The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-26 00:00:00

SPAIN.

Lord STANLEY asked whether it was the in-
tention of her Majesty's Ministers to submit to Par-
liament a full account of the circumstances under
which our Minister at Madrid had had his passports
furnished to him, and been ordered to leave that Court ?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said those papers
were in course of preparation, and it was the anxious
desire of the Foreign Secretary to lay them before
Parliament to-morrow if possible, or at all events at
the next sitting of the House.
FRANCE. . .

Lord BROUGHAV;Wed to draw attention to
a late pretended speech of M. Larnartine, which
stated that the principle of the French Govern-
ment was to assist and help any people to attain what
they called their rights, and that an army of 30,000
men was assembled, to be increased to 60,000 men,
to assist the rebels of Italy against Austria. Had
his Noble Friend received any account of that speech?
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no know-
ledge of the speech alluded to, except what he had
derived from the pgblic papers. A dispatch had been
received from our Ambassador in France this morning
in which no mention was made of the speech alluded to.
THE JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.

. _
the order of the day for the second reading of the
Jewish Disabilities Bill having been read,
The Marquis of LANDSDOWNE (who was occa-
sionally inaudible in the gallery, owing to bis turning
round to address the bench of Bishops) then rose and
said:—My Lords, I beg leave, in pursuance of the notice
• I previously gave, to move the second reading of this
Bill, a motion which has been delayed a considerable.
time, not from any indifference to the importance of the
tatleject to which it relates, but from an anxious desire
to meet the convenience of many of those of your Lord-
shins' House who were desirous to take part in the dis-
cuseion uppon it.' In the outset I must confess to your
Lordships, this Bill, important as it is as affecting the
interests of many of her Majesty's most. loyal subjects,
is, nevertheless not of a nature to excite that degree
of interess which has attended other measures for
the removal of civil disabilities. lam aware it does
not, and cannot be expected to excite the same
amount of interest and attention, nor can it be urged
that its acceptance will prevent danger and ap-
prehension. It is but a small voice that en-
deavours to make itself heard at your doors, but the
question is, whether that voice is the voice of justice?—
(Hear. hear.) I think I cannot do better, in the outset
of the observations with which I shall feel it necessary,
as briefly as possible, to trouble your Lordship; than
call your attention to the state of the law on this sub
ject. It is always convenient, as well as important,
when you- are about to make a change, or to consider
the propriety, of making a change, that you should well
know what is the state of the law which it is proposed to
alter. You do not, in this instance, intend to make any
change in the constitutional law of the country. That
law prescribed that there shall be no distinctions what-
ever. That was the character of your constitution at
the best time, and I hope it will continue to be the dis-
tinguishing character of it. For a long period
of English history there was no exclusion what-
ever. Take your great constitutional Acts, take
your great constitutional proceedings from the
very birth of that constitution, from Magna
Chartsa downwards, you will find no Act dis-
qualifying any of the Kung's liege subjects from being
elected and appointed to all situations which they were
capable of. But the time did come when, not with the
character of a permanent Ace, not under any pretence
of making a permanent law, but fur temporary purposes,
Parliament thought fit to enact a temporary exclusion of
a certain class of people. In the reign of Elizabeth this
finst took place, and certain oaths were prescribed, there
having been, up to that time, no oaths required to be
taken by Members of Parliament. At that time, how-
ever, certain oaths wese prescribed, which persons elected
to serve in Parliament were obliged to take. In the
reign of James L other oaths were prescribed by an Act
of Parliament, but in that Act there was not only no
mention of the Jews, but it was even a distinct and
specific, and on the face of the Act of Parliament
avowed purpose, namely, to put down the Popish
recusants.—(Haar, hear.) That was the object
for which that Act was passed, the effect of
which has since, but not uniformly since, been to
exclude persons of the Jewish persuasion from Parlia-
ment. That Act was passed under these circumstances,
that there had rueently been machinations discovered
of an alarming character, aimed at the subversion of
the Crown and Government of these realms. Ia all
• these conspiracies persons of the Roman Catholic reli-
gion were included, and it was then known that many
persons of that religion were not bound by any common
oath, and an Act was passed excluding them from Parlia-
ment, unless they swore adherence to the Throne and the
Protestant constitution. And it is without any mention
of a Jew that these words were introduced in an oath
. through which no equivocation could creep, the object
of which was not to exclude bad- religionists, but
bad subjects from any participation in the Govern-
ment of these realms. The first Act of Parliament,
or the establishment of William and Mary, involved
the consideration of this subject, and the result
• , was, that the oaths were in the language of the
. A- it, " repealed, abrogated, and made void." That is to
say, that those oaths which were contended by many
to he a peeteliar security for that which those persons
held to be a principle of the constitution, namely, the
• exclusion of Jews from Parliament, were in full consi-
• desation at the very first time of your constitution dis-
tinctly, and in terms annulled and made void, not by
• accident, not in the heat of the moment. not at a time
• when party slept, or church division slept, or at the
time of any of those que<tiuns which were calculated to
divert men!s attentions, and lead them to acquiesce in
that which was dangerous, from the absence of that
precaution and vigilance. which would point out &sneer,
but at a time when every constitutional and religious
question was carefully weighed and balanced, when there
existed great differences of political opinion and ecelesi
astical opinion, when the divisions of high and low
• church were at their height,—it was at that time Par-
liament came to a resolution that these oaths should be
ibrogated, and no man was found to say, " If you abro
gate these oaths, persons o, irreligious opinions will get
into Parliament." For thirteen years, being those in
which the principles of the Constitution were most
weighed and valued, Jews were admissible into Parlia-
ment. Undoubtedly this did not continuo butwhy?
of William, At the close of the reign ;
and on the com-
mencement of the reign of Queen Anne,
cal period, it was thought expedient
to arteavimseostthcoroitlid-
oath's. But is there the least vestige,ir of the object of
that Act being to exclude Jews or any other per-
sons but those against whom it was immediatelytittahte
monarch's
directed,
the Roman Catholic non-jurors, who at that
were considered dangerous, owing tol.re lender
, ear
thosec
h's
being recognised by Louis, and
avowed intention to support him. Accordingly,
oaths were revived, and the same words, On the
faith of a Christian" introduced. Although that Act
was only intended to meet a temporary evil, yet its prise.
' tical effect had been ever since to exclude a whole class
of her Majesty's subjects from Parliament. The Noble
Marquis then proceeded to detail the various Acts which
had been introduced into Parliament for the purpose of
doing away with that exclusion, but which had been re-
jected. He then urged the injustice of denying Jews
admission to Parliament. In heathen times these were
monuments of pride and ambition, but nothing had been
done for the poor. It was reserved for the spirit of
• Christianity to proclaim " Blessed are the merciful, for
- theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." If he was told that
• the Jews were indebted to the Christians for the
• virtues which they practised, he would ask, were they
not entitled to the credit of having adopted them ?
Jews had filled the office of High Sheriffs, and if they
were dangerous or mischievous, they had greater op-
portunities of being so in those positions, in packing
, juries, than they could be as members of an assembly in
which the greater and predominating members were
• Christians; it was impossible for a few Jews to do any
injury in such au assembly. They had much greater
' • danger to fear from infidels who had found their way
into Parliament—(Hear, hear)—and from persons, who,
believing themselves to be Christians, did not know the
maxim;
of their religion, and by their conduct, belied
them
, war with Holland
by the persecution of the Jews. In the last
Holland there were officers Jews in the army
of that country, yet that was the Christian army, and no
one believed'it was deprived of that character by the fact
of Jews being employed in it, and even now, in many
parts of her • Majesty's v dominions Jews were sitting as
members of Istesisla tive Assemblies—in Canada, in
Jamaica, and, by the last post, he had received the
intelligence that a Jew had been elected to a
similar office in the island
standinss it was held here thata of Ceylon—notwith-
admissisosrnb
admission of a Jew
would contaminate a Christian legislative e a
was of opinion that every man should be admittedl'. He
who
could establish his claim. He would not further -tres-
pass on their time than to ask them to look to the cha-
racter of their religion. That it was lowly at its birth,
and that its founder had declared " that his kingdom was
•
slot of this world, that their religion
prevailed, not by
force, but by persuasion, And brought the nations under
the shadow of its influence, by the
then, he would efficiencyof 'that
ask, should
. principle. Why, not that be
pgplied in the hour of its strength and maturity, and
,r;slll*r. hiareeke within the pale of the Constitution all those,who
sareee se '-'"-- iia4l it by their conduct, and had the ambition t
/ 'eel, eAssme
ea4' - • tut He hoped they would agree to the genocao•
e1";‹1 ,agiiietaf the Bill, which would rather •contrio ' i eie to
• 144' °a '-..sailglatiirprigth than to the. weaknes.s o.f the Ttitutia,;,.
..,-..ifkhiatt. bound up with Christianity, ant_ destined to
ka-'.
___ ...e's by It was in this spirit of toe Constitution,
h 45
=4,1.
• ....

