The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-08 00:00:00

EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1848

LATEST PRICES OF SNARES,
IN BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER COM

PASTIES' STOCK.
From the Official List,

PUBLISHED EVERY TUEADAY AND FRIDAY EVENING.

LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8.
JOINT-STOCIL U&NES.

Name of Company.

Anstralasta .•
N orth American
Ceylon .. • • .. • • • • • • • •
commercial of Loidon
•• •• ••••• •
Gloucestershire •• •• • •
lonian •.•• •• ..•• •...
Londn and Westmtnstr

London Joint-Stock .. •
rrovi :lola] of Ireland..
Ditto, .New.• • • • • • • •
National of Ireland ..
Nat. Provncial of Eng.
Ditto, Now. • • • • • • • •
South Australia . • • • • •
Union of Australia • • • •

Ditto •• ••••.
of London... ••
Union of Madrid

i.IST OF SCOT'

Name of Company.

Bank of Scotland
British Linen Company
Caledonian Bank
City of Glasgow Bank .
Clydesdale Bank • • • • • •
Commercial Bank . • • •
Eastern Bank.. . • • • • •
Edinb. tc Glasgow Bank
Exchange llnk of Scot
Isle of Man. Company
National Bank ...... • •
North of Scotland Bank
North British Bank • •
Royal Bank of Scotland
Union Bank of Scotland
Vestern Bask • • • •
Aberdeen Fir and Life
B. Accord. Life and Fire
British Guarantee Ills.
Caledonian Fire Incur.
Church of Eng:and Int.
City of Glasgow Life
Edinburgh .Lite Insur
East of Se-Aland Life
Eng. & Scot, Law Life
Rercules Insurance Co.
incur. Co. of ScoUnd—
Life Assoc. of Scotland
Mercantile Life
National Fire and Life
North ltriVsh Limn • •
North & West of Soot.
Scottish Life and Guar.
Scot. Mas. and Gen. Life
Scottish Union Insrncs.
Stantard Life ......
United Dep. Assurance

Albion •• •• •• • • •• • • • •
Al:iance and For.

Dit t 111 Arnie. • •
•
British Commercial ..
Clorici,Med.& Gen. Life
°aunty ..........
Crown •• •• •• •• .• •• ••
Eagle.. • • • •
Eng.& Scot. Law •• • .
European Life ••• • . •
Family Enclowmt, t Soc.
Freemasons'.• • •• • •
6;oI e ...............
tivartli an • • • • • ..
riniicrial Fire ........
imperial Life . • • . • • ..
Indemnity Marine • • • •
Law Fire ........
LAW I ife.. •
Legal and General Life
L,?ndc n Fire ........
London Ship ........
Marine............. • • • • • • • • • ..
Med. Inylld & Gen. Life
National Lean Fund..
National Life....
Palladium Lite
Pelican
Phcenix • •
otector Life • • ••
resident Life • • •
Rork Life..
Royal Exchange
Sun Fire •

Ditto Life .
Universal Life
Viaoria Life..

GAS-LIGHT

Name of Company.

Dividend
per

Annv.m.

per cent.
6/. ptr cent.
61. per cent.
51. per cent.
15/ per cent.
per cent.
61. per cent.

Gl. per cent,
81, per cent.
Si. per cent
51. per cent,
6/. per cent.
51. per cent.

British • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

61. per cent.

Ditto Provincial
Bristol • • •
Brighton . .....
City of London .. • • ••
Continental Consolidat.

Ditto, Now . • .... • •
Equitable - • • • • • .. • • • •
Imperial .• .... • • • • • •
Independent .•..... • •
London• • ...• • . • • • • • .

Gi. per cent.

71. per cent.
81. per cent.
Si. per cent.
Cl. per cent.
Cl. per cent.
71. per cent.
61. per cent.
61. per cent.
61. per cent.
71. per cent.
6/. per cent.
71. per cent.

61. per cent.
81. per cent.
81. per cent.
121. per cent.

10/. per cent

ST. per cent.
51. per cent.

51. per cent.
71. per cent.
I. per cent.
51. per cent.

5L per cent. 1'
sy3t.pr cent.

51. per cent.
COAL pr cent.
51. p,r cent.
*l. per cent.

31. 10s.
6 per cent.
61. per cent,
t 36.6 a. pr sh.
7s. per share
51. per cent.
• 31.
13s.
6s.
51. per cent.
5% per cent.

4/. &
5;. per cent.
6/. per cent.
M. per cent.
12 per cent.
12s.
11. sit. & bs.

Amount
of
Share.

£ s. d.
40 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0

25 0 0
100 0 0

50 0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
40 0 0
100 0 0
20 0 0

25 0 0

X s. d.
100 0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
1 10 0 0
20 0 0
5110 0 0
25

0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
12 10 0
20 0 0
10 0 0
100 G 0
50 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
SO 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
10 0 0
13 0 0
200 0 0
10 0 0
20 0 0

1 • 0
21 0 0
s• 0 •
10 0 0

IMPAN:

Phcenix . • • .. • • • • • • ..
Rate •• • • • .. • • • • ..
United General •• • • ..
Westminster Chartered
Ditto, New

Amount
of
Share.

X s. d.
500 0 •
100 0 •
100 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
4 0 0
20 0 0

Stock.
100 0 0
500 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
100 I 0
1 50 0 0
25 0 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
40 0 0
20 0
100 0 0
50 0 0

20 0 0
100 • 0
5 0 •
Stock.

