The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-01 00:00:00

DitAINAGE OF -TOWNS.

Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from that dis-
trict of St. G,les's known by the name of the Rookery,
in favour of the Drainage of Towns (Hear.) The
petitioners stated that. in the district there were upwards
of 1,000 inhabitants, and there were 33 lodging houses,
in eiich of which upwards of 40 persons slept every
night.—( Hear, hear.) In that populous district there
was no drainege and no sewers —( Hear, hear.)
Mr. SLANEY wished to ask his noble friend the
Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was not pos-
sible for the local authorities to do their duty by
providing fur the cleansing and draining of the district
in question.—(Loud cries of Order, order.)
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL thought that
Hon. Members ought to reserve that question fo the
usual time for asking questions.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SLANEY said that question related to the sub-
ject of the petition, and was proceeding to repeat it,
when he was interrupted by loud cries of " Order, or-
der," to which at length he gave way.
Mr. EASTHOPE presented a petition complaining
of the manner of appointing chaplains in workhouses as
unjust towards Dissenters.
Colonel SALWEY presented a petition from the
clergy and inhabitants of Egliam against any further
grant to the College of Maynooth ; and a petition from
the same place in favour of Church Extension. He did
not concur in the prayer of either.
Mr. HERRIES presented a petition from the Great
W'Vester❑ Railway Company against the Railway Bil'.
Dr. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from the

Presidents and students of Stepney College praying
for the abolition of Church-rates; and n petition from
St. Leonard's Shoreditch, in favour of the County
Courts' all.

Mr. HUME presentel a petition from Newcastle-
upon-Tyne praying for the liberation of Henry Hether-
ington, as they considered that his imprisonment was an
interference with the liberty of the subject and with the
liberty of the pres., and complaining that there
was such uncertainty as to what constituted
blasphemy that th v considered it impossible any
Jury could take upo themselves to decide the question.
Also another petition to the same effect from the Society
of Free Inquirers at, Paddington, and also praying the
House to introduce a law defining what
.blasphemy
was. Also a petition from certain individuals residing
at Bethnal-green, praying for Extension of Suffrage,
Vote by Ballot, and a division of the country into
Electoral Districts ; alsci a petition from a gentleman
namel Bannister, who had held the office of Attorney-
General in New South Wales, praying for the introduc-
tion of some measures regulating appeals from the
Colonies to the Queen in Council ; also, on behalf of
his Honourable Friend the Member for Greenock,
a petition from the Medical Practitioners of
Greenock, in favour of Medical Reform ;
also from the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock,
complaining of the present mode of taxing railways as
pressing with peculiar severity upon the poorer classes.
Mr. RICH presented a petition from Nottingham,
praying that Chemists and Druggists may be examined
as to their competency.
On the motion of Sir E. NATCHBULL the
Parish Constables Bill was read a second time.
Colonel RAWD ON gave notice that in Committee
on the Drainage Bid he would move certain amendments.
On the motion of Mr. EMERSON TEN NENT,
the Committee on the Copyright Designs Bill was post-
poned till the 12th of May.
THE NEW TARIFF.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was his intention to
introduce certain modifications in the new schedule of
duties which he would bring forward in the Customs'
resolutions on Monday next. When he had originally
proposed these resolutions he stated that he was not
only ready but that it would be his duty, if anything
arose in the course of his conferences with the
various branches of trade which might be affected,
to make certrain modifications in these duties before
they were finally discussed and decided upon in the
House. The modifications he now proposed would be,
that instead of a differential duty of 10 per cent. ad
valorem upon all foreign goods imported into the co-
lonies, he proposed a duty of 7 per cent. ad valorem.
With regard to shingles, instead of a duty of 3s. 61
per thousand, he proposed a duty of 2s. Bd. per thousand
and instead of a duty of 10s. 6d. the thousand feet upon
pitch pine and other timber, he proposed a duty of 75.