S

which had never been set aside, that he called upon
them to agree to the second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose to move that I
the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Noble Marquis appeared to be sensible how very
small the object of :the Bill was—(Hear, hear)—for it
affected in the first instance only one individual ; but
never did he recollect an instance where the smallness
of the object was so disproportionate to the greatness of
the sacritice.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The
Noble Marquis said it was not a religious question, but
he affirmed that it was.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Mar-
quis said there had been times when Jews might have
sat in Parliament, but he well knew that if a Jew had,
at that time, aspired to such a station, he would not have
seen the sun go down upon his head.—(Hear, hear.)
Whatever might have been the law, practically Parlia-
ment had been at all times essentially Christian, and as
such he trusted their Lordships that night would pre-
serve it.—(Cheers.) They were told :that they should
respect the Jews, because through them they derived a
large portion of their religious belief. Why, it was on
that ground that he repudiated the Jew as a member of
a religious body. It was because he believed so much
and no more—it was because having every means of
informing himself, that he still retained the same
opinions.—(Hear, hear.) Mahommedanism approached
nearer to:the Christian religion than Judaism, and if the
measure was to be passed on principle, why was it not
general ? Why was not the principle laid down—that
it did not matter what the religious belief of any man
was who might be admitted to Parliament ? it had
been said that they had admitted Quakers, Moravians,
and others who dissented from the Church of England,
into Parliament ; but there was a wide difference be-
tween them and Jews. Christianity was essentially
identified with the State, and he took his stand on the
verge of Christianity, and declared that it should not be
passed by Jews and infidels.—(Loud cheers.) They
desired to instruct the people and unite religion with
situsechifinasdtmruicttted instruction, but c
how could
was
so
unimportant
pPoarrtlainatm?e—nt
(Hear, hear.) They were told that they must not visit
ont t
ttehde
178e0s0e present e
aJreewasg
at hte
butsins
it ofw their e iar a
t ancestors
because com
they-
ia,
wan,
oytlnhher ntoataooatttf
' had been guilty of a great crime at that period that he
stualddsaptsunihsandthtehier
sa
o descendants,aaalte
unaltered
dt
`belief,bec au so
having those de-the
same laws ; and if the occasion were to occur now they
would be guilty of the same crime.—(Hear, hear.) It
had also been said that it was hard to exclude a
Jew from Parliament possessed of considerable property
in the state, but he thought a man had as much cause
of complaint who was a Christian and had no
property for being excluded from a seat in Parliament.
Jewstjawmhmeehiwwygii acohbhumt
be Not-hemduHwe
sabaordetkeenui
ededilwt
would be
an,
was
recollected
benevolent
edi mstmarneeputivdeel t men
The same was the case with the Moravians • but to
who were not Christians. A great deal had been said
admitab th
ei n tcharityhe ca
case
ef
othe he
Jews.
denymps
erns wn tshh
without
rftoi
were
crthei thaorhnaeueet
character
creed,
rhna
emrebweaooelenut
;trvrseezerb
inconvenience,
uyonli
tef
But
it
eyeteh,
should
etwhhaeasirritthpyso
nation within a nation, totally distinct and separate,
living amongst our agricultural and manufacturing
populations without belonging to either one or the other.
—(Hear, hear.) The Jew did not labour, but bought
and sold at a profit the fruits of the labour of others.
There were few poor amongst them, and no paupers, a
fact greatly to their credit ; few of them were rich, but
Some were immensely rich. They could not
intermarry with the people of this country,
with whom, except the higher classes, they never
associated. They might be called citizens of the world,
but hardly citizens of England.—(Hear, hear.)
It was true that they were not aliens in the sense of
owing allegiance to any foreign power; but no man
transferred his allegiance from one country to another
with greater facility than the Jew. Wherever he went
he found his own people, his own religion, and his own
language, and every where his brethren were occupied in
similar transactions. It could not be considered, then,
that wherever he lived, he stood identified with the
people of the country.—(hear, hear.) It might not be
uninteresting to observe how easily a Jew of the highest
class could transfer his allegiance from one country to
another. He had some days since seen in one of the
journals a review of the recently published memoirs of
Sir E. Buxton, in which the following passage was ex-
tracted :—" We yesterday dined at Ham House, to meet
the Rothschilds; and very amusing it was. He (Roths-
child) told his life and adventures. He was the third son
of the banker at Frankfort. There was not,' he said,
'room enough for us all in that city. I dealt in English
goods. One great trader came there, who had the mar-
ket to himself; be was quite the great man, and did us
a favour if he sold us goods. Somehow I offended
him, and he refused to show me his patterns.' " Such
was the circumstance which originated the transfer to
this country of the great house of Rothschild, and also
the Bill then before their Lordships.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Nothing happened by chance, every acci•
dent that occurred formed part of the means by which
Providence worked out its ends; and certainly if it was
the will of Providence that this country should be un-
christianised, meaner means could not have been adopted
than the refusal of a Manchester traveller to show his
patterns.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Noble Marquis
had observed that at present all municipal offices were
open to the Jew—that he might become Sheriff, Alder-
man, or Lord Mayor. Now he (the Earl of Ellen-
borough) was not one who attached much importance to
municipal dignities, but he certainly regretted that
Baron Rothschild had not, like another Caesar, preferred
being first in the Corporation to being last in the senate,
as he then might have worthily dispensed the hospitali-
ties of the city of London without endangering the
Christian character of the Legislature of this country.
He begged their Lordships to take a serious but not
exaggerated view of the °angers which were
threatening this country. I: was impossible
not to observe that a great crisis aas approaching.
'Chu had had warnings in famines, in general distress,
in pestilence, and in divisions amongst the people.
Around they saw nations convulsed to their utmost
extent, and in one instance the most ancient and power-
ful dynasty in Europe crushed in one day. The great
empire of Austria had fallen, crushed like the potter's
vessel, and the most ancient combinations t f territory

had given way to new combinations, of which no one
could tell the duration. They saw all the great land-
marks of nations displaced, and the wildest schemes fur

• •
future government propounded, without any reterence to
the experience of the past. With such convulsions sur-
rounding us, how long could we expect to remain uncon-
taminated, separated as we were only by a channel, the
whole extent of which could be scanned by the eye?
(Hear, hear.) He trusted that their Lordships would
employ themselves diligently to the means by which
alone the country could be saved; that they would not
forego the interests of the country for any temporary
profit; that they would forego legislating fur the private
purposes or temporary expediency of may man or any
Government—(Hear, hear)—that they would take a
large view of public affairs; and, above all, would not
deprive themselves of all right to heavenly aid by agree-
ing, that night to the desecration of Parliament and the
destruction of the exclusively Christian character of the
British legislature.—(Loud chPeri.)
The Duke of CA.NIBRIDGE—NIy Lords, I feel that,
in consequence of the position in which I stand, I should
he wanting in my duty if I did not express most strongly
my sentiments upon this subject. Knowing many Jews
in the country in which I lived for so many years of my
life, I should be the last person to keep up any perse-
cution which might follow them. I have a very high
respect for a great number of Jews in this country, and
amongst others, no man can be more respectable than
that individual who some years ago went to Prussia and
other countries on a charitable mission ; but I cannot
honestly and conscientiously say that this is not a ques-
tion of religion. As long as this Government exists as
a Christian Government, the Jows cannot be admitted
into Parliament.—(Bear, hear.) This is the course
which I have thought it my duty to take, although it
must be against the Jews. As long as this country is
called Christian, and this Government is a Christian
Government, I think it impossible that Jews can belong
to the Legislature.—(Hear.)
Viscount CANNING felt that, he could give a con-
scientious vote in favour of the Bill. He derived great
courage from the speech of the Noble Earl who had
moved the amendment, and who had rested his case

rather on an appeal to 'their Lordship? feelings, pas-
sions, and prejudices, than on sound argument and the
justice of his case.—(Rear, hear.) As a religious Tie-
tipn, the admission of Jews to Parliament seemed suffi-