Is' PRY,

Paid.

:Es.

raid.

Price

.0 s. el.
50 0 0
11 0 0
5 0 0
5 6 5
5 0 0
10 0 0
10 0 0
5 0 0
5 0 0
2 12 6
All paid.
4 0 0
3 0 0

:CES

Prim.

165
199%
4
103 i
11%
154
10%

616

13%
143

ets%
1815.6‘t.

36 I() 0
50 0 0
10 0 0
5 13 1
2 10 0
10 0
2 0 0
12 10 0
12 10 0
15 0 0
2 0 0
2 !0 0
5 0 0
2 0 0

21. 8s
IN

1 o o
10 0 •
0 1• e

245.
23
I/. IS
'4
103. Odd
11. Is
12s.

100 0 0

8 ,0
4 0 II

Price

2 xd

214
14X

21. Is

44
MG

:P.ES.NZES.

Paid.

Price.

Z. a. d. I

is 0 0 I 1714
19 0 • 233

MISCELLANEOUS.
-
Dividend Amount'
Name of Company. per of raid. Prices
Annum. Share.
- - -
X. 8. d. 1 ' X. a. d.
Australian Agriculturl - 100 6 0 30 0 0 -
Anglo-Mexican Mint., 11. 48. 10 40Ile • 0 16
Ditto, Half Shares.. - - 210 • -
Canada ... • ......... 6/. per cent. ISO 11l 0 82 10 0 11
Uppr Canada Bonds 51. per:eent. - -
City Bonds.. .• ...... 3y21. pr cent. - • - 49
Comp. Cppr Min's Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 75 • • -
Gen. Revers. & Invest. sp. c.& bs, 2/ 101 0 • 100 • 8 -
Eqaitable Reversionry 4% ~ pr cent. 100 5 0 195 • • -
Gee.SteamNavigation 11.8$. 15 II I 14 0 0 2434
London Institution . • • - - - 11
Peninsir & Orient.Strn. 21. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 • 59
Reversionary Int. Soc. 3%1. pr cent. 100 • 0 100 0 • 95
Royal Mail Steam- - 3%1. pr cent. 100 0 0 60 0 0 -
South Australian .- - 61. per cent. 25 0 0 25 0 0 -
Van Dieman's Land.. - 100 0 0 23 0 0 -
Umiversal Salvage •• • • - 25 0 0 8 0 0 -
WATE3Z-VZORICS
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
- -- ---•
£ s. d. £ s. d.
Birmingham. •••• • • • • 18s. 25 0 0 25 0 0 -
East London..• •••• • • • 81. 100 0 0 - 166xd
Grand Junction .• •• - 21. Dls. 41 13 4 - 82
3/. 100 0 4 - 84
Jew Rivr Dada Brdge 21. 108. - - 55
i7auxhall •••••••••••• 100 0 0 - 101
West Middlesex . . . 5/. 15cprent. 63 12 9 -116 N
C.h.N.A.X.S.
Names of 1 ~..ti !Dividend Price. - Names of Dividend
A
Companies. i. 1 per Companies. 'a
Ann per Price.
.' um.
-v: , Annum. In
£i X
Ashtn& Oldh 97, 71. p c 110 Macclesfield . 100 2/. 10s. 42
Barnsley •• • • 160, 121. 180 Neath .•• • • • 100 201. 340
13rknk&Abrg 1501 si. 80 Oxford.... • • 100 201. 200
Birmingham 351 4/. 80 Peak Forest. 78 31. 10s 68
Coventry ..• • 100, 25/. - Regent's •• • • 33 11. 4s. igxd
Derby ••• • • 100' 61. 63 Rochdale.. • • 85 41. 54
Ells rre&Chs 133 41. 50 Somrsct Coal 150 71. 10s. 130
Eree ash .•• 100, 32/. - Do.LkFdSt 12 61. c. -
GrandJunetn 1001 51. 79 Stirri &Wore 140' 28p.
/. 275
GrandSurreyllool - 30 Shrewsbury.. 125 151. -
Grand Unlon,loo, 11. 10s. 2134 Stourbrldge.• 145 201. 305
Grantham • • 150, 121. - Severn and/
26 1/. 88. 30
Kennt & Avn 39, 7s. 6d. 534 Wye Rail.
1
eels&Livlloo' 341. 430 Warwick& -e ,
Leicester ....rpll4o 101. 75 Birming. jOO - 51. 65
Lemstr &Nth' 83, 41. 36 Warwick& i 1 1
Loughboroghll42 701. 539 Napton.. - 46
Monmouthsh 100, 81. - Worcstr 81 '7B 21. 39
Mntgemrysh 100, 51. - Birming.
MeltriMivbry 100, 101. I - Wilts & Brks 67, 11. 11

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 7.

