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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1845:

of allegiance, supremacy, or abjuration, would, un-
less ho were a Roman Catholic, become a Popish re-
cusant convict, and subject to all the pains of Popish
recusaney ; and then the House would be entitled to un-
seat and declare inelieible both Baron Rothschild and any
other Honourable Member who professes the Jewish
r 011.,.. The queetien is, therefore, between the Bill of
the Noble Lord and a Bill to extend the provisions of the
30th Charles 11., st. 2. Now, will any one of the Ho-
nourable Gentlemen opposite undertake to bring in such
a Bill ? If not, I appeal to them as practical men
whether they ought not to agree to the Bill of the Noble
Lord as the only practicable means of relieving the
Ilouce from the dilemma in which it is placed by the
state of the law, and by the election ef Baron Roths-
child. Now the object of the Bill of the Noble Lord is
merely to make such an alteration in the form, not in the
substance, of the oath of abjuration (by ()pitting the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian"), as shall
enable an Honourable Gentleman who professes the
Jewish religion to take that oath.—(llear.) Now, what
objection can be made to the proposed alteration ? No
one can assert that the oath of abjuration was originally
intended as a religious test. The only one of the
three oaths which had the character of a religious
test was the oath of supremacy. And that oath
was directed against the Papists, who were the
only religious sect of whom our aecoetors entertained
any apprehension. On the contrary, the oath of
abjuration was directed, no- eneinet the Papists, nor any
eelmer religion, but against tee adherents of the Preten-
der—(Hear, hear)—to whatever sect they might belong
—(Hear, hear)—and the words " on the true fuith of a
Christian" were employed merely to give additional
force to the oath, of abjuration.—(llear, hear.) It is
easy to prove this position, that the object of the
Legislature was merely to secure the Haeoverien suc-
cession by the strongest oath it could devise, and not to
create a religious test. For whenever the words in
question, by acting as a religious test, were found prac-
tically to prevent a person from taking the oath of
abjuration, then the Legislature interfered and sanc-
tioned the omission of those words. For instance, in
• the year 1722, an Act was passed which required that
ail persons of the age of eighteen and upwards who had
not previously taken the three oaths, should take them
before the 25th of December, 1723. Before that
period arrived another Act was passed (10 George
1., cap. 4), which contained a clause to the effect
that whenever any person professing the Jewish
religion shall present himself to take the oath
of abjuration in pursuance of the Act of 1722, then the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian" shall to
' omitted out of the said oath in administering the•ssame
to such person. I find likewise a similar chime in an
Act of 1740 (13 George 11., cap. 7, sec. 3), which was
passed for the purpose of naturalising persons settled in
the colonies, and which Act required that all such per-
sons should take the three oaths. These two Acts,
therefore, prove that it was the intention of the Legielas
sure not in any way to create a religious test by means
of the oath of abjuration, but only to secure the Hano-
verian succession by requiring its subjects to take the
strongest oath it could devise. Consistently with this
intention, whenever the Legislature found that practical
inconvenience was likely to ensue from the wording of
the oath of abjuration, and that persons who
ought to take that oath would be prevented from so
doing by the words " on the true faith of a
Christian," then the Legislature interfered and sanc-
tioned the omission of those words. Now, for the first
time, the case has arisen that ita Honomirable Gentle-
man has been elected Member of this House who
professes the Jewish religion, and who cannot,
therefore, take the oath of abjuration in the ordinary
form. Parliament ought, therefore, in accordance with
the undeniable precedents which I have quoted, to in-
terfere, and it ought to enact in this case, as it did in
1723 and 1740, that when any person professing the
Jewish religion shall present himself to take the oath of
abjuration, then the words " upon the true faith of a
Christian" shall be omitted out of the said oath in ad-
ministering the same.—(llear, hear.) And such is the
object of the Bill of the Noble Lord. I do not, however,
mean to assert that the question under the consideration
of the House is to be settled by mere precedents. For
it is in fact a question between two great principles that
have battled against each other since the commence•
ment of civilisation.. On the one side is the principle of
religious equality ; on the other the antagonist principle,
that the State is competent to determine, and ought to
determine, what religion is the true religion. Now this
doctrine of the religious infallibility of the State has
been iu all ages, and among all people, the plea for the
crimes of intolerance and persecution. Under that plea
Socrates was put to death and the Saviour was cruci-
fied. Under that plea the Pagan emperors immo-
lated the early Christians, the Albigenses were
• slaughtered, and our own fires were lighted in Smith-
field.—(Hear, hoar.) Under that plea Catholics burnt
Protestants, Protestants burnt Catholics, Calvin kindled
the faggot of Servetus with the approbation of blelanc-
then. Even the pilgrim fathers of New England were
persecutors, and hung Quakers on the gibbets of Massa-
chussetts.—(Hear, hear.) Under the same plea in
modern times we excluded Dissenters from our corpora-
tions and Catholics from Parliament. And for the same
reasons Jews are now refused a scat in the British House
of Commons. But religious liberty has triumphed over
the rude bigotry of antiquity and the cruel! persecutions
of our forefathers. It will ultimately achieve a victory
over the milder intolerance of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
—(Cheers.) The result will be, peace and goodwill among
men of every faith who ere subjects of the British em-
pire. In legislating on this question, let us remember
that we are not merely the representatives of the people
of this small island, which is inhabited by men of one
race, one language, and one religion; but we are rulers
over a mighty empire, over millions on millions of hit-
man beings of every race, every language, and every
religion ; and we are likewise the parent stock whence
in future ages still mightier empires may spring.—
(Cheers.) In the eminent position that we have attained
through the energy of our forefathers and of ourselves,
famed as we are throughout the world for sagacity,
prudence, and forethought, our practical decisions on the
great questions that affect the interests of the human
race are watched with intense anxiety by all intelligent
and reflecting men. Every onward step that England
takes is a step in the civilization of the world ; and the
policy of England will gradually become the policy of
all enlightened nations. Now, twice, of late years, we
have rendered noble service to our fellow-beings—twice
well deserved the thanks of mankind for the example we
have set to the other rulers of the earth. First, when
we freed our negro slaves, and proclaimed that to hold
men in bondage was inexpedient, unholy, and unjust.
