elplfeenoe
dis-
pense eeer
with
fi
oft theseh London,the
o wasth
mer-
chants in London as well qualified to Serve in Parlia-
ment as Baron Rothschild, but whose allegiance was
entirely given to foreign powers ; and in his opinion it
would be just as safe to dispense with the test of alle-
giance to the Sovereign as with that of belief in
Christianity.
thoseC wrihsetiawnere
other obligation
Allusion had been made to the prac-
tice of the House commencing its proceedings
with prayer ; and tll numerous other public
devotional proceedings withii which the House connected
Legislature.—(Hear,
lature.—(Hear,
not bound by the
had been said that these tests were ineffica-
ciousc?ase, ought they, therefore, to
dictates of their conscience from entering that House.
it
hear.)self
fs
et stamped
Itm
The fact of Gibbon having taken the oath was a bad ar-
gument for the repeal of the law ; because the power
dispense with it altogether To do this would not only
affect the Christian character of the
Legislature—it
would ppreedvetnhtisingasa.
give a shock to the Christian feeling of the na-
tion, and would discourage. the efforts of all who were
Christianity. He
seeking to promote . , did not fear that
was not sufficient in every
the few Jews to be admitted would seek to overtulln the
established religion ; the
great_ danger to be apprehended
was in the public feeling. The necessary impression on
the public mind would be, that the Legislature bad be-
com e
indifferent to the great truths which they professed
to believe.—(Hear, hear.) It was most important to
preserve the confidence of the nation. Many measures
brought before
the Legislature demanded implicit
confidence
from the people ; and were the measure
now proposed to be adopted. would any one doubt
that a fatal blow would be given to the
public confidence ?—(Hear, hear.) This nation was one
which wielded the most mighty influence ; it was a
deeply religious nation, notwithstanding the existence of

much ignorance and crime, which the most enlightened
were daily striving to remove; and would the Legislature
proclaim to those benevolent individuals their disregard
or indifference to the great princip!cs of Christianity?
Not only at home, but in our distant possessions, would
the effect of such a measure be severely felt. In the east,
the British nation earnestly inculcated the truth o;'
Christianity upon its millions of Hindoo subjects; and
of what avail would be those efforts and professions if
the Hindoos learnt that at home no diUrence was re-
cognised by the British Legislature between those who
held Christianity and these who denied it? After this,
how would it be possible to persuade the Hindoos that
the English were sincere in their professions of Chris-
tianity ?—(Hear, hear.) The greatest obstacles to the
diffusion of Christianity had always arisen from the
inconsistent conduct of its professors; and if the step
now proposed were taken by the Legislature, it would
weaken the efforts of all the promoters of Christianity
in every part of the world.—(Hear, and cries of
" Divide. ') He looked upon it as a question of a reli-
gious nature, and viewing it in this light, he cordially
concurred in the sentiments of the learned body he repro
stinted, that if this measure was passed into a law, it
would be calculated to shock the religious Peelings of the
country.—(Hear, hear, and loud cries of " Divide.")
Mr. PLUMPTIZE opposed the motion. .

Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I observed that the Noble
Lord who introduced -this question to our consideration
tonight introduced it to our consideration as a ques-
tion of principle. I have just heard the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge
(Mr. Goulburn) oppose that proposition in a very able
speech, and he grounded that opposition also because it
is a question of principle. The principle of the Noble
Lord is the principle of religious liberty; the principle
of the Right Hon. Gentleman is, I apprehend, the prin-
ciple of religious truth. The Noble Lord, in applying
to the solution of this question the principle of
religious liberty, has adopted a principle which, in
comparison with the subject on which we are now
deliberating, is one of novel introduction into this
country; a principle which in its application has effected
very great ends and very great results—a prin-
ciple which the Noble Lord has a right, almost above all
other men, from his descent and his personal exploits, to
look up to with respect. It is not, Sir, for me on the
present occasion to give any opinion upon the validity
of that principle. I am not here to impugn its sound-
ness, and I do not find it necessary to say anything in
support of it. I am satisfied that a great body of gen-
tlemen in this House will allow that opinion on the
present occasion to be decided by their belief in the
principle of religious liberty. But, I may say, for my-
self, that I am one of those who believe that there is
something more excellent than religious liberty—
and that more excellent thing is religions truth. I may
be, permitted to say, also, that religious conformity—re-
ligtous truth taking the shape of religious conformity—
is in my mind unquestionably a very great blessing;
and though I am not here to impugn for a
moment the validity of the principle on which
the Noble Lord has founded mainly his argument in
support of this measure, at the same time I beg to state
that it is not upon that principle that I shall be in
fluenced in giving my vote this evening. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of
Cambridge has told us that this is a question of princi-
ple, and a question, indeed, whether this is to be a re-
ligious or a non-religious country ; and the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford
(Mr. Gladstone) is going to support the proposition of
the Noble Lord—although he declared frankly, and in
a manner that did him, under the circumstances in which
he spoke, the greatest honour, that he found it necessary
to excuse the vote that he was giving from the character
which that vote might assume from the more superficial
circumstances of the case. The Right Hon. Gentleman
gave us a philosophical description of the consecutive
development of the circumstances in this country which
rendered it, in his opinion, most politic and even neces-
sary in him to support the proposition of the Noble Lord,
though, at the same time, he seemed to conceive that a
state of affairs might exist which would be snore agree-
able to his feelings and more consentaneous to his
wishes. The Right Honourable Gentleman con-
fessed it was the progress of events that rendered
it necessary for him to give that vote, and—l appre-
hend I am not misinterpreting him—he feared that
the House and the country might misconceive
the motives which induced him to give that vote,
and the reasons which influenced him in coming to the
resolution which he himself was enforcing. Now, Sir, I
have arrived at a conclusion entirely contrary. I do not
think that the vote which the Nuble Lord wishes us to
support him with is one which ought to give an impres-
sion to the country that there is any deficiency of reli-
gious feeling in this House. Because, what are the cir-
cumstances of the case? It affects those subjects of the
Queen who profess the Jewish religion. They are not
many in point of number—they arc a people who do not
hold monster. meetings; they do not form themselves
into societies to act against the law; but they are a
people who come and make an appeal to this House, and
who ask the II )(Ise whether it is prepared—as I hope it
will be prepared—to admit that appeal—(Cheers)—and
among other reasons on account of the religious asso-
ciations connected with the subject. I agree with the
Noble Lord the Member fur Bath (Lord Ashley) in con-
sidering this as a religious question. For who are thOse
perions professing the Jewish religion? They are per.
sons who acknowledge the same God as the Christian
people of this realm?—(Cheers.) They acknowledge
the same divitse revelation as yourselves. They
are, humanly speaking, the authors of your reli-
gion. They are unquestionably those to whom
you are indebted for no inconsiderable portion of
your known religion and for the whole of 3 our &vita;
knowledge. Well, then, Sir, there is prima facie
reason to suppose—looking at the question upon the sur-
face with regard to its religious associations—that the
representatives of a Christian community would nut look
with disfavour at such an appeal made by such persons.
—(" Oh! oh!") Some gentleman whom I do not know,
and whom I cannot see, appears to express dissent.
He probably is one of those who look with disfavour
upon the appeal made by the Jewish people, but he ap•
pears to me to represent upon the present occasion a
small minority.—(Cheers.) Because I observed that
many persons who have spoken against the proposition
of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) have admitted the
