The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-05 00:00:00

Parliament was the wish of the universal people of Eng-
land he should not oppose it. The Honourable Baronet
the Member for Oxford University had urged that it
was no greater hardship to exclude Jews on the scoriet
die
of religion than it was to exclude Christians who d
not possess a pecuniary qualification; and at the same
time had blamed a Right Honourable Gentleman lict
now in the House for undue levity in talking of Pr?-
testant cookery and Christian horsemanship. Surey'
the levity was as great to compare a question of reli-
gious scruple to one of mere pecuniary qualification.
Another objection urged against the Bill was that its as
for the moral interests and wellbeing of this countrts.o
procure as much as possible unity in religious matterb,
Now, if there was one country in Europe in which,
more than another, unity of religion was attaitdien.
and that the Lutheran religion too, it was Sweof
If such unity were conducive to a high amount
to
national morality, surely Sweden should be a pattern
ou
nations. But what was the testimony of travellers
the subject ? The Rev. J. Scott, a Wesleyan miseiona.rs
~9
who had resided twelve years in the country, stated ED
in Sweden the most rigid means were adopted to Pr..
serve unit,: of religion, but that, judging
fruits, it did not seem with the most beneficial effects...
There was no difficulty in getting work done on I.s.
tree by
day, the theatres were all open, arid that even the net,ii,
tern of religion did not hesitate to pass from the inns
to the opera-box. With respect to morals, Mr.•
stated that the population returns showed the propeotro
tion of illegitimate children to legitimate to be as on
one and a half. Mr. Laing gave similar testimony'
that there was not a nation in Europe which neustnat.glo,
up the palm to Sweden in immorality. So much,
for the arguments founded on unity of religion•
by
should support this Bill, not confirming his indgraaeriL
th rest
appeals to barbarous times, but founding it on do
charter alike of Jews arta Christians, which told us 'us.
unto others as we would that others should do unto °sad
Mr. G. C. LEWIS observed that two objections
been opposed to the admission of the Jews to the I, Stic
lature; the one that they were aliens, the others tist
they were not Christians. The first objection ha"tbere
been much insisted on, and for a good reason-411_01
could be no doubt that British Jews born in this ?..o!'esty,
were as much natural born subjects of her MO bur•
owing her the same allegiance, subject to the Waive
itrhYt;
dens and obligations, as their Christian fellow-c 0
thoughanl privileges.
they
dd notrrh eand mai st
men, and were abstractedly entitled to the
they were not opposed to any of the great neer:i
trines which that religion recognised and
Then there was no reason for supposing c..,,cdsEatis:
ttoli et hteru trhesi
sion of Jews would unchristianise the Iseg.ris;,„" secs
This Bill did not propose to nominate Jews as "l'esToeiss
of Parliament, but merely opened the doors of
whets
ment to them should they be elected. An toe
was the danger in this? Was there a
~ net
constituency in which the majority vver
our
Christians? In Loudon even, where the greate,ste king-
goirlC:har°l:nibsejnicheitil:E9l3:,
ber of Jews was to be found of any town in 'I
the eleo'
that Ole, Tatars.
dom, the Jews formed but a small minority 0' down
toral body. Vette], quoting Grutius, had laid fttrejieicel
that amongst independent nations difference
n.
ender
t
was nu barrier to the recognition of equal i "Priosiplo
rights. Why should they not apply the same the state
to individuals ?—(Hear.) Locke said that ote.
should be exclusively rft
occupied with the ter:alVe
rests, and the Church with the spiritual ipt re
-51:E
mankind, and that on no account should the"norecl
distinct provinces be confounded together. It agissioa
to him (Mr. Lewis), on every ground, that the it,
in
of the Jews as Members of the Legislature, bee"illrtioa
cordance with the progress of opinion and leeis.":4oise4
this country, and with the practice of the most
owicel
nations, and being at the same time free from wisely
danger or social detriment, the House would ac JO;
, by deciding by a large majority in favour
.Of !foto
arid thus prevent the re-opening of the queston le
years.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAMPBELL, having supported t was tess
going into Committee, assured the House that if seal'
felt self S)
on frivolous or hasty grounds that be f ,he 011,
pelled to vote against the third reading oery',
‘, respect en
oppose a Government which was, in eto the warm all
titled, especially at the present tin'e'
r 1 With regard t
cordial support of the House.--(11, rig,ht to
the objection that the State, • giv'6 Lhe terfer 5
inut not to n
sti •
tummies to elect representatives, oug line the cOs'
with their choice, it appeared to him that w s,O a re'
stituencies elected Members, not for the
sembly for the whole nation, putpu7,..,.