Secondly, when we removed restrictions on commercial
intercourse, broke clown the barriers that had long
separated neighbouring states, and bound together
hitherto hostile communities by the strong ties of mutual
interest, which are by far the most potent securities
against the hideous calamities of war. New, Sir,
to the principles of civil liberty and commercial
freedom let us join in the government of this empire the
third great principle, of religious equality.—(Loud
cheers.) Now is the time—now that the electors of
London, the wealthy and energetic citizens of this com-
mercial metropolis of the universe, have chosen as their
representative a gentleman professing the Jewish faith;
and let me remark that wherever Jews are to be found
despised, persecuted, and oppressed, in Germany or
Poland, in Russ is or Asia Minor, there the result of
this election for the city of London has been hailed by
them with joy and exultation, as elevating them to the
social state, and putting them on an equality with their
fellow-men ; for admission into the British House of
Commons is justly considered to be a mark of higher
distinction to their race than any title or honour that
monarchs can bestow. Now let us confirm this decision
of our foremost citizens. Now is the time to declare
that as legislators we have no business with articles of
faith, that our laws should be silent on all questions of
religion, and that as the adherents of every creed are to
be found among the subjects of the British empire,
adding to its wealth, augmenting its resources, and in-
creasing its power, so they should all possess tho same
civil rights and privileges as citizens. And thus let us
sweep away the last relics of the ancient reign of imbe-
cile
bigotry and intolerance in its dotage.—(The Hon.
Baronet resumed his seat amid loud cheering.)
Mr. H. S. WALPOLE thought that the reasons for
admitting the Jews to Parliament did not predominate
over the arguments against the measure. The problem
they had now to solve was, whether a country ought or
ought not to be governed by those who professed its
national religion. Christianity was a fundamental law
in the constitution of our state ; and if that were so,
such a law never should bo altered, except at the desire
of a very large majority of the people, and unless their own
wisdom deliberately approved the change. _Had religion
nothing to do with the affairs of a legislature? Why the
very writ under which they were summoned desired their
attendance to advise her Majesty on the religion of the
realm. Hew could a Jew legislate for that religion,
when a sincere adherence to his own faith necessarily
debarred him from blending his opinions with the reli-
gion of the country? But. was it established that the
majority of the people desired the change ? Histori-
cally they never had desired that the Jews should take
a part in public affairs, and whatever society you went
into now you would find the same feeling still prevail-
ing. And this brought him back to his first proposi-
tion, that sufficiently preponderating reasons had not
been given for the al:cra:i n. It was said that they
had gone so far that they must invitably go one step
further. But the distinction between those who made
laws and those who were to execute them when
made, was broad and well defined. The executors of
the laws had only to carry out the intent of the law
makers, but the makers of the laws were guided by their
own feelings. The executor of the laws need not bo a
Christian—it sufficed that ho should be a good citizen;
but not so with the law maker. But then it was urged,
that inasmuch as you admitted a Jew to be one of time
electors, why not allow him to be one of the elected?
But that argument proceeded on the assumption that the
qualification for a franchise and the qualification for an
office were the same. But the qualification of the fran-
chise belonge:i to every man as a subject, but the office
was a matter of trust, not to be hold by right for the
benefit of the individual, but to be held by sufferance for
the benefit of the nation. The subscribers to an hospital
might all vote in the choice of a physician; but would all
the subscribers be qualified for the office? An entire
corporation might vote at the election of a town clerk;
hut they would be very much surprised to hear it urged
that they were all qualified to be town clerks. But the
strongest case of all was the case of a minister of reli-
gion. You said, " he may elect, but he shall not be
elected." Apply that case to the Jews. Both the
Christian minister and the Jew had rights that ought to be
protected, and therefore they said both may elect; but
as to their right to be elected, they said of the one that
it was not desirable he should be mixed up with tempo-
ral disputes, and of the other that it was not desirable
that he should be mixed up with a system of which he
formed
no part.—(Cheers.) But the Noble Lord oppo-
site had urged one further argument—that all who born
the burdens of a state ought to share its honours and
its privileges, The best answer to this was this very

case. If all who bore the burdens of a state were en..
titled to share its honours, why exclude the Jew from
the office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Lieutenant? Why,
there were a thousand tests of exclusion from Parlia-
ment even at the present time—the tests of age, of
sex, of property, of office, or of country. Age was
not always a disqualification. Mr. Fox sat for the
borough he (the Hon. Member) represented before he
was twenty. If another Mr. Fox were to arise. " How
hard," they might say, " to exclude him!" Property!