extraordinary claims of those who profess the Jewish re-
ligion to participate in the rights and privileges of a
Christian society, and they have felt unable to get over
that difficulty. The Noble Lord the Member for Bath
was a signal example of that position of the debate. I
had the misfortune not to hear a portion of that which I
will call the noble speech of the Noble Lurd the Member
for Bath.—(Cheers.) But I had the gratification of
listening to the last and much the larger portion of his
address, and if I had not known anything about this
House, I might have supposed him to be some person
rising with the inspiration of his subject, and speaking
with great authority, so irresistible was the Noble
Lord's argument and so rich his illustrations, had he
not ended by opposing the motion and acknowledging
more than once that he felt a great difficulty in assigning
a distinct reason for that opposition. The Minister,
when he introduced this question to-night, felt it neces-
sary to glance with some obscurity to the only tangible
reason which could influence them and other Govern-
ments in opposing the admission into Parliament of per-
sons holding the Jewish religion. The reason was only
partly adverted to by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell),
but the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, with the
earnestness of his heart in the subject, told us that the
real cause of the prejudice against the Jews is, that they
are looked upon by the people of this country—by por-
tions of them at least—as having incurred a penal retri-
bution for the crucifixion of our Lord.—(Elear.) The
Noble Lord (Ashley) placed that question before the
House, and it is only because ho did so that I allude to
the subject. But the strange feature in the cash is, that
the Noble Lord stated at the same moment that
he gave no credit to that proposition, and
that he could not bring to his mind to be-
lieve that the existing Jewish population in this or any
other country, were, in consequence of that mysterious
and most important event in the annals of the world,
liable to any such punishment. It is well known th it
long before that momentous event the Jewish people
had been dispersed through many lands, and that the
Jews of this and other European countries may have
sprung from those who had left Palestine long before
that event. The Noble Lord said, then, there was no
ground for entertaining that belief. But if that is not
the cause of the opposition to the present motion—and
that is the cause out of doors—what is the definite
ground which you bring forward is opposition to the
Jewish claims? I leave the question of religious freedom
to work its own way, and I will not advert to that por-
tion of the subject which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
J. Russell) has touched with the ability of a master. But
I look to the opposition of Gentlemen on this side of the
House who object to this motion on the ground of reli-
gious truth, and I say that it is on that ground, as Wt II
as on the ground of religious freedom, that I feel bound
to give my vote for the proposition of the Minister—
for if faith is valued as a sanction of conduct, with what
consistency can a Christian people say that those
to whom they are indebted for the doctrines of their
faith—who profess the religion which every gentle-
man in this room professes—for every gentleman here
does profess the Jewish religion, and believes in Moses
and the Prophets—have not faith?—Cheers.) I find that
there are gentlemen who, it seems, do not believe in
Moses and the Prophets, and that gives some strength
to the observation made to-night about Gibbon and Hume.
But until I heard this scoff I thought this was a position
in the argument whieh might be regarded as established
and which was too clear to need refutation. Well, then
I say if religion is a sanction of religious conduct you
have that security in the instance of the Jews, who pro-
fess a true religion.—(" Oh, oh !") It may not be in
your more comprehensive form. I do not say it is the
true religion ; but although they do not profess all that
we do, all they do profess is true.—(Hear, hear.) You
must admit then, that in men who are subject to the
divine revelations that you acknowledge—whose morals
are founded on the sacred oracles to which we all bow—
that as far as religion can be a security for their con
duct, for their public morality and justice, you have in
the religion of the Jews the best sanction in the
world except that of our o vn Christianity.—(Loud cheers.)
You will hardly say that the religion of the Jews
is not a sanction of their moral conduct ; but then you
will say, that if you admit the Jews into this House on
the principle advocated by the Noble Lord, you will de-
Christianize the country, and the professors of other
religions, not like the Jews, and which have not so great
an affinity to that which we profess, may enter into the
House. But the best evidence in the face of Europe of
our Christian sincerity, is that we admit the Jews to the
highest privileges of citizenship, and to the highest offices
of the State, without so admitting the professors of other
religions. The very reason for admitting the Jews is
because they can show so near an affinity to you.
Where is your Christ, if you do not believe in their
Judaism?—(Hear.) Do not mix up, then, the conside-
ration of a question which is so intimately allied to you
with the different considerations that would apply to the

