The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-18 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES

Lord NUGENT presented a petition complaining of
the practice of forcing Dissenters to pay church rates.
He was confined for a refusal to pay ss. He was aware
that this House could only give him relief by the abro-
gation of the church-rate law for which he prayed.
NAVIGATION LAWS.

Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE gave notice that on Mon-
day he should ask when it was the intention of the
Noble Lord, (Lord John Russell), to bring forward his
measure with respect to the navigation-laws?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he should not be
able on Monday to state the precise day on which he
should bring forward the measure, but he was then pre-
pared to say, that that measure would be introduced at
the very earliest period after the recess.
NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. LABOUCHERE, in answer to a question put on
a previous evening by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Mahon), said that no dispatch had been received from
Governor Grey on the subject with reference to which
the Noble Lord had put a motion on the table.
Lord MAHON complained that there was no assimi-
lation in the mode of laying papers before the House
pursued by the foreign and colonial officers, the former
officers giving the dates of the dispatches, while the
latter did not. He wished to know whether the officers
could not be assimilated in this respect.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had communicated with the
Secretary for the Colonies, and that Noble Lord had no
objection to urge against the same rule applying in the
case of the colonial- officers.
GOODS IMPORTED INTO SPAIN.
Mr. BANKES said that with respect to a
question asked of the Foreign Secretary last
night he did not see the Noble Lord then in the House ;
but as the Noble Lord at the head of the Governmen;
nod the President of the Board of Trade were in their
places, perhaps they could answer. He wished to know
if the Government had received any intimation from the
Spanish Government that that country had altered the
tariff on all goods imported into Spain from other
countries? .

Mr. LABOUCHEIM expected the Noble Lord in his
place presently, when he would answer the question of
the Hon. Member.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN CRIMINAL CASES.
Mr. S. WORTLEY begged to give notice that he
should put a question, on Monday, with reference to the
necessity of establishing a public prosecutor in criminal

cases.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the question had
been under consideration, but no definite plan had been
yet settled.
Mr. WAKLEY thought that the sooner a public pro-
secutor were provided the better.
CHELTENHAM ELECTION.
Mr. WALPOLE, in moving the consideration of the
petition of Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., M.P. (pre-
sented 14th December), alleging that the recognizance
entered into by the petitioners against the return, is not
in the form prescribed by the Act 7 and 8 Vic. c. 103,
and praying that no further proceedings may be had
upon the said petition, said that the recognizances en-
tered into on the case of the petition against the return
for Cheltenham was not in the form required by the
Act, inasmuch as the electors, who were bound, did not
enter into their recognizances severally as well as jointly.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred to precedents
in which the Speaker had decided that costs could not
bo paid in similar cases; and Lord Denman and Mr.
Justice Tindal bad decided that as the pro-
ceedings in one of the cases had commenced
with a blot upon the face of them, they could not
be rectified. This opinion was also entertained by some
of the ablest lawyers in the courts, namely, Sir Fitzroy
Kelly, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Austin. Another
question—and it was an important one—was, whether
the decision of the examiner of the recognizances was
final or not?—(Hear, hear.) This officer gave two
certificates—first, that the recognizances entered into
were in the form prescribed by the Act; and secondly,
that the sureties were sufficient. These were important
matters for the consideration of the House, as the
parties interested on the other side had no other
means of showing that the sureties were defective.
The Hon. and Learned Member concluded by moving
the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into
the allegations of the petition, and report upon the same
to the House.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was much mistaken
if there was not a much more important inquiry raised
on this subject than the question contained in the peti-
tion now before the House.—(Hear, hear.) That in-
quiry was, whether they could then, after the pass-
ing of the Act entertain jurisdiction of any such
matter.—(Hear, hoar.) That was the question for
the consideration of the House, and he submitted that
they were not such a court as could entertain juris-
diction on the present matter—(Hear, hear)—either
by way of appeal or review. He asserted that upon two
grounds—first, on the general question, and, secondly,
upon the construction of the question upon the present
petition with reference to the Act of Parliament.
That House was a difficult and bad tribunal to try
difficult questions of law.—(Hear, hear.) What
was the object of the Act in some of its
principal clauses ? It was to withdraw from the
consideration of the House the consideration of ques-
tions that could be much better settled elsewhere.
He contended that under the circumstances of this case
the House had no power to interfere. The House
itself had so decided in the case of the Galway petition
against the return of the present Solicitor-General for
Ireland (Mr. Monahan), and in the similar case of the
Carnarvon petition presented on behalf of Lord G. Paget.
As to the petition itself, it was true that many impor-
tant names were attached to the opinion that the recog-
nizances were bad; but knowing how common it was for
men of the greatest learning and experience to differ on
such points, and knowing that many most eminent con-
veyancers held that the words " and each of them" were
mere surplusage, he did not wonder at the opinion that
had been given. At the same time, he held that no
lawyer ought to stand up in that House, especially in
the situation he held, without having well weighed the
opinion he was about to pronounce. In one case, where
one petitioner out of three had entered into recogui-
sauces, and had done so on his own account only, with-
out making any mention of the others, the Lord Chief
Justice had held that, the petitioners being all in one,
interest, the words " in his behalf" were large enough to
bind them:all. In the present case, as the decision of
the House could not possibly make the recognizances
tither good or bad, the best course would be to leave
the matter where it was. The recognizance had been
approved by the examiner, and when it had received the
Speaker's certificate it would be unimpeachable.
Sir F. THESIGER wished to explain the grounds on
which he felt himself bound to take the same view of the
matter as that presented to the House by his Hon. and
Learned Friend who made this motion. In the case be-
fore them the statute must be their guide. Now, the
terms of the third section of the Act of Parliament were
express and imperative. Before any petition could be
presented to the House recognizances must be entered
into according to the form given by the schedule. Now,
he believed that the present recognizances varied mate-
rially, and that nut only in form but in subs:epee,
from the model laid down in the schedule. The
question for the House to decide was, whether under
the 10th section the examiner had or had not the
power to amend that defect in the Act to which his
Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for
Midhurst had alluded. He (Sir F. Thesiger) con-
tended that the decision of the examiner of the
recognizances was not final. But at what stage was it
proposed to decide the matter ? Must these recogni-
sauces be received, although they were not entered into
according to the Act ? He ;would remind them that
what they had done might be examined into by courts
of law, and in what position would this House stand
with the public suppose such an event to ensue ? Sup-
pose a witness before the Committee were to commit
perjury, he might then be indicted ; but if the pro-
ceedings were invalid from the first, he appealed to his
Learned Friend as to whether the objection would not be
fatal to the accusation, that the proceedings under
which the offence was alleged to have been committed
were invalid and illegal. It appeared to him then, that
the recognizances were utterly void—that it was impos-
sible to cure the radical defect which existed in them--
and that therefore it was the duty of the House to in
terpose, in order to prevent the consequences which
would result from allowing vicious proceedings of this
continued.thought that the House should first de-
cides t
if they
G. be
competent to consider the question at
kind
ule GREY
nweyr e
th
all, before they proceeded to determine. in what way
they would treat it. The best course, in his opinion,
would be to refer it to a Committee, who should report
trheeeocgansiexatnocethe
allthe theexaminer facts oof
of
final and conclusive in every Case; House. The report of
respect to the sufficiency of thewmaswansot consideredund e understood odi
n tothbaet
light,wwithdrawn,
d raanwdnt,hoer onlybut his decision with
appointed could herelce
aassees,
sittingin
werewh
hheemar
ebCet
hro
empm
dideittinttleet
petition
sachse
where the
to defend his seat. He thought it a most dangerous
doctrine to introduce in reference to a discharged order

