The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

were so anxious, and for the extension of which the) -
professed en much to desires—(llear, hear.)
Mr. BA NKES said that while he did not claim for
himself or those with whom he acted on this questior
any monopoly of true religious feeling, he dirt
claimed the application to them of the terms
bigots and barbarians Notwithstanding that
the Honourable and Learned Member fur South-
ampton (Mr. Cockburn) had bestowed so much
historical and legal lore on this question, he (Mr.
Bankes) must say that his research did not bear upon.
the subject, and that his speech, able and eloquent as it
hail been, afforded no answer to that of the Honourable
and Learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole).
which on a former evening made an impression on the
House which would not easily be obliterated.—(Hear,
hear,) The Honourable and Learned Member who had
just spoken had inquired what dangers would arise from
the proposed concession to the Jewish people. He (Mr.
Bankes) at once replied, that from them dangers would
arise in the Church itself, and that dangers from with-
out the pale of that Church would follow.—(Hear,
hear.) Before he showed these results, he must ob-
serve that the Honourable Member for Lambeth (Mr.
Charles Pearson) had stated that a Jew having been
elected a Member of that House by 7,000 of his
fellow-citizens, he claimed the rights to which that
election entitled him, and the Hon. Member proceeded
to say that, as no statute law excluded the Jew, he was
dishonoured by the refusal of admission within the walls
of Parliamont. It was true that there was no statute
law to exclude the Jew, but it was equally true that the
only class excluded by name and by profession were the
clergy of the Church of England. If their exclusion
was dishonour, as had been contended, then were the
reverend members of the Established Church dis-
honoured as well as the members of the Jewish faith.
He (Mr. Bankes) had not had an opportunity of voting
on the questions which gave facilities to persons of the
Jewish persuasion for attaining the civil distinctions
which the offices of alderman, sheriff, or magistrate,
conferred, but he confessed that he did not object to the
grants of those powers of a ministerial character, but that
was very different from their admission to legislative
powers. Still he thought the arguments which had been
raised from those concessions forced upon the House the
necessity of cautiously watching every step tending ine-
vitably to lead to further concessions. He believed that
those who had agreed to the concessions already made
had never entertained a supposition that they would be
charged with being bigots and barbarians if they refusd
to proceed further.—(Hear, hear.) To return, however,
to the dangers to be apprehended from the measure now
under consideration. He had already said that it was
fraught with daeger within the Church itself. The
danger was of this nature. There had been circulated
within the last few days a reprint of a very important
speech of a most reverend pralate—still a dignitary of
the Church—the present Archbishop of Dublin. It was
obvious that those who entertained views in accordance
with those stated by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Southampton (Mr. Cockburn) considered this speech
a very valuable document, or they would not
have reprinted it and circulated it generally,
Able as the speech was, it carried a warning to those
who belonged to the Church, and ought to open their
eyes to the dangers which were hanging over them.
The Archbishop of Dublin then supported the measure,
and it was to be presumed that he did so still. On the
occasion when the speech was delivered, the Right Rev.
Prelate said, " I will say nothing on the political part of
the question, because I consider it desirable to avoid
as far as possible touching upon politics; but the second
part of the question is of a religious nature. It has been
urged that persons who not only do not acknowledge,
but who renounce, deny, and even vituperate the great
author of the Christian religion, ought not to have a
voice in the Legislature of a Christian coantry. On this
point there arises a question, which I own I find it very
difficult to answer." And what was the answer given
by the Right Rev. Prelate to that difficult question? Ile
said, " I admit that the Jews ought not to have legisla-
tive powers with regard to matters regulating or
affecting the Christian Protestant Church, but I also
think there is an incongruity in admitting any one,
whether Christian or not, to have a share in affairs
strictly ecclesiastical, or in the government of the
Church, and I take this opportunity of declaring my
opinion on that point to be that the !array ecclesiastical
concerns of the Church, apart from secular matters,
ought to be entrusted to some persons, whether called
Commissioners or by any other name, to be expressly
appointed for that purpose, they being members of the
Church." Thus,- the 'Right Rev. Prolate would with-
dras from this and the other House of Parliament every
motion relating to the Church, and 'this he would do as
a necessary consequence upon admitting' Jews to seats
in Parliantent.—(Hear, hear.) Was the House prepared
to adopt this preliminary stipulation for further ounces
sions—a stipulation which formed one of the charge,
brought against Jaracs 11., and was declared by the Bill
of Rights to be illegal and pernicious? This was then a
part of the danger and mischief to be apprehended from
the proposition now under the consideration of the
House. A schism within the Church was more fearful
than anything that could result from the admission of a
few Jews into that House. He spoke not as a tractarian
or retractarian ; he presumed not to give an opinion on
such delicate points but the House freeing that they
might encourage schisms such as had arisen in the Church
from a recent unhappy appointment, made by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, ought to pause in
its course. He understood that the Right Hon. Gentle
man the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr.
Gladstone), on a former evening, had incidentally
touched upon a point which he (Mr. Bankes) considered
to be of the highest importance, but so slightly and deli-
cately as to render it difficult to understand his Right
Hon. Friend's meaning. His Right Hon. Friend had
alluded to the petition from Archdeacon Wilberforce,
who took the same grounds as those adopted ten years
before by the Archbishop of Dublin. True, his Right
Hon. Friend said he did not go the length ;of agreeing
with Archdeacon Wilberforce as to the appointment of
a commission to deal with all ecclesiastical matters, yet
he could not hesitate to say that the general course of
events and the objects now proposed greatly increased
the degree of delicacy which applied to the Established
Church. These were very ambiguous phrases, and he
tausted that his Right lion. Friend would explain his
very delicate speech, which nobody had plainly under•
stood. When they recollected that ministries had been
kept in their Places by majorities of three or four, it
should not be said that the admission of four or five
Jews could be of little importance. The Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth had not yet declared
why he had changed his opinions with respect to this
question. The speech which that Right Hon. Gentleman
made in 1830 on this very subject appeared to him most
convincing, and he did not believe that any one but the
Hight Hon. Gentleman himself could answer it. If
they made this concession to the Jews, they could not
stop there.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped the
House would pause before they consented to the second
reading.—(Hear.)