How many men there
.were competent to legislate in
this country, who had not sufficient estate to qualify
them for a seat in that House. Then take the case of
a naturalised alien; that individual was excluded, under
the laws, from a seat in Parliament, and yet they pro-
posed to admit a Jew, who, so far from being their own
countryman, either by birth or by law, was a native
of no country, had no land except that whereunto he
lcoleed with hope that God in his own good time would
restore him.—(Cheers.) But the next great argument
was, that this Parliament was an expansive Parliament;
that at one time it was exclusively Church of England,
but that Dissenters hud been admitted, Roman Catholics
had been admitted, and why not Jews ? True it was
that they were, in a religious point of view, a divided
people, but they were up to the present time at least a
Christian people. Their differences were in no respect
analogous to the essential differences between Judaism
and Christianity, and he thought it well worth con-
sidering whether a unity was not given them by the •
mode of life prescribes) under the New Testament, which
it was desirable at any sacrifice of feeling to preserve.
It was well worth considering, in his opinion, whether,
it' they introduced all sorts of religion into that House,
they might not give the people a notion that the State
was indifferent to questions of religion, inasmuch as
whenever they saw a novelty or change, they adopted
it without mistrust or hesitation-.—(Cheering.) He
would willingly hero conclude his observations, but as
others had introduced into the subject not merely
questions of expediency and principle, but matter of
feeling, he could not refrain from one word upon that
point also. If there were one people more than another
to whom he would extend indulgence, that people were
the Jewish people; and it was not until he hud considered
the subject well that he felt it incumbent to vote as he
propesed to vote. When he reflected on their peculiar
history—on all they had been, and on all they were-
-rich in recollections of the past, and rich also in their
anticipations of the future—and when he bore in mind,
as he was bound to bear in mind, that this people had, as
it were, the promise that at some period they would
again be the favoured people of God; when he considered
these things, he owned that he felt for the Jews so deep
a sympathy, that he would extend for them every indul
gence that a Christian member of a Christian Legisla-
ture could conscientiously extend.—(Cheers.) But be-
lieving as he did that Christianity was so interwoven
with the principles of the State. that they could not be
separated the one from the other; and fearing, as he did,
the detrimental effect of such a measure as that which
was proposed, he would not consent to destroy or weaken
that national character, based as it was upon Christian
precept, which had so greatly contributed to the moral
and political elevation of the nation. The lion, and
Learned Member concluded with expressing his convic-
tion that, as our national prosperity lay deep sunk in
our national religion, coy blow struck at our national
religion would shake the pillars of our national pros-
perity.
Mr. SHELL—If the Honourable, Learned, and ex-
ceedingly able Gentleman had been a Member of this
House of Commons in the year 1529, at the period when
the Member for Tatnworth brought on the measure of
Catholic Emancipation, I think it must strike every
Gentleman in this House that the speech which he has
just delivered would have been almost as apposite—
hear)—as it was at the present time. I do not
think that he himself, with all his habits of fine forensic
discrimination, would be able to show that he urged a
single argument which might not have been pressed in
1829. Ile referred to the writ by which we are called
together, in which special mention was made of the An-
glican Church. I will ask, is not that objection directed
against the Jews, applicable to the Unitarians, Baptists,
and Independents—(Bear, hear)—and equally so to the
religion to which I have the honour to belong ? I am
convinced that his speech, from the commencement to
the conclusion, if thoroughly sifted, would be found to
be equally applicable to that Bill to which I have
alluded, and that each of the arguments might have been
pressed with equal force, and even a great part of it
might have been made against the Bill introduced by
Lord Lyndhurst granting municipal franchise. The
Hon. Gentleman had adverted to the fact of a Jew being
admitted to the office of high sheriff. Why, it is a
fact that a Jew may empanel a jury, by which the
first Christian commoner in the land may be tried
for his life. Have you not already admitted the
Jews to power ? and the only question for you to de-
cide is, whether you will not go one step fur-
ther, and remove the only remnant of intolerance which
eppears upon the statute•book.—(Cheers.) It appears
to me, from the liability to duty the enjoyment of right
ought not to be dissociated ; and it appears to me, that
if a Jew was born in England, and was doomed to do
duty as a British subject, he ought by every right to be
entitled to the privileges of one. He does not derive
immunity from his religion, and his religion ought not,
therefore, to subject him to disqualification. I am aware
that this is only designated by the word privation—
(Hear, hear)—but between penalty and privation there
is no substantial difference. The privation of life, of
property, or of liberty, are only degrees upon the f ra-
duated scale of persecution.—(Bear, hear.) The exclu-
sion of the Jews has been designated by the phrase to
which I have referred; but I think that privation is of
a most signal character. The exclusion is commensu-
rate with the dignity and imperial ascendancy of your
body; and I think that there are many of those by
whom the Jews are opposed who ought to be the
very last to advocate such a measure ; and I
think I may speak most as a witness more
than an advocate. I am a member of a
community subject to those privations which now
affect the Jews. I will not now speak of myself, but I
will speak of one more deserving of praise. I have often
sat under the gallery of St. Stephen's, by the side of
that great man to whom my country owes her liberty. I
have sat beside him when the fortunes of my country
trembled in the balance, and too often have I seen him
repine at his exclusion from this field of intellectual
contest, until he was at last tardily admitted after much
capricious procrastination. How have I seen him chafe
at the chains that bound him down—those chains which
by an effort of gigantic :prowess ho ere long broke
asunder! Ho was at the head of millions of organized
and indissoluble men; the Jew comes here with no other
arguments than those which reason and truth provide,—
(Hear, hear.) But truth and reason are accounted
mighty; and in this great assembly, which I believe re-
presents not only the high intelligence, but the high-
mindedness of England, I am sure that reason will not
long be &baffled, and I am convinced that truth, in
the fulfilment of its august aphorism, will at lest prevail.