of the House, for the majority could at any time abro-
gate the statute by voting for the discharge of an order,
whereas it was clearly intended that they should part _
with their jurisdiction altogether, except in the calcs
which he referred.
After a few remarks from Mr. BAINES, we _Were
totally lost in the gallery owing to the calls a divi-
sion, the gallery was about being cleared, wheri _
Sir HOBERT PEEL said be begged the Hotisc would
remember that they had to perform judicial functions of
the highest importance, and that their decision would
affect in a very high degree the rights of the House, as
well as of a gentleman still more deeply interested in it,
the sitting Member. Very nice questions of law had
been brought forward by two Hon. Gentlemen of high
legal authority on one side of the House, which were
opposed by two Hon. and Learned Members equally
eminent on the other. As for himself, he was inclined
to think the House could not feel itself in a position to
decide this question judicially, and looking to the whole
case, it appeared the less of the two evils to appoint a
Committee to report as to the facts of the case. No
doubt the intention of the House had been to 'wake the
decisions of the examiners of recognizances conclusive,
where the proper forms were observed. But here a
mistake was made by the officers of the House, and that
mistake affected not only the petitioners but the sitting
Member, who was deprived of his security against frivo-
lous petitions, inasmuch as the omission of the words
from the recognizance would clearly exempt the sureties
in case one of them died before the case came on.—
(Hear, hear.) The error was not merely literal, it was
a substantial omission, which would render the recog-
nizance for the payment of the expenses of the petition
void, and the officer of the House had certified that to
be correct which was not correct. A double injury would
be inflictei by the House allowing this case to stand
without inquiry—first, the petitioner would be permitted
to have the benefit of his own wrong; and next, the
sitting Member was deprived by the act of their officer
of the protection which the House intended he should
receive. All his own impressions were certainly in favour
of the finality of the decision of the examiner, but if they
insisted on it here, they would act in opposition to the
plain dictates of equity, and place themselves in a posi-
tion wherein they might find themselves met by the
decision of a court of justice. He recommended the
House to appoint a Committee to make a simple report
of the facts of the case.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served, that if a Committee were appointed to report
before the 7th of February, they would have to sit during
the vacation, which would cause great inconvenience.
After a few words from Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. Ro-
MILLY, which were received with great impatience,

Lord J. RUSSELL said, before the Ho-use came to a
decision on the question, he wished to guard him self
with respect to any future occasion of the same nature,
it the House thought fit to go into Committee. After
the statement and able arguments of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman opposite, it seemed difficult for the
House not to agree to appoint a Committee. But mip-
posing that it sat, and made a report, there would be Oess
the further question, with respect to which he wished to
guard himself against being supposed to give any impli, sd
consent to further proceedings. Let the Hous le
observe the dangers into which they might b e
drawn by acting on the principle of the Righ t
Honourable Baronet and the Honourable and Learned I
Gentleman who had addressed them, and declared
that the defect in the recognizances was formal and
technical. Any Honourable Member could bring for-
ward an omission of a word in the recognisance, and ,
say it was a defect, and upon such a question the House,
would have to decide a matter which affected the seats
of Members belonging to different political parties. His
certainly had thought the great advantage of the Act of
the Right Honourable Baronet was that it excluded all
questions of the kind before the House. There might t
be some difficulty in certain cases as to the exact mean• •
ing of the statute, but it was a very great benefit t( ) bi
ruled in such a case as the present by the statute ; ant
if he should please the House to appoint a Commit tee
and that they should report to the House in favour• el
taking any course in favour of interference with libel
existing law, his impression was that the House shim Id
allow the Act to be carried into effect, and should ni
interfere with any decision resting on the positive dint:-
dons it contained.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir W. JONES regretted that the discussion seemed
to have assumed a party complexion.—(Hear, hear.)
lie believed he had not received the protection which
the law meant should be extended to him, and be
ihought it would have been only fair in the ministry to
consent to his being placed in the position which he had
lost through no fault of his, but by the act of the officer
of the House.
The House divided ; the numbers were—
Ayes ...
Noes

... 134
... 125
Majority ... ... ... —9
Sir G. GREY wished only to say, that the opinion
he had ventured to express to the House as to the
construction of the Act was formed by him after
very careful consideration, and he would add, after : a
conference with the highest authority in that Must s.
Who that authority was he would not say, but he toualc
the best means of coming to an impartial decision.—
___. .