He should take care that these modifications should be
printed in an amended schedule, and circulated among
the Members of the, House as soon as possible,in
order that they might have them in a proper form, be-
fore he moved the resolutions in the House.
Mr. GOULBURN said it was important that not
only the Members of the House, but persons engaged
in trade, should be apprised of these resolutions before
they were brought forward.
Mr. EWART regretted that sugar and coffee tad
not been included, and gave notice of his intention to
renew his motion for a reduction of the duty on sugar
and coffee immediately after the recess.
Mr. SLANEY said a petition had been laid on the
table of the House relative to the destitute condition of
persons in a populous district of the mct!opolis. He
had that morning visited that district and it was lament-
able to see the wretched and filthy state in which the
majority of its inhabitants were. He wished to ask tlie
lion. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for the Home
Department, whether or not the Home-office was
possessed of any power to enforce the discharge of their
duty by the local authorities, with respect to
cleansing the district to which lie alluded.
In consequence of the proposed improvement to take
place in that quarter nothing had been done by the
parochial authorities with respect to cleansing it.
He alluded to the district of St. Giles.
Mr. FOX MAULE was not aware that the Home-
office was compelled to attend to the cleansing of such
places as his Hon. Friend alluded to. He (Mr. Fox
Manic) apprehended that it was a matter for
the parochial authorities, and for them alone to attend
to. He presumed that the Bill which his Noble
Friend introduced in the other House, would give f?c'-
lity for making improvements in that quarter of the city.
On the motion of Mr. F. MAULE, the Report on
the Population Bill was brought up.
After a few words from Sir E.
the Bill was ordered to be read a third timid o-mor
of
the
Mr. w.
BAINES postponed KNATCHBULL,
the second reAling,
Enrolment of Burgesses' Bill to then e ath o
Bill
was com-
a).
The Copyhold and Customary 're
mitted pro forma.
nelLoLJf
this Bill.
Mr. DIEVEWIS'i' moved the
Mr. E. W. GLADSTONE rose to oppose the
RATIONthir re reading
third reading. If it were possible to draw a broad line
of principle between a 13111 to admit Jews to corporate
offices, and ore to permit them to enjoy seats in that
House, and every other office, the subject would be dif-
ferent. But he felt convinced that such a broad line of
principle could not be drawn, and that allowing a Bill
like the present to pass that House they must expect
that one would follow to extend to the Jews
seats in Parliament, and the holding of every other
office to which Christians were now entitled.
On that point, lie took it, there was no difference of
opinion between them, and it would, therefore, be a loss
of time to argue the question. 'With regard to his
reasons for objectioF to the present Bill, he should en-

S U

fitif;47
M ORS
ING EDITION:

deavour, without bewildering the House with a multi- .1-a
plicity of considerations, without leading their \,7--#
minds to any of those theological topics which :41,04.
were introduced on a former occasion, to state that
reason which most imperatively weighed with himseK
and which seemed most likely to be made intelligible
to the House. His reason for rejecting the present
Bill was this ; It appeared to him that the profession
of the Jewish religion was in the nature of a disqualifi-
cation for legislative office in this country, where the
Christian religion was interwoven with the institu-
tions of the country. First of all he placed that on
general grounds. It had been said on high authority
that" Christianity was part and parcel of the law of Eng-
land." He knew not bow far in rigorous trutli such
a dictum was tenable. It was not necessary for him to
undertake to defend it ; but this he said, it
was assumed in our practice, our laws
were modelled on the principles with which
Christianity supplied us, and they had a fur-,
ther and most solemn recognition of those prin-
ciples in a praefce to which he could not hut
allude on this occasion ; he meant The practice,
which he trusted would be never discontinued, of com-
mencing the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament
with the solemn worship of Almighty Go.'.—( Hear.)