meetly plain. They had opened their doors to the Ho-
, dere them as
man Catholics, who looked upon their creed as heresy;
to the Protestant Dissenter, who looked on the Church
_ withd great jealousy; and to the Unitarian, who consi-
declaration on the
credulous, if not superstitious, believers in
mata faithl lh toll eas e
Christian;
the Trinity. From required a
na
ec ts
bn hadt
therUe
took it, denyins,
Saviour, and our denying e same time the divinity of our
This, in his opinion, atonement by his death.—( Hear, hear.)
question. The Noble Earl had of the religious part of the
said that he did not wish
to punish the Jews for whatad
but that he would exclude the a done 1,800 years ago,
changed their creed, or acknowledgedbecause, not having
their error during
that time, if the same opportunity occurred, they would
again imbrue their hands in sacre blood, iti
e.(Viscount
Canning) could see neither justice nor charity
declaration. He believed and trusted that such anin thati-
nion would find very little response in thata llo°u-
He thought that we should follow the example of se'
other
nations in admitting Jews to the privileges of citizens,
not only because the act was just in itself, but because'
the conduct of the Jews in every place where they had
been enfranchised fully justified the experiment.—(Hear.)
With respect to the state of public opinion out of doors,
he thought it would fully support their Lordships in a
measure of liberality. One hundred years ago a very
small measure of relief caused such an alarm throughout
the country that the Duke of Newcastle was obliged to
come down hastily to Parliament and rescind it. Non.,
a measure of complete emancipation was proposed—it
had been long before the public, and had been fully delibe-
rated, and not a single demonstration of hostility of any
importance had been exhibited in any part of the court-
try.—(Hear, hear.) What was the cause of this change?
He lok,lieved it to be that large bodies of people of different
religious opinions had sprung up in various parts of the
country, and that among them had grown up the con-
viction that civil privileges should be extended to all
citizens without reference to their religious opinions.
Even among Churchmen, he believed that few would be
found to argue for a continued exclusion of any portion
of their fellow-subjects from the privileges of the con-
stitution. In conclusion, he had only to add that he never
gave any vote with greater pleasure than that which he
should give on the present occasion in favour of the
Bill under their Lordships' consideration —(Hear, hear.)
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, who was at
times almost inaudible, said that if he had followed the
dictates of his awn. inclination he should have given a
silent vote on the present occasion, but since he had
been raised to the responsible position he then held, he

felt that he had no longer the privilege of being silent,
especially on an occasion where the religious character
of the House and the country was at stake.—(Hear,
hear.) The subject before their Lordships lay in a
small compass, and therefore he should compress into a
small compass the observations he had to make, and, in
doing so, he hoped he should express his sentiments
with as much deference to the opinions or feelings of
others as would be consistent with the expression of his
own honest convictions. They were asked to remove
disabilities which excluded certain persons from seats
in either House of Parliament. ft appeared to him that
those persons laboured under a disability which that
House could not remove—that of being by their opinions
unfit to take part in the councils of a Christian nation.
They were unfit, because on many questions that might
be argued they could not, if true to their own principles,
avoid raising their voices against propositions important
to the interests of the country and the welfare of the
Church. The Jew, if sincere, must have interests and
opinions hostile to those of the Christian ; he must be
opposed to the spread of Christian truth as much as
their Lordships would be to the dissemination of Maho-
metan tenets. Even,if the Jew were indifferent to his
own doctrines, he must be still looked upon as hostile to
the doctrines of Christianity. This was forcibly shown
in one of the strongest protests which had appeared
against the measure, and which was signed by one
calling himself a converted Jew. The Noble Mar-
quis had told them it was but a small voice in
the Legislature that was asked for. True ; but a very
small voice might be sufficient on occasions to turn
the balance against the interests of the Church.—(Hear.)
With regard to the Roman Catholics who had been al-
luded to, one of the first votes he had given was for the
remission of these disabilities, and he would so vote
again if the question were to be discussed; but his rea-
son was, that he could not fairly refuse a body who formed
a third part of the population of this empire a share in
the national deliberations. They could not still call
themselves a Protestant Legislature, but they were still
a Christian Legislature, and he thought it was neces-
sary to the welfare of the country that they should re-
main so. The measure before their Lordships was
looked upon with great suspicion by a most valuable
portion of the community, who looked upon it as an
insult on the religion they professed. He did not look
upon it in that light—he wholly acquitted the Noble
Lord who had introduced the Bill of any intention of
casting a slight upon the Church; but nevertheless he
felt it his duty as a member of that Church to record his
vote against it.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of WINCHILSEA and the Bishop of St.
David's rose togetner., After some hesitation the
latter gave way, and the Noble Earl proceeded to say
that he felt towards his fellow-subjects of the Jewish
persuasion the warme-4 sentiments of Christian charity;
and if by any sacrifice short of the interests of his
religion he could advance those interests he would do
so. The Jews were everywhere a distinct people,
standing alone in a peculiar nationality in every part of
the world where they were dispersed. He looked upon
the measure before the House as one offering a greater
violence to the character of a Christian Legislature than
any that had ever been proposed. The Noble Earl, who
was altogether indistinctly heard in the gallery, con-
cluded by exhorting the House to throw out the Bill.
The Duke of ARGYLE rose to explain the reasons
for his vote. The present being the first occasion on
which he had addressed the House he claimed their
Lordships' indulgence and courtesy; the more so as
the subject was one of overwhelming interest to
his countrymen. He was not ashamed to confess that he
had experienced feelings of more than ordinary difficulty
in considering the subject:of the presentlßill. He, how-
ever, had come to the determination to vote for the se-
cond reading of the Bill. But he did so with feelings of
a very different description from those expressed by
others who took the same view of the measure, both in
that House and in another place. The Noble Lord who
sat near him had congratulated the House and the coun-
try upon the circumstance that not a few of the argu
ments against the Bill had been abandoned. He
would follow the same course, and congratulate their
Lordships that not a few of the arguments in favour of
the Bill had also been abandoned. Their Lordships
had not heard the Noble Marquis urge as an argument
in favour of the Bill that Christianity had no more to do
with the institutions or legislature of the country than
with cookery or horsemanship—a mode of reasoning
deliberately adopted by a member of the present Ca-
binet, the late representa'ive for Edinburgh, for whose
abilities and acquirements he entertained a high
respect. The argument that Christianity was not an
essential part of the Legislature was, therefore, aban-
doned: certainly such an assertion had no influence
whatever on his vote. On the other band, he could not
admit the force of the objection that had been made
against the Bill—namely that the Jews were a nation
within a nation, and being hereditary aliens from gene-
ration to generation could not be allowed to take part in
the Legislation of the empire. He did not believe that
the Jews themselves had any such ideas, or that they
Looked upon themselves as distinct from the people they
dwelt amongst. They themselves had been thrust out
from among Christians—they had been refused employ-
rnenta which were open to every other class of their
fellow-subjects, and instead of declaring themselves
aliens they had the more resolutely struggled to obtain
privileges similar to those enjoyed by their equals and
neighbours, and they had succeeded in so doing, thereby
becoming identified with the Christian community.
Was the objection that the Jews were a nation within a
nation a sufficient reason for the Legislature to interfere
and prevent constituencies from judging for them-
selves as to the individuals best calculated to represent
them? It might be true that they were aliens in heart,
but so long as the Jews were born in England and lived
hero they would be entitled to the privileges of English-
men, and ought not to be subjected to any disabilities on
the score of religion. There was another argument
against the Bill which had been alluded to by the Most
Reverend Prelate—namely, that a Jew could not be
admittted to a seat and a vote in Parliament without
danger to the Church from his hostility. He would put
it to their Lordships whether there was as much to fear
from the hosility of a Jew as there was from that of a
Dissenter. And yet the fear of the Dissenters' hostility
to the Church had not prevented Parliament from letting
in numbers of Dissenters to take their seats in the House
of Commons. It was, therefore, no just argument against
the Bill to sly that the Jews were hostile to tho Church.
There was only one more argument against the Bili
which he would meet, and it was one that he regretted
to find the Noble Earl who spoke second in the debate
bad relied on. It was that the declared religion of the
Legislature and of the country being that of Christianity
would render it an anomaly for Parliament to admit any
person within its doors who was not nominally a Chris-
tian. Such an argument was anything but conclusive or
satisfactory to him. He did not flatter himself that any
observations which he could make would have any effect
upon their Lordships' decision ; but he must in conclu-
sion say, that if any of their Lordships could not proceed
to vete without conscientiously thinking that the Chris-
tianity of the empire would be endangered by the pass.
ing of the Bill, then he certainly should not wish any
Noble Lord entertaining such an opinion to vote in favour
of the measure. He begged to thank their Lordships for
the patieet attention with which they had listened to his
observations.

