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

verity which he represented in conflict with the
civil rights and privileges of any portion of his fel-
low subjects. The policy which had been too long and
too uniformly pursued by that body was one with the
results of which he certainly did not feel satisfied. His
Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) contended for the mainte-
nance of a long-established and ancient system, but he
reminded them also that for many generations they had
been in a state of perpetual conflict and of progressive
movement in one and the same direction.—(Hear.) His
Noble Friend said that they had had to contend first
for a Protestant Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He ought
to have begun earlier. (Hear, hear.) He should have
told them that between the periods of the restoration
and the Hanoverian succession, the conflict was for a
Change Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) The contention
was next for a Protestant Parliament, and in both cases
those who were contending for what was sought were
not defeated unawares, but owing to a profound and uni-
form tendency associated with the movement of the
human mind, with the course of events, and, perhaps he
ought to add, with the providential government of the
world. On the same principles that they regarded Magna
Charm and the Bill of Rights, as a portion of the British
constitution, were they bound to tansider all other Acts
of the Legislature in accordance with their spirit. After
two or three generations, in which the contest had
been for a Church Parliament, and two or three more in
which it had been for a Protestant Parliament, in both
of which the parties contending for the object were
defeated, they were now called upon to decide the ques-
tion whether or not they did contend for a Christian
Parliament.—(Hear.) And here he must say that his
Noble Friend bad made assumptions with regard to the
views of the promoters of the measure which were en-
tirely inconsistent with the statements of the Noble
Lord by whom it was introduced.—(" Hear, hear,"
from Lord John Russell.) His Noble Friend said what
was asked was a declaration that for all the purposes of
government and of making laws Christianity was need-
less. The question really was, whether under all the
circumstances of the case, and with the present position
and temper of society, it was necessary to exclude the
Jews from that assembly?—(Hear ) Now this was the
question, whether, tinder the circumstances under which
we live, we might open the door to the Jews, who might
enter by ones and twos? The question was not whether
Christianity was needless. His Noble Friend had said
how could the principle of Christianity govern the
Legislature if the Jews constituted a large proportion
of it. or an equal majority? But that was not a fair
assumption, because every ono must believe that there
could not be more than a few Jews in Parliament, leav-
ing the residue exactly as they were. The connexion
between religion and politics was not only not denied by
the Noble Lord (J. Russell), but asserted. But the
question with regard to Christianity was this : his
Noble Friend appeared to attribute too much substance
and efficacy to the bond which was constituted by the
name of Christianity, which was defined by each man
for himself; and not by the law, and which did not in-
volve any body of fixed views. His Noble Friend as-
sumed too much when ho said that all who took that
name were fit for political duties, but those who did not
acknowledge it were unfitted for those duties. It would
be difficult to prove the unfitness of the Jew for the
duties he would have to discharge in Parliament, with-
out also proving many who already sat there, not only
as individuals but as classes, were also unfit for it. He
(Mr. Gladstone) knew that by adopting this measure
they gave up the exclusively Christian character
of Parliament--(Hear, hear.) In saying this,
he made a larger concession to the opponents
of the measure than perhaps he ought; but could it be
said, because they did give that up, that of necessity un-
Christianized Parliament ? It might be true in name,
but was it so in substance? He was amused by the in
dignation expressed by his Hon. Colleague when he re-
buked Dr. Van Oven, that we were not a Christian
nation, because there were a few Jews in it, and yet
what was now proposed was to admit a few Jews into
Parliament, the whole body being Christian ; and no
doubt his Hon. Colleague would be as angry with any
one fur asserting that this was not a Christian Parlia-
ment as he was with Dr. Van Oven for denying that we
were a Christian nation.—(Hear, hear, :and laughter.)
When the Noble Lord (J. Russell) spoke of the oath as
affording an insufficient security, he (Mr. Gladstone) did
not understand him to signify that they were altogether
worthless, but that they should not place exclusive reli-
ance upon them, but depend more on the qualities of the
men of whom Parliament was composed. He (Mr. G.)