Sir, I think I may assume as conceded or indisputable,
that exclusion from Parliament is a great detriment. It
remains to be considered whether that great detriment
amounts to a great wrong. Nothing but necessity—the
lion. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst admits—no-
thing but necessity can justify the exclusion of a British
subject. But of necessity, of the plea of necessity, so
readily misapplied, beware I Caraffs rued it. l?ope
Paul 111. relied upon necessity when he revived, or
rather established, that celebrated tribunal for the ex-
tinction of error—(Hear, hear)—whose practices you
abhor, upon whose principles have a care lest you may
not yourselves proceed ! Necessity must, upon the
witness of your heart and conscience, to the satisfaction
of all men, be clearly made out, and you must show
that you have some palpable, some unmistakeable ground
for fear. What is it you fear ? What is the origin of
this Hebrewphobia?—(A laugh.) Do you tremble for
the Church That Church may have reason to fear,
perhaps, from eight millions of Catholics, it may have
something to dread perhaps from three millions of
Methodists, it may have something to dread from a
million and a half of Free Churchmen, it may have
something to apprehend from sectarian assault from
without, and from spurious Popery and mutiny from
within—(llear, hear)—but from the synagogue, the
neutral, the apathetic, the unproselytising spirit of
the synagogue, pervaded by the spirit of Gallic) of old,
the Church has nothing to fear.—(Hear, hear.) But it is
said that the Church will be unchristianised, and the
Hon. Gentleman, the lawyer, who apprehended so
much damage to the interests of religion, the Member
for Midhurst, again and again takes a distinction be-
tween Judaism and every other denomination of reli-
gionists. Sir, in my opinion, the Christianity of the
Parliament depends upon the Christianity of the
country.—(Hear.) I mean, by the Christianity of the
country, the belief in Christ crucified, risen from the
dead. It is secured in the faith, and inseparably in-
tertwined with the affections of the people; I think
the Christianity of the two islands as stable as the
islands themselves. And as long as the Constitution
of England stands, until the Parliament itself can
perish, as long as this mighty mirror of the nation's
mind shalt remain untarnished and unbroken, so long
the religious feelings of the people of England will and
must be for ever reflected in its surface.—(llear, hear.)
This—this is the true security fur the Christian religion
of the country, for the religion of the people, and it
affords a far better test than any that can by possi-
bility be applied by a mere phrase at which an
honest man will pause, but which the sardonic sceptic
disdainfully swallows.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.)
Repeated reference has been made in this House to the
celebrated author of " The Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire," but I think that an example still
more illustrative might have been cited. Was not Bo-
lingbroke—the fatally accomplished, the admiration of
the admirable, he to whom genius offered tributes
amounting almost to idolatrous veneration—was not Bo-
lingbroke, who united in himself all the external accem-
plishments and all the intellectual endowments requisite
for a perfect Parliamentary speaker, and who, in the in-
tercourse of private life, exercised a species of fascination
upon all those who had the misfortune to approach him
—was not Bolingbroke, the infidel Bolingbroke, a :Mem-
ber of this House I Was he stopped by the test which
arrests the Jew ? Did ho not rather tread it contemp-
tuously under foot, as he mounted to the heights of
power, and become, through the intervention of the
House of Commons, the confidential and favourite adviser
of his Sovereign ? Is it not, then, monstrous, that a man
by whom all revelation is rejected, who doubts the im-
mortality of the soul, who doubts a future state of re-
wards and. punishments, who doubts eternal Providence,
who believes in nothing, fears nothing, hopes for
nothing, who has no restraint upon brutality, and no
incentive to virtue beyond such natural promptings
as God may have given him—is it not, I say, mons-
trous that such a man should find his way into
the House of Commons, and should climb to the very
pinnacle of power, and yet that you should shut the
doors of this House with indignity upon an honourable
and conscientious man who adheres to the religion in
which he was born and bred, a man who believes in the
great facts that constitute the foundation of Christianity,

who believes in the perpetual existence of the nobler
part of our being, who believes in the :racy of God,
and practices humanity to man, who fulfils the ten great
injunctions in which all morality is comprised—(Hear,
hear)—whese car is never deaf to the supplications of
suffcrinee whose hand is as open as clay to charity, and
whose life, perhaps, presents a better exemplificetion of
the precepts of the goepel than that of men by whom,
for the sake of the Christian religion, his dishonouring
disabilities are wantonly, injuriously, and hopelessly
maintained ?—(Cheers.) Where will you find authority
in the Scriptures themselves fee the imposition of a tem-
poral penalty, with a view to the propagation of heavenly
truth ? You may find it in the writings of jurists and
divines, you may find it in the alsgmas of aus-
tere theologians, who bring their testimony to the
truths of religion, or their authority to the traditions of
the Church, whilet in their precepts of discipline the
vanity of human wisdom is demonstrable and irresistibly
proved. But you will not find it in the New Testament;
you will not find it in the evangelic pages of Matthew,