The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S expressed his sstis•
faction at heviag heard the Noble Earl opposite de-
nounce the Bill before he had had an opportunity of
addressing the House. He was not blind to the threats
which had been uttered as to the consequences of passieg
the present Bill. But he would answer the Noble Earl
in the words of an infinitely greater man than himself,
" The Lord's will be done ; I must do mine." It gave
him sincere pleasure to observe that their Lordships
were not urged to come to a vote on the present mea-
sure by any undue bias, so that they were in a condition
to give their unfettered judgment upon the Bill. The
sense of the country upon the Bill had been expressed
by way of petitiau in a manner which left their Lord-
ships free to act on the dictates of their own judgment,
and therefore he congratulated them on being able to
come to a decision free from bias. It had been
asserted, though there was no proof of the tact, that
the Bill could only proceed on an assumption that the
country was actuated by an entire indifference
towards religion. If such was to be believed, some
curious results would be obtained, looking at the places
from which the petitions in favour of this Bill had been
sent. But for himself he must declare he had no confi-
dence in such a religious thermometer. He feared he
was not altogether guided by surmise when he assorted
that the Jews had not yet ceased to be the objects of an
unreasonable and hereditary dislike on the parts of
numbers of enlightened Christians. Looking, indeed,
back into past times, it was morally impossible that such
should not be the case; and although the evils imme-
diately resulting from such a state of things were abated
and had passed away, yet they had left deep traces of
their former effects in the existing habits and feelings of
the country. If that was not the case; if no Noble
Lord who heard him was conscious of entertaining, such
feelings, then he must confess himself to be one of the
most prejudiced persons in that House, for he certainly
had experienced the feelings he had adverted to, and he
had used his utmost endeavours to get rid of them, so
as to prevent them from having any influence upon
his decision. Much as the question under consideration
had been debated, he was not sure that any great de-
gree of attention had been paid to the particular senti-
ments to which he bad referred. It had been urged as
one of the strongest reasons for rejecting the Bill,.that
it was the practice of the Jews to express the utmost
abhorrence of that divine person who was held by
Christians in the utmost degree of reverence. Such
itomvpwahleprdhser,:eintscßeeimhdd(ni) was the argument of the petition presented by
the Noble Earl opposite from the General Assembly,
and that was urged as the strongest reason against the
Bill. Tho most Reverend Prelate below him had ad-
faßete
huctaahtanotoadihr
atgetghdheiee:enic
onmlauargasta
adequate
ehr,naAi
bfst
oeghreaceroaohrandulbslatrei
othstndwiheot oent
tdpra:eraoaat
nfsot
reason
dmhnseienauayisr:Canterburynugotrepihednoastlagainst
okgi
ibinea.
filtnhai hadhtesi
impossibility
inathit °.d.
et
hehi
d
it had been admitted by a previous speaker that better
feelings did prevail amongst the Jews on this subject.
But he might be allowed to draw their Lordships' atten-
tion to the fact that such a feeling was in no degree es-
sentially c.mnected with the Jewish religion. But it was,
on the contrary, only the natural result of the feel-
ing raised in the minds of the Jewish people from their
having been subjected to ages of persecution by persona
professing Christianity ; and, therefore, however alien
such feelings were to the Jewishreligion, they insen-
sibly grew up with it in the minds of the Jews during
the past ages of persecution. He was also :aware that
he might be told the Jews denied the divine character of
the •Saeiour. But in what respect, he might ask, did
the Jew differ in this from the Arian ? Did not the
Unitarian also deny the divine character of
.Christ? and
also what the Church conceived to be the plainsense of
Scripture in the Saviour's assertions of hi s divine origin?
aa
ds
mai t re
jneswo s
twhyo;
rti.hveliiregLeos
.rdwshhiiepi:
eshahould b merely
ne
a o t
larlrergel euadsdeyth:ogsranted to others who stood in

exactly the; same position as the Jews towards the
Christian rligion. There was also another ground for
not considering the Jews to be bound by their religion
to any suck hostility to Christianity, as had been in.
ferred by the Most Reverend Prelates to whom he had
adverted. je found the Jewish historian who had nar-
rated the events which occurred in relation to the Sa
viour, speaking of our Lord as a person who fell a victim
to the cabals of a particular sect of priests. And also
a most distinguished writer, the Jewish philosopher, had
described Christ as one who had advocated a spiritual
religion in lieu of a religion of forms and hypocrisies.
And he found some Jewish writer stating it to be his
opinion that a Jew might become a Christian and yet
remain bound by the Jewish law of ceremonial. There
was ample room for the difference of opinion that ex-
isted amongst the Jewish and Christian sects without
necessitating the existence of any special hatred to
Christianity such as had been imputed generally to the
Jewish race. The Bill was one most entitled in every-
respect to their Lordship? favourable consideration, and
if they rejected it, the grounds upon which they did so
must be of the plainest and most intelligible description.
The country would not be contented with any specula-
tions, though such might, by the ingenuity of some
Noble Lords, be invested for the moment with a seeming
solidity. There Lordships must be reminded that a
great constituency had deliberately made choice of a
Jew for their representative, and that the House of
which prevented Jews from sitting in the
Legislature.
disabilitiesCein
ens
had shown a willingness to remove the
It now remained for their Lordships
to determine whether they were prepared to tell the
constituency of the metropolis that they should not
have the man of their choice to represent them,
and also to declare to the House of Commons that
they were not to be permitted to declare what c:asses of
persons were to be permitted to take their seats in that
assembly. Their Lordships had been told that the Billd
was inconsistent with the existence of Christianity,
Now,anfor not passing the Bill, he as those assertions were meant to stand
should as
knoweil
that it would prove dangerous to the interests of the
sted
Was tt
Chruresil3 h°.llswhat the danger to the Church consisted.
it because the special province of the Legislature was to
regulate the doctrines of the Church? Such an asser-
tion could not be seriously made; and, if so, wherein
did the danger consist of admitting a Jew to an
assembly which had no control whatever over the
doctrines upon which the Christian faith was based?
Would it also be maintained that a Jew would so
utterly disregard the feelings of his constituents te,
to offer an insult or attempt an injury to their reli-
gion? It had also been urged that the country wool.'
incur the risk of the Divine displeasure by show-
ing favour to the objects of the Divine wrath. H,
would abstain, from obvious motives, from casting an)
ridicule upon such an argument, least that which was
meant for the latter should be wilfully or mistaken!)
applied to the sacred subject of discussion. But with
respect to the treatment of the Jews, he was quite sure
that the present generation hail, by means of their an-
cestors, incurred a very heavy debt towards the Jews in
this respect, of which he was not quite sure they would
ever be able to acquit themselves. It was his belief that,
upon the common principles of our nature, the interests
of the Church were quite as likely, or more so, to br
assailed by a Dissenter as by a Jew. This was said to
be a question rather of principle than of expediency.
He had fully as much respect for principle as any man
in the House; but he must confess that he could see-
nothing of the dignity of a principle in any arguments
which had been used against this measure, and which,
indeed, seemed to him less arguments than sophistical
fallacies, which had over and over again been disposed
of. It had been insisted upon that the measure would
unchristianise the Legislature, whereas the Legisla-
ture would never be unchristianised to any greater
extent than the country itself should be unchristianised.
It was said thee if we admitted to the Legislature per-
sons who did not profess the same religion with our-
selves we should part from the only security we had for
the conscientious discharge of the duties of that Legis-
lature. No one denied the influence of religion over
men's various views of morality; but there was a corn-
mon ground on which men of all religions could meet,
and come to a tolerably distinct and unanimous opinion
as to abstract right and wrong. It was equally falla-
cious to assert that the measure would be an innovation
upon the constitution of this country, on the principle
that Christianity was held to be part and parcel of that
constitution. No doubt the principle of the old Eng-
lish constitution wa?that absolute exclusion, which re-
jected alike not merely Jew, Turk, and infidel, but heretic,
and schismatic; but this principle had long since been
abandoned as a part of the British constitution. The
Legislature had, in the exercise of its undoubted right,
from time to time, modified, and modified still further,
this exclusive, principle; and to say now that the Legisla-
ture could not, without &dereliction of its, duty, still more
modify the principle, or destroy it altogether, was the
real attack upon the constitution. Then, as to the
question of Jewish nationality, it was said that the Jew,
as such, was essentially an ialiee, and by that fact ex-
cluded from the privilege of taking part in our legisla
tion. And Dr. Arnold had been cited as an authority
for the proposition that a Jew had no more right to
legislate for us than a lodger to manage the household
affairs of his landlord. With every respect for Dr.
Arnold, he must express the feeling that the Reverend
Gentleman's theory on this subject was derived rather
from inapplicable analogies in Greek and Roman history,
than from any view of the actual state of the case, or
the actual circumstances of this country and its present
people. Dr. Arnold's opinions on this particular ques-
tion were carried to an extreme, which he (the Bishot.
of St. David's) thought very few of their Lordships
would be disposed to adopt, for the Reverend Doctor con-
sidered that it would be no departure from justice were
our Government to do with the Jews that which the
Spanish Government of old had done with the Jews and
with
altogether.lt c
wasoes,
urged, further, that not only was the
s
Jew an alien in this country, but that he was unsuscep
tible and incapable of the ties which bind an English-
man to the land of his birth. It was assumed that the
home of the Jew must be always in a foreign land—
that his heart must be ever in Palestine. Doubtless th,
religion of the Jew was a religion of hope, teaching him
that at some time or other his race would be restored tee
their original abiding, place; but there was nothing, ii
theory or in fact, which justified the statement that the
Jew, as the member of a political state, did not take the
same interest in the welfare of that state with his fellow-
citizens. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by earnestly
exhorting their Lordships to pass this measure. A,
a believer in the unerring course of God',
authority and power, and in the ultimate triumph
of Christianity, ho was firmly persuaded that
in adopting the present measure their Lord-
ships, while consulting the interests of justice, would
not be impairing those of the Christian religion, would
be hastening, rather than impeding, its triumph. He
considered that every exclusion which distinguished
the Jews from their fellow-subjects had the effect of
creating an additional fold in the veil which shut them
out from the light of the true faith. Still longer to
irritate the Jews by invidious distinctions was the pre-
cise way still longer to retard the triumph of Chris-
tianity, and to prevent it from accomplishing- its high
mission on earth, glory to God, peace and good wilt
among men .—(Hear.)
The Bishop df OXFORD opposed the Bill. Those
who advocated the measure insisted upon it as giving to
the Jews, our fellow-subjects, rights of which they
were unjustly deprived. Nothing could be more painful
to an honourable mind than the idea of such an injus-
tice as this, and he for one, did he believe that the
measure gave the Jews rights to which they were en-
titled, would vote for it, regardless of ultimate consi-
derations, but he wholly denied that the Jews were
entitled to the privileges proposed to be conferred upon
them.--(Elear, hear.) He considered that to give
them these privileges would be destructive of the princi-
ple of our constitution and of the best interests of the
country. The jus petitionis was no correlative of the
jus civitatis or the jus suffragii. His Right Reverend
Brother who last addressed their Lordships, and who
had charged all the arguments against the measure Eo
being sophistical fallacies, said, " It is not the birth-
place of the Jews which makes them another nation from
us, but their religion." Wny, this was the precise point.
the very
tent altogether with the claim now set up for them. The
thing which gave them a nationality inconsis-
Jew, if he he a real Jew, cannot belong to any other
nation than his own ; the distinct injunctions of his reli-
gion are that he shall not blend with other peoples ; thee
twtohittehopepose that these may keep up the
whollye mofprloe s ,
them,
, shalland
everd
h eis
remem-
ber that he is wespe-
cially
the otherdiversepracticep
distinction,observances,whn dwellingeejo
eotddo
with whom he may be otherwise in daily contact. What
preserve him pure from mixture from those
said Mr. Van Hoven, a Jewish writer, in a recent work
of food among the Jews were designse le this : that the
edtr a peculiaro preplaercattiaonn.( i
might remain for ever undefiled by
on Judaism? Why
holy nation,
h
Another recent Jowl-e-
-witer, the Rabbi Pruhl, empha-
ticallyrre I ionists here that, however
with the people of another faith.
his co-religionists
not Englishmen, for that
born in England, they
intimate
re cmoitnnidmileaudtnsi ocaitti n
i nal relation with the people
tion only, and bad no national
te the Rabbi, and such was
d
around them. Thus'incu ca
Jews.
Infinite examples
the universal feeling of the
Let him mention
prove the fact.
might be adduced to
Jews, of whatsoever land natives, were of the Jewish na-
tion
When Napoleon desired
two that occurred to
supplied this money? A
was essential to him.
sian, national interests would
Russian Jew; yet, as a
him from extending this aid.
have effectually kept andrance raged
England an
When war between
to bring back his shahtitsermehidno army from Russia, money
the
struggle, her to sustain
needed by France to
struggle, who advanced s
would have forbidden the
An English Jew,
et !v. Prelate proceeded
wi
loan.—(Hear, hear.)
whomth its
Englishmo st inationalitynt
The Righthd no tale to the proposed
to contend that, if the Jews to it under any
they had as little claim
boon as of right,
e r n e i nem.
money? An
L d h.
their or s ips to pass it
intro-
duced the measure called upon
concession, so far from
as a matter of kindness.
Toe
would be fatal to them.
being a kindness to the Jews, :
in danger of at the
What the Jews were peculiarlyhe
other consideration. The Noble
.Marquis who
tire result of decaying
hope and expiring. expectation.
a Christian cemitunity
present moment was
them the rig s
h` of legislating for
them that those Christians had
would be at once to tell and
For Christians to grant
e in the destruction of
ex-
ample would be instantly effective
belief. The Rabbi
as little faith in revelation as themselves, the
what remained to them of religious
filled his mind when he
his pamphlet, the surprise which Christian body to
observed the disposition of a
hich he elistinctly eman-
cipateattri-
the Jews, a disposition
whe word of God. 'The
Pruhl to whom he had already r'eferred, expressed, in
buted to a regardlessness for t
in the land, whereas
descendants of Jews long settldthough the were the
Jews here were spoken of as y
in point of fact none of the Jewish _
were of older date here than two hundred years. -In femilies in. England
ad-
dition to the claim of right which the Noble gatvis