Pagan and the Mahonnnedan. I am prepared to lay down
the broadest principles as to the importance of maintain-
ing a Christian character in this House and in this coun-
try, and yet it is on this very ground you will found and
find the best argument for the admission of the Jews.—
(Cheers.) I deny that their case, to a Christian senate
and people, depends on the same arguments, and re-
quires the same pleading as the CUP of the Pagan and
the follower of Mahomet. But the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for the University of Cambridge says•
that the very consequence of your admitting the Jews
into this House is, that you are losing your hold on
distant countries ; that you aro, in fact, losing your
power of conversion in distant lands by admitting them
into Parliament ; and that, iu fact, you will no longer
recognise the Christian religion. I ask you, on the other
hand, to admit the Jews into this House, and into the
enjoyment of every social and civil right, just becaure I
differ with the Right Hon. Gentleman. Look at it as a
religious case. Suppose this was, as it might have been,
a Druidical assembty ; suppose you had, as you might
have had, a bench of Druids in another place—(Hear,
and laughter)—and supposing then that the Jews, a
people numbering some 4QOOO or 50,000, had claimed
from you an entrance into this House, and demanded
the full enjoy m, nt of British citizenship. Then I appre-
hend that yon might have said, " This is a question
of high policy, whether we shall admit these persons,
small in number, professing a religion of which we
know nothing, and Vito eing perhaps habits of life
which may be very dissonent with ours, to a full parti-
cipation in our privileges, and allow them to sit in the
national senate." But a Christian senate and commu-
nity are placed, in reference to the Jews, in a position
quite different, and must not for a moment be confounded
with what their position would be in reference to a fol-
lower of Mahomet or a Pagan. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for the University of Cambridge
appears to be alarmed lest our 'influence In foreiin
countries, our influence in the work of conversion in
foreiga countries, should be lessened by acceding to the
proposition of the Minister. Sir, I have • that faith in
Christian principles, that I think' they will snake their
way, and must make their way; by their own essential
power—(Cheers)—and that he who preaches them will
not exercise great influence in their diffusion be use,
according to the view of the Right Hon. Gentlerna* he
can intimate to those whom he wishes to convert that
they will enjoy some advantages by acceding to the
faith he wishes to propagate.—(Cheers.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman was once a Secretary of State, and Se-
cretary of State for the Colonies, and when in that office
he must have seen, in the West Indies and other places,
colonies of ours governed by deliberative and represen-
tative assemblies, in which Jews. were seated—and not
Jews only, but even Pagans.—(No, no.) There are
Buddhists who sit in the Legislative Chamber in the
island of Ceylon. But lam not adducing these facts as
precedents for the guidance of your decision in the pre-
sent case. I place the question upon the religious
grounds on which it was based by the Noble Lord the
Member for Bath, and I mix it up neither with the
principle of religious liberty, nor :with those principles
which other Gentlemen have advocated, that you should
not look to faith, but admit all faiths alike. I dismiss
all those considerations, and I say it is because this is a
Christian assembly, and this is a Christian country, that
the Jews must find a reception among you. So far as
reason is concerned, I say that no reason one can
grapple with—no precise and definite argument—has
been adduced against the motion of the Noble Lord.—
(Hear, hear.) There is one part of this question
which has great influence in this country; and allusion
has been made to the difficulty which would arise
out of the position in which the Jews if admitted
here would be placed in connexion with the Church of
England. That is a question, as it appears to me, on