The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
On the question that the Bill be now read a second
time,
Mr. STAFFORD proceeded to move, pursuant to
notice, that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months. He contended that there was comparatively
little feeling out of tho House on the subject, and that
the proposition was one which almost entirely ought to
be discussed as an abstract principle. It was no ques-
tion of religious persecution, of religious toleration ; that
question had been settled by the concession to the Jews
of the civil liberties which they already enjoyed. Those
liberties he had no desire to recal, but while he was
w"lling to admit the Jews to a full participation in the
benefits of our legislation as fellow-subjects administered
fer, he conceived that it would be wholly contrary to
our duty and interests as Christians to admit those who
were the enduring antagonists of Christianity to a share
in the legislation itself. The chief argument that had
been used in fav,mr of the Bill was the certainty that so
few Jews would be admitted under its provisions as to
be utterly unimportant in the Houses of Legisla-
ture.—(flenr. hear.) But if such an argument were
worth anything what would it have amounted to in the
case of a neighbouring inland, part of the realm,
wherein there were 7,000,000 Catholics who demanded
admission, and to whom the answer would conse-
quently have been—" We cannot admit you because
ycfu are so great a number of Catholics. Why, the ar-
gument itself was an insult, or little better, to Judaism.
The Bill was described by the Noble Lord who had
brought it in as one that would abolish the last remains
of the intolerant spirit of former ages. With reference
to this assertion he might refer to a notice of motion
which stood on the paper, to the effect that it should no
longer be imperative that the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land should profess the Protestant religion. Let such a
measure as that obtain the sanction of the Commons
House of Parliament, and it would then not prove to
have expunged the last remnant of what was termed the
spirit of intolerance, for the English Lord Chancellor
would still of necessity be a Protestant, and those who
resisted a similar relaxation of the law in his favour be
termed intolerauts and bigots, as were the persons con-
scientiously opposed to the present Bill. Nor would the
steps of concession after concession which led into the
broad path of infidelity be finally passed until the
measure to which ho had alluded
had been
agreed to, and then it would be for the
Legislature and the country to reflect 110,e/ it could
ba proposed to preveat the holder of the Crown from
becoming a Roman Catholic, when the keeper of the
royal conscience was allowed to profess that faith. 'Withregard to the cperution of religious opinions on the chief

magistrate in a state, ho might instance the caze which
had formerly presented itself in a neighbouring king-
dom; and he was justified in asserting that alien Napo-
leon placed the imperial diadem on his own head with
his own hands, ho well knew the meaning of that
symbolic act which was to withdraw his temporal power
from the power of .religious reaction. When the House
and the country were told that the present Jill had
actually swept away the last remnant of religious dif-
ferences, and of the compulsory observance of certain
forms, let him assume that it had passed, and that the
Jews had taken advantage of its provisions to became
Members of that House. He had been exceedingly
anxious to secure a seat at the present sitting of the
House, and he had accordingly come down to prayers.—
(Much laughter.) Hon. Members might laugh, but he
did not mean to imply that he had been imattentive or
unobservant of the form of prayer. In order to make
good his claim to one particular seat it was necessary
for him to take one of the cardswhich lay on the table,
whereon were inscribed two words, "at prayers"—
write his name under those words—and fix that card
to his seat. Could it be expected that the name of
Lionel Rothschild would ever be found to fill np that
blank? That gentleman might very fairly and justly
say that he came down to the House because he had
been told by the Prime Minister that religion had
nothing to do with politics, and therefore he might urge
that politics ought not to be mixed up with religion. A
Jew might, on such gronnds as were advanced in favour
of the present Bill, argue that he was prepared to act on
the maxim cited in its favour. Let every man wor-
ship God in private according to the form of his own
Conscience. It had been very fairly put by the Honour-
able Member for Oldham, that it was unfair to compel
the Jew to observe the Christian Sabbath when he
so strictly kept that which was to him sacred in that
sense. And yet how could the law enforcing the obser-
vance of the Christian Sabbath be maintained towards a
Jew, if, in other respects, he was placed on a level with
Christians? Could society be kept together if the
House were to sanction and promulgate the opinion that
legislation proceeded only from human authority? The
forms; enjoined by the Church must, in relation to
such a system of legislation, prove a sorrowful subject
of reflection to all who did not believe in a higher des-
tiny than that marked out for her. But the question
for the House was not one which regarded the forms of
the Church only, it affected the Christianity of the whole
nation, He was not desirous of involving the Church as
a single institution in such a controversy as the present.
He was ready to fight the battle of the Church when
that institution was assailed, but did not wish unneces-
sarily to expose it to assault. The Honourable Member
concluded by moving that the Bill be read a st cond
Utrie that day six months.