:Lansdowne) had urged, he had spoken of thetitdvari-
age which would result to the nation from -bringing
Tews into Parliament. The Noble Marquis had not,
eowever, shown them the nature of those advantages. If
it could be proved that it was necessary for the consti-
tuencies that the Jew should exercise the right which
was said to belong to him, of sitting in Parliament, then
there would be some argument; but he would maintain
chat such was not the case. There were, to be sure,cer-
etin advantages to be gained at election times—(Hear
and laughter)—Which the Jews could supply; and he
knew enough of the history of the last City election to
enable him to form an opinion of their character. He
was of Opinion that the election in question was a sort
,f business transaction, in which one candidate sup-
plied the character and the other the capital.—(Cheers
end laughter.) The Noble Marquis, in the course of his
argument, had said that their Lordships had better pass
.he Bill at once, or they would have it reiterated again
Ind again, until they did. He thought he might leave
,hat argument to their Lordships' own consideration.
if a measure which they believed to be morally wrong
or morally questionable, were to be passed on such
;rounds, he said that they could not perform an act
ehich could more utterly stultify their own character—
(Hear, hear)—and tend more to reduce the House to a
nonentity, than by so doing.—(Cheers.) What he had
stated appeared to him to be the main arguments of the
Noble Marquis. The Noble Viscount (Canning) had
ollowed on the same side, and had entered into the
lifficult question of how far the passing of the Act would
:end to unchristianise the Legislature. He (the Bishop
if Oxford) entertained a strong opinion that such would
ea its effect. It seemed to him that they were now
asked to take the greatest step which could be de-
manded of a Christian Legislature. They were asked
.o admit those who came amongst the people of this
cation on the profession either that they were not
Christian, or that they were haters of Christianity; and
.t would be impossible if the Act was passed to refer any
more to a Christian principle as governing that as-
sembly. Ho would tell them of the difficulties which
hey would have to encounter. When the British
Association was sitting last year to relieve the distress
in Ireland, a body of the Wesleyan dissenters raised a
iarge sum of money towards that object. A sub-corn-
nittee of the association was appointed to draw up a
letter of thanks to that body; and in that letter they
mxpressed their acknowledgments "for the act of
.;Kristian charity which they had performed." Now
there was on that committee a member of the Jewish
Body, who took exception at the word Christian, and
begged that it might be struck out. The member in
question said to the committee, " You have admitted me
en a level with yourselves, and I will not admit charity
lo be a Christian virtue. You are charitable in spite of
your Christianity, and not because of it." The end of
the matter was that the word was struck out, and the
.otter sent thanking the Wesleyans simply for their
charity. He said, ex uno disce mines. The same
lifficulties would arise in other matters; and from the
lay when they legalised the admission of the denial of
Christianity, they could no longer appeal to Chris-
ianity as their guide.—(Cheers.) He asked them it
the laws of England were based upon anything but the
laws of God, revealed through the medium of Christ
Jesus? There was no doubt that such was always the
eround on which the validity of every English law was
eased. There was no other strength to which a law
could refer except the strength of brute force; and so it
was that there had never yet been seen an infidel nation.
After alluding in terms of congratulation to the senti-
ments put forth on the subject by the Noble Duke
(Argyll), whose presence he in common with every
Member of the House hailed with hearty satisfaction,
his Lordship proceeded to say that he would give ano-
ther reason why the House should refuse its assent to
the measure. By yielding it they would inflict a wound
in the religious sympathy and religious trust, and also
on the moral trust, of the religious and thinking
classes of the country, which nething could remedy.
Something had fallen from the Right Rev. Prelate who
!lad preceded him, that had given him (the Bishop
of Oxford) real pain, although there was nothing in
it. The Rev. Prelate had spoken of the direct, im-
portant, and unquestionable relation to which he alleged
to exist between Judaism and Christianity. Now, that
there had been a direct, important, and unquestionable
relation between theta was well, known, but he denied
that any such relation existed at present ; and he hoped
he Right Rev. Prelate would allow him (the Bishop of
Oxford) to remind him, that had Judaism been suffered
to remain in the ascendant, it would have proved the
tomb of Christianity. A more dangerous argument
could not be promulgated. In point of fact Christianity
was not a settled doctrine, but a belief of the heart in an
individual, the Saviour of the world, and who formed
the heart of religion and the centre of faith. Judaism
was an entire denial of the whole system, and a Jew ac-
cordingly believed the person in question to be nothing
more than an imposter, whom his ancestors slew.
It was therefore apparent that these two op-
posites could not be reconciled. With regard
to the petitions which had been presented, there was
something peculiar about the feeling of the country. It
was said that a few dissentinc, petitions augured
that feeling to be in favour of the Bill; but he consi-
lered the silence to have a significance the other way.
['here was another reason which increased the import-
ance of the question before them. The relations of the
Church to the State of this country afforded at the pre-
.ent time questions not the easiest for solution, or the
safest to deter settling. He thought that in those diffi-
culties a reasonable man would trace this—that the
legislature, by a slow yet certain progress, had become
4radually more estranged from the Church of the
country. Now, he asked, what could more certainly and
lbundatitly increase the evil than the passing of this
Bill? And when they considered the present difficulty
in adjusting Church matters, there could be no doubt