He did not wish to travel into a region seldom en-
tered in that House with advactge ; but the practice
of this worship implied what he had stated—namely,
that they were to set before them, as the ob-
ject of all their measures, in the words of the Ser-
vice, ' the promotion of true religion, and the glory
of God." if such was the case, he said that in
thus seeking to promote true religion they were
not at liberty, according to the 'ease of the
Constitutior, to include every religion. On this
occasion the question before the House was
whether they would destroy the distinctive Chris-

tianity of the Constitution.---(Hear, hear.) He had
heard much sneering on a former occasion at nn
expression that had been used by his Hon. Friend the
Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis),
that " they were about to unchristianizo, England
by this 1311." He (Mr. Gladstone) thought it was
not diffiault to conceive what tle meaning
of that expression war.—(llcar, hear.) His
Hop. Friend couhtless used it, as was his habit,
without being very anxious to weigh whether
the phrase emplo}ed was open to the mis-
construction of an adversary ; but he (Mr. G.)
must say, he could not conceive a proposition
more approximate to the nature of a
truism with regard to this subject, because at present
the Constitution imposed upon all who held legislative
office the test of declaring that the person about to
enter upon it prole,scd "on the faith of a Chris,
tian," and by removing that test from the present
Bill, and from any future Bill, it was doubt-
less intended to remove that profession of Chri-
tianity as the condition of filling the civil office.
Now, he did not know whether he rendered himself

liable to those severe censures which had been delivered
on a former occasion by the Noble Lord oppo-
site end by others, who did not scruple to
to impute to sheer intolcration all opposition to the ad-
mission of the Jews to civil and legislative of
But the ground which he occupied was the
same upon which lie should stand if he were
arguing against the claims of any other class. He did
not intend to speak w.th disrespect of the Jews as a
class, or of any individual Jew.--( Hear, hear, hear.)
He did net say that they were net honest and
conscientious, but unfortunately that increased his
objection, for the more conscientious a Jew
was, the less qualified was he to apply his mind
to the promotion of Christian objects.—( Hear, hear.)
He did not say that there were not individual Jews
who might discharge the duties of tie legislative
cfficc better than semi Christians ; but his ob-
jection was that the class was disqualified.
Now if it were proposed in that Hou e to substitute a
.5/. or an 8/. franchise for the existing franchise
of la it would be competent for any person in
opposition to that proposition, to sty that he thought
the 10/, householders as a class, were competent to
make choice of Members of Parliament, but
that if you went any lower, you would
reach a class which was not competent,
although there might be individual 8/. house-
holders who were more con patent than some
10/. householders. It was with the distinc-
tion analogous to that he said that if Chris-
tianity was part and parcel of the law of this coon
try, it was impossible that the Jews, as a class,
should be competent to discharge the duty of legislators
But it he descended from the general principle to parti-
cular questions he would ask the House to consider
bow tire whole course of their history—even of their
recent history—proved that it is on qu.stions connected
with Christianity that our national fortunes chiefly
turned. 117fiiiii the last ten years there had been a
sufficient number • of questions before them, most
intimately and essentially concocted with the his-
torical considerations of Christianity.—(Hear, ir.)
What were the questions which had most interested
the feelings of the people of this country during the
I period which had elapsed since the Reform Bill ?
What a ere the questions which had exercised
the most determined influence on the state of parties
in this country, and in their place in the estimation of
the people, since the passing of the Reform Bill ? What
were the most difficult and perplexing questions relating
to every one of the three kingdoms now before Parliament ?
Were they not questions relating to the Christian reli-
gion ? and unhp.ppily, if there were many questions,
offering unusual difficulty, on which peculiar animosities
prevailed, and on which, whatever might be their desire,
they found it impossible to agree were they not ques-
tions which, though not of a directly religious nature
in themselves, were yet mixed up and blended
whit religious associations ? If he looked to
England, had they not had the question of
Church-rats, and had they not that question still ?
Had they not had the question of national education,
and had they not that question still? Had they not the
question of Church extension, and was it not unsettled
even now ? If he looked to Scotland, what did he
find was the greatest difficulty at this moment con-
nected with the social position of that country ?