Lord BIfIiGHLEY seconded the amendment, and
said that, in his estimation, the question before the
House was one of no small importance, for it was,
,ft oor character.aoi
ef
ftai
teh
words
fol Iradetsx runeeegereestisrta:
necessarily
veryya
nin
whether the House was or was not to possess a Chris-
die)
eh
dn
ot htoant
sufficiently
tthh
ue
ovaetrhy,
sllicruli
CI • t• " d
show to the Noble Lord (J. Russell) that, by proposing
to omit them from thst oath, he would inevitably offend
a vast number of the Christian community. But it
would be heard from the Noble Lord that when the
form of oath now extant had been proposed during the
reign of James, there was no reference whatever con-
templated to the situation of the Jews. What he would
say on that subject was, that the oath had hitherto ex-
cluded the Jews, and what reason was there why it
should now be altered? The answer was, that a par-
ticular indivdual of that nation could not take his seat
unless the law was altered. If that was done, the door
of the House was opened at once to Turks, Mussulmen,
or indeed to whoever might possess money or influence
enough to induce people to send them to that place.
He hoped it would not be considered that he was actu-
ated by a hostile spirit towards the Jews. He had not
read their history in soy such spirit, and he trusted his
opposition to the Bill would not be ascribed to a want of
Christian charity. He begged leave to second the amend-
ment.
Mr. P. WOOD said that he had come to the coneu-
sion, as well on social grounds as on those of Christi-
anity, and as a member of the Church of England, that
it was high time so disgraceful a memento of intolerance
as the Bill before the House was framed for the purpose
of removing should be swept from the statute-book.
Twenty years since he had signed a petition for effect-
ing that which the Noble Lord (Jeßuseell) now pro-
posed to the House to sanction. That religion had
nothing to do with polities, was an adage which, though
constantly cited, was not altogether true, for religious
opinions, which ought neither to qualify or disqualify
any one for holding a political station, still did have that
effect The llon.Member for North Northamptonshire had
talked of a Jewish theocracy, but he (Mr. I'. Wood)
challenged him to show from Scripture any word by
which the union of Church and State was enjoined
or even sanctioned. One of the arguments used
against the present Bill was, that Christianity was
part and parcel of the common law of England.
He begged to deny that proposition, in so
far as the present question was concerned. That
such was the case to a certain extent was undeniable;
but if that doctrine had prevailed to the full extent
claimed for it, the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford
University, could not have practised his religion without
being a traitor, for he offended against the statute of
Six Articles of Henry VIII., enjoining the belief in
transubstantiation. That statute was part and parcel
of the common law of the land. By the old law of the
land, all persons in it were assumed to be Christians,
and consequently these who were not so were excluded
from tho State. This practice had been enforced in
Spain, Portugal, Naples, and other continental states;
but the first instance which occurred in English history
of a law being directed against heretics was in the
reign of Henry V., when a law was passed against the
Lollards. The Jews were not dreamt of during those
days. From the time of Henry V. to that of Henry
VIII. no statutory mention was made of them, nor did
they re-appear in England from the time of Edward I.
until that of the Commonwealth. The decisions
in the law courts, which had been referred to as
having affected the social and political position of
the Jews, did not upon examination bear out
such construction. That of Hale which had been cited,
was directed against an infidel, and the judge's dictum
on that occasion was, that the man wko said all religion
was a cheat could not claim the protection of the law,
for his sentiments were subversive of all government of
whatever description. Lord Hardwicke's decision in
1753, in the case of a Jewish bequest to educate Jewish
children, was questioned by Lorct Eldon, who had ob-
served, that much surprise would be felt in his time if
such a decision as that come to by the Court of Chan-
cery were to be given then. But Lord Hardwicke's
judgment was intelligible when it was recollected that
the year in which he gave it was that of the celebrated
Jew Bill. Again, as to the assertion that the Jews were
all aliens, and could not hold land, Lord Mansfield had
settled that point at once by purchasing an estate from a
Jew. The Jews were banished from England in the
reign of Edward 1., and they did not, as he had
stated, re-appear in this country until the time of Crom-
well. The first place in which they were encouraged to
settle was that of the Honourable Baronet (sir Robert
Inglis) and himself were the representatives (Oxford),
where the Jews had three halls, namely, Moses-
hall, Jacob-hall, and Bernard-hall. (A. laugh.)
So that, until the time of Cromwell, the social and
political condition of the Jews, as such, was a cusuc
ornis.sus kith in respect to the common and the statute
law. The declaration " on the faith of a Christian"
was introduced merely as a protection against the
Jesuits, who were supposed, rightly or wrongly, to
have been implicated in the gunpowder plot. And yet
it was on that declaration that the Jews were at this
day held excluded from the Legislature.—(Hear, hear.)
But to show the animus and true meaning of the decla-
ration, he would remind the House that when, in the
reign of William 111., an Act was passed against Uni-
tarians, it spoke of " any persons making profession
of Christianity who should deny the doctrine of the
holy Trinity." The Jews never made profession of
Christianity; and therefore the very Act which ex-
' eluded the Unitarians must be held as admitting the
Jews.—(Hear, hear.) But since that time there had
been numerous cases in which the Jews were
relieved from making the declaration. So late
as the year 1633, his late Majesty sanc-
tioned an act of the Jamaica legislature, admitting the
Jews to all privileges of citizenship, :and in 1837 they
were in like manner relieved from all civil disabilities in
Canada. Those colonial acts were all received sub
silentio by the Imperial Parliament, and there was no
alarm about unchristianising Canada or Jamaica.—
(Hear, hear.) We had no fear of admitting Jews into
colonial legislatures, while we refused to admit two or
three gentlemen of that persuasion into the home Perlis-
' ment. He considered that there was a vast fallacy in
the phrase, " We are a Christian people, and ought to
have a Christian legislature." Our Parliament could
never be looked upon as a Christian Parliament in the
exclusive sense of the term.— (Hear, hear.) From the
reign of Edward I. down to that of Charles 11. the
English might have been called an exclusively Chris-
tian people, but from that time, having admitted
the Jews to live and settle among us, we had no
right to treat them otherwise than as natural born
citizens—that was to say, on the Christian principle,
" Do as you would be done unto."—(Hear, hear.)
It was not right to say to them " You may come and
settle among us, assist us by leading money, pay taxes,
and even marry our Christian daughters, but yet having
done all this, you are not fit to have a voice in making
the laws or the imposition of taxes." He thought it
monstrously unchristian to take from the Jews as much
as we could get, and yet to deny
them the privileges of
citizenship.—(Hear, hear.) It wttp a great mistake to
suppose that we promoted Chris ianity by continuing
this exclusion. Ile held the direct reverse. He held
that if he wished to convert the Jew, the first step was
to put him on a par with ourselves in all civil rights.
Conversion was not a mere affair of declaration at that
table. It was an affair of the heart and the conviction.
The Honourable Member having quoted a passage from
Lectantius, a writer of the age of Theodosius, condemna-
tory of simulated Christianity, proceeded to say that,
if we wanted to touch the Jew's heart, we must con-
cede to him his full share of political privileges.—(Hear,
hear.) lie was not one of those who contended that
between Jew and Christian there was no difference.
There was a wide difference; but, as it had pleased the
Almighty
to throw for the present a veil over the Jew's
heart, while the language of his own writers gave pro-
mise of a brighter future, let not the British Parliament
continue those mists by a narrow and exclusive legisla-
tion. One word more. It had been said that, if we
admitted the Jews, the next step would be the admission
of Mahomedans and Hindoos. Ile saw no reason why
not.---(lronical cheers from the Opposition.) It might
appear absurd in this country; but transfer the question
to India, and if a local Legislature were about to be
established, could Ilinloos or Mahomedans be excluded?
—(Hear, hear.) We had tried exclusion long enough
with the Roman Catholics, and he would ask whether
I the long period of exclusion had converted one member