which great misconception exists. I shall not dilate
upon a point already referred to, remarking only that
the professors of the Jewish religipn are not thcise who
proselytise. So far as my argument is concerned, I place
no weight upon that consideration. But observe, the
Jew is necessarily, from his religion, et religious being.
However he may have been persecuted—however he may
have been degraded—however he may have been brutal,
lised by the effect of those dark traditions which have
really influenced the public opinion in relation to him to
which I have referred, which never existed at the ear-
lier periods of Christianity, but which are the product
of the most benighted part of the feudal ages, he has
been sustained alone by the Divine law he obeyak and by
the sublime morality he professes.—(Hear, hear.)
The Jew has no thought of establishing his- own
church ; it is an idea foreign to his own nature—
foreign to the result of all his laws, of all his habits,
and all his traditions. As such an object is both un-
desirable and impossible to him, it is his object to
support the religious institutions of whatsoever coun-
try it may be in which he is permitted to enjoy the civil
rights of a subject. In China there is a large colony of
Jews, descendants of Jews who probably left Palestine
thousands of years before Christianity was established,
and there they exist, a loyal, religious people, no doubt
anxious, as they always are, to uphold the ecclesias-
tica: institutions of the country. But in Europe—that
Europe which you have baptised Christendom—how
stands the Jew in relation to the Church of Christ ?
What possible object can the Jew have to oppose the
Christian Church? Is it not the first business of the
Christian Church to make the population, whose minds
she attempts to form, and whose morals she seeks
to guide, acquainted ,with the history of the Jews ?
Has not the Church of Christ—the Christian Church,
whither Roman Catholic or Protestant—made' the his
•tory of the Jews the most celebrated history in the
would? On every sacred day you read to the people
the exploits of Jewish heroes, the proofs of Jewish
devotion, the brilliant annals of the past Jewish mug-
nifieenee.—(ll4ar, hear.) The Christian Chureh has
covered every kingdom with sacred buildings, over
every one of who-e altars, as we were properly
reminded by the Honourable Member for Oldham,
you found the tables of the Jewish law. Every Sunday
—every Lo 41's-day—if you wish to expre.:s feelings of
praise and thanksgiving to the Most High, or if you
wish to find expressions of solace in grief, you find both
in the words of the Jewish pests. It is in the Christian
Church, which )ou persist in believing it must be the
desire of the Jew-to oppose, that he must, if he be not
persecuted, behold that Divine corporation which
tteachee
to all the nations oft he civilised world the sublime morality,
the beautiful poetry, and the true faith which he pro-
fesses. And I cannot help believing that a man owning
all the traditions, all the habits, all the laws of a Jew
a man who wishes to maintain inviolate the religious in-
stitutions in every country in which he lives—can ever
its
forms, upon the Catholic Church, whatever may bo
forms, with other feelings than those of the deepest in-
terest, and as I think, with those of reverent affection.
An Hon. Gentleman has said that if you wish to convert
the Jews it is no hard matter; the first step is to let
them become acquainted with you. And it ought not
to be a hard matter. All the early Christians were
Jews. The Christian religion was first preached
by men who had been Jews until they were con-
verted ; every man in the early ages of the Church, by
whose power, or zeal, or genius, the Christian faith was
propagated,
eated was a Jew, and I cannot believe if you are
really anxious for the conversion of the Jews—(" Di-
vide")—l am sorry gentlemen are so impatient, but I
feel that I am pleading a difficult cause—(Cheers)—and
I feel it my duty to speak without concealment of my
real opinions. Nothing but a conviction of solemn
duty has caused• me to undertake a task which I assure
the Honourable Gentleman is no agreeable one.—