(Hear, hear.) With respect to the West Gloucests n'-
shire petition he retained the opinion he had already
expressed, that there being allegations in this cede
respecting the organization of an extensive system of
bribery, gross immorality, corruption, and intimidation,
it would have been better that the parties should have
proceeded under the Act of 1842. The witnesses would
then have been examined on oath, and the tribunal
would have been more strictly judicial in its nature. He
still adhered to the suggestion he had thrown out the
other day, that the House ought to be guided by the
precedents in former cases, and that the case should be
referred to the Committee of Privileges. That cone-
mitteee had been appointed, as was usual at the begin-
ning of every session, though it had not yet been noted-
nated, and this case, as one of privilege, ought to be r Is-
ferred to it. The Committee bad not been nominalted
for some years past, and the last time it was nomine ted
was upon a case of privilege not precisely similar to the
question now coming before the House. One resaion
why he thought it most desirable they should adhere to
the course adopted on former petitions was, that there
were, he thought, allegations in this petition into which
the Mouse ought not to inquire, and into which, i f it
did inquire, it would only be to its own degradation. It
would be the duty of the Committee to inquire into
those matters which might involve the privileges of.' the
House. Under these circumstances he should move, as
an amendment, that the petition, instead of being re.
ferred to a Select Committee, should be 'referred to the
Committee of Privileges. Of course, if this. were
agreed to, it would be necessary to nominate that
Committee. '
Mr. WAKLEY had not the least objection to adopt
the course suggested by the Right Hon. Gentleman. II
only hoped to be excused from serving on the Comsat
tee at all.
Shortly afterwards, on the order of the day forth.
adjourned debate on the Gloucester county (western
division):electionlbeing read,
Sir G. GREY said he should propose to nominate the
Committee of Privileges on Monday, substituting the
name of the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn for that
of Sir M. Wood.
The petition was then referred to the Committee on
Privileges.
SPANISH IMPORT DUTY ON WOOLLENS I.
Mr. BANKES said he saw the Noble Lord the :Se-
cretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, who would,
perhaps, be so good as to answer the question he bead
put on the previous day, of the purport of which :the
Noble Lord was aware.
Viscount PALMERSTON—I have had a commtn ni-
cation from her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, inclosi ug
copies of two decrees issued on the 16th November—the
one altering the mode of levying the duty on woolLlen
goods, which alteration tends in some degree to incl., ease
the duty, the other decree simply increasing the (Patty
upon goods which are composed partly of cotton, pro-
hibiting them in all cases in which the cotton exceeds
ono-third of the aggregate of the material, and stating
that in other cases where the cotton does not exceed o ne-
third, the duty shall be levied according to the mater ial
which predominates in the manufacture. Her Majest "'a
Minister at Madrid stated, in a communication with i be
Spanish Government, the reasons why he thought t)hose,
decrees at variance with the principle of commercia I re-
laxation which had been expressed on the part of that
Government. I hope that the operation of those de-
crees will be postponed to a later period, in order to g ive
parties interested time to make their arrangements.
Mr. BANKES.—WiII the Noble Lord say whet' ter
any reply to that communication has been received?
Viscount PALMERSTON—No ; no reply.
TILE BISHOP OF EXETER'S LETTER..
Mr. IL GRATTAN wished to put a question. as to
the letter which had appeared in the public pipers,
sinned H. Exeter. That letter appeared to him to be
one of the most extraordinary nature he had ever 'heard
of; and when Roman Catholic clergymen were :mailed
satri,nagntdhewhlaewo,heansdawdHen.oEunxceitnegr
sidnodpivaidoguamiseofurorsme
ob-
served. The letter of which he spoke contained these
etahxseavcaitolltly similar, he wished that fair play should. be
words :—"My Lord, the name of Russell ought to be—ever
will be, I am sure, in your reflecting hours—a security
to us against the application by you of a phrase so steered
as ' the rights of the Crown' to a matter so foul as the
provisions of the statute of which I am writing." Would
the House believe that this foul statute, with its foul
provisions,
errhisgaeshdwtead(s
I,
justn and vested
nothing
tst lotteeoosd:
rtithnehjaaetnc
herit
itthe will
avvls 1
silAalja
ecbste: of Parliament
by which the power of the Pope to nominate bishops
to force a bishop on the Church whom. the
passage was—" My Lord, the Crown has no right, can
eneuhoopus and strange doctrine contrary to Gi td's
erroneous power),
risuoe
nrs
chap.‘S'ord: 30 T(rtuhee,
mmaygnLsocrdh,artthaeofsttayturateon2ys), Hdeonersy
give to
the Crown a power which your Lordship has 'been
pleased to call a ' right' to condemn to prison and to
penury any dean or chapter which may refuse compli-
ance with such a mandate, But no statute has the poi ver
to effect the execution of the mandate itself ; no stat ate
found
tne t Tri :t
ooer
forth
hni
have
yx
oot
has the power to make an honest and conscientious
I chapter to elect, or an honest and conscientious pre] ate
to consecrate to the office of bishop, such a person so I
have described above." Would the House believe that
such an Act, passed to give effect to the royal supre-
macy, and guarding it by the penalties of a preemun are,
was to be described by a bishop as theeteMagna r
Learned Attorney-General had seen the letter addressed e
uChoaa. and
Charts of
;
tyranny? He wished to ask whether
Learned Gentleman
to the Prime Minister, and
ldwitirtehtehesroltiehietorH_Gon.e .nearirtidi,
take into consideration the steps which should be ad opted
with reference to this insult to her Majesty's authority,
attrarontdesltaaungthbteern.cp and Protesttsbut
EY- EN ER AL—I certainly 1, have
sEaeneTdtnahbbtelhliaseshAplmehTteetenmTrt)°;—RothnNe Hon. Gentleman alludes to, but
having so much professional business to attend to I am
ashamed to say I have not read it.—(Laughter.) W, hen