of that persuasion? He InHever] the principle of exclu-
sion to be an unchristian principle, and th erefore he
called upon the llouse, as a Christian Parliament, to pass
the Bill then under consideration.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. B. COCHRANE would never admit that Chris-
tianity was not part and parcel of thie law of the land.
He felt great difficulty in applying himself to the present
Bill, because it not only enunciated a general principle,
but it applied that principle to the case of tin individual
of whom no Member of that House could speak other-
wise than with respect. The Baron de Beelbschild was
distinguished by the greatest liberality of opinion, and
had subscribed to many Christian charities.—(Hear.)
The example of France had been quoted, but were we
prepared to go the lengths which had been reached in
that country ? They had enfranchised the Jews during
the excitement of 1830, and since that time a member
of the Chamber (M. D'Alton Shoe) has ascended the
tribune and boasted that he was neither Catholic nor
Protestant. He trusted that we were not tending to
such extreme latitude in this country.—(Hear, hear.)
The House had been congratulated on the apathy and
indifference with which the present Bill had been re-
ceived by the people. He looked upon; it with far dif-
ferent feelings ; he looked upon it as a very terrible sign
of the times.—(A laugh.) It looked as if the people
having yielded up so much of their constitution in
Church and State, they were determined to fling the
remainder after it. The Hon. Member concluded by
stating his intention to oppose the Bill.
Mr. MILNES, in supporting the Bill, denied that its
advocates were indifferent to Christianity. He thought
it was possible—indeed the case of several distinguished
men had proved the fact, that it was possible—to recon-
cile very deep religious feeling with liberality in this
matter.—(Hear, hear.) He should regret if the passing
of the Bill proved repugnant to the feelings of the people;
but he would appeal to what had lately occurred, and
ask whether they had shown any active hostility to the
measure ?—(Hear, hear.) Compare the feeling at the
present moment to that which had been exhibited when
the proposition of an increased grant to Maynooth was
under discussion. How earnestly the people of England
fought against it, how very nearly many Members of
that House lost their seats by the votes they had given
in its favour.—(Hear, and a laugh.) There was a
time when the people of England thought this a reli-
gious question, and the manifestations of their feelings
were plain enough ; but he would appeal to the silence
prevailing at the present time as a proof that no fears
were entertained of the House becoming unchristianised
by the admission of a few Jews. All he regretted
was, that the opportunity had not been seized for the
introduction of a still larger measure. He thought that
this would have been a favourable time for adopting the
reforms which had been recommended by the Commis-
sinners on criminal luw. They had the testimony of
Lord Eldon, an unwilling witness, that the oath of alle-
giance was quite sufficient, and that the oath of supre-
macy should be abolished.—(Hear, hear.) Powerful
attempts had been made in Spain to preserve unity of
race and religion, and these attempts had been impla-
cably carried out. But what was the consequence?
Why, this; that in Spain there were desecrated churches,
and the houses of religion were abandoned. They had
attempted exclusion in this country ; but the people,
by electing Baron Rothschild, informed them that' they
did not approve of the legislation of that House in that
respect. The times were greatly changed within the
last twenty years, and he thought the House would be
acting wisely in legislating in the spirit of the age. He
did not think that the form of prayer with which they
began their proceedings in that House should be
spoken lightly of ; and when they prayed that they
might not be actuated by private feelings he considered
that they would be carrying out that feeling and acting
in the true character of a Christian Legislature by
passing this measure. He agreed with the Honourable
Gentleman who spoke last that great benefit might be
derived from endeavouring to amalearnate the Hebrew
race with the rest of the nation. The decision of that
House would have a great effect upon foreign nations.
The Jews in other countries were not in that position
which they ought to occupy. They were recently ad-
mitted to many offices of the Prussian Diet, and were
excluded from legislative honours only by a majority of
three. If they, then, came to that conclusion at which
he hoped they would arrive, it might have a most bene-
ficial effect on other nations with respect to the Jews.
He thought that the English nation should endeavour to
propagate and extend liberal principles throughout the
world. lie trusted, therefore, that the House of Com-
mons would not stand between the people and the person
whom they selected as their representative in the House
of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord MAHON said, that in stating his reasons for
voting against the measure before the House, he trusted
that not a word would escape from him disrespectful to
the members of the Jewish religion. He was ready to
admit the private worth and extensive charity of many
of that body; but these were not sufficient grounds to
induce them to abrogate their Christian constitution.—
(Hear, hear.) If they were to admit the Jews within
the walls of Parliament, they could not stop there. They
would be obliged to admit persons of any religion or no
religion. Give the Jews the liberty of obtaining seats
in that House, and on what grounds could they refuse
adraissit n to the Mahomedan, the Hindoo, or the pro-
fessed Deist. The Noble Lord, indeed, declared that
religious belief should be no bar to any person's taking
a seat in that House; but he heard many of the sup-
porters of the measure say in private, that though
they were willing to make this concession to the Jews
from respect to their character, they were not
prepared to go farther. He begged to tell those gentle-