(Hear, hear.) I think, Sir, that if this question be dis-
cussed at all, it should be discussed with the most per-
fect frankness. I do not think it in the least advisable
that we should discuss it with reference to what after
all is the real point, and I for one thank
the Noble Lord the Member for Bath for
having put the case fairly before the House.
If one could suppose that the arguments which he heard,
—the arguments actually pat forth—were the only ar-
guments that influenced the decision of this question, it
would be impossible to conceive what was the reason of
the Jews not being admitted to a full participation in the
rights and duties of a Christian Legislature. In exact
proportion to your faith ought to be your wish to do
this great act of national justice. If you had not for-
gotten what you owe to this people,—if you were grateful
for that literature which for thousands of years has
brought so much instruction and so much consolation to
the sons of men, you as Christians would be only too
ready to seize the first opportunity of meeting the
claims of those who profess this religion. But you are
influenced by the darkest superstitions of the darkest
ages that ever existed in this country. It is this feeling
that has been kept out of this debate; indeed, that has
been kept back in yourselves—enlightened as you
are—and that is secretly influencing -.you as it is
influencing others abroad. Why, theon. Gentleman
the Member for Kent is a man who ought to be
the foremost advocate of the claims of the Jews, un-
less he believes in what the Noble Lord the Member
for Bath calls the base calumny of the middle ages.
The Hon. Member for Bath assigned irresistible reasons
for not believing it; yet it is that dark calumny of the
feudal times, founded on gross misrepresentations of
history, geography, and theology, which is the origin of
the prejudice against the ancient faith, It would be the
most difficult task in the world to present these truths to
any but a Christian assembly. I feel, that the race are
deficient in many of the qualities which would make a
statesman consent to be an advocate of their interests.
It is entirely on religious grounds and on religious prin-
ciples that I venture to recommend the subject to your
notice. HI do so with earnestness I hope I may be
pardoned. This is not a subject which often comes
under our consideration. I hope we shall find occasion
to dispense with its consideration again. But it is a ques-
tion on which men, whatever may be the consequences
—on which at least I, whatever may be the con-
sequences, must speak what I feel. I can-
not sit in this House with any misconception
of my opinion on the subject—(Hear.) What-
ever may be the consequences on the seat I hold—and
I should not have referred to such a consideration un-
less other gentlemen had done so,—l cannot, for one
give a vote which is not in deference to what I believe
to be the true principles of religion., Yes, it is as a
Christian that I will not take upon me the awful re-
sponsibility of excluding from the Legislature these
who are of the religion in the bosom of which my Lord
and Saviour was born.—(Cheers.) This is tie
deration on which I place the question, awl so
um I of the saer. d truth I have enunciated that, though
sensible there may
be a majority of the House, who,
however favourable to those claim
the question on grounds of decide upon
political justice, expediency,
and truth, I will not decide upon it animated by those
considerations. It is on the religious ground, on the
religious principle alone, that I give my vote for the
proposition of the Minister ; and it is to those who have
objected to it on that ground that I venture to address
a statement of views which I hope they will accept, not
from my words, but from the eternal truths on which
they are based.—(Loud cheers.)
Sir T. ACLAND must on fixed principles rest his
objection to the motion. In a constitutional point of
view, he denied that it was simply an extension of those

