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

which had been shown by the petition of Archdeacon
"Wilberforce as likely to lead to the separation between
Church and State. It was true that he had supported
the propositions which had admitted Jews to the ma-
gistracy and to hold civic distinctions; but he held
there existed a vast difference between those concessions
and their admission to make the laws to be so adminis-
tered. This was a question of principle, and it ought
not to be argued on grounds of expediency. He was
sorry to be obliged to admit that there had been less
manifestation of feeling against this measure out of doors
than he had been led to expect; but should the Bill be
rejected elsewhere, and re-introduced, he had no doubt
such feeling would be strongly shown.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was anxious to take this last
opportunity of declaring that further examination had
only strengthened his conviction of the irnpolicy of this
measure. He altogether dissented from the view taken
by the Hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. R. Palmer),
that those who were in possession of a good thing
ought to be called on to prove their right, by showing
a beneficial exercise of the good they held. One of the
most popular arguments in favour of the measure had
been this: Having gone so far, you are bound to ad-
vance. But let it first be considered whether they had
done well in going so far—whether the direction was
originally a right one; otherwise the argument was
sophistical. The House had not to deal with a visionary
Christianity, but with one embodied in a particular form
of religion. The Members (if that House had to legis-
late on vital questions affectin:.! the Church ; and,
because they had admitted, perhaps unfortunately,
one discordant element, that could nut be made au argu-
ment for the admission of another. Let this measure
be granted, and the House could not refuse the adtnis-
Sion of infidels and men of no religion at all. It had
been asked, what had religion to do with politids ? The
connexion was such, that he could not consent to any
further element of opposition being introduced into the
governing body. Already it was matter of complaint
with some that the prelates were nominated by the
Prime Minister ? But who made the Prime Minister ?
A congeries of Roman Catholics, Churchmen, and Dis-
senters ; and surely it was not desirable to admit a new
element of opposition. It was unjust to assume that the
mere privation of politicrl power was persecution ; if
this were so, the number of the persecuted classes must
exceed that of their persecutors. His great objection
to the measure was, not that it would unchristianise the
country or the Legislature, but that it would prove on
the highest authority that the Legislature was indifferent
to the religious belief the country.—(Hear, hear.) After
carrying the word of salvation to the ends of the earth,
how could we justify this indifference in the face of the
converts from heathenism ?
Mr. M. GASKELL said he had come to a conclusion
on this measure at variance with that of the majority of
those with whom he usually acted. He should have
been glad to have been able to take a different course,
knowing that much alarm had been excited amongst
some classes by the proposal of this measure. He w a
fortified, however, not only by his own conviction, but
by high authority, past and present, including the dis-
tinguished names of Huskisson and Canning.—([fear,)
All the arguments against the Bill resolved themselves
into two—that the Jews were a separate nation, and that
the Bill would destroy the Christian character of our
constitution ; or at least indicate disregard on the part
of Parliament. He attached very little importance to
the first argument. It was too late to tell the Jews
they were not subjects of her Majesty. Having ad-
mitted the Jew to the elective franchise, and to several
other important rights, it was now too late to say
that they would not admit them to legislative honours.
If they wished to act consistently they should
rather go back and :deprive the Jews of the privi-
leges they had obtained, than refuse them what they
now asked.—(llear.) He believed that there was no
danger to the Established Church from the admission of
the Jews to the Legislature. They were not active in
making proselytes, and he believed there was far more
danger to the Established Church from the Dissenters
than from the Jews. Bat it was said that it was not
right to allow the Jews to legislate on subjects con-
nected with religion. He admitted the force of that ar-
gument, but he contended that the same objection ap-
plied to the Roman Catholics. Having admitted the
Roman Catholics, he did net think that they would be
keting justly if they were to exclude the Jews alone. It
Was not said that the Jews refused to hold faith with

heretics, or that they held a divided allegiance. They
were a small, intelliEent, wealthy, and industrious body
The-

eey possessed every privilege except what they now
asked from Parliament; and he confessed he saw no
valid argument for excluding them. No person should
be excluded from civil rights, because he held peculiar
religious opinions. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government was introducing no new principle in propos-
ing this Bill, and he believed that they would be acting
in opposition to the spirit of their recent legislation if
they rejected the present measure.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE rose amidst loud cries of "Di-
vide." tie wished to ask the House whether the dis
connexion of the church from the state of France, had
not led to the overthrow of the monarchy of that coun-
try, and whether they were prepared to follow a system
which had produced such results in a neighbouring
country?—(" Oh, oh," and cries of " Divide.")