he enotioa
reprcs le
est micg them only, but to forma
reason
ea
' that the Legislature should impose such rest':
their choice as thepublic interest demanded.. 'd Lot
hear.) The Honouprable Gentleman who
townshad it was perfeetlY ea'
spoken had said that the majorities of all the ,ceula
counties were Christian; if so, what hat dsl!*Taa. ref
there be in requiring them to choose Chr17...00
presentatives ? Admitting, generally, the dot."o` ado'
abstract right, which had been laid down by they
cates of the Bill, he held that they were not oser''
adopt it in every case, if the result should be ties effe.,
faonrd t ihfeputeic efficientvir
servicet uea nd
odisinterestedness
held
five of a principle which it was essential to Pre osr/
edrethrlaetect hirrilt6i;
jrtert
iotffgetunieantiidyrrttt
eydrobonymytwtt
aotoac
hngseb
ofritcotioathpruuiaemenntroehioetpedl,nr:Bl:leiyobcc, guaranteeayto.aurnmnedcedl
ieiosgswagnsisgooihonvui tnceeoisr:was
ftaamohtst
disgraced
ittnetshhght
Rea:rat
onastdmiceen
amocoatqdleuni
sutnseaahitiniconeri
utyda:
6 centers and Unitarians—those questions stood on lice' it
should
in of
va` ties
be remembered that they had to deal °price
was granted, was in that state that Parliament 136,1
the
choose between the ruin of the British empire as
"
admission of the Roman Catholic cla' ims. 00
Mr. F. SCOT opposed the Bill on purely ce"rbees
grounds. The Jews, he observed, had not hitbertoore
excluded because they were Jews, but because the,Yholici
not Christians. The admission of the Roman ef.;
and Dissenters formed therefore no precedent '0 a " seo
Bill, they being Christians, and so far eligible to
in Mr.
Christian Legislature.
RAPHAEL said he had voted slit
sseinst op
and second reading, and meant to oppose in _ig to
this dechrietianising Bill—a Bill which would te '7301,60
a share in the legislation of Englishroent we,lete Leer"'
of eternal salvation were through Christ the Ile beree:f
men who looked upon that Redeemer as a blaft brig
and an impostor.—(Hear, hear.) During tnarii
i
period he held a seat in that House in 1836, 613U.ted
the present session of Parliament, lie bad suPP to stir
present Liberal Government, and would con so
so:
port them on all measures that did not militateelisb
his religious principles, abridge the liberties f,,PweeaPts
men, or touch the pockets of his cons 00:
(Laughter.) This Bill coming within the firsts°o„po..
exceptions, he must offer it his most strenuou
_arid Ir.
tion, hoping that if it passed this House it ;e Soot'
rejected by a large and indignant majority in t of
of Lords. sct
an pls
Mr. BROTHERTON supported the Bill as he pe°
such was his Opinion,
national justice, and because he believed that o,) Web;
nottlie afafictftthhaotf3thoaet,OnenOmphaenose
of England were generally in favour of f°E•ifiectele
the
Hon.
maintained that it would not militate in the least
ent
irdt
ihotanhdearpts
eohtpiati
oi
enedt
nwt:agris:Ae:cit titic,'
the Established Church, or against the religls°,oo,gb°i;
Gentleman who spoke last, who, tweilti ',rot 0.
was himself excluded from Parliament on ,ace°leas ntlie
rreealing3i,otno, baubtosewhtoh,e hpevivrielgegreetteedxtteondpeedrctenpis i,3
fbeilio-fp
Bill of 1829, in excluding a portion 0-f
• es.