r principles of religious enfranchisement which had of
late years been developing themselves; it was a wholly
new principle, now first introduced. The admission of
the Catholics presented no analogy; the-Catholici had
aforetime constituted the Parliament altogether, and
they were only afterwards excluded from feelings of
political danger arising from their presence:. He
thanked God that such political danger no longer ex-
isting, the Roman Catholics had again been admitted
within the walls of Parliament. But this was a totally
distinct question from the admission of persons whose
religion was perfectly opposed to Christianity. The
new principle sought to be introduced was nothing less
than the introduction of the principle advocated by the
Hon. Member for Montrose, who had - openly said in
the House that legislation had nothing to do with re-
ligion, and that the less religion had to do with legisla-
tion the better.
On the motion of Mr. LAW, the debate was ad-
journed, amidit loud cries of " Divide."

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir R. H. INGLIS moved the following select Com-
mittee on the present state of the New Palab° at
Westminster, with a view to the reception and accom-
modation of this House therein :—Sir R. IL Inglis,
Viscount Morprth, Sir R. Peel, Earl of Lincoln, Mr.
Herries, Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Stephen-
son, Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Osborne, Lord E. Bruce, Mr.
Deering, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Tufnell, and Lord Robert
Grosvenor.

Mr. FORSTER thought they ought to have some
information with regard to the proceedings of the former
Committee, and also as to the enormous expenditure of
money which was taking place, before they consented to
the present one.—(Hear, hear.) He should therefore
move that the motLn for the Committee be postponed.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that all those whose names
were on they Committee were on the former one,, With
the exception of Mr. Stephenson, and no persons could
have devoted more attention to the discharge of their
duties.
Dr. BOWRING thought that a statement with respect
to the proceedings of the former Committees should have
preceded the present motion.
Mr. BANKES was of 'the same opinion, and thought
that they should htivtsiame account respecting the.enor-
mous expenditure which had taken place, and he was
afraid, not very satisfactorily.
!Lord MORPETH said that the Hon. Member for the
University had shown him the
,games, of the Committee
before he made the motion, ancl., he considered them in
every respect well qualifiecrror the discharge of the
duties that were to, deVolve upon them. He, therefore,
could have no objection to he appointment.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought it was high time that this
job of the new Houses of Parliament was stopped.—
(Laughter,) A more wasteful expenditure of public
money had never taken place. The original estimate
was 780,000/. ; 1,500,0004 bad already been expended,
and yet the building was not near completion. On the
bringing up of the report he would state all the facts o
the case.

Lord H. VANE believed no advantage would arise
from the appAntment of a Committee. It would he
better to leave the matter entirely under the direction of
the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests. -
Lord LINCOLN defended the parties engaged in the
management of the new erections. If any job had been
perpetrated, those who had held the office of Chief Co-
mmissioner were blameable. As regarded expense;there
were many items not contemplated in the original esti-
mate, including the river wall and ventilation, for the
latter of which 50,000/. or 60,000/. was added to the
estimate.at the suggestion of a Committee. The inves-
tigations made on this subject had shown that Mr.
Barry bad in no material instance exceeded the estimate.
Colonel SIBTHORP advocated inquiry.
Viscount MORPETH, after the charge brought for-
ward against Mr. Barry, and the uncourteous way in
which it had been pressed, had no hesitation in saying
that a Committee ought to be appointed,' before which
Mr. Barry should have an opportunity of rebutting the
very coarse attack that had been made upon him. He
had no hesitation in saying that he. regarded Mr. Barry
as honourable a man as any he know.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he had brought forward this
subject as a public duty, and he was determined to
prosecute it. He did not charge Mr. Barry more than
her Majesty's Government. They were equally culpable.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the appointment of a
Committee might hftive the effect of itifling inquiry. Go
where they might out of the House,''they heard of no-
thing but complaints of the lavish expenditure on this
building.

Sir 117. PEEL expressed an opinion that it would be
desirable to have a full inquiry into the whole subject of
expense, works, the probable period of completion, and
causes of excess upon the original estimate. Such an
inquiry, if entered into in a good spirit, might be very
useful in its results.?

Mr. B. OSBORNE on his part, was determined that
the matter should not be hushed up.
After one or two further observations, it was
agreed that this question be adjourned until to-morrow
(this day.)

- THE RAJA OF SATTARA. •
Mr. G. THOMPSON begged to ask whether it was
that intention of her Majesty's Commissioners for the
atthtrs of India, in conjunction with the court of directors,
to send out any orders cr instructions to the Govern-
ment of India in Werence to the future support Of tho
family and relations of the deceased Raja of Sattarh, and
of his numerous dependents ? And also, whether any
digpatches have been tcceived from India, stating the
atop, which have been taken by the Governor-General
of India, in cons(.queoce of the death of the ex-Raja of
Sattara ?

Mr. C. LEWIS said the Board of Control and the
India board had not I ece red official inimation of the
death of the Raja, but when they ci:d tLe subject would
b? taken into consideration.

Tfic House adjourned at Ten Minutes to One o'Clock,

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 16.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the
Lord Chancellor, took his seat upon the Woolsack at
Five o'clock.

PETITIONS.