the matter is brought before me professionally, or offi-
cially, I, in conjunction with my Hon. and Learned
Friend the; Solicitor-General, will give it our beet con-
sideration.—(Much Laughter.)
JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the order
of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate
was read.
Mr. LAW trusted he should stand excused to the
House for having moved the adjournment of this most
important question, thus affording an opportunity to any
gentleman who wished of addressing the House, availing
himself, at the same time, of the courtesy extended to
himself on this opportunity, fir which he thanked the
Noble Lord opposite. He received with feelings of ap-
preheneio9 and alarm the intimation that a measure of
this description was to be brought under the considera-
tion of Parliament, and that alarm was considerably
increased by a knowledge that the Noble Lord at
the head of her Majesty's Government was about to
take charge of that measure, invested with all the
weight and authority of the Government in the station
he occupied. He felt that this was, indeed, a measure
vital to the constitution of the country, and calculated to
shake to its foundations that Christian character it.
had maintained up to the present day. He contended
that Christianity was not only part and parcel of the law
of the land, but was its foundation. So early us the
44th Henry VI. it was laid down by the Chief Justice
of that day, and had ever since been allowed, that Chris-
tianity was the common law upon which all laws were
founded. He must urge upon the Noble Lord, that at
no period of our history had Jews been admissible to
Parliament. Could the Noble Lord point to any period
at which the constitution of this country had
been othorwise than Christian ? Was ' not that
the very foundation of the Sovereign's title to
the crown ? Whatever variations might have
taken place in the Legislature, none of tbese had ever
affected the basis of its constitution, which embraced all
persons who could profess themselves holders of the
true faith of a Christian. This was the first attempt
to disparage the character of that House, or
to abjure, as a nation, the faith in virtue of which
they sat in that House. It was pro tango an impeach-
ment of the Christian character of the legislature. It
had been contended that every British subject must be
held admissible by birthright to the honours of the con-
stitution, but the rule that those who held office in the
State must profess the Christian faith had obtained since,
the earliest times, and therefore ne complaint could be
made that the test of an oath should be applied to ascer- 1
tain the Christianity of the individual candidate. He
was willing to admit that this was but an imperfect
test, but it was the most suitable which could be adopted.'
Every Jew who was admitted involved the displacement
of a Christian.—(A laueh.) He apprehended that if
the measure passed the number of Christians might
be considerably diminished, and that of infidels in-
creased. The rarity of such examples as that of
Gibbon, under the existing, system, was a proof of its,
excellence. There could be no doubt that if it hull
not been for the late election. this Bill would never
"
have been brought in, but the Noble Lord having been
returned in conjunction with Mr. Rothschild, the Bill
was the price of his election. The Noble Lord having
succeeded in forcing the Jews on the municipal cor-
porations of the country, where they might be called
upon to sit in judgment upon persons guilty (At
libels upon Christianity, now sought to extend their pri-e
vileges and to give them the power of legislating for thel
entire community. Let the Noble Lord remember the
fate of the Bill of 1752 for the naturalization of the Jews.
That sill was passed in 1752 and eepealed in 1753, and
if a similar result should follow upon the passing of the
Bill now before the House, the people of this country
would not be satisfied with the siutple repeal of this
measure. There would be a reaction, and in that rose-'
tion the destruction , f other measures of which the
Noble Lord was the author would be involved. Thies
Jews were ap people without a nation, and a netiehl
without a country, and now they sought by one leap t
pass the bar of that Honse, and there to represent Chri-1
tian men innhis Christien country, to the necessary exclui
sion of those who professed Christianity. Tel, was 0
'question upon which that great teed. enlightened cooed
tuency which he had the 'tomer to represent felt noel
deeply, and he would neglect his euty it' he did eo
strenuously oppose this measure. He did not hesitate o
declare that, from the foundation of the monarchy to th
present time, this question had been regarded as on
affecting the most vital interests of the country. He
therefore, implored the House to pause before the
passed a measure so subversive of the first principle
which ought to govern a Christian Legislature. i
The Earl of ARUNDEL agreed with the Hon. Metn4
ben for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), that by no one could thisf
question have been brought forward more gracefully ur
more appropriately than by the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government. Ho could remember the period
when his father and his grandfather were forbidden tei
sit in the Legislature; and it was nut surprising, there,►
fore, that he should sympathise with the Jews, who stii
laboured under civil disabilities. The ground on which
he supported the measure was the broad one of religiouls
freedom. It was true that many nations fenced abo
the Catholic religion with legislative restrictions an
enactments ; but the free will bestowed by God upo
ul
man was not to be bound' by any such fetters.—(Heur.b
.t was a general opinion for many centuries that the
...'-.)r4 had a right to dispose of the kingdoms of the
earth. That opinion died away. Au opinion then arose
that legal enactments were necessary to restrain thp
Catholics. These had proved iintinetive; and Were no+
repealed.—(Hear, hear.) lie (the Noble Lord) kneth
that the Church was doomed to suffsr. It was prophet-
cled that it would stiller, just as it wes prophesied the
Jews would be scattered. But he (Lord Arundel) coulp
instance tram the nations of the earth, that wherh
the Church had suffered, she had suffered most froth
the legal enactments which had fenced her round. li:n
would take the case of Spain. Spain }lied surroundefi
her church with legal enectatents. Ili-knew it not troll
personal knowledge, but it was the opinion of others
who knew that nation bee, that neither her priesthood
nor her laity were alive to relieieus or to moral priti-
ciple. Exceptions, of coarse, there were. There went
enough good men in the church of Spain to enable the
chief offices in the church to be well fine I ; but from
we.at he had heard he feared that the priesthood of
Spain generally had not profited by the powers that prn-
tected them. Fenced around as it was by legal enact-
meets, the Spanish church had nevertheless !ellen, Let
them sweep away such enactments; and it was the gene-
ral conviction that though heresy doubtless would ap•
pear,' yet greater purity in the church e,ouing—and
heretics appreciating that purity—they might be ex-
pected to be captileted by it, and ultimately to yield
obedience to the church's high authority. If that were
the ease in Spain the same results might be expected to
follow extended liberality in other nations. More soul:.
would be gained by the Catholic Church to heaven,-;-
Jew, heretic, and Christian wool I desk around, and all
the nations of the earth would join in the ecstatic hymn,
" Gloria in excelsis Deo."
Mr. A. HOPE thought this case had become, in the
course of debate, somewhat confused. Judaiern had
certainly strong prima, facie claims, but it was also a
question whether there were such great merits in the
Jews as to give their claims validity. They ought also
to ask themselves what wore the ends and aims of the
Jews in desiring the concession of those privileges. The
Jews were a nation of them-eves, speeed all over the
world. an hereditary relieimis order, without feelings
of citizenship with any other people. Looking at them
in this point of view, the House ought to entertain a
certain degree of suspicion—just as in our own and
other nations Jesuits were looked at by the legislatures
and the people. In nations in which the Jews hail the
upper hand no one undertook to say that they admitte :
Christians to the privileges of their own society. The
House ought, therefore, to require something more thee
mere argument in favour of religious liberty, to induce
them to cede the privilege demau4cd of them upon this