Sir K. PEEL Chen rose and addressed the House. It
was with great reluctance (said the Right lion. Baronet)
that I gave a silent vote on the first occasion when this
matter was brought under our consideration ; but the
peculiar circumstances under which that debate closed,
so immediately before the Christmas recess, and my
unwillingness to incur the risk of preventing the House
coming to some conclusion on the question, induced me
on that occasion to be silent. I now wish to state the
grounds on which I have come to a conclusion at vari-
ance certainly with first impressions—(Hear,hear)—and
which places me in painful collision with many with
whom I have almost invariably acted—with sonic of
whom I never, to the best of my recollection, on any
former occasion of equal importance have had the pain
to have differed--at any rate, ever recollect to have
given a vote to oppose. I can say with truth that I have
given this subject the fullest and best consideration, and
I will state the grounds on which I have come to the
conclusion that this Bill ought to pass. No part of the
resolution to which this conviction has led me has been

influenced by an opinion that religion is a matter of in

difference.—(Hear.) I am deeply impressed with the
conviction that it is our paramount duty to promote the
interests of religion, and its influence on the human
mind.—(Hear.) I am impressed with the conviction
that the precepts and doctrines of Christianity ought
to influence our deliberations.—(Hear, hear.) I am
impressed with the belief that if our legislation be at
variance with the precepts and spirit of Christianity,
we cannot expect the blessing of God upon them ; and
I say this, that whether it be right or whether it be
wrong, my decision this night is influenced much less
from consideratio►► of political expediency than from a
deep sense of religious obligation.—(Cheers.) I coin-
induce by stating that in my opinion there is between
the tenets of the Jews and of the Christians an im-
portant and vital difference.—(Hear, hear.) In my
opinio:i, the religion of the Christians and the religion
of the Jews are more opposed, iu essentials, than any
other two religions that exist ; for between those two
religions there is a complete antagonism. I do not
consider the concurrence of the Jews with the Christians
in recognising the historical truths and Divine moralities
of the Old Testament is sufficient to overcome that

essential difference, or that it can reconcile the religion
of the Jews with Christians, seeing that they reject
those doctrines which constitute the vital principle
and foundation of Christianity. I admit at ()nee
that there is a concurrence between the Christians
and the Jews so far as the Divine teachings and
revelations contained in the Old Testament are recog-
nised by both;. and I say this, that if I had any authority
to determine what was religious error, and if I had a
commission to punish religious error—in that case, were
my power exercised at all, it would be exercised in
punishing the Jews But I have no such commission.—
( Hear, hear.) If the Jews did commit an inexpiable
crime some two thousand years ago, I have had no com-
mission given to me—even if I could determine who
were the descendants of the persons guilty of that crime
—I have no such awful power, as I believe it to be, to
punish the sins of the fathers upon the children not unto
the third or fourth generation, but unto the three hun-
dredth or four hundredth generation. " Vengeance is
mine; I will repay, said' the Lord." I have, therefore,
neither the duty nor the authority to punish religious
error. I maintain this, that the House of Commons has no
right, for mere religious error, to inflict a penalty.—
(Hear, hear.) I consider a civil disability to partake of
the nature and character. of a penalty. I speak of pure re-
ligious error. t you can infer from that religious error
dangerous political opinions, and if you have no other
muds ofdetermining what the political opinions of a
party are except by the administration of a test for the
purpose of ascertaining what are his religious opir 99is
9
in that case you possibly have a right to impose a restric-
tion. In the case of the I.oirian Catholic you did not
exclude Min because he maintained the doctrine of tran-
substantiatiation, but because you thought he was a dan
gerous subject in consequence of his acknowledging the
supremacy of a foreign power. You excluded him trom
political power because you believed he would abuse it
when he p.osseased it ; but though he maintained reli.-
gious errors, you did did not inflict civil disability. It'
you can show, in this caw, that the maintenance of cer-