out that the adoption of the measure would eventually
.ead to the separation of Church and State. He, for
,ne, was not in favour of such a separation, as he be-
lievedthat the Cnurch would suffer most irreparably, and
that the nation itself would certainly suffer still more.
Nearly all the great subjects which were continually
coming before them involved the same question, and
none more so than that of national education; and be-
cause the passing of the Bill now under their considera-
tion would render the settlement of those questions
almost impossible, he beseeched them not to pass it.
The Bishop of Sr. DAVID'S explained.
The Earl of St. GERMANS, with all respect to the
Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), said he must dis-
sent from some of the propositions which he had laid
.lown. He thought several of the Right Reverend Pre-
late's argumente were scarcely worthy of him. Experi-
ence proved that Jews were inlother countries among the
most useful members of a Legislature. If the exclusion
of Jews were a question of punishment, the amount or
extent of their error might be a question. The Right
Rev. Prelate much surprised him by stooping to catch
a cheer by an allusion to an unfounded report about in-
fluences brought to bear upon this question. He also
much astonished him by diverging into considerations
respecting the union between Church and State. If it
could be shown that Jews might be safely admitted to
Parliament except on considerations relating to the
Church, he must say he thought that would be one of
the strongest arguments that could be used in favour ca
severance of Church and State. The most Rev. Pre-
late who had spoken anticipated support to the Church
from the Dissenters. He (Earl St. Germans) believed
there was as much, if not more, danger to be anticipated
to the Church from the Dissenter than from the Jew.—
(Hear, hear.) He believed the Jews to be a loyal, peace-
able, and industrious body; he saw no reason why they
~hould not he admitted to complete participation in civil
rights, and he confessed he had heard nothing in the
speech of the Right Reverend Prelate opposite at all
calculated to shake his opinion in favour of this Bill.
The Earl of EGLINTOUN, for the sake of the reli-
gion he revered and the Saviour whom he worshipped,
should certainly vote against this Bill. However loyal,
peaceable, charitable, or useful the Jews might be as a
class, he could not think that those who were aliens, and
who called themselves by the name of another nation,
had any claim to a share in the government of Great
Britain. He also thought that there might arise from
their admission a great practical difficulty in conso
quenco of the expenditure Jew candidates might be
expected to make in order to secure returns. They had
had, in the way the petitions to that House wore pre-
pared, some specimens of the mode in which money
might be applied for political purposes. General sym-
pathy had been excited for the Jews as a class degraded
by their exclusion from Parliament. But the privilege
of witting in Parliament was not denied to the Jews
alone. It was withheld from the clergy of the Estab-
lished Church of this country, and from others. It was
said by some that Dissenters were more inimical to
the Church than Jews. That statement, however, he
much doubted
Lord LYTTELTON agreed with the Right Reverend
Prelate opposite (St. David's) that the differences be-
tween Christians and Jews were not of such a nature as
to give to Parliament any right to refuse to Jews the
privileges which were conceded to Uoitarians. He was
quite sure that the Jews were entitled to the privilege
•,ri the ground of justice, and what was just could never
be wrong.
The Earl of HARROWBY had always felt the utmost
repugnance to allow any obstruction to a privilege on ac-
count of religious opinions; but having reviewed this
peculiar question with great care, he must confess he
had come to the conclusion that it would not be right to
admit the Jews to Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He had
come to this decision very much ia consequence of the
arguments of the advocates of the measure themselves,
and, above all, of that highly talented Gentleman who
lately represented Edinburgh. When that Right Hon.
Gentleman spoke of religion as a matter as analogous to
politics as cookery, he (Lord Harrowby) confessed that
he thought that there must be something wanting in an
argument that appeared only capable of such en illus-
I ration. It was said that they must admit Jews, because
they admitted Sucinians; but they did not admit
Socinians as Socinians. They removed certain penal-
ties on religious bodies, and Socinians came in in con-
sequence; but there was no exemption in their favour.
lie dare not unchristianise the Parliament. (Hear,
hear.) He dare not lower the tone of the great assem-
bly of the nation; and, therefore, with regret, he should
certainly vote against the Bill.
The Earl of YARBOROUGH sat i, if their Lordships
rejected Bill, it roust be borne in mind that they
would do so in the full cognisance of the circumstance
that the first constituency of the empire had returned a
Jew to Parliament, and that it. was the desire of the
people that the Bill should pass.—(Cheers.) He con-
fessed that he had not looked at the religious question
under this Bill without anxiety, but the more he looked
at it the more he felt that it was his duty as a Christian
to vote in its favour.

The Earl of DES ART said, the Legislature being
called upon to decide on questions both spiritual and
temporal, he could not think that a Jew ought to be
permitted to share with Christians the administration of
those affairs. Ile knew they were called on to love their
enemies, but he did not know that they were called on
to take them into their Houses and trust them with the

administration of their business. He was most willing 1
to acknowledge the integrity of the Jews, and would
entrust them with the administration of the laws, bus it
was quite another thing to place them in the position of
law makers. He urced the House not to be led away
by false sophisms and pseudo-liberality.
'rho ter! of ELLESNIERE said his vote that night
would be the result, not of impulse, but of such re-
flection
as his ability allowed him to give to this im-
portant subject. If he could believe with the Right
Reverend Prelate that a great indifference to the safety
of the country could alone induce a vote foe this Bill,
no degree of respect for any constituency would induce
him to vote that night in its favour; but looking at the
probable consequences that would follow from this mea-
sure, all he could foresee was that, at most about a score
of respectable gentle:nen of the Hebrew nation would
be admitted to seats in Parliament. They had heard of
Dissenters combining against the Church, but they had
never found Jews meddling with such matters. They
often heard denunciations from the conventicle, but
never from the synagogue.—(Hear, hear.) He was
told that the Jew was an alien, and merely is sojourner
in the land. How had he acted in those countries
of Europe in which he was not oppressed by unjust
!taws? Had he sheltered himself from the common
danger, under his character of a stranger and a
sojourner?—(Hear, hear.) In the ranks of Napoleon
there were many Jews ; and at Leipsic they fought side
by side with their Christian countrymen for their com-
mon liberties. He had been intOrmed, that even in our
own Canada, they had, in times of rebellion, rallied round
the British standard, without exhibiting any horror of
the emblem which it bore.—(llsar, hear.) It had been
rightly observed, in the course of the debate, that this
country stood in a singularly proud position. Ours
might he said to be the only Legislature in the civilised
world in which questions of importance could be fairly
discussed without any undue pres Sure from external in-
fleence. He would go farther and say that their decision
of that night would most probably affect the condition
of the Jews all over Europe.—(Haar, hear.) Some
Continental Governments might be considered to have
advanced beyond us in liberality, but others, he regretted
to say, had treated the Jews with harshness. Their
Lordships could not read such Governments a better
homily than bypassing the Bill which had been presented
to them that evening.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY—I should have been well satisfied,
my Lords, to leave the decision of this question to the
able, to the powerful, to the eloquent, and to the hitherto
unanswerable speech of the Right Rev. Prelate.—(Hear,
hear)—but I feet it imperative upon me not to give a
silent vote upon a question upon which the discussion
has been exhausted; upon which I can offer nothing
new to your Lordships, and on which it would be in-
excusable for any length of time to trespass upon your
patience. I think that your Lordships should at once
reject this Bill. Noble Lords, in the course of this dis-
cussion, have laid much stress upon a doctrine which I
rejoice to hear repudiated by my Noble Friend, the
Noble Earl who has just sat down, viz., the free exer-
cise of your judgment on this subject, and that the re-
jection of this Bill would be duly and properly stig-
matized as a measure of persecution ; and yet I could
not fail to be
.struck with the apparent inconsistency
of the argument, because the declaration was imme-
diately preceded by the expression, as the ground of
my Noble Friend's vote in favour of this Bill, that
he thought your Lordship's conduct on this occasion
must materially influence the conduct of other states
with regard to what is properly and appropriately called
the Jewish nation; mid yet, if that nation, says the
Noble Lord. in other parts of the world, is subjected to
grievous persecution and the greatest possible hardship.
I shall endeavour to show by my vote this night that the
English Parliament is wholly free from this spirit of
persecution. My Lords, if the vote given to-night,
whether in favour of this Bill or against it, be no indi-
cation of a persecuting spirit, I am at a loss to under-
stand how the Noble Lord reconciles these two conflict-
ing arguments, and how his vote one way or the other
can mark the hostility of this country to the persecution
of the Jews. To the law in its fullest extent, on 'the
ground of religious opinion, I am as much opposed as
the Noble Lord; but the question on which I draw the
main distinction is this, that the protection of the law
and the enjoyment of property is one thing, and to de-
prive a man of that protection, on the ground of reli-
gious opinion, is persecution. The privilege of enacting
the laws of the country is not a right, but a privilege—a
privilege, the absence of which is no persecution, no
punishment, no penalty—the possession of which the
Legislature has at all times maintained the right of
hedging round with such conditions as it felt were for the
benefit of the country. I must say that I heard with
some surprise the historical summary with which the
Noble Marquis commenced his speech. the inference to
be deduced from which was, that for the first time in the
reign of Elizabeth this intolerant exclusion of the Jews
took place. The Noble Marquis distinctly stated that it
was not till the time of Elizabeth that this exclusive
system on the ground of religion first commenced; and
that when it first commenced it had no reference to the
Jews. Let me remind your Lordships, that until a
recent period previous to the reign of Elizabeth, the
subject was not only excluded on account of religious
belief, but uniformity of religious opinion was enforced
by stringent penalties. So far from the Jews having a
right to sit in the Legislature, the Jew had not a right
to set his foot on British soil. Then the Noble Marquis
says that the statutes were directed against the only
class of nonconformists of those days, the Popish recu-
sants, and had nothing to do with the Jews; and then
the N..ble Marquis goes to the times of William and
Mary, and says that for thirteen years during that time
there was no legal obstacle to the Jew—there were no
terms in the oath, "on the faith of a Chi istian," during
those thirteen years, but there was no power fur a Jew
to obtain naturalization.
Lord CAMPBELL—It was not needed if he were born
in England.
Lord STANLEY—Was there any power for a Jew to
hold freehold property, and have a freehold qualification
by which he could be admitted to sit in Varliament?
Was not the oath, such as it was, administered to every
person upon the new test, and although there was that
absolute and legal impediment, the Noble Marquis tells
your Lordships that for these thirteen years there was a
happy removal of the intolerance preventing Jews sitting
in Parliament? To talk about the Jews sitting in Par-
liament in the time of William and Mary is to argue on
a case which is absolutely impossible to arrive; because,
if in those days a Jew presumed to offer himself as a can-
didate for the representation of any city or town in
England, he might have got through the first sentence,
but he would nut have been heard through a second. I
will not detain your Lordships by entering on the his-
toric points, but that which I desire to lay stress upon
is, that it is the privilege of sitting in Parliament and
legislating, and not the right, to which every person:ls
entitled. It is a privilege which the State confers
on those persons who are properly qualified. Then
comes the question, what are the proper qualifications
for the Legislature in a Christian subject ? If it be
true that there is an inherent right to which every
British subject is entitled, what becomes of your pecu-
niary qualification ? Whet becomes of your law by
which you require that a person shall be of a certain
age ? What oecoases of the right by which you exclude
women from voting ? Why is it that, with the excep-
tion of theßightßeverendßench, who are, be it observ: d,
in this House, and hold their seats in it because this is a