occasion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the constituency he repre-
sented had petitioned the Mime strongly against this
measure, and be wished to explain the reasons why he
supported their views. The Hon. Member for Bucking
hamshire last night charged those who opposed the
motion with being influenced by superstitious feelings.
He denied this charge. He woulii not judge whether the
Jews were the objects of Divine wrath with him that
was no consideration in the decishim of this question.
Many of them had been justly characterised as able and
godly; but the objection he took to this motion was, that
the Jews repudiated the main feature 'of Christianity.
The Noble Lord the Member for Arundel was willing
to give up the only security they at present possessed for
a Christion Legislature, Ise.ta.use a bogy of Christians at
one time excluded had recently been admitted to Parlia-
ment. That was an argument that could not be car. ie I
out to a conclusion. Ile, as a son of the University of
Oxford, and connected with that University by many
ties, had written to many friends there, when the Right
Ron. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was a eaddidate for
their suffrages, warning theta that the Right Hon. Gen-
Osman would turn round upon them and upon the Pro-
t. testant Church whenever any question affecting that
Church occurred—and so it now proved. If the present
course of legislation, hostile to the religion and the
religious feelingcountry,
of the were persisted in, the
People would stand forth in operi opposition to the laws.
soitfeahllatdhesnsewerl hisof danger which the Noble Lord oppc-
obnoxious M itsefreuonsidered that this would be ttie most
Lord MORPETI74. I wish, Sir, to say a few words,
and they shall h
_e a yeryafew words, on the question
mow before the Hougs7.ounlaso not wish to enter upon the
genial anti obvious
upon which that question is
based, or upon its tea
heconstitutional point of
view. On that head I find tt'
my Noble
Friend who opened this debate-7ehechis of
ft
once the
leader of the Government, and the introducer of this
motion—quite sufficient, and to my judgment pareetly,
conclusive.—(Hear, hear.) I may also add, that
quite content with the Right Hon. Gentlemanl an'
academically represents me, the newly-elected Member
for the University of Oxford, that he did not serve me
with that notice of his intention to vote for the Jew,,
which the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the other
University thinks he ought to have served on the con-
stistuvicy.—(A tough.) With respect to the constitu-
donsl or political view of the question, I rest in the
fullest sense on the principle,' and it is sufficientfor me
on this head to say this, that I adopt in its fullest, and
ssi4est sense the principle, that where the State re-
(rtires of any class of its citizens the performance of
OA duties and the payment ,of the imposts which the
fact of their being citizens imposes upon them, no
difl'E:rences of religious creed or Worship• which do '
ne ,t Po themselves lead to practices either illegal
0? • hurtful to the community at large should °pe-
r: ,te as an exclusion from any civil rights, dig-
t, ities, or enjoymenis.—(Hear, bear.) The other
B lon.-MSmber for the University of Oxford talks of
lindoos and Parsees. Now the proposed Bill, if the
louse shall be pleased to accede to the motion of my
24 Toble Friend, only contemplates the relief of Jewish die- I
111 Alities—(dear, hear)—at bl the House, I trust, with the
sI drit of statesmen, will only deal at present with the

