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

EVENING EDITION.

netted 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 differences. If this was the case, if Christianity but
only generally pervaded the principle of our laws, if the
glory of God, in relation to the Christian religion, be not
only professed in our daily worship as a guide and guaran-
tee of all our acts, if all the questions on which it was
most difficult to legislate were intimately associated with
the main prunciples 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
Catholics 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 wbieh had been
made when the claims of the Roman Catholics and the
Dissenters were under consideration. Parliament was then
told oftho bond of a common Christianity uniting all the
three. He remembered having heard of a passage in the
speech of an Hon. and Gallant Officer ( Sir G. Murray), now
no longer a member of that House, which had produced
a great effect. That Hon. and Gallant Officer had al-
luded to the sympathy existing between his Roman Catho-
lic fellow-soldiers and himself by the bond of one common
belief in one Redeemer, and by their possessing a com-
mon 'hope of salvation. That speech had produced a
great impression at the time, and such sentiments were
calculated to produce a great effect; but they were totally
beside the present question. But there were other consi- '
derations which broadly distiagnished the case of the Ro. '
man Catholics and the Dissenters from that of the Jews.
In the first place, while four-fifths of the population of one
part of the United Kinglom consisted of Roman Catholics,
at Gould not be said with anything like truth that this was
a Protestant country. The Roman Catholics formed a
large portion of the population, and it could not be ex-
pected that for any very long period they would consent
to be excluded from admission t 9 civil offices ; and when
they considered the fact that the Roman Catholics
formed the bulk ef the people of Ireland, they
certainly had a right to expect that they should be ad-
mitted to their share in the Constitution, unless some
special reason could be shown for their exclusion from thu
administration of hie affairs of the coutitry. The Roman
Catholics and Dissenters had also their feelings embittered
by former suffarizie. Tho Ro nen Catholics particularly
were smarting under the tecollet tine of centuries of op-
pression.—( Loud cheers front the Ministerial benches.)
He would repent the phrase, and the only qualification he
would give to it wee that oppressiou had been endured
by them partly as Remaa Cethoiies and partly as Irish-
men—partly as re, ee pessessing a different religion from
that established—a pertly as men belonging to a country
which had been tallest,: invaded arid coequerel.—( Loud
cheers.) Under tho.is circumstances t!ley certainly had
an equitable claim to perticipston in the Constitution,
on the ground of I. eing enah'e I to defeed themselve's from
future oppresssion. It c:ight le very well to say to them
they were not sett the tine, n'though, literally
speaking, even thw would not be ; but they were en-
titled to have soil e security that tune sufferings should
not again be infl c.ed on them. Now, let this case be
-.compared with that of the Jews. The one adhered to
ti:e test of Christianity; the other did not. Tice Catho-
lics were a large body, forming a vast majority cl the po-
pulation of ono part of the United Kingdom. Now what
were the Jews ? The Jews were hardly perceptible upon
she face of Briti,ll society, of which they formed an ex-
tremely Mall and fractional clement. 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 ref the Coeetiettion for the sake of these persons,
and as this wee ers ef the, eluestione which must be deter-
mined by an eialtibio tt,:r,c--i of c ono considerations.
and the deviation «oi:eat eas one of nri.:! there Lad been
?hitherto no exampl ee hots a riele t . consider wllo were
hose that made tr,:• deuun.d. and .slant sac the moral
leciot which (her w,,re cn Lied to ex .reity.—(Hefir,
he tr.) Then, ter re.uect to tie point of gricsabc-, he
was tot aware that 11:;r p-tuna against whom
the fe`eiinge of the popols,i in of this country hal been
.violeuily excited, :le .s rim it they had been
martin.; uneler the oepre;sien of grunting law=, or that
they were like-.; try T;),,C was n e prat tote for
a case of practical e ievaime, or foe tint prulitbility of
such grievance. Sit,. sio ale patien was net ma 'et by any
..