men, that if they gave way now they must giveway to the
whole extent. It had been said that the question of creed
should be left between the constituency and the Member
they choose to elect. Such an argument was not con-
formable to the system of the constitution. In the ease
of qualification, for instance, it might with equal justice
be said that it was for the electors to consider whether
they would have a rich or a poor Member. But the
principle of the constitution was otherwise, for it imposed
a certain qualification as indispensable. He might also
instance the oath of allegiance for the same purpose.
And in this consisted the answer to the argument which
had been put forward in a recent pamphlet by the Arch-
bishop of Dublin, who said that this measure ought not
be considered as one entitling certain persons to become
Members of Parliament, but as one removing a disqua-
lification which prevented Christians from electing
certain persons; and that it was a great scandal to think
the exclusion of Jews necessary for the security of
Christianity, because, if the principle of the constitution
was acknowledged in the case of the qualification of
Members and the oath of allegiance, why should it be
inconsistent to acknowledge it in the case of a solemn
recognition of the Christian faith ?—(Hear, bear.)
Then it was said that the numbers of Jews who could
obtain seats in the Legislature must necessarily be so
small that the privilege of admitting them could do no
harm. Ho was not quite persuaded that the number in
tho Legislature must be so very small, because, though
few in number, their wealth gave them great influence.
But, admitting the fact for the sake of argument, that
was no reason why they should violate a principle. If
they were to look to immediate consequences, and not
to wide principles, there was no Act which might not be
successfully defended. Pascal, in his " Provincial Let-
ters," showed that the worst crimes might be defended
on this principle. A principle, therefore, was to be
maintained because it was principle, and should not be
violated because some instances might be adduced in
which its violation might do no harm.—(Hear, hear.)
Much stress had been laid on the case of Gibbon, as
proving that their forms were
_of no avail to exclude
persons the most hostile to Christianity. On the
same ground it might be argued, when there
were pretenders to the Crown, that the oath of alle-
giance was of no use because the jacobites had
taken it. But the oath was of this value, that neither
honourable jacobites or honourable infidels would take
it.—(Hear, hear.) And if they took it, they must at
least hide their infidelity, and would not be able to
propagate it, as Condoreet, who held similar opinions to
Gibbon, was able to do in the French Assembly. At
present, if a Member of that House spoke disrespect.
fully of the Redeemer, the Speaker would be justified in
interfering ; but if the oath were withdrawn he would
have no power of doing so ; and the inevitable conse-
quence would be to lower the tone of debate in that
House.—(Hear.) He had voted for the admission of
Jews into corporate offices ; but that was quite con-
sistent with his resistance to the present measure, as
there was a wide difference between an Alderman and a
Minister of State. Another ground on which he re-
resisted the measure was thatit would tend to make the
public believe that they were indifferent to religion in
that House. This consideration ought not to influence
them if the Jews were entitled to what they claimed ;
but if they were not so entitled it was a very grave con-
sideration, and should make them pause before they
consented to the measure.—(Hear, hear.) For the
reasons he had stated he would give his vote against it.
Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH—Sir, there is one
part of the subject which I think has been singularly
overlooked, not only by the Noble Lord who has just
sat: down, but by other Hon. Gentlemen who have
taken the same view of the subject, and it is this—lf the
Bill of the Noble Lord be rejected, what substitute will
Hon. Gentlemen opposite proposo in its stead? Have
they well considered this question? Surely they will
not let the law remain in its present state? Have they
considered the dilemma in which the House is placed,
by the fact, that an Hon. Gentleman who professes the
Jewish religion is become a Member of the House of
Commons? It appears to me that, as a necessary con-
sequence of that event, Parliament must adopt one of
two alternatives. Either Parliament must agree to the
Bill of the Noble Lord, which will enable an Hon. Mem-
ber who professes the Jewish religion to perform his
duties in the House of Commons or Parliament must
pass a law which shall declare null and void the elec-
tion of any person who does not believe in the
Christian religion.—(Hear,: hear.) It appears to me
that Parliament must adopt one or other of these
alternatives; for, if the House will permit me to call its
attention to the state of tho law as it would affect an
Hon. Member who professes the Jewish religion, I
think I can prove to the satisfaction of the House that
there is an immediate necessity for altering that law.
It is certain that, as the law now stands, an Hon. Gen-
tleman who professes the Jewish religion may be law-
fully chosen a Member of the House of Commons, and
that he is not legally ineligible on account of his reli.
gious belief. For, according to Blackstone, " every
subject of the realm is eligible of common right" to be
a Member of the House of Commons, subject to
certain standing retrictions and disqualifications.
—(Bear, hear.) Some of those depend upon the law
and custom of Parliament as declared by the House of
Commons ; others upon certain statutes. It is unneces-
sary for me to enumerate these disqualifications. They
are to be found in Blackstone, or in any of the ordinary
law books on the subject. No one, however, will con-
tradict rise when I assert that " belief in the Jewish
religion" is not one of those disqualifications.—(Hear,
hear) I contend, therefore, that Baron Rothschild
has been lawfully chosen a Member of the House
of COMMOLIS j consequently be is legally bound