practical and tangible difficulty. But I must say for
myself that I shrink from going no length which the
principle of equality before the law may carry us—
(Cheers)—and I am not afraid of carrying out that prin-
ciple from the fear of such a result as the incursion of
Parsee or Hindoo candidates, and their acceptance and
election by British constituencies.—(Laughter.) I wish
on this occasion to offer one or two remarks upon what
may be more specially considered the religious view of
the question, and I confess it is a view which, on ordi-
nary occasions, I would be loth to introduce into public
discussion, or into the arena of debate ; but on this oc-
casion I do feel that the objections founded upon religi-
ous views are those which constitute—and constitute
alone—the motives for the opposition which is offered,
both in this House and in the country, to this measure.
—(Hear, bear.) I did not want the testimony of this
debate to prove to me that there is no personal
felt towards gentlemen who profess Jewish doctrines.—
(Hear, hear.) Every person who talked of them spoke
with kindness ; and certainly those who oppose them do
not relish it as a pleasure, though they feel the duty
of applying to them the moderate persecution which
they think themselves called upon to administer.—
(Hear, hear.) I say, then, that I think the opposition
which is offered partakes in no degree of a personal
character, founded upon the conduct or bearing of the
Jews, and I feel, moreover, induced to offer one or two
remarks upon this part of the subject, because I know
that some of those who are led by their conviction of
what is required by liberal policy, by charitable and
Christian feeling, by the principle of equality before the
law, to support the emancipation of the Jaws, may—at
least many of them—amongst their families, in their
quiet and silent homes, have-doubts and misgivings upon
this question of their complete emancipation.—(Hear,
hear.) Now, upon this part of the-suhject, there is no
one I would sooner follow than my Noble Friend the
Member for Bath, for no one can be more convinced
than I am, both of the sincerity and warmth of his reli-
gious opinions, but those who have followed him have, I
think, amply vindicated my Noble Friend who moved
this resolution from a misrepresentation which my Noble
Friend—l am sure unintentionally—cast upon him, but
which still pervaded a great portion of his speech where
he represented my Noble Friend as contending that re-
ligion had nothing to do with politics. Now I distinctly
understood my Noble Friend to lay down that the spirit
of religion influences and pervades all we are about;
thai the Christianity of this House was made secure by
the form of oath or declaration we take at the table,
and that he did not think it would be impaired by the
admission of a few Jewish gentlemen into Parliament.
—(Hear, hear.) It would be strange indeed, when
the first Christians were members of Clover's household,
that we should think that religion was placed in daneer
by a few Jewish gentlemen taking their seats amongst
us.—(hear, hear.) With respect to the Legislature of
Franc.', my Noble Friend alluded to the circumstance el
several Jews being members of that legislature, and
the Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House (the
Him. Member for Warwickshire) called the attention of
the House to the condition of France, and asked if the
religious condition of France could be considered satis
factory. Now, I can be borne out hi the assertion that
there is more of religion in France in the Catholic and
Protestant sections.—(Very general interruption here
ensued at the Opposition side of the House, followed he
cries, of " Hear," and " Order.") I believe this to be the
case at present. Ido not mean the bloody period of the
revolution, but since the peace, and I do not think much
blame can be imputed to the Church of France, which
the Honourable Gentleman the Member for Warwick
shire reproaches with having deserted the state which
has cast it off.
Mr. NEWDEGATE, who spoke in a very low tone,
was understood to intimate that his -observations had
reference to the reliance of the French Church upon the
Court of Rome.
Lord MORPETH—I shall now proceed to refer e
the question with which we have to deal. I feel that
that great Christian canon. which has been more tnan
mice quoted in this debate—l mean of course that rule
" that we should do as we would be done b)," and
which embodies in it so much of the spirit of the whole
Christian religion, should be conclusive, as appears is
me, as to the way ire which this question should be de-
cided, unless some strong counteracting circumstance or
some positive precept could be adduced on the other
side. Now, as tar as I see, not only the spirit but the
positive letter of the sacred writings peints in the cam-
direction as its prevuiliug spirit, unless modified or
overruled, most unquestionably does ; for it seems to
me that it is almost pointedly and expressly laid down
in the sacred scriptures that kindness and respect
towards the old and peculiar people are acceptable to
our common lather, and that neglect or oppression o'
them is as pointedly denounced and condemned.
The blessing is for them that bless, the curse
is for them that curse." (Hear, hear.) It
easy be said that this may have been applied when they
were themselves a favoured and accepted nation; but so
tar from this being a necessary ingredient in the beha-
viour which was enjoined on other communities and na-
tions, the Prophet,- when denouncing special curses
against Jerusalem, says, " Woe to the bloody city," and
goes on in magnificent strains to describe her utter
guilt and entire abandonment, and immediately turns
round to the other surrounding nations, and addresses
them.—(Hear, hear.) Now,. though I thought the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Buck-
inghamshire contained many sentences which came from
him most gracefully and eloquently, yet I could not
concur in that which he seemed to lay flown as the gene;
reel identity between the Jews and the Christians.—.
(Hear, hear.) Buz certainly I believe that the more we
consider that people as the monument of the special in'
tarposition and the retributive dealing of Heaven, the
inure we shall he led to treat them with kindness, and
respect, and tenderness, just in accordance with the
classical tradition—that h hot the tree is struck with
lightning the old and bare trunk is made sacred by the
flesh that smote it.—(Cheers.) No proceedings or
Acts of Parliament should modify or contra•
vene the known and ordained decrees of Provi-
dence, it being manifest there is no end to the' evils
and mischiefs we should create if we took upon ourselves
the office of practically interpreting the prophecy in-
stead of humbly obeying the decreess--(Cheers.) Some-
thing has been said about the Jews being a separate
nation, an-I the Hon. Gentleman ths Member for Maid-
stone contended in his speech this evening that Jewish
zentitaien were not proper persons to be admitted into
Parliament, because they w•-re joint heirs of Palestine.
Now the question as to whether a person is fit to be a
representativ:s, and whether his time, and labour, and
attention can be sufficiently devoted to their nfihirs, is a
question exclusively belonging to the constituencies
themselves. There are many classes in this House much
more disqualified for effectively representing their con-
stituents than the members of a raze peculiarly ac-
quainted with publie :aisles and technical questions, and
who reside for the most part in the very heart of our
metropolis.—(Hear.) I do not think the Baron de Roths
child will be an unfit representative for the city e
London because of his thoughts heir, too exclusivel
•
turned towards the land of Palestine and the Jewis

Sanhedrin.—(Hear, hear.) I do not sympathise with the
twenty-eight millions of Christians whom the Hon.
Nlensher for the -University of Car; bridge represented a,
hAng so hardly used by having Jewish Memb,rs elected
chose twenty-eight millions must, I think, conso&
themselves with the resection that their separate units
cannot be much aggrieved by any one of them being
superseded by a Jewish representative.—(llear, hoar.)
P. is said that the Jews have acted already as sheriffs
and as ordinary magistrates; but it is not because they
have already obtained a little, that I urn ready to vote
for this motion; for if the Jews had nothing, I woub!
would be prepared to give them everything.—(Cheers.)
I remember one more point of view in which I wish to
put this question, because I think we very frequently see
the effects of our own conduct, and the bearing of our
own policy, by slightly transposing the position in which.
we ourselves stand, and seeing what we would do hi
circumstances somewhat similar. I do not mean what
we would do by converting the
.Jews to Christianity—
for theu we would be all Christians—but I allude to
another circumstance; and my notice was attracted

this train of thought by reading a dispatch of my Nobl

Friend the Secretary for Fors:-ign Affairs (who, no doubt,
found a similar recommendation in the dispatches of
Lord Aberdeen, and his other predecessors in office)—
an advice to the Sultan of Turkey to put allciasses of his
subjects—Moslems and Christians, Turks and Rayahs—
on the same footing. I have no doubt that the same ad
vice has been tendered to him by the King of France, and
I think it most admirable advice to cone from a leading
power of Christendom to his Mahometan
hear.) I believe that advice can be tendered by the
King of France to the Sultan with perfect consistency ;
but, I own, if we should refuse to adopt the motion of to,
night, and insist upon a prolongation of tho exclusion of
the Jews, we should give the Turkish Sultan very good
ground for a legitimate rejoinder when we tendered such
an advice to him. Ile might turn round upon us, and
" I have under my Governmeat a large race of mer:
• who profess differen; forms of religious belief from
that which is the established religion of my
people--the turbulent Albanian ever ready for
revolt—the Greek, too, prone to enter into
clangorous correspondence with his co.religioniste of
other countries—the Maronites, frequently disturbing the
peace of their brethren; but you, I understand, who
tender the advice, have a race of men living amongst you
who arc singularly remarkable for their peaceable and
orderly conduct—distinguished by their loyalty—nO less
distinguished by their charity—eminently conversant in
the conduct of affairs and public business—who have