Advocate of the preent —( lieu, heat)—weereas in
:he case of Dixie ewe end still inor: of Reecan Catholics
there were allegatiiti„, ned true allegations Of practical
serievtnce. By preetiesl grievance be meant something
beyond s mere negation of pol-ical privileges. The gees-
*foe whethOv the lettlaholning of. poliei al privileges was a
grievance or ;sot open for citscassion, and must be de-
termined by greee'el 'ol,tical C nsi.leratiees. and -by the
balances, of those stions. lie would i lustrate this
point. There we is eell some offices in this coutery to
which the reliei..us z
wig Strictly applied ; it was ap-
flied to the bolder ef toe Crewe', to the Ler,' Cnencellor,
and to certain great officers i 9 I eland.—(Hear,'
hear.) He had never heard it stated that in those
partioular cases it was a practical grievance that
the religious test sheeld bit applied. To contend that a
civil office was in itself a practical gti var.ce was to mako
the whole system of legislation Impracticable, for it would
not Deily apply to religior, but to every Case in which the
franchisee itself was concerned.—( Hear, hear.) fie would
not furtiaer trouble the House. The disqualification which
be saw in this case, and which lie did not allege to be a
disqualification which tinder all possible circumstances
ought to remelt:, was ono of this nature—that comparing
them with other cl .s.is.4; of the community, and upon a full
view of their social position and of the principles of the
Constitution, the Cent titu tion in his opinion!would;be better
preserved; by limitation of the %mining of office to Chris-
tians than by the admission of the Jeer. With relation to
one part of the subject he could net help reminding the
House that there had Lean days, and they might again re-
turn, when that House ead found it necessary to exercise
:'unctions of a more religieui and ecclesiastical nature than
had hitherto fallen to its lot. There had been days like
the days of Queen Eazebeih, like the days ef Charles tho
First, and like the days of Charles the Second, and like
the days of Willis a the Third, when the British
Parliament was called upon to apply themselves
directly to the consideration of questions of religion—
so the question of what should he the form of religion--
lee d what the public worship of the whole nation should
be. All these things had recessarily passed in review before '
both Houses of Parliament, and when the adoption of one
form or another depended upon the voice of Parliament,
be maintained that that House was, to a certain extent,
disqualified (he me, ely mean the word in its abstract sense)
and rendered less competent, to a certain extent, to dis-
cuss such questions. lie confessed he, for one, d d not
complain of the change that had taker" 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
16th and 17th century, it had been called upon to discuss,
but then that competency must be regulated and modified
by the circumstances which had 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 to another, and the time would come when the mix.
tote of creeds would be so great, that it would be an in-
sult to public decency if that House should continue
to discharge ecclesiastical functions. Therefore in every
fresh introduction of a different class of persons there was
a tendency to disqualify the House front interfering with
matters of religion, and a tendency which it appeared to
Lim, should be checked, to overthrow the principles of
national religion. The further that change was extended
the mere difficult would it be for the House to do what it
bad been called upon :o do in ancient times, and he con-
tended that it wa.3 logically and demonstratively established,
that these changes had a tendency
thoetos overthrow the prin-
ciples of national religion. On groundsmh he would
move that the Bill be read that day.six
Mr. PRINGLE seconded the motion. months.
Mr. MA CA UL A Y rose amidst loud cries of s' Divide."
He could make allowance for Hon. Gentleman, and he
would detain the House for a very little while indeed.—
(Hear. ) fl'e would confine himself to a few words upon a
remark made by his floe. Friend ( Mr. Gladstone), and
repeated by the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Those
Hon. Gentlften had 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 sit in Parliament. His Noble Friend (Lord J.
Russell) undoubtedly said that they ought to be admitted
to seats its Parliament, and he (Mr. Macaulay) was of the
same opinion.—( Hear.) But that was not the question. at
present. This was a measure for admitting them to cite
and municipal offices, and his Hon. Friend opposed it, not
because ho 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.—( Hear, hear, hear.) There was
one Gentleman, a member of a highly respectable sect,
which considered such a form of prayer as irre-
ligious--(Hear.) His Hon/a:retie 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 Etigtand.— (liear, he , ) The Roman
Catholic differed from
protestant,
and the Unitarian
differed from the Trinitarian, as to wlat teas the true re-
ligion. Which ever of them wee right, there must be
great deal of false te;teion in the House of Commons.
(Hear, hear, hear.) But it Wilt sot the object of the Bill
to introduce the Jews to Pa.h n arnen
ht
the
Jews
compeHteenctaltloeddoisncheavrerye
gentleman who thou,t
he duties of municipal racers to vote for this Bill, withoutg
r ke,
eh enni t
that
txitr yh:a re °tin: ea
cis
ke
ed
dn
foowr being deterred by au
j'utsritP,
what was right and
-something which he eensidcred improper. _(Hear, hear.)
His Hon. Friend all :rind t ) the dieracted state of
Scotland, and hi, unp,ied ae appreeension that
the legislation of Jews upon that subject would be im_
proper. Surely he did net apprehend that they would '
attempt a system of ercsailieni, and carry over the people
in thousands from the itirk to the 53nee'egue ?—(" Hear,
bear," and a laug-. ) The only thing to be apprehended
from the Jews in re,,- ad to the Church would be that they
would moat likely' t ate the voluntary system, which
already had nuratir.:'aevecat-ce in that House. But he
would leave the q's •4.in to his Hon. Friend's own deci-
sion. Would it he eccenteed by himself a serious
grievance to be ihurrcd by his religious opinions from
civil office—(Cho rsj-.from ei tine in i. at House, (,1 which
lie wee cisao;
posertti et
Me-abet ?—.( Cheers.) It was
could be shown not to be a