Was it not the question which related to
the appointment of ministers of the Establishment
there ? And what question could there possibly be in
which the feelings of all parties concerned more impera-
tive required a tolerable comprehension of the claims of
religion than those he had mentioned? He did
not allude to the case of Ireland, where
it was unhappily but too notorious how
widely they were separated by religious differences,
and what immense difficulties and perplexities had beset
the course of legislation in the House in consequence of
those difference. If this was the case, if Christianity but
a i
only generally pervaded the principle of our laws, if the
glory cf God, in relation to the Christian religion, be not
which
and guaran-
tee
it
onlywas of a
p rolfie:)suerd inc
acts, if
daali y
theworship
questions
as a
guideo
most difficult to legislate were intimately associated with
the train principles of Christianity, he would say that it
was perfectly competent to argue that those who must
necessarily, as conscientious men, regard Christianity as a
fable and an imposture, could not be calculated to enter
into the consideration of such questions. It was said,
however, that they had admitted Dissenters and Roman
Cath-ilics to office, and that having done so, either it was
not wise to exclude the members of the Jewish persuasion,
or that they ought not in common consistency to refuse them
such a privilege. That, however, he denied. Such pro-
fessions were very different from those which had been
made when the claims of the Roman Catholics and th©
Dissenters were under consideration. Parliament was Oren
told o f the bond of a common Christianity uniting all the
three. He remembered havil,,r, heard of a passage in the
speech of an lion. and Gallant Officer ( Sir G. Murray), now
no longer a member of that House, which had produced
a greet effect. That Hon. and Gallant Officer bad
his Roman al-
ludedCatho-
to the sympathy existing between
lic fellow-soldiers and himself- by the bond of one common
belief in one Redeemer, and by theireec possessing
h 4
d produced
but they were totally
man hope cf salvation. .
}rat speech
such sentiments acrea
great impression at the
f;r„"cnat'eßireetettl;iere were other consi-
beellicieuti‘attheed
ptores prodsent. e a
Dissenters front that of the Jews,
the Ro.
man Catholics and
four-fifths of the population of ono
part the first place, whi J
d RCatholics, no
derations which
dbrKeuaiired:lytdwodmi:teinognusiisstlciedothe colaTsiaenof
ef the Unite.
this VI d 3
~ The Roman Catholi
a Protestant cowlJ.° CS formed a
f the popu a.tor, alet It could not be ex-
large porti3n o
r long period
it could nut be said aril anything like truth that
they would consent
f admission to civil offices
to be excluded r..).
considered the fact that the Roman Catholics
3 the bulk a the people of forn.e,lreland, they
to expect
petted
rtcha:
2,te
nfocro uallyblesyhown fur exclusion'. front the
certainly hadthat they should be ad-
t
r
mitted to their share in the Constitution, unless some
special f
administrivion ethe affairs of the country. The Roman
Catholics and Dissenters had also their feelings embittered
wbyeirformer r t
isnot
under the
prcs:ion.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benche'.)
rr lir
el,c at
ino
LlCatholicsat centuriesp a particularly
coufl aorpl
He would repeat the phrase, and the only qualifiection he
would give to it was that that oppression bad En en endured
by them partly as Roman Catholics acrd}a-tly as liish-
men—pa tly as men possessing a different religion from
that established—and partly as men belonging to a country
which had been unjustly invaded arid conquered.—( Loud
cheers ) Under those circumstances they certainly had
; at)! tuhto
they
ye
were literally
e
an equitable claim to a participation in the Constitution,
might
le very well to say to them
future cppresssion.
on the ground of Lein.. enabled to defend themselves from
thatsufferings should
they were not suffering
those
t itled speaking,toh ac,vee
son C would
security
inflicted on them. Now, let this case be
net again be atnotthbeet ttee,
compared with that of the Jaws. The one adhered to
the other did The Catho-
lics test of Christianity ;. not. Catho-
lics were a large body, formil2g. a vast. majority of the po-
pulation of ono part of the United Kingdom. Now what
Jews ? Jews were hardly perceptible upon
were t
the face of British society, of which they formed an ex-
tremely small and fractional element. Therefore it was
not worth while so strictly to contest the point of their ad-
mission to office. They were asked to surrender the prin-
ciple el the Constitution for the sake of these persons,
and as this was one of those questions which must be deter-
mined by an equitable balance of confiic.irg considerations.