of Mark, of Luke, or of John; you will not find it in the
Epistles, written by the meek and hutn!sle man to whom
the teaching of all nations was confided; and, above all,
you will not find it in anything that was ever said, in
anything that was ever done, in anything that was ever
euffered, by the Divine Author of the Christian religion,
Him }silo spoke from the mountain to the benighted
throng, who said he came to take the heart of stone
away from us, who said that the merciful were blessed, •
and in place of ratifying the terrible anathema which
the Jews invoked upon themselves, preyed for mercy
for those who knew not what they did, whilst in-
voking the great sacrifice offered up upon the cross
of trial. It was not by persecution—nay, it was in
despite of persecution, despite of exile, despite of spolia-
tion, despite of shame and death, diorite the dungeon,
the wheel, the bed of steel, end the couch of flame,
that the Christian religion made its superhuman end
miraculous way. And is it not repugnant to common
5(0130, as well as to the elementary principles of that
divine religion, to tell us that the Christian religion is
to be maintained and propagated by an instrumentality
diametrically the reverse of that by which it was estab-
lished ?—(dilear, hear.) But, alas, for frail human
nature! No soener had the professors of Christianity
become associated with temporal authority, than they
practised and enforced a severity of which their prede-
cessors had been the objects. The Jew was selected
as the special object of their inflictions. His history
through centuries is one of blood, of torture, of every
form of cruelty and every art of extortion. Men of
mercy occasioually came forth to raise their voice in his
behalf. The great St. Bernard took a part in his favour;
but the light that appeared in the Abbey of Clairvaux
was faint and evanescent. Centuries of new dark-
ness and new persecution followed the Reforma-
tion did nothing for the Jew. All of us—Catholics,
Protestants, Presbyterians, and the rest, who
had torn to pieces the sacred garments of the
Sovereign Pontiff, terribly sinned in this regard. But it
is some consolation to a Roman Catholic to reflect that
Roman Catholic countries were the first to repair this
injustice. in Belgium and in France all distinctions be-
tween the Christian and the Jew have been abolished; I
trust that Protestant England will follow that great ex-
ample. The force of prejudice once existir's in this
country was insuperable, but it is beginning to disperse.
London has made a noble attestation of its will. Are you
prepared to throw back the Jew upon London, in order
that London may throw back the Jew upon you ?—(No,
no, and cheers.) But, Sir, not only do I think the dis-
qualifications that press upon the Jew inconsistent
with the spirit of the Christian religion, I think those
very penalties impede the progress of Christianity,
prevent the conversion of the Jew, and produce
teFeets diametrically the reverse of those they were
intended to produce. The disabilities imposed upon
the Jew are not sufficiently onerous to be com-
pulsory, but sufficiently vexatious to make conversion
a synonyme for apostacy, and to affix a stigma
to what is held an interested conformity to the estab-
lished religion. You have struck off the massive fetters
by which the Jess' was bound neck and foot, but the fet
ter3 which remain, though apparently light, were strong
enough to fasten the Jew to his faith, and to make it a
matter of discredit that he should desert his belief.
Nothing effectual will be done in this country for the
extinction of Judaism until yourselves shall have begun
by making a restitution of his birthright to every Eng-
lishman by whom that persuasion is embraced. I know
that an idea is entertained by some that there is no such
thing as an English, or a Spanish, or an Italian Jew—
that a Jew is a Jew and nothing else, that his nation-
ality is engrossed by the country of his hopes and his
recollections, and that the house of Jacob must remain
for ever in bondage. It is not wonderful that, when the
Jew was oppressed, plagued, branded—when he was in
the midst of a captivity worse than the Assyrian
—he should have felt by the Seine or the
Thames as did his fathers by the waters of
Babylon. It is not wonderful that in a lend
of exile he should have felt as a banished and
homeless outcast; but what has been already done has
produced a most-signal amelioration in his character and
feelings in this respect. In proportion as you have
mitigated the laws against the Jews, the instinct by
which men are taught to love the country of their birth
has been revived and fostered; British feelings, British
patriotism have taken root in the heart of the Jew, and
nothing but perfect justice is required for their develop-
ment. Emancipate the Jew, abolish all distinctions
between him and the Christian, and you instil into his
heart the perfect consciousness of country. his exulta-
tions and mournings will be the same as yours; his
heart will beat with the same joy at the tidings of Eng-
lish victory; and if there should he need, his life will be
poured out for his country with the same prodigality as
yours.—(General cheering.)
Mr. NEWDEG ATE said, as it was now so late (25
minutes to 12), ho should move the adjournment of the
debate.

Sir G. GREY hoped the House would not adopt the
practice of early adjournments. Great objections had
been already made to the e, djournment of the debato so
often repeated, and certainly at such an early hour the
proposition would be very unreasonable.
After a few words from Mr. Newdegate, Sir R. H.
Inglis, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the amend-
ment was withdrawn.

Mr. NEWDEGATE laboured under the greatest dis-
advantage in haying so abruptly to address the House.
