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

felt that he had no longer the privilege of being silent, I
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. It 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 elfare of the
Church. The Jew, if sincere, must have w
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 i
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
thell
th
e saet
vo
ensa la
rd erloi
tbeesrtaatni ot nr:
e.
sTi
sh
a third part of the population of this empire a share in
,c obuul dt t
hneoyt
ws
et irlel
sctai
teuyr e
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 profossed. He did not look
upon it in that light—ho wholly acquitted the Noble
Lord who had introduced the Bill of any intention of
casting a slight upon the Charch; 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 together.' 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 warmest 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
geenitnetsesrethstat
heto
hthise
cosuunte)c.tmewn.as
Hoenewasofneotvaesrhwamheeldmtion
had experienced feelings of more than ordinary difficulty
in considering the subject:of the present4Bill. 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 represents, ire 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 hand, 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-
ments 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
here 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 slost
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 say that the Jews were hostile to the Church.
There was only one more argument against the Bill
which he would meet, and it was one that he regretted
to find the Noble Earl who spoke second in the debate
had relied on. It was that the declared religion of the
Legislature and of the country being that of Christianity
would render it as 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 •
sioa say, that if any of their Lordshipscou!d 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 patient attention with which they had listened to his
observations.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S expressed his satis-
faction at having 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 petition 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 fact, 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 asserted
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 suc 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 had 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
indeed 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. The most Reverend Prelate below him had ad-
verted to it, and the late Archbishop of Canterbury had
also made that the main ground for the impossibility
feelings
3wthepruheeshi
tli
nsiacßheinhaonieglntl ablsm: eet
hhiedgfnaßeei
might
admitted
ant
bopomaefrhr
jeagaetgvditei
evi
ornuugbas
adequate
ratheri
ahfs consentfoundation,
ne dv
allowedatiohtiueo snr to, e
aaat
nsodmnsei
speaker
nsuaysrpugt
orthe likeihedanattthat
obife
ft thehateciagainstrst
aloilweadmotongdsrtawthethterwLsoorndsthhiipsesubject.
atten-
tion to the fact that such a feeling was in no degree es-
sentially connected 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 persons
professing Christianity ; and, therefore, however alien
such feelings were to the Jewish religion, 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 Saviour. But it i what respect, he might ask, did
the Jew differ in thi a from the Arian ? Did not the
Unitarian also deny -the divine character of Christ? and
also what the Churt ;h conceived to be the plain sense of
Scripture in the Saviour's assertions of his divine origin?
He