Christian assembly—(ilear, hear)—why, with that ex-
ception, is every clergyman of the Church of England
debarred from a seat in the House ? I ask, why ? be

cause it is supposed that the woman, the minor, are p.2.r-
-sons not having a certain pecuniary qualification. I ad.
init that that pecuniary qualification is an arbitrary one.
I take it upon this principle, that persons who have such
a pecuniary qualification, have such a stake anti in-
terest in the country, or are likely to have received
such an education as to enable them to give
a free and independent and deliberate and
conscientious sensible verdict with regard to
the election of Members of Parliament. Then
suppose you contend that this right is inherent in every
British subject—has not every one of these a right to
challenge your qualification and your restriction as an
act of punishment, according to the Noble Viscount—
as an act of persecution, according to other Noble Lords
—or a remnant, according to the Noble Earl on the
cross benches, of an exploded system of persecution ?
Has he not a right to say, I sin a British subject—
loyal, peaceable, well disposed, of a good moral charac-
ter? Not a man will say a word against me in my neigh-
bourhood. I bear the highest character for loyalty and
temperance, but I am debarred by the persecut-
ing law, which says that unless I possess a
certain pecuniary qualification, not only I shall
not have a seat in Parliament, but I shall not have a
right to vote. The qualification is imposed for the sup-
posed good of the country. No one ditiputes the right
of the Legislature to make the qualification. Is it a
greater disqualification in a Christian assembly and a
Christian country—in a coutry in which the law rests on
the basis of Christianity—in which Christianity is part
and parcel ot the law of the realm—is it a greater or a
less disqualification to say, " I hare nut a freehold es-
tate of 501. or 1001. a year ;" or as a Jew, " I repudiate
all that you hold most holy ; I abhor that which you
worship ; I reject all to which you look up with reve-
rence and veneration ; and, as a sincere Jew, my desire
must be to see your blasphemous religion trodden in the
dust ?" I care not what may be the professions ot the
nominal Jew or those nominal Christians to whom their
religious opinions are like garments, which they can put
on or take off at pleasure, but in which the eeart and
conscience, and judgment, have no part. Although
I admit there is much in Judaism in common with
Christianity—although I admit that the law was
our schoolmaster, yet whilst I admit there
law ereiasumdutchhe
in common in the precepts of the Mosaic
Divine precepts of
committed
and punished with the greatest severity
law of
the Gospel, yet I cannot forget
that of all the crimes capable of being
y:sotet the d
( rim being
Aeiwu
jhpieoc
whn
tAI
eo s
feoso,
itnhga to of f
aann attemptet oGpoudt,
y
was visited with the greatest severity.
awnLerthe
must believe even the second person of the blessed
convicted malefactor, and justly con
Trinity to be a
defnned by the law of an offended country. I lock with
veneration to the great attachment oftheJews to their
the educated
religion, they having beer', for many centuries thel
depo-
sitories of the Word of 'Truth. believe
Jew to be a man honouratile, conscientious, charitable,
well disposed, and loyal, but I cannot place the Jew,
either with regard to uts religious belief or with re;sard
to his social condition, on the footing of any denomina-
tion of Christians, nor can I place him on the footing of
other British subjects. It has been attempted to be ar-
o'ued that you have cut away the argument against the
admission of the Jews by the admission of other sects
into Parliament, and some Noble Lords have splice
about the ambiguity of Christianity itself, and have re
ferred particulary to the admission of Unitarians. Now,
lay Lords, I have very great doubts about the accuracy
of ther faith, I do nut understand their reading of the
Scripture, I cannot comprehend the interpretation
which I believe they put
.upon the Scriptures;
but this I 'mow, that if you were to tell a Uni-