and the deviation sought Ras one of which there Lad been
hitherto no example, Le had a nigh. t.-) consider who were
those that made the demand, and what was the moral

weight which they were entitled to exercise.—(Hear,
hear.) Theo, with respect to the point of grievance, he
was not aware that the Jews were persons against whom
the feelings of the population of this country had been
violently excited, be was not aware that they had been
smarting under the oppression of grinding laws, or that
they were likely so to smart. Thee was no pretence for
a case of practical grievance, or. for the probability of
such grievance. Such an allegation was not made by any
advocate of the present Bill__( Hear, hear)—whereas in
the case of Dissenters and still more of Roman Catholics
there were allegations, and true allegations of practical
grievance. By practical grievance he meant something
beyond a mere negation of political privileges. The ques-
tion whether the withholding of political privileges was a
grievance or not was opei for discussion, and must be de-
termined by general political considerations, and by the
balanee of those considerations. He would illustrate this
point. There were still some offices in this country to
which the religious test was strictly applied; it was ap-
plied to the bolder of the Crown, to the Lord Cnanecllor,
and to cei twin great officers in Ireland. —( Hear,
hear.) He hal never heard it stated that is those
particular cases it was a practical gjevance that
the re!i,gious test should be applied. To contend that a
civil office was is itself a practical gii. vance was to make
the whole system of legislation impracticable, for it would
not only apply to religion, but to every case in which the
frarchise itself was concerned.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not further trouble the House. The disqualification which
he saw in this case, and which he dii not allege to be a
disqualification which under all possible circumstances
ought to remain, was one of this nature—that comparing
them with other classes of the community, and upon a full
'sieve of their social position and of the principles of the
Constitution, the Constitution iu his opinion;would,be better
preserved_ by limitation of the holding of office to Chris-
tians than by the admission of the Jess. With relation to
one part of the subject he could not help reminding the
House that there had bean days, and they m'ght again re
tuna, when that House bad found it necessary to exercise
functions cf a more religious and ceclesi istical nature than
had hitherto fallen to its lot. There had been days like
the days of Queen Elizabeth, like the days of Charles the
First, and like the days of Charles the Second, and like
the days of William the raird, when the Br:tieh
Parliament was called upon to apply themselves
directly to the coesiderat'on of questions of religion—
to the question of what should he the form of religion—
and what the public worship cf tie wholo nation should
be. All the.;e things had necessarily passed in review before
both Houses of Parliament, and when the adoption of ore
form or another depended upon the voice of Parliament,
he maintained that that House was, to a certain extent,
disqual•fied (he me.ely mean the word in its abstract sense)
and rende el less competent, to a certain extent, to die-
cuss such questions. Ha coafussel he, for one, did not
comp:a n of Cie change that had taken place in the Con-
stitution of the House. He admitted that it had lost part
of its competency to apply itself to questions which, in the
16 h and 17th century,it had been called upon to discuss,
but then that competency must be regulated and modified
by the circumstances which hal incorporated into that
House persons who differed from them in religion, and which
would have made it unreasonable to have excluded them.
But as the number of religionists of different sects in Par-
liament increased, it was manifest that that incompetency
must increase. They would progressively go on from one
step t► another, and the time would come when the mix.
ture of creeds would be so great, that it would be an in-
sult to pub:ic decency if that House should continue
to disc h ‘rge ecch siasOcal functions. Therefore in c.v. ry
fresh introduction of a different class of persons there was
a tendency t.) disqualify the House from interfering with
matters of religion, and a tendency which it appeared to
him, should be ci ecked, to overthrow the principles of
national religion. The furt!-,er that change was extended
the mote d.fficult would it be for the Home to do what it
had been called upon to do in ancient time, and he con-
tended that it was logically and demoncratiso ly established,
that these changes had a tendency to overthrow the prin-
ciples of national religion. On those grounds he would
move that the B:11 be road that day six months-.