to serve in Parliament, fur, according to the well
known principles of constitutional law, every person who
is lawfully choren a Member of the House of Com-
mons must serve, whether ho be willing to do so or
not, and the House has even held that an Honourable
Gentlemen who had been elected against his will was
eligible, and could nut refuse to sei-ve. Now, by the
statute for the trial of election petitions, every Honour-
able Member who is not disqualified for reasons
specified in that statute, may be appointed upon an
Election Committee. And 1 find the name of Baron
Rothschild on the election panel E, No. 4. He is not
disqualified to serve, for " belief in the Jewish religion"
is not one of the grounds of disqualification specified in
the statute in question. I assume, therefore, that Baron
Rothschild will, when his turn comes, be appointed
upon an Election Committee. It may be said that the
Committee of Selection will not appoint him. No
doubt they will at present exercise a sound discretion
upon the subject; but if they were to lay down the rule
that Baron Rothschild is not to be appointed, on account
of his religious faith, then it is evident they would as-
sume a power which they do not possess under the
statute, and for the exercise of which they would deserve
censure. I assume, therefore, that sooner or later Baron
Rothschild will be appointed upon an Election Committee,
and that on a certain day h' will be ordered to
attend in his place te be sworn on that Committee.
If he do not attend, the law is imperative that " lie shall
bo taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for,
neglect of his da.y. euel otherwise punished or misused.'
If he do attend, without having previously taken certain
oaths, what will be the consequences ? There are three
oaths, which every Hon. Gentleman who does not pro-
fess the Catholic religion ought to take before he sit or
-vote in the House of Commons ; namely, the oath of
allegiance, the oath of supremacy, and the oath of abju-
ration. Now the statutes which have reference to the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy aro different from
those which have reference to the oath of abjuration. I
need not trouble the House by referring to the statutes
with regard to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.
will merely observe that if Baron Rothschild were to sat
or vote in the House of Commons without previously
taking those oaths, he would become a Popish recusant
convict under an Act of Charles 11., entitled, "An Act
for disabling Papists from sitting in either House of
Parliament," and which Act has been repealed as far as
Papists are concerned. Being convicted of Popish re-
cusancy, Baron Rothschild would incur certain pains,
penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities ; for instance, he
-would for ever be disabled from sitting or voting in the
Muse of Commons ; the House would be entitled to de-
clare his place vacant, and to issue a new writ fur a new
election for the city of London ; and if he were then
to be re-elected, all votes given to him, after due notice,
would be lost, and an Election Committee would be en-
titled to seat his opponent. But Baron Rothschild can
have no religious objection to taking the oaths of alle-
giance and supremacy. It is certain that he would be
entitled to take those oaths in the same manner
as he would take an oath in the courts of justice. For
there is no provision in the Act of the 30th Charles IL,
stat. 2, as to the mode in which these oaths are to be
taken; consequently he would be entitled at common
law to take those oaths according to the Jewish mode of
taking an oath. There can be no doubt upon this
subject after the precedent established in the case of Mr.
Pease, formerly Member for South Durham. In that
case the House held that Mr.Pease, being a Quaker, was
entitled to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath at the
table of the Howe, without any specific statute to that
effect, on the grounds that Quakers are entitled by sta
tote to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath in the
courts of law; and being so entitled in courts of law,
the House held that they were therefore entitled to make
an affirmation in lieu of an oath at the table of
the House. Now, in the case of Jews no statute
was ever required to enable them to take an
oath in the courts of justice, according to
the Jewish mode, for they always possessed that
eight at common law. Therefore, it follows that Baron
Rothschild would be entitled to take at the table of the
House the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the
same manner as he would take an oath in the courts of
law—in the same manner as Jews have taken the oaths
in question, when required to do so by various statutes,
to which I can refer—namely, according to the Jewish
mode. There remains, therefore, only the oath of ab-
juration which Baron Rothschild is linable to take.
What would be the consequences if Baran Rothschild
were to attend in his place to be sworn on an Election
Committee without previously taking that oath? The
statute now in force with regard to the oath of abjura-
tion is the 6th Geo. 111., c. 53, which refers to 1 Geo. I.
St. 2, c. 13, which latter statute contains penalties which
an Honourable Member would incur for voting
in the House without taking the oath of abju-
ration. Now „I beg the House to observe—first, that
these statutes give no power to the House to unseat
*ll Honourable Member who shall sit or vote in the
House without taking the oath of abjuration ;
secondly, that though they require that every Honour-
able Member should take that oath before " he shall vote
in the House of Commons, or sit there during a debate,"
yet in the penal clause, the words " sitting there
during a debate" are omitted. The penalty is attached
only to the act of " voting," and no penalty is attached
to the act of " sitting in the House."—(Hoar, hear.)
Now, I will not assert that there is any legal difference
between the act of " voting" and the act of "sitting in the
House." But it appears to me that if Baron Rothschild
were to obey an order of the House, and merely to at-
tend in his place to be sworn on an Election Committee,