•--
tarian that he was not a Christian, he would s
once, and most vehemently, repudiate that asSeTtion.
would say, though he is not convinced of the divinlll
sentucipoosl
trlho
,m?
anis
lit
with God.
teh
raelvteehvaaeltetelnieeweol:
of the Saviour, yet that he looks upon him as a creature
etel'ors
and that hi them he, as you, finds the guide of his eelt.
duct here, and places his belief and his hopes of salvation
sre
edc
ae
nev
fee
is
3G, theod d o tr
!bratin e
hereafter.—(Hear, hear.) I remember well when
discussion took place some years ago relative to the
admission of Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament;
some of the pow( rful arguments used by my weenie('
friend, the late Sir George Murray, who hen not long
less than your oven;
returned from the command of many hundred leen.
He said, speaking of the Roman Catholic and the
Protestant, " True it is that in minor points, and °-
some not unimportant, they differ from you ;
they superadd to the Scriptures what you do not believe,
but look upon as vim imaginings appended by Wan to
the revealed Word of God. Yet, remember, that Pr:,.
testants and Catholics, when they go into the service e!
the same country, are subjected to the same danger, stle
are, perhaps, fated to tall under the same bulle!
they go in the same belie f of the same Saviour, in the
same csnfidence in the same God, in the same belieffent
true that
all the fundamental principles of their religion; and 1 0
be the will of God that there and then they and Yor
should die together, they and you both look for the to:
giveness of s our sees, an i the recepion of your 3011
into immortality to the same Redeemer."—(fleer, herog,
In those sentiments every denomination of Christts
concurs; yet those are the men whom the Right
Prelate in this House tells you you must place upon nil;
same footing with the unbelieving Jew. I had elrae°,„
forgotten to observe teat the Noble Marquis at the ce•-:
mencement of his speech did me the honour to refer to:
vote which I gave iu 1830, in favour of the second reafd
fig of a Bill for the removal of Jewish disabilities; %Pie
because, torsooth, this Bill bears the same title, the 14°,0
Marquis attempts, by implication, to fix upon ine Jte,
charge of tergiversation for opposing this n 3
were,
The Noble Mat quis did not tell your Lordships,hnwe',
that at that time no Jew could hold real prop Jew
that no Jew could act as a magistrate—that no eiew
could take port in municipel councils- that no Jost
could take any participation whatever, even in tb,etie
ordinury transactions of domestic life. From al"06
disabilities I rejoice that the Jews are now freed. The
Noble Marquis might not have gone so far back 153 er
year 1830 ; he might have traced me up to 184,
1814, when I voted in support of the Bill introduce(' wit';
my Noble and Learned Friend, the then Lord Cbsi•
cellor, for the removal of ail the remaining disabilitlo.
of the Jews, so far as their civil and social condition wee;
concerned. But in that Bill there was no atteniPto:o
was there any question raised; on the contrerY, it e
admitted that the concession of all those civil a
end sods
rights gave no claim fur admission into your Lordsl4
House.—(Hear, hear).
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE—I alluded to
first Bill.
Lord STANLEY continued—lt is of little clster
quence. I only refer to it now because I desire sighed
and to impress upon your Lordships r.°
the distinction between the grantin of all social rigor
and the performance of all public duties under the fos
trol of the law, in which no doubt the Jew will Per •010
his duty as well as the Christian, and the right Per
14
in making the laws in which the Jew is not futreo,
if
anything but his own conscience, and that coescie°o-er
it be worth anything, must lead him to VOW ftir 0010
sures hostile to the established religion of this Newel
and to Christianity itself.—(Hear, hear.) . I bee bar
it said that a great constituency has returned a Dittes°,3olo
of the Jewish persuasion to Parliament, and t Os'
Legislature ought not to resist the wishes of tbeeeetose
Ido not, in the first place, admit that in all cskiesord
stances and at all times the particular constituen'erollf
the best judges of the candidates; who cs:l,
leaf
best represent their proper interests. Sl'oesti"
am I convinced of the right of its't
tuency whatever—be it the least or the reloss (1:
portant in the country—to fly in the face of teeptepee;
the country, and to elect a person to sit in Pah 'hese
who is disqualified by the law from taking his srsraleil'
to insist upon it that Parliament should the nee;Deeri.te
and that such a person should have a seat in ,tet, th't
lature.—(Hear, hear.) I must say lily oPi°'°„
if the argument tells upon the question in 011-.0 ts_i
the other, it tells rather as an argument egecl elect',"
adoption of this Bill. If the city of London 114 beet
a pauper or a minor, or a female to represent 10retet
Parliament, would it for a single moment be gy
that that pauper, or minor, or female, should sPoP 101
the bar of the House, and claim the right to tselloreie
her seat, because the city of London had 11:,
tsl
its choice, and knowing much better than t"" ester
ture as a body what was good for its own inteh-or.)
thought fit to return such a person?—(llearh'it,-1, Olt;
am quite sure that that is an argument w'rbetrt-e,
hold tur a single moment. But then I content' 1' cocaine
tically the Jews of this country are not of Ole
but are a nation apart. As temporary sojournerspaililio
this country they are entitled to toe berg
and to the protection of this country; but t":eYiGerisof
special British interests, any more than sPee'tliteso,,.l
interests, or special French interests. The). oes' )
interests of the Jews at heart, not British inc, beihro.
and, ebove all, nut Christian interests.--(1-11be er:lse
Now, I want to ask any Noble Friend on the
benches how his argument, with regard to the et, ifr,
or Jews into the other House of radial: 00 So
apply to your Lordships' House. SuPrseeitisl 0,
thought convenient or desirable that that nil ideedett•
English barony,
has been returned to represent the vita' 1" es (i.
should be allowed to chase his foreign tit..ey ct,:;f
stituency, the Qauieldent,haatctwinigtghouuptornettelrieeucivii°l-I;°(fitiPtiail
Prime Minister, bad thought fit to grant hitiest
barony, how would my Noble Friend's argn'-henelen'
then ? Neither in name, nor in title, nor, -be e°-eld
undivided interests, is Baron Rothschild stsee;
dered as an English citizen ; and 1 confeegveislyet.
regret to see him introduced into Yourteny
ideorenowtidt,ln3t,htehafrtet
Houee, for I think it would Water; beeri, for
endue) m
Actso r
wh discussion:ten hav—e (ble107:!:del, jai;
admitting Dissenters into Parliament, he' (1'
11,
cious as they are, have in some degree ut 6;011°,0
right of speaking, in both Houses, upon su"'"0301-0.
terest to religion. When the Legislature beetle free 0,
the decision that all are equally entitled to !i.e.
pression of their opinions in this slid the nitro", by ley ;0
every man feels there is a check put upon b by 011;1i'
nation, by general feeling, and still more,
otl or oss
take care that he says nothing, in 5 who®Per3e shpt
gious sense, hostile to the feelings of those
eif. Aco
has put upon a footing of euality with hin!,teee to 100,
the Jew; and are we not, hen,
to be perm" to Or et
e eov
our veneration fbr Christianity? Are w hose air
our determination to uphold the Christian co cover of
the Legislature of this country? Yet h° cherectriteo
don in terms! To uphold the Christian,
.et 0044
your legislators and of your legislation, an° Yegery:rest
one of your co-legislators a person to who l:.° ui re"
spoken in favour of Christianity is with is
affront and offence, and whose Wl° • itl 'lO
4braermd be ▪ 1 cif
p•-
ghttoto ebveeararehnirpigon in which
to the views of the majority! Ido hot "peertour " re'
mediate danger from the admission of thre_
10'014
Jews into either House of Parliament. I d?trordin to
bend the least danger unless, under very e
sel ta part to
circumstances, it is possible for a very H;erigi the
turn a nicely balanced scale, and so give ",..11114,5t iseoe
Minister. But, on the other band, I as" ioe of 11
two or three rich Jews into the Legisiaturcitho 04,113'00
great object you have to gain in the adruis„
the advantage for which you are to set asidt,ill eon°. of
has been for centuries, and which I tresti"egi,astie"ols
to be for centuries, the principle 'Of the etiaelts'
this country, namely, its being based eV f the rer
conducive to the support and maintenance °tl
oe of hPig
tiara religion?—(Cheers.) This great quse,e_ea.
ciple lies, as has been well said, in anu The vet
a question not of detail, but of principle. tebie'sail
you, my Lords, have to solve this nigh,wheoer
trust you will solve in the affiroaative—is,. char set
will or will not maintain the. Christien 4,1 1
_it
of this and the other House of feririrb; Oleewed
whether you will, by flying in the face o oso to
and deliberate judgment of the countryseritiees_e,
by the comparatively small number helpms chst:ol
r- er J
favour of this measure, repudiate that sewhew .0,
ter. The question you have to decide liss_ inretei?t'
will leave toe country at large to draw trvoose iZeir
which they cannot fail to draw—that thisi:e of CP.IOO
different to the prole,sion or nou-proteseni.u_noilf..l•ol
tianity.—(Hear, hear.) By so doing, if utildiTrilltbe
should be the course your Lordship 3
reduceshould epo_eet
to take this night, believe me you will Pabove ialtio
minds of the people of this country, and,„ edeg, aneieeh
the minds of the soundest, the must !elle feellng "Olt.
an d°ol
will alienate their hearts from the Leg's! he tbi, cos)
most religious portion of this commenitYeetlere,
elteve,
that confidence which in the main, I u gear, helieituis
places in the Houses of Parliamente---e(i
selase govj
rejoiced to hear, in the speech of th .0e• with se. 004
that he has no inconsiderable apprehensi bt metedol,
tbe
to the result of this discussion. He th,nuelirejt,
proper to warn your Lordships that if Tod sgeioblos
Bid to-night, the question would al;' of lbedeb°ls
brought before you. I hail that declare this
Marquis as an indication of his feeling
of
will not decide the question in favour• to Ord
again and again it will have to be
TUTUSt l°ll. II
Lordships' consideration ; and, if so, • / belie f% oo
ships will act in accordance with villa" and gel
, the
the general feeling of this great country
a- 11,
again reject the tueasure.—(Loud cheeraq sloes ai
Lord BROUGHAM congratulated Poe h"-^to bee ad
temperate manner in which this quesAttlet°tieguishe.uris
cussed by all its Members except The bitter 5P1,0 61;
pant of the Right Rev. Bench. jreilite whufroes •
not proceeded from the Most Rev• er b. but'
represented the intesests of the Chnre °oh
a hie °,PP f the P
Right Rev. Prelate who had base
te es
slanders which had appeared in
sly bee'
papers. Certain attacks on the rTandee•
ou•oi t
ito
°nit, ister'
peering in those papers, bad been hsd 116 0; tr.
he would say falsely used.—cchear,:./o,nate.,,. and but that a Right Reverend Preletf vons, vie eJlest
that the Bill before their .Lordshin..u.t4, net:0001w
set on foot in the city of London. -L.
letterp care re
child. There was the Noble
thLe Doceso idst:
of
L Jehn Russell owed his election
cf:3s the 13f4ire%talile°
Baron it
0, .ee soi
cod °lion
prove it. But it Nast rue that_nthiNsZbore
lettatiollot to
ell col wet betitio%
awoads
it
tuweahs
ohnujtuyreienl by
his partisans, that Lord John t 3
withdraw himself from the contes •
toti'o ~y
$Ol7O Pia
Prelate Inenn e led ( he
that tha Right Rev. he had be bite bee -
malignant, but he thought behto3 ore t
the cheers from the benches ,A _,„
• incautiouslyyen sap„ 01_
quenceitust se
Broughain), and had itic Bute bout roper.
all that the Right Rev. Prelate ,0 the.iseit; thrigho
intended.—(Cheers and laughter.) said 00.!
esure /ore 11:41
motives, still it was SO good S. el ow
were true,
thing could injure it, and he en
supposing it origin
in h