could see grave objections to the measure, and a practi-
cal grievance to them (the present Members), if the
Noble Lord had proposed that their position should
be altered. He hoped that ho meant them still to
discharge their duties under the sanction of the oath,
and that they who were Christians would give solem-
nity to it by contracting their obligations on the true '
faith of Christians.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing was more
idle that to anticipate, as some persons appeared to do,
that by the admission of two or three Jews into Parlia
went, the devout and seemly custom by which the
Speaker and all those Members who were present with
him offered up their daily supplications to Almighty
God for a blessing on them, would be endangered. If
this were so, it would be a consideration affecting a few
Jews on the one hand, and a large number of Chris-
tians on the other. He haul thus endeavoured to deal
with the assumptions of his Noble Friend, and to show
that, as regarded the real meaning of the law they
were about to pass they wore unfounded. But tilt re
were others who stated their objections to the measure
in language still stronger. If they had not been told,
they must expect to be told, that this was an unchris-
tian measure, and one which would call dawn the judg-
ment of God upon them. He admitted it would be diffi-
cult to deal with such arguments in the tone befitting
such subjects, but if it was true that civil justice required
the admission of the Jew into Parliament: and ii there
would be no great practical evil to the Legislature, or
grievance to any other class, then he said that this was
not a question of expediency, but of principle; and in
proceeding to render justice to any class of his fellow-
subjects, ho had no fear of drawing down the vengeance
of the Almighty; but ho should feel more fear if, from
the dread of clamour or yielding to prejudice, they re-
frained from doing justice.—(Hear, hear.) It was too
late to use that argument now. They had gone too far
with the Jew to take that ground. When he (Mr.
Gladstone) opposed the Bill for the admission of Jews
into municipal corporations, he said that it involved the
principle of the admission into that House. His Noble
Friend (Lord Ashley) drew a distinction between exe-
ecutive and legislative functions. Yet, municipal offices
involved the functions of the magistracy, the adminis-
tration of the judicial office, mad the administration of
laws which were Christian laws; he could not
find any ground for saying that the Jew was
fit fur the administration of the laws and for the
administering of oaths to Christian men, and yet was
not fit to come into that assembly.—(Llear, hear.) But
it was not only to executive offices that the Jews were
admitted. What did they say to the franchise ? Who
were the makers of the laws ? Was it not from its
periodical
return to its mother earth that that House
received its vigour ? It was not the fountain of power,
but the organ of power. The fountain was the consti-
ntioietnbcey,ctoontesetnhdiceldi tthheatJteh-aev
choaidistbietueenncaydmwaitsteidio.t
Clhtricsotnialnd
because a few Jews were admitted to the franchise ; and
how could it be contended that Parliament was un-
Christianized if a few were admitted there ? His Noble
Friend had referred to the authority of Dr. Arnold. lie
was an able and excellent man, who had some favourite
theories, and one of them was to embody the general
ideas of Christianity, apart from what was held by parti-
cular denominations, and he endeavoured to carry out
that idea in the establishment of the London University.
His notion was that the Church and State were one. It

followed from this peculiar view that he was
compelled to reject all who did not acknowledge
themselves to be Christian, and his authority must be
weighed by the practicability of his idea, and
not by the weight of his personal character. Up to the
present time the constitution did not require that men
should be Christians, but that they should make a pro-
fession on the true faith of a Christian, and that oath
was the same in all cases, " on the true faith of a Chris-
tian." But they must read that oath by the light of
history, and see what successive Parliaments have done.
They began by requiring that all Dissenters should
take this oath. Concessions were made one after
another granting toleration, and among others to the
Unitarians. Whatever was the original meaning of the
oath, the Unitarians acted on the spirit of the constitu-
tion when they took it ; and it must be admitted that
the constitution had ceased to adhere to any fixed body
of truths as the test of admission into Parliament.
There was, however, a real difficulty in the admission of
Jews into the Legislature, arising from the mixed nature of
the functions of Parliament. So long as these matters
relating to the Church and religion were liable to be dis-
cussed it was a real difficulty so far as it wont. Now
what was its amount, and what was the proper mode of
solving it ? With regard to its amount, ho bad no
fear on this head of the admission of Jews into Parlia-
ment, because, to a great extent, the good feeling of
individuals and the force of public opinion would retain
them from interference in matters relating to the

Church. This had been much the case since the Act of
1828 and 1829, and it was usual to see gentlemen rise
and say that they thought it more fitting to leave such
questions to those who had a natural interest in them.