Mr. PRINGLE seconded the motion.

Mr. MACAULAY rose amidst loud criea of "
He could make allowance for Hon. Gentleman, and he
would detaia the House for a very little chile indeed.—
( Hear.) • He would confine himself to a few words upon a
remark made by his Han. Friend ( Mr. Gladstone). and
repeated by the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Those
Hon. Gentlemen bad treated the Bill in a very improper
manner. They treated it as it would relieve the Jews from
all civil disabilities whatever, and would render them eli-
gible to s't in Parliament. His Noble Friend (Lord J.
Russell) undoubtedly said that they ought to be admitted
to seats iu Parliament, and he (Mr. Macaulay) was of the
same opinion.—(Hear.) But that was not the question at
present. This was a measure for I:dr-Liming them to civil
and municipal offices, and his Hon. Friend opposed it, not
because he gave any reason for thinking Jews incompetent
to fill such offices, but because he thought them not com-
petent to act in the Legislature.—(Hear.) His Hon.
Friend alluded to the prayers which were offered up in that
House, and he asked could Jews join in them? But that
was a question which would apply to many Gentlemen al-
ready in that House.—(Herr, hear, Lear.) There was
ore Gentleman, a member of a highly respectable sect,
which considered such a form of prayer as irre-
ligious.—( Hear ) His Honour te._ le Friend said that
the prayer asked for the promotion of true religion. But
there was as much difference already in the House on the
subject of true religion, as there was between the Jew and
the Church of England.—(Heir, hear,) The Roman
Catholic differed from the Protestant, and the Unitarian
differed from the Trinitarian, as to what was the true re-
ligion. Which ever of them was right, there must be a
great deal of false religion in the House of Commons.
( Hear, hear, bear.) But it was not the object of the Bill
to introduce the Jews to PaTament. He called on every
gentleman who thought the Jews competent to discharge
the duties of municipal officers to vote for this Bill, without
being deterred by an apprehension that if he conceded now
what was right and just, he might next year be asked for
something which he considered improper. —( Hear, bear.)
His Hon. Friend alluded also t 3 the distracted state of
Scotland, and his language implied an apprehension that
the legislation of Jews upon that subject would be im-
propee. Surely he did net apprehend that they would
attempt a system of proselytism, and carry over the people
in thousands from the kirk to the synagogue ?—(" Hear,
hear," and a laugh.) The only thing to be apprehended
from the Jews in regard to the Church would be that they
would most likely advocate the voluntary system, which
already had numerous advocates in that House. But ha
would le .ve the question to his Hon. Ft fiend's own deei-
slur. Would it net be accounted by himself a serious
grievers to be debarred by his rergioue opinions from
civil efliee—( Chasm)—fromi-itting in that House, cf which
he was so distinguished a Member ?_.( Cheers.) It wa
possieic to say that power could be shown not to be a
gristaeee to any man. when inflicted by use for some
strong pi ieciple of necessity. If Geetiereen made out ti e
necessity, just in the same manner as they argued fur thin,
they might argue ler all sorts of punidimeat fsr religious
npiuiens, for whipl.ing or burning.—(Cheers.) But it
was saMi that the Jews were few—( Hear, hear)—and
thercf .re it did not matter whet!-es they lay under a
grievance or net.—( Hear, hear.) The lr:sh Catholics
were six or seven millions, the Pr et .nt Dissent firs
were some millions. The Irish Ceilmilic.s wished to re.
turn Members to Parliamer t, they did ri tern a Member
fo• Clare, and the Duke ef Weli titan, who had cou-
rage ti resist the utmost peer of Bonapare, had not
nerve enough to face the consequences c f the has ill y of
diseffectsd millions. But the Jeiss were foe, we need :tot
apprehend an insurrection ire Pi.ttieuA-lane or in Duke's-
piece. We need not dread formidahle meetings Ike
those in th j Corn Exchange, if we e ithbeid from them their
sigh-•, and therefore it was said tic? should be uithheld.