Retaining a deep impression upon this subject, he
thought the eloquence exerted by the Right Honourable
Gentleman opposite, when he compared the feeling
which opposed this measure with that which opposed
the Bill of 1829, came strangely from a Roman Ca-
tholic, a member of the Church most exclusively Chris-
tian, yet casting aside every consideration of Christianity.
They had heard a great deal about the scenes which had
taken place in the City with reference to this election,
but it had come to his knowledge that wealth had been
brought to bear in getting up petitions in favour of the
measure before the Iloase.—(Hear, hear, from some
Members on the Opposition benches.) The first price
offered was ls, 6d. for ono hundred signatures to a
prie
e petition;the next price offered was 25., and the next
offered was .53.--.(Hear, hear.) Those wore
facts which he could prove, and he thought it
right that the House should bo informed of them. Had
it ever entered into the mind of Honoure)le Gentlemen
who supported the measure before the House that the
majority of the people of this country were Christian,
and that it was therefore desirable maintain the
Christian character of the Legislse ere. It had been
stated by a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite that such e,
measure as this would tend towards the conversion of
Jews to Christianity, but he (Mr. Newelegate) could net
s„ any such tendency in the measure. Was it reason-
able, he would ask, to suppose that the admission of a
few persons of the Jewish persuasion to Parliament
would have such a serious effect upon their faith and
tradition, and Christianize the Jewish community ?
For
his
great
the people in this country were clegate) did not believe that
thci
de-
sirous to sacrifice the Christian character of the
Legislature. It was
.rather remarkable that the Prime
part,b body
ye o (
ofMr.
Minister of the -country should bring forward
a measure founded upon principles which had
originted with the French National Assembly
in 1791. Were they, the Members of the
English Legislature to forget that they were Chris-
tians ? Were they to forget that for so many years the
Jews had been the chosen people of God, and that for
1,800 years they had been scattered over the earth an
exhibition of the truth of what had been prophesied
concerning them ? Were , thee-a Christian Legislature,
to forget all the predictions and prophecies of the Scrip-
tures, and not to regard the great monument of Divine
justice which the Jews presented ? Were they to admit
to legislate for this country those people whom the Deity
thought unfit to legislate for themselves, and thus to
adopt the principle of a double conscience, and believe
that religion should he a guide to a maim in his house-
hold and private concerns, but that he might cast off his
religious feelings and his conscience when he became a
member of a Legislature, and conform to every act
which might be in accordance with that repudiation ?
Upon what principle was it proposed to destroy the
Christian character of the Legier
ature ? Where was
this system of progress, as it was called, to end, which
had already broken down so many barriers, and which
tended to so much confusion ? lie could not agree to a
measure of this nature, which was SO much opposed to
his principles.
On the motion of Mr. C. PEARSON. the debate was
adjourned.
DISTILLING FROM SUGAR.
The following Resolutions were reported and agreed
to, and the Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernal,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Parker:-
1. Resolved, That it is expedient to allow the use of
molasses in the distillation of spirits.
2. Resolved, That it is expedient to make regulations
relative to the distillation of spirits from sugar and from
molasses in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
3. Resolved, That an allowance of twelve shillings and
tenpence halfpenny
, be granted to every distiller of spirits
in the United Kingdom for and in respect of every
eleven
gallons of proof spirits produced from sugar, used by
such distiller in the making of spirits upon which the
duties now by law imposed have been paid, provided that
one hundred and twelve pounds weight avoirdupois of sugar
have been so used in the production of every eleven gallons
of such spirits; but if a less quantity of sugar has been so
used than after the rate of one hundred and twelve
pounds of sugar for every eleven gallons of such spirits,
then instead of the allowance lest mentioned an allow-
ance of twelve shillings and tenpence halfpenny be
granted to such distiller for and in respect of every one
hundred and twelve pounds weight of sugar so used.
4. Resolved, That an allowance of four shillings and
sixpence be granted to every distiller of spirits in the
United Kingdom, for and in respect of every seven
gallons and one half of a ,eallon of proof spirits produced
from molasses used by suchb distiller in the making of
spirits upon which the duties- now by law imposed have
been paid; provided that one hundred and twelve pounds
weight of molasses have been so used in the production
of every seven gallons and one half of a gallon of such
spirits; but if a less quantity of molasses has been so

used than after the rate of one hundred and twelve
pounds weight of molasses for every seven gallon! ; and
ono half of a gallon of such spirits, then instead o F the
allowance last mentioned an allowance of four shil lings
and sixpence 13:-.‘ granted to such distiller for and i n re-
spect of every one hundred and twelve pounds weir; lit of
molasses so used.
WEST INDIA INTEREST.

Lord GEORGIA] BENTINCK moved the nomination
of the following Members, to form a Select Comm ittee
to inquire into the present condition and prospects cif the
interests connected with and dependent on sugai? and
coffee planting in her Majesty's East and West India
possessions and the Mauritius, and to consider whether
any and whet measures can be adopted by Parliitment
for their relief:—Lord Gcorge Bantinck, Mr. Labou-
chere, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. OtrOwell,
Sir Thomss Birch, Mr. Henry Hope, Mr. Char:les Vil-
liers, Mr. Philip Miles, Mr. James Wilson, Lora George
Manners, Mr. Evart, Sir John Pakington, Mr.. James
Matheson, and Sir E. Buxton.

The motion was agreed to. The other orders of the
day were then agreed to, add the House adjout ned at
half-past twelve.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 7.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack shortly b€fore Five o'clock.