made large proportionate contributions to the national
wealth; and, above all, those persons so peaceable—so
orderly—so charitable—so loyal—so rich—are but a
handful of men; and those are the persons whom you con
tinue systematically to exclude from all share in your
' national representation, and whom you debar from those
incitements and rewards to industry which are common
to every other class of the community." I can only add,
Sir, that if we address the Sultan, I trust he ma... not
I:cprove us as having no right to offer him that advice,
in favour of liberty and toleration.— (Cheers.) I trust
r.,:re will continue to promulr,ate the lessons of liberty and
~Lt;od_le:altiikoenwtisooa.,,lL7cer, roilaidticohneserosf.)the world, and leave
them no ground to torn about on us and say—" Go thou,
vi.,eount DRUNILANPIG said that the question of
opposed to everything the admission of the J 'eW3 to Parliament was glaringly
country, and governtogen connectedl. with a Christian status
as said that it was not
r .
expediency.—
. lep
se should reject the
of any importance that thatitilw
1
name of Christian, and that whether it was Jew or Christian would have no influence o
no longer a question of conscience, but oe
. (frear, hear.) If his was the only dissent
the country to this measure, that voice would be recorded
against
wrainst it. He denied that any feeling of intolerance or
hatred against the Jews-formed t 1.., ground of his oppo.
:ei ltdie intp )7, ...a s
• • this measure, but he did so humbly and fer-
suion to
p love for Christianity.—([fear.)
vently, out of a sleep •supporting question, said
Sir 11. VERNEY, 111 the
1 any por-
tioncr exclusion of Jews, or
that he thought that to .
that house, or from any
of his fellow- subjects, from h