it would be a question for the judges to decide whether
such attendance in obedience to the order of the House,
under the statute of 7 and a Vic., c. lets, would consti-
tate the crime of voting under the statute of 1 Geo. 1.,
at. 2, c. 13. But whatever might be the decision of the
judges with regard to the legal character of such an act,
it is certain that the House would have no power under
the statute to unseat Baron Rothschild, even in the
event of his voting in the House without previously
taking the oath of abjuration. And it appears to me,
likowite, that the House would have no power to dis-
pense with the services of Baron Rothschild on an Elec-
tion Committee, if he were appointed to serve ; for the
statute for the trial of election petitions is imperative,
that every lion. Member who is appointed must serve,
unless specially disqualified, and the omitting or re-
fusing to take the oath of abjuration is not among the
disqualifications specified in the statute in question.
It is evident, therefore, that the law is in a very anoma-
lous state, and that the House has no power either to
enable Baron Rothschild to perform his duties as a
lawfully chosen Member of the House, or to relieve
him from the obligation to perform those duties. It
may be supposed that the House has the power to ex-
pel Baron Rothschild, and to order a new writ to be
issued for the city of London. Ido not deny that the
House did possess the power, and may still possess the
power, of expelling any one of its Members for any
teason or for no reason ; but since the period when the
House transferred its primary jurisdiction in election
matters to its Committees, it has not exercised its power
of expulsion, except in cases in which its Members have
been convicted of grave offences. According to the law
and custom of Parliament, the House would bo entitled
to expel an Honourable Member who was convicted of
treason, felony, or fraudulent misdemeanour, but not, I
think, for any minor offence ; and certainly no law nor
custorn of Parliament can be cited, nor precedent can
be produced, which would entitle the liousol to expel
°no of its Members on account of his religious
belief.—(Hear, hear.) But if the House were to
,expel Baron Rothschild, it is quite clear that as the
taw
.now stands, a vote of expulsion would not legally
disqualify
him from being re-elected to serve in the same
Parliament. It is true that in the well-known case of
ir• Wilkes, the House resolved that Mr. Wilkes, having'
been expelled the House, was incapable of being elected
to serve in that Parliament, and when Mr. Wilkes was
again elected the House resolved that his election was
null
and void, and that his opponent, Mr. Luttrell, was
duly elected. But this vote cannot be cited as a prece-
dset, for it was subsequently ordered to be expunged
'rem
the the journals of the House, as " being subversive of
rights of the whole body of the electors of this king-
dent." In another well-known case, an Hon. Member
Wascouvicted (unjustly it now appears) of a conspiracy
!!),..de fraud, and was on that account expelled the House.
4t was immediately re-elected; his return, however,
was_not questioned, and he continued to be a Member of
the I r ouse of Commons, though a prisoner in the King's
Bench. Cense quentl3:, if the House-, wore to expel
Baron Rothschild, that vote of expulsion would not
render him ineligible, would not disqualify him from
being
re elected,
would andnot relieve the House from
the dilemma in which it is placed by his late election,—
(Hear, rh
' ' hear.) The sum and substance of my argument
llarethis:—Baron Rothschild has been lawfully chosen a
mmbar of the House of Commons, consequently
oiS legally bound to serve, and may be sum
841u°ralltued, to attend in his place in Parliament. If, when
Wtoodt);l:ned, he do not attend, he must be taken into cus-
and
,otherwise punished. If he do attend, he
be entitled to take the oaths of allegiance and su-
p
oath reraaaccording to the Jewish mode of taking an
but his religious faith would prevent him from
taking the oath of
fuse to take abjuration. He would therefore re-
, , that oath. What would be the consequence?
eNove.
would or w I cannot pretend to say whether such a refusal
ould_not, under the circumstances of.the case,
constitute an offence for which he could be punished. It
is certain,
'hat the House has no power to re-
lieve Baron Rothschild from the obligation to take the
oath of abjuration—no power to relieve him from the
o,bligation to attend in his place in the House—no power
dispenseo
that° power to declare his election null and void; and
pno law nor custom mof Parliament can be cited, no
recedent can be produced, which would justify the
Ions? in expelling him. If, nevertheless, the House
not were to expel the Honourable Gentleman, he would
.thereby become legally ineligible; and as often
es the House might I
electors of the city ofexpe him, so often would the
re-elect him.—(hear,
London be legally entitled to
do se Ll(_
ear,hear.) Whether they would
or not is beside the question. I have shown that
a dilemma exists, from the horns .of which the House
can escape only by means of an Act of Parliament
11 hat that Act should be is the question ? The Noble. Lord has proposed his Bill. Members who
object to that measure aro bound to propose.es avirubstitnte
More in accordance with their prine have
they not done so ? They maintain thatP Christianity,andhy is
Part and parcel of the British constitution, that all
Persons should be excluded from the House of Commons
who not profess the true faith of a Christian, and
they affirm that the oath of abjuration is a sufficient test
of that faith. To enforce these principles their
!loopiest and easiest plan would be to propose that the
tt,_w with regard to the oath of abjuration should be
i
't) same as the law with regard to the oaths of elle-
-B,ittice and supremacy. For this purpose they need
sit Y bring in a short Bill to extend the provi-
eas't'is of the 30th Charles 11., at. 2, to the
ab-u' Honourable Members not taking the oath of
suJehrfttion• Then if Parliament were to agree to
shoup a Bill every Honourable Member who
g refuse or omit to take either of the oaths

1MMM1....-__