Mr. FORTESCUE, who spoke amidst continual
cries for a division, was understood to say that he could
not conceive how the exclusion of the Jews could con-
duce to the advantage of the Church Establishment.
Hon. Members should recollect that it was during the
exclusion of Dissenters that the principle of dissent
extended so much in this country.—(Hear, hear.) He
did not believe that the small number of Jews who
would obtain seats in the Legislature in consequence of
this measure would affect its Christian character. But
even if the number who might obtain seats were larger
than it could be, he was not prepared to do an act of
injustice by excluding them from Parliament.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Having taken no part in the
debate on the second reading of the Bill, I feel bound,
before the House comes to a termination of its pro
ceedings with regard to it, to endeavour to give some
answer to the objections which have been made to the
Measure I have had the honour to propose. And in the
first place. I must say that it was a good augury for the
success of the Bill, and for the advance of the principle
of freedom and humanity, that the Hon. and Learned
began
who proposed the rejection of the measure
"egan his speech by abandoning some of those arguments
'Which had had a great effect in prejudicing the minds of
many gentlemen with regard to it. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman acknowledged, supposing the Bill to
PPss, that Christianity would be no less part and parcel
ass, the law of the land than it was at present; and he
save oP the assertion, which had been nof the most
successful against the measure, that Pit will tend
thunchristianise the Constitution and Legislature
e the country. Sir, I derive encouragement from
ne tae ,admissions. I derive encouragement from them,
. on account of the great authority of the Hon.
sho:, °llion, but because I think that that authority
iveris that many of the objections to the measure have
tut / Ivay before the progress of discussion.—(Hear.)
.04 wk,etill find points of principle and points of practice
Let t" h it is desirable that I should make a comment.
tee Teltove address mself to them; and in so doing let me
thshttilniet
was
any misapprehension which still appears to pre-
lapart of my argument that religion
guic'dtealg to do with politics, or that we ought not to
34tesp oniopfiatioaotyieTigious feeling in conducting the legisla-
Sir, my opinion is quite the contrary.
441111 est
.21 is that religion ought to influence us in the
tneasor_"ornestic affairs, and in our highest legislative
to dd Zs. So far from thinking that religion has nothing
eho ,b„ wit
politics, I believe that Christian principle is
'Ts of legislation. I believe it was Christian prin-
tale'eethat guided in this country our greatest represen-
„ !----that it was Christian principle, for example,
,seta
inspired Wilbertorce, and those who
ed vvith him to that avempt which resulted in the
°!deaf ef the abominable slave trade—and to speak
no particular law, but of the general spirit of institu-
"oak my belief is, that whereas ancient republics and
!tates not under the influence of Christianity, as they
became more civilised became more loose in their sys-
tems, more demoralised in their principles, and more
corrupt and debased in their practices, so, under national
rule which has Christianity to enlighten and to guide it,
as nations became more civilised they will, solely as they
acknowledge and to be directed by the influence of a
divine and holy law.—(Cheering.) holding these opi-
nions, it cannot be my view that " religion has nothing
to do with politics," or that " Christianity ought to be
kept out of systems of legislation." But what Ido main-
tain is, that you cannot by special declarations—by words
introduced into an oath—by forms and statutes imposing
disqualification—obtain that Christianity which you seek
for in your legislation. The object is not to be gained in
that way. I proved this on a former occasion by ad-
ducing the cases of notorious disbelievsrs in Christianity
who had sat in this House. But if your object is attained in
this way, why not carry the principle further ? Why
not insist upon a declaration from a Member on entering
thist bias—that Rouse that he is not swayed by factious or by party
.g
ha t he is not actuated by personal or by corrupt
motive, but that his sole aim and object is the good of
his country ? If a
ooddeclaration is good for anything one
declaration is
contendsa asth another.—(Hear, hear.) And
what I fogr is,
it is
although your exclusion may
be valid as a negative,
by
utterly useless as creating an
affirmative. You may,
declaration, exclude the
Jews, but neither by declarationya nor by exclusion can
you create a belief hristianity.-4(Loud cheers.)
That is altogether beyond you it is far beyond the
limits of your legislative powe—r.—(ltenewed cheers
And yet, Sir, I cannot but think that the want of a dun
sense of the importance of this distinction has run
through nearly every speech that has been delivered on
" You are anxious to abolish
the question. It is said
Christianity ; you are striving to unchristiasonriste the
Parliament. Why, if a declaration of this duce the effect of creating Christianity, aiii)earci;
there would be great force in the argument ; but as I
know that the words of exclusion can have no such
effect—that while we declare that the Legislature shall
not be Jewish we are utterly powerless to declare that it
shall be Christian—why, I say, that the declaration is of
no effect whatever.—(Repeated cheering.) An lion.