powers which belonged to them, was contrary to every
Christian principle. He rejoiced that the Noble Lord
(Lord Morpeth) had said so plainly that religion should
not exclude any one from that House. He thought that
the Legislature should be the exponent of the whole
nation, and that every faithful subject should not
be so deprived, whether be were Mussulmen,
Jew, or Hindoo. If the time came when they should
see the Museulman, Hindoo, New Zealander, oe lied
Indian in that House—(Laughter)—he shOuld consider
the Hindoo as the representative of the most glorious
country in the word, cad he would carry back with
him a sense of the all-pervading liberality of Chris-
tianity. He had every respect and a deep feeling for
public opinion in this country, and, believing it to
be the least fallible of any tribunal, and knowing it to
be in favour of this proposition, he should, with the
most earnest Christian principle, feel it his date to vote
in favour of the motion now before the House.—(Loud
cries of " Divide.")
Mr. H. DRUMMOND (Surrey) rose, and spoke, as
usual, in so low a tone, that, coupled with the manifest
impatience of the House, it was extremely difficult
to catch the purport of the Hon. Member's observa-
tions. He was undertteod to commence by saying he
thought he could put the question iu a view in which it
had not yet been placed. He must, however, in the first
place, deny that he was actuated by any of the motives
attributed to the opponents of the proposition by the
Hon. Member for the county of Buckingham (Mr. Dis-
raeli) last night—those of old prejudices and un-
worthy feelings towards the Jews. There were few
Members in that House who had done more or taken
more pains to be come acquainted with that people, not
only in this, but in every country in -the world, thhn he
had, and-he declared that lie adMired the " Sidonias"
quite as much•as the eloqueht Member for Buckingham-
shire himself.—(A laugh.) • The House had been told
• that, not onlyy-Archdeacon Wilberforce, but others of
the clergy, had petitioned the Lsgislature to abolish the
penalties of pramunire, and one Cabinet MiniSter had
• declared that he was prepared to go the full length of
that principle. Hence it was that an intensity of inte-
rest was now felt on this question; but that intensity of
interest was not in relation to the Jews, but in reference
to the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.) Be admitted
that, sooner or later, the question of the admission of
Jews into Parliament must be settled, because if the
House- threw back Baron Rothschild on the unhappy
h.citizens of London, who could not find one Christian to
represent them, he would be again elected, unless there
should, in the interim, be a greater influx of Chris-
tianity among them s than could be expected. The
Noble Lard at the head of the Government, in opening
this -question, compared the treatment of the Jews
lii former times to the treatment they now experienced.
lie agreed with the Noble Lord that there was a differ-
ence, but it was in the mode by which the same object
could be gained. In ancient times it was the habit to
extract gold from a Jew by the application of a thumb
screw ; but now the same result might be achieved by
the easier process of a contested election.—(Cheers and
laughter.) He also agreed with the Noble' Lord that
there existed no law against the introduction of the
'Jews, and he would add that there was no law against
the admission of Muesulmans. or women.—
(Laughter.) There were many lecturers now advocat-
ing the rights of women, and 'declaring that they were
equal in mental and all other capacities to men—(Re-
Hewed laughter)—and who could say but that some day
they would Sad a Mary Wilson adorning the benches
with her presence ? In ancient times Church and State
were one, and there bad been a king, who, taking the
Church under his patronage; had knocked down the
Papists with one hand and the Nonconformists with
the other. Since then they bad let in the Non-
conformists, and they no` longer were a Protestant Pottse
Commons; still Liter, the Romen Catholics had been
:,,minitteel, and yet it was said they remained a Protestant
House of Commons.. He, however, defied even the
R:ght Hon. Gentleman in the -chair, who was supposed
to khow all the Members, to furnish a defhettithe as to
he material of veltiett the present Hattie' ;WaS'etUtstrthtAe'
['he Right Hon. Gentletusn would be in the position of
the old lady, who, in her examination ty counsel, was
skid what her age was. She replied that she we.; of
► partisslar age; but of the seine age as other people.—
Loud laughter.) In the saute manner, if the Right
lion. Gentleman in the chair was asked what were the
Seligious opinions of any Hon. Member, he would be
eempelled to uns%vsr, " Ut the same opinion as the rest •
ef the House."—(Loud laughter.) It has been said,
in the course of this debate, that this question was
the triumph of liberalism, and that by this propo
sition it was intended to take away the last remnant
of bigotry from the, statute-book. It was a, triumph
of liberaliem as antagonistic to religion.—(Loud cries
of " No, no," answered by ironical cheers.) If that was
doubted, he would remind those wise questioned his pro-
' position that heretofore religion had bound mail to man,
aed mar. to God, hut the alarm was, 'that to carry out
this Motion would be to free man from every Obligation
to. God.—(Renewed cries of " No, no.") It would
enable him to create his own God -according to his own
imagination, and to despise the dogmas of this Church.
This would be a triumplofliberalisru—so was the French
Revolution when the people, duped by priestcraft, never
ceased till they struck at priesthood Itself. There was
such a thing described in scripture as national apostacy;
and he felt that such apostacy had led to the present
result. Looking at the past, he would not give his con-
sent that, in the British Parliament, any man .should be
present who denied the word, the authority, or the name
Christ.— (Hear, hears and loud cries
Lord.G. BENTINCI(- said that he -eeeer. rose with
greater reluctance or under- deeper -heeling:l than his
the present occasion, and if he couStilted his' own
cutufort he would far rather content hitietlf, as he hails
•
dohe on former oceations, with giving a silent vote.
however, could not disguise from himself that he might
re supposed to shrink from his duty if he contented
himself with the u:ere registry ell his vote. It might
be said that the course he meant to take might break
ep the party to which he had the honour to belotige
Still, so far as he himself aas concerned, that considera-
tion would not weigh one iota in the scale. He would
submit to those with whom he acted that he could nit
permit his principtes or his cehteiehess to serve as their
handmaid on the present question.—(Hear, bear.), It
might not be in the knowledge of those who had been
elccted and returned to this. House that, this was
net the first occasion upon which the 'preeentqhestion
had been- discussed. In 1830 it was so, Shed he had
voted with the W. hilts in favotir of the admisSiun of Jews
into Parlianicht.—((Lar, hear.) 'Nothing bud since
arisen either in the misconduct of the Jews or any
other cause to induce him to rescind that vete.—
, (Utter, hear.) The question of the adthiseion of the
Jews to pelitical rights was not a noveltycln the con-
trery, they bad already been admitted to the rights of
; electors; they now possessed the power to vote in the elec-
' Lien of Members to serve its legislatore in this assembly.
The Noble Lord would not have been elected in the last
.'arliament if 600 Jews had not voted for him. How.,
then, could it be said that, if they consented to the Noble
Lord's proposal, they would now, for the first time, be
giving legislative pewee. to the Jews? In 1828 that
House sent up the Bill which repeeled the Test arid Cos-
t:oration Acts in a form which would not have excluded
the Jews. Tie words " upon the faith of a true chria-
den" were inserted in diet Act. Lord Holland moved
their omission, and the Earl of Winchilseu, whose high
Peotestentin could not be doubted, argued that those
words would not prevent a Jew from taking the oath,
say more than the words " upon the true faith of a Jew"
would prevent a Christian. His Noble Friend the
MeMber for Bath said that Jews 'elected to offices
'eider Sir R. Peel's Bill were responsible to Christians
for the due performaitee of their duty. Surely, if re-
turned as representatives to that House, they would be
equally responsible to Christian constituencies.—(Hear,
hear.) Looking to the entire cohduct of the Jews,
he asked what proof it afforded of the existence amongst
them of arty spirit of proselytism ? Most certainly
none. Ile saw sitting ender the gallery that evening
one of the wealthiest and most distinguished Jews in
this country, who was president of r o less than 28
Christian charities; and would they refuse to such amen
he power of sitting in a Christian legislature? He el
laded to Sir Lionel Gohlsmid, who he believed was a sub-
criber to every Christian charity iu the metropolis. They
were. told that this measure would dissatisfy the coun-
try, owing to a deep feeling of antipathy to the Jews.
lie knew of he such feeling. In 1830 Lord Ashburton
presented a petition to that [louse from the city of Lon-
don in favour of the Jews, which contained no less than
1-1.000 siguature, those of 27 London bankers,
600 practising attorneys, 1,100 medical men, and 2,600
of the first merchants in -the City. Surely they ought
not to disregard the opinions of such a community as
that. On the same occasion Lord Brougham presented
a similar petition in the other House, signed by 150
London barristers, including the present' Lord Chief
Justice and Mr. Baron Alderson. He could tint agree,
therefore, that they Ought to reject this measure because
of the deep feeling which s xisted against the Jews, since
no such feeling prevailed. his Noble Friend the Mem-
ber for Beth told them that the dew:, of the present day
included a coatparatively larger number of men of genius
than any Gentile nation. Then what was there in the
Jewish race to prevent their sitting in Parliament
—seeing that they were already, by their appointments
us magistrates entrusted with the liberty of Christians—
or, 113 in the case of Baron Rothschild, occupying the
position of representative of the Queen in an English
county, or as in that of Mr. Salomons, paving the way
to the office of first inaghdrate of the city of London ?
Mr. Seloinons would, in the order of things, be called to
the civic chair, and ex officio become a Privy Councillor.
Would they admit him to the Privy Council and forbid
him to enter that House ? In the event of the demise of
the Sovereign, the Lord Mayor would for the time be
the chief of the City, and have the emninand of the troops.
Nothing could, in fact, be done without his sanction. So
much for the reliance on the " true faith of a Chlis-
them" He held in his hand the oath taken by Privy
Councillors, but could find nothing in it about " true
faith of a Christian"—the concluding words being "so
lihid you help, and upon the holy contents of this book."
There was no mere in it about the "true faith of a
Christian," than in the oaths administered to Roman
Catholics. It had been said in former days that we
were hesisting iduletry by admitting Roman Catho-
lics to 'power, but he hoped never to hear
such language again. Who could contend that,
by omittieig from the oath the words " the true
fehh of a Christian" any alteration could be made in
the constitution of the country? The prayers of the
House had been alluded to as an objection; but even
Romen Catholics and Disssnters refused to join in those
prayers; and yet it had never been proposed to abolish
4n• alter their turn.—(Cries of " Divide.") The Right
Hen. Gentleman on his right (Kr. Guuloutn) had ex•
pressed great objection to littenieg to the claims of time
City of London. He (Lord G. Boutiack) was not one
to submit to dictation; but had the Right Hon. Gentle-
tiabearniiliolrBg2o9t.
btahiahtiotrliteedcatbhieciet
oopfa.l,liiischinheani.ariscrahtm,
eamnd-
passed the Roman Cathelie Relief 11111, urged thereto by
g
the conduct of the freeholders of Clare in electing Mr.
O'Connell?—(hear, heart) It might be said that a cere-