sew , be•
countrytnen on account of their religious or- Dili ;
Mr. G. R. ROBINSON had voted for thf„,eooo3Bos
lieving that the admission of Jews into xt; peri
ej
have
ed
the
et
lbeyastpoisne
jibuirliiotynanoeffwe,etornpaot
nit ren2e.° tablish
the t's
0111
Church. tact
Mr. NAPIER wished to state very shortli, tegs' Of
the motives which influenced him in v°tll3;v s °l)serie
the third reading of this Bill. The question° C--
ktians, they all recognized what the law
national acknowledgment. Professing all t
std to,soo,
nowledge, that Christiani was the proles -eligi 0,
true t. ,leetPor
When this Bill became the law. of the land, tbs.- he 0,61,:re
ledgment, he fearlessly asserted, could no long rale :04
tanned. Points of difference were not urged; t 0 nes
unwilling to rend the garment. But, was tbtsorY °ors'
why they should cast lots for it? In the hie- 0 te
the
Jewish people God had manifested the grleenee,
principle of His government. Famine, Pe bona)
sword, were his instruments to execute catel,, Sall„yoe,
ments. When the Jews finally rejected tople;ries
the state was shivered evidence ieces, and the cj otoelod
ried to every nation the of that g,,1,1 hod sees
which they had perpetrated.—(Hear.)
always avowed a national religion. Nal' 01)/e
sanction of the Noble Lord at the bead of thaccorlo
meat, and he honoured the Noble Lord for the pro
the knee in acknowledgment of God's
had taken, they had been called upon recants, o°lo
sores+ ag A
another instance for the purpose of 0001 eo
s„„rior tics° 09E5,
mercy. If the dealings of God with nations f tiest
His moral government, and if the principle ° if "09
vernment was real and consistent, could thelisleesla`y
disobeyed Christianity as the basis of their ie97ootbie
expect as a people to avoid the divine disP los 1100
(Hear, hear.) If this Bill was passed into a.OO 0' tee
argumtnt could be urged against the admii;ititiesisoi
Deist? By the removal of the Jewish also ved. /1
principle of constitutional toleration was destr°looseiel
:re
he
ee
distrusted s o r b e d i
what was likely to be the effect on the .I°' 000 9
He could not suffer his hopes of a separate ~13;irtb,
tahffeeicrtsi
rine feorirt
yt h. e lNavnhelyofsshhuoiscu:ed:iootieopt::l3lo:
might hate them for their creed; he might 'wird"' riot
tLegislature pause before consenting to
ion from the constitution from such a rep° the is of
the Bill involved ? Ever, Member incurre's rGaye
the P
serious responsibility giving his vote on -Os
occasion, whether that vote
was
aelle
measure. e° oho
Mr. R. PALMER could not acquiesce in , on ,ise
!done to which the Hon. and Learned Gente,iefera,et
had just spoken had arrived; for after full cons gete,,ic,
of the question, before and since he had bee the eon'tbe
of the Hous© his mind had been brought t°soatidst.
tion that, both on political and Christian ,toe 01,„d
given for or ag
Bill ought to become part and parcel of tne,,iete:o,so
land. The exclusion ot the Jews could not bee ose see
merely for exclusion's sake. The exclusion
t,.0,0 terlions
y 4015131
which the exclusion of the judges, the clerg
_.„O
did not stand upon the same grounds as "
rested; and, therefore, it must be taken
.tciesitleity, 's_seas
Chris
the'lef
on the principle of its interfering with
was a point with respect to which he cont n.."esoure..o ea'
probandi was upon the opponents of thruisited to tee
was of opinion, that if anything was ens beet E°
danger the interests of the Church, it 'oll'ooo f 410
maintenance of that institution could not be wet 0
the civil and temporal rights of 0011 SU
ItCrl
Crown.—(Hear, hear.) bed srcd' eelete
M.')-T-11/NT seed thee h,e k trot° rife
runner sLages of me Bid, he count nut shrin „act one
ing his continued opposition to it, now that l_ts'are
at its third reading. He regarded the to"