But he should be sorry if he were obliged to say, that
because a portion of the duties of Parliament were of a
religious character, he must stand between the Jew and
all civil and political duties. This was a question which
excited great interest among the clergy, as might be
seen by the letter addressed to the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government, by Mr. Trower, who expressed
the difficulty he felt at the infusion into Parliament of
elements which had no sympathy with the Church. He
(Mr. Gladstone) had in his hand a petition of Arch-
deacon Wilberforce, the brother of the Bishop of Oxford,
who said that ho could understand the necessity for
Jews sitting in Parliament, and in the present state of
the country he was not prepared to Offer any objection
to it, but he feared that the Parliament, by that act,
would cease to be a Christian Parliament. They would
repeal the 25th henry VIII., c. 19, by which the mode
of appointing bishops was provided for.—(Hear, hear.)
It required caution to prevent the effect of the change
they were about to make, being to produce in the coun-
try and among the clergy and the zealous members of
the Church a desire for an organic change in the rela-
tions between the Church and the State. There might
be some in that House who contemplated such a change;
but he (Mr. Gladstone) was not one of them. He con-
fessed that the real difficulty which pressed on him was
the conviction, on the minds of churchmen and the
clergy, of an increasing want of sympathy between
Parliament and the Church. His solution of the diffi-
culty was this : ho did not desire an organic change in
the Church, and in saying this he begged not
to be understood to allude to recent events. He
said, on the part of the Church, that now they were
al-)3ut al:r,it ;nto PJrliatneni. thncP h.,1
no sympathy with the spiritual interests of the
Church, they were bound, while recognising that prin-
ciple, to show that a regard for the feelings of those con-

nected 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 rarid
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 Match unless there
was respect for the Church, end' unless its own
real and moderate spirit were recognised, and they
studied to develop it in a spirit of candour. It would he
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 unable to find a practical evil in the ad
mission of Jews to Parliament, which weighed against
that which they would suffer by exclusion after 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'
melds 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 (LordJ. 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 he held no position in
that House, but, as an atheist he was powerless ; and
such 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 ho 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 the circumstance of the last
election for the City of London, but he (Mr. Fox) did
not conceive those circumstances its 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 find 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 vigour of the constitution; it was nob 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
which 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 con.ge d'aire 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 prefer-
ments, but had 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 ?—(Hear.) He did
not believe that any danger could result from the admis-
sion of two or three Jews ;
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 they could not possibly
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 beliefeif elected by the voices of his follow-citi-
zens, ought to be eligible to a scat in tho 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.—(Hoar, hear
Mr. GOULBURN regretted to differ on this question
with many in whose views ho had generally coincided.
He 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
wore animated. Ho 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-
cided stand against the threatened encroachment. This
question did not rest on the same ground as the ad-
mission of Roman Catholics, 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-
s
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.
There were
If one of these was dispensed with at the instance of the
might.)
me e
constituency,
0 veryse serve
ys
eo o n
in be
pt askedoardis-
pensea
obligation, the allegiance to the
dispensepowersn
withnitahnaYt of belief in
; and in hfiosreoipginnionineri;
Christian
wouldentirely
s
te Christianity.
obtto
justtvhteheneatsoilssflaifylreuuelegooi commencing
electorsmesbhyoeavnsne some
tr mse
with
ieginontother
Baron.
_Lothend.
idoo
et
London
r
hadn been
nith the test of alle-
giancengith which the House connected
made to the prac-
tice proceedings
with prayer ; and the. numerous other public
Legislature.—(hear,
had been said that these tests were ineffica-
cious for preventing those who were not bound by the
erathietrte?d
wTouolddoeee
dictates of their conscience from entering that House.
The fact of Gibbon having taken the oath was a bad ar-
ihtesae devotionalrlf.)stalmt stamped
proceedingsth is
as
ar-
gument for the repeal of the law ; because the power
was not sufficient in every case, ought they, therefore, to
this would not only
affect the Christian character of the Legislature—it
would give a shock to the Christian feeling of the discourage the
na-
tion, and would disc() efforts of all who were
to overtuen the
seeking to promote Christianity. He did not fear that
dispense with it altogether
the few Jews to
established religion ; the great danger to bo apprehended
was in the public feeling. The necessary- impression on
the public 'mind would be, that the Legislature had be-
come indifferent to the great truths which they professed
to believe.—(Hear, hear.) It was most important to
reserve the confidence of the nation. Alany measures
p the Legature disl
brought before emended implicit
;
confidence from the people and were the measure
now proposed to be adopted, would any ono doubt
'
;het a fatal blow would riven to the
public confidence ?--(Hear,
(Hear,
hear.) This nation was one
which
wielded the most mighty influence ; it was a
deeply religious nation, notwithstanding the existence of