The Bishop of MANCHESTER took be oaths
and his seat. His Lordship was introduced by the
Bishops of London and Worcester.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition
against the Jewish Emancipation Bill.
Lord KENYON presented several petitions to the
same effect.

exported from that country in 1834 was only
13-1,000 cwts., but in 1846 it had increased to
1,690,000 cysts.; and vi hat was the amount of our ex-
ports of manufactured goods to India
In 1834 it amounted in value to 1,574,0001,
and in 184 G-7 it amounted to 4,240,0001. Surely
those who had uged the Government in the course of
free trade should consider these things, and should
not rvshly deprive the country of such a market as this.
In 1834-5 735,0004 was the value of the cotton imported,
and in 1846 7 the value of the cotton imported had in-
creased to 3,097,0004; and of the whole imports of
India, amounting to 2,600,000/., the increase in cotton
alone was 2,300,000!.—(Hear, hear.) He contended,
then, that the supply of sugar from India was of great
importance to this country.—(Hear, hear.) The con•
sumption of sugar in this country during the last year
had exceeded the usual quantity by 40,000 tons, and it
had been attributed to free trade; but the fact was that,
encouraged by the promises of protection, our own
countrymen and colonists had applied their skill and
capital, and had produced a greater quantity of sugar
than ever they had done before; and the result of the
Act of 1846 would be to consign to utter ruin and bank-
ruptcy every one of our West India colonies. The prices
in this country had fallen from 355., 365., 375., and 3Ss.
per cwt. down to 21s. (he believed it was now 235.), all
of which was to be attributed to the same cause, involv-
ins, a loss to the colonists in the last year of 2,500,0001.
The" prices of sugar, he thought, were fixed now, and
there was no hope, therefore, of this loss being redeemed.
Although there had been a decrease in the price of
West India sugar to so great an extent, there had been
absolutely a rise of from Is. to 2s, per cwt. on Cuba
sugar, in consequence of its more easy admission into
this country. And when it was said that Cuba and
Brazil would take our manufactures in return what was
the fact ? He would take a period of sixteen months
before the passine• of the Act of 1846, and also of sixteen
months since, and he found that whereas our exports to
Brazil; Cuba. and Porto Rico in the former period had
been 2,309,0004, in the latter they had not been more
than 2,477,000/ ; an increase of just 168,000/. Com- '
paring this with cur imports to Asia for the same
period, the result was that to India, the West Indies,
and British Mauritius, there had been a decrease in our
exports the last sixteen months, as compared with the
first period, of 1,339,000/, and this was to be set off
against an increase to the slave-labour colonies of
165,000/.—(Hear, hear.) He was anxious to show their
Lordships that our own colonies had suffered and were
still suffering by the acts of the Legislature, and that
the crowning injustice under which they must irretriev-
ably sink was the Act of 1846, and he thought he had
succeeded in doing so.—(Hear, hear.) The petitions
prayed for a full supply of African labour—the equali-
zation of the duties on rum—the admission of molasses
into breweries and distilleries—the removal, either wholly
or partially, of the duty on colonial sugar imported into
this country; some of them applied for a loan—the peti-
tion from Demerara made application for a loan for
thorough drainage—and, he was happy to say, there
was only one petition, namely that from Jamaica, which
prayed for an alteration of the Navigation Laws. If,
however, every interest was to succumb, he could see no
reason why they should stop short in the ,work of de-
struction.—(Hear, hear.) The West Indians had a right
no doubt to say, you have declared there shall be free
trade in sugar, and we have a right to demand that all
obstruction shall be removed from the mode in which
we send our produce to the market. But they lost sight
of the fact that Great Britain had almost the entire car-
rying trade of Cuba and Brazil, because those colonies
had no mercantile navies of their own ; and he did not,
therefore, see how the West Indies were to be benefited
by an alteration of the Navigation Laws, for if they
took away these laws, and cheapened the trade from the
West Indies, in precisely the same ratio would it be re-
duced from Cuba and Brazil.—(Hear, hear.) Into the
question of introducing their molasses into distilleries,
he would not now enter. He understood Government had
intimated their intention to make these concessions ; but
in the very last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had said that molasses could not be introduced into the
distilleries without serious loss; and, in the like manner,
he had strenuously resisted the reduction of the duty on
ruin. Thus it was that no interest could be able to rely
a single twelvementh on whatgovernment intended to do.
The question of emigration was of immense importance.
He :doubted whether it aas possible to obtain such
a supply of labour from the African coast as would pro-
dace any material reduction of the rate of wages. He
was not opposed to such supply if it could take place
without interfering with previous arrangements. When
he was in the Colonial-office, he had striven to promote
the introduction of Hill Coolies into the West Indies ;
but he was never very sanguine in his hopes of the sue
cess of that measure. As to any permanent effect upon
the price of production, it was out of the question. While
desirous to afford every facility for the introduction of
labourers from Africa, he was convinced that if the
planters were allowed to go to the coast of Africa for I
this purpose, without any surveillance on the part of
the Government, it would create a just jealousy on the
part of other nations as to the practical revival of the
slave trade and the encouragement of thoso intestine
wars in Africa for the sake of supplying the demand
for labourers. The petititioners declared their con-
viction that it was impossible to procure a sufficiency
of labourers in this way without negotiating with
and conciliating the chiefs; and were British merchants
to be permitted to approach for this purpose a coast
which was so jealously guarded from other countries
such a step would certainly involve the Colonial-office in
great difficulty. He asked for no additional differential
duties in favour of our colonial produce; but ho was
firmly of opinion that whatever palliative was applied it
was impossible for the West India colonies to compete
on equal terms a ith slave produce.—(llcar, hear.) The
stock of sugar now on hand was larger than ever was
known. In consequence of the increased consumption
of slave-made sugar, thirty six thousand tons of our
own colonial produce had been rejected. The conse-
quent distress of many merchants was most extensive.