Member, in whom I am glad to recognise the son of an
old friend—l refer to the Hon. Member for Cambridge
(Mr. Campbell)—said just now, in a speech of great
ability, that he should vote against this Bill because
Public virtue was necessary in a Legislature, and Chris-
tianity,, was the only assurance of public virtue. Then,
~heyr,not carryd the principle of declaration one step fur-
,,,th_aso an have a declaration of public virtue? The
n why you have not is obvious—that the Lion of of
public virtue is not to be created by public sta-
tute.
.._actr(Cl heers.) But, Sir, let me now come to the
rea effects which may result from the admission of
. sto Parliament. With regard to the Jewsthemselves,
New Testament
admitted. that there are many examples in the
'C.
ts
the
as well as in the Old that the moral law
iey colluder theinselves stil.,ke is tea: "
which hangs all the law and the prophets." With
4'll_s_p•ect to their civil conduct, no one impugns the e0n-
,01.14z: as citizens of the state, as citizens paying
obedience the um ready to bear their share of

the public burden, and to enlist themselves in defence of
the public safety in .times of war and tumult. Let us
consider, then, what are assumed to be the dangers of
giving this people the privilege of Parliament. We are
told that " we are all Christians," and it is presumed
that we are all united. But the fact is that we have had
many debates of late years in which the opinions of
bodies of Christians, one against another have been ex-
pressed with great vehemence and urged with much
violence. On an occasion when the Unitarian Chapel
question was the subject of discussiou, and on a more
recent occasion still, when the endowment of May-
nooth was the topic of debate, some Members were found
to say that Unitarians were not Christians, whilst others
laboriously argued that Roman Catholicism was a false
religion. Though we may, therefore, all of us profess
and call ourselves Christians, yet it is evident that there
are among Christians themselves the differ( aces which
prevail between Christians and Jews. Ido not know
that of late years there have been any material questions
before us relating to the Jews themselves, but there have
been and there are likely to be questions relating to
Christian sects, and especially to Boman Catholics, on
which the House has been, and on which we must ex-
pect that its opinion will hereafter will be, divided. But
I see no reason why Jews should not treat these ques-
tions as candidly and fairly as any other body. Then,
with respect to the Church of England, the Jews, so far
as I know, have no animosity to, nor any disposition to
injure our Etablished Church. Can any reason be shown
why they should not consider questions relating to that
Church as fairly as any other members not belonging
to its communion ? With regard to another class of
questions, less religious in their character, on such ques-
tions as the currency and the Bank charter, the amount of
the supplies, and the commercial policy of the country,
no one will say that a member of the Jewish persua-
sion is not a most fit person to give an opinion. The
question is then, after all, whether you shall give up a
remnant of the system of religious exclusion ?—(Cheers.)
I affirmed before, and I affirm again, that this exclusion
of the Jews is quite contrary to the spirit of the consti-
tution of the country. With regard to social distinction,
it is the pride of this country that persons of the most
humble birth may rise in the Church, in the law, in the
State, to offices of the highest rank. Such is the con-
stitution of this realm; and is it fair that the Jew should
be the only person within it entirely excluded from the
advantages of so glorious a law ? It has been said,
though the fallacy is so transparent as scarcely to need
answering, that this is a case similar to that of a man
possessed of a freehold valued at 395., who is on the
verge of privilege, but not within it. But we all know
that in that case the freeholder has only to get Is. better
off to ensure his qualification, whereas, with regard to
the Jew, !you say to him, unless you change
your conscience you shall not possess the qua-
lification at
tais is o
the system to the spirit of our constitu-
tion, hear.) But, sir, contrary
it is, according to the view I take, far more con-
tbrealri
eyf ttob
at ht e
a spirita r theent
guidedCh r Christian i ab
yn system. It is my
Chris-
tian principle, and with the greater
portionthespiruift oitfssupe-
prieorrsiutii-s theeyn. I
ti admissionsm
beliefo f a
tfhewat their membersad admission
stshioen Jowouldvish
in no degree affect our system; whilst I feel that we
should be displaying the greatest proof of our confi-
dence in the doctrines of Christianity by showing that
we rely for our future, not on a declaration—not on a
statute of George IV.—but on a law which is written on
the tables of the heart.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading
Against it
Majority —6l
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND)
BILL.