'lsms a-gurnent would be equally strong against the .
Quakers. The number of Quakers was smaller than that
of the Jews, and on what prieciple did they adtnrt the one
exclude Vie other? It [twit be remembered also that
this a-gument told both ways. If on the one hand ser i :us
injury
.i to tie State was not to be apprehended nom al e
h yof the Jewish popu'ation, on the (dim: hand,
was uo reason to apprehend their predominance erautig
the people in such a manner es to dindeish the numbers
who Leiottged to the established religion. They were a
small sect, and not a pleselyting one, and therefore, if
these cercurnstar.ces were urged to show there weu!el be no
danger an refasieg their eiLien-i, it might also be used to
shone that there woul I lie no dangerindo
gruntinguse them.--
( Hear, hear.) The House of Commons
exercis
toe
functions much more important than now lel°
neallei upon to make aged qi;les
them. They were formerly
and forms, and modes of Roast,', duties which it was
net I.k If they noeld be
r' s agabide cgalled upon to exe-
cute. Fcr his own a I e Mrrt.L.M:es,c,luel,aey
)ablehatdo
of late seen so roach proof how ii ale A
bind the it genuity of casoisit, that he stroel 1 he sorry to
see them occupied in frarnirg
any more sotclrmouldcobwebs
(Chews.) He cmuld only wish fur that which
tolepret
a r end t..) this Bill and all fuel Bilge—enlightenedtioa; but if learned persons clseweere would teach the
Jews some of their own ingenuity, there could not teen be
the slightest doubt but tbe, as they svra!lon el confession
and absolution, so these tests also would be swallowedwithout the slightest hesitation.—(Cheers.) lie would
veto ore to say that a better gloss could be found for a
Jewish declaration than other glosses which he had seen—
(Hear, bear)—and that not merely fur the purpme or oh.
land. g crate offices, but in order to hold the faith of RotEo
with the endowments of the English Church.—(Laud
cheers.) He regretted that the liou. Gentleman, wh) had
seconded the motion, had introduced some topics tsd
might, in his (Mr. Macaulay's) opinion, have batter been
omitted. The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the great
national crime committed by the Jewish people more thae
eighteen hundred years ago; but he (Mr. Macaulay) did
not think that House was a proper place in which to
make such an allusion. He should at all events say that,
from that events the most solemn which man could con-
template, there was one lessen to be derived which should
riot be forgotter. They should remember that the greatest
crime ever committed upon earth was committed by men who
knew not what they did under the iefleence of religious
intolcrarc e For his own part he should say tact en every
occasion in which an atempt was insane iu ilia House to
take a :say any civil disability
upon men in Call_
();illloll°. it sh:ltild reCeiVe
gill
Scque.:ce of their rel.g oss
itse,t :tee:antis supper'.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GOUi.BUUN ww, surprised to have heardtbe Hon,
Gendeemn ,taee iu Org. Fr: of Isisspeoesr that thine wad
no greater difference between Christ airs and Jews than ba-
mween different sects of Christians.—(" No, no.")
Mr. MACAULA Y said that what he had stated wss
that there was not a single question of a religious ee. _
teeter which his Hon. Friend had alluded to in which he
could possibly differ more widely from the Jews than he
differed from Members of that How.
Mr. GOULBURN—Then the Right Hon. Gentleman
gave up that point. The duff retied between them was
this:—.Were they or were they not to admit to a Chr:s-
tian community those who hold the Christian religion in
abhorrence?—(Hear, hear.) Could any body deny that
this measure was only the forerunner of a Bill for the ge-
neral admission of the Jews into all offices. He thought,
according to the statements of his. II"u bin Friend,
the Jews could not be admitted to the administration
of the law in a Christian community. If such was the
case, what, ho would ask, would a Je.s do when be was

~~ ~' ..