The house of Reid, Irving, and Co., had sustained by
the fall of prices a loss of 100,000/. in one year—or
estimating the profit at ten per cent., an actual
loss of one million sterling.—(hear, hear.) Mean-
while the price of sugar in Cuba and Brazil had been
raised. lts importation from the East Indies had
been stopped, and though the reduction in the price of
sugar might be boasted of, this would be dearly bought
by depriving us of the supply of sugar from our own
colonies, and by allowing all our love of liberty and ve-
neration of religion to evaporate for the paltry conside-
ration of a penny a pound in the price of sugar.—(Hear,
hear.) After all, this miserable boon would not be ob-
tained, but the slave trade would be encouraged, and our
own colonies ruined.—(Hear.) Nothing could relieve
their distress but a postponement at least of the period at
which the differential duty was to be further reduced.
He, for one, had not bowed down before the idol of free
trade, at whose shrine, it appeared, ono great interest
after another was to be sacriticed.—(Hear.) This idol
was a very sorry idol `after all, and would perhaps be
found to be composed of even baser materials than had
hitherto been imagined.—(Hear.)
Earl GREY said he was bound to :admit the existence
of most severe and painful distress in the colonies ; and
the Noble Lord opposite could not deplore this more
sincerely than he (Lord Grey) did. But he entirely
dissented from the opinion that this distress was solely
attributable to the free-trade measures of Government ;
and of this he hoped to be able to convince their Lord-
ships before he sat down. Though the distress was in
part attributable, no doubt, to circumstances peculiar to
the West Indies, yet in a large part also those colonies
were but suffering in common with all the trading inte-
rests of this country. The fall of price in many other
articles had not been less serious than in sugar; in some
kinds of tea, in indigo, rice, sago, and other articles, it
had been scarcely less considerable. For some months
after the passing of the late free-trade measures, the
sugar market had not been affected ; and it was only
when the general depression occurred, that the serious
fall in the price of sugar ensued. At the same time he ad-
mitted there was a cause of depression operating in the
West Indies, which did not apply to other interests; but
wben the Noble Lord attributed this entirely to the
free-trade measures ho flatly contradicted his own clients,
who dated their distress, not from 1846, but from a
much earlier period. One large proprietor said their
estates had been profitable up to 1838, since which period
they ceased to be so. This distress might even be
traced to a much earlier period; so long ago as 1833 the
Noble Lord himself had described their condition as one
marked by short and delusive periods of prosperity, and
long ones of distress ; this description being supported
by a report of the House of Assembly in Jamaica. Still
he must admit that since the emancipation, distress,
which before was frequent, had become almost con-
tinual; and it would be difficult to point to anything
like prosperity in these colonies at a later period. He
wished: to be candid, and would therefore state hie
belief that the great cause of this distress was the mis-
take in our legislation of 1833—the defective Bill
which was passed for the great and holy purpose of
extinguishing slavery. This was no new opinion of his.
He had predicted the consequences that had followed.
Even the distress had not been so great as he anticipated,
nor the difficulty of continuing the cultivation of sugar
so insuperable. He only alluded to this as being abso-
lutely essential to his argument. The measure of
1833 was defective in this':—lnstead of obviating the
causes which were likely to leave the negroes without any,
adequate stimulus to labour, the measure merely post-
poned the difficulty by leaving. them in a modified kind
of slavery for a certain time, as the Noble Lord himself
now admitted the apprenticeship to have been. Instead
of this, some adequate stimulus ought to have been pro-
vided for inducing the negroes to labour; while all that
the measure of 1833 had done was to postpone the crisis.
At the time he (Lord Grey) had declared his conviction
that Parliament was incompetent to legislate as it hai
done, and suggested that they should merely lay down
the great principle that each man was free, leaving
the local legislatures to adopt the measure
to the requrements of the several colonies. Ho
had suggested that the establishment of freedom
should be postponed for a year, in opposition
to the wish of the Noble Lord opposite, who proposed
it should take place in two months. This was too short
a period to allow the local legislatures to make the
necessary regulations, which the Noble Lord had there-
fore imposed upon the Imperial Parliament. The great
and paramount object of that measure ought to have
been to subject the negroes to some necessity to labour.
He did not believe that there was in the negro race any
peculiar indisposition to labour, but held that theyg .
ite
werewt
accessible to the same motives in that respect
a
I very was
men. It was perfectly obvious that when
befosre had the
entirely abolished, the negroes ha
gratuitous use of a provision ground
Iving
and hut, and wages
equivalent to a shilling a week,
earn in a single day more than they received from their
masters for the labour of a week. The necessary conse-
quence was a large increase of wages ; and what would
have happened here, or anywhere else, in such a state
of things? Unquestionably the labourer would content
himself with a shorter period of, labour, and would not