Lord FARNHAM presented a petition from An-
dover, praying their Lordships to adopt measures
to prevent the Roman -Catholics priests of Ire-land
from denouncing persons from the altar.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition
from Cricklade, praying for a consolidation of turn-
pike trusts.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a
petition from Downpatrick, complaining of the ad-
ministration of the poor-law in Ireland, more parti-
cularly as regards out-door relief. He had always
been a friend to the poor-law in Ireland, so
far as out-door relief was concerned, but
he considered that the system of out-door relief
tended to encourage pauperism.
CASE OF DR. HAMPDEN.

The NOBLE MARQUIS than gave notice that, to-
morrow, he should put a question to the Noble Mar-
quis, (Lansdowne), as to the authenticity of the cor-
respondence alleged to have passed between the Prime
Minister and certain of the Bishops, as to the pro-
posed appointment of Dr. Hampden to the bishopric
of Hereford, and whether it was intended to persevere
in the appointment.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the order
of the day for the House resolving itself into
Committee on this Bill. The commission of
those crimes in Ireland which it was the
object of this Bill to repress was too
notorious to call upon him to go into any
lengthened details. It was one feature of these
crimes, that while the victim almost invariably fell,
the murderer almost as invariably escaped with im-
punity. He should have felt it his duty to recite and
describe those murders to which he had al-
luded, and to comment on them in the language
they deserved, but these crimes were matters of
public notoriety ; he should not, therefore further al-
lude to the murder of Major Mahon and of other vic-
tims of these outrages, but should allude to other
crimes of less magnitude, which, in conjunction with
these murders, proved the existence of a conspiracy
against human lifes against the existing state of so-
ciety, against the rights of property, and of
industry itself. In the month of November,l,33s crimes had been committed in Ireland
against 1,035 committed in the preceding month.
These crimes consisted principally in the sending of
threatening letters and in robberies of arms. One of
these cases took place in Cavan. Two small farmers,
more industrious than their neighbours, had raised
crops, and had each provided himself with a gun to
defend himself from outrage. In one night the dwell-
ing of each of these persons had been broken open, and
their guns taken. In Monaghan a fishing company had
been established. Their establishment was attacked
and their property destroyed. In Limerick a man's
horse had been destroyed because he had let out the
horse to draw meal at a lower rate than these legis-
lators chose to determine. This Bill was a Bill not for
twhaesdheofennecset oafuthe
industrious,r ichm an, butanodf poorenvoeroyne
cld on ,object
to it
to see the rights of property
and the rights
did not desire
riguanfindu man who
industry destroyed. In a recent
case Mr. Johnson, a most popular magistrate, had
been fired at, because, as a magistrate, he
personshad.b
had fined
nCeoduntyacrna eshot ,
forooon,
fibr
because
cda
uasttrespass.ei‘,hier.
Barlow, and another at his had Georgerlen.
fused to employ a man named Fegan. In Monaghan
an attempt had been made to shoot two far-
mers, named Blane (father and son), because the
son had presumed to discharge a servant-maid.
These cases were sufficient to .5h iw the objects and
extent of this dark and sanguinary conspiracy. Ile
would now describe the character and provisions of
the Bill which gave the Lord-Lieutenant power to
adopt measures to put down crime and outrage in
disturbed districts.—(The Noble Marquis then pro-
ceeded to de. cribe in detail the provisions of the
Bill, with which the public are already acquainted.)
In alluding to the provision rendering it a misde-
meanour in persons refusing to join a hue and cry
against persons who had committed
outrages,- the
Noble Marquis paid a high compliment to those
among the peasantry who had nobly done their duty
by opposing, and in many instances apprehending,
Persons who had been guilty of outrage. In
all these cases the parties so acting had been
sought out and rewarded by the Lord Lieutenant.
The desire of the Government In p_roposing this mea-
sure had been to .provide an effeaftal rktuedylor the
deplorable state of things existing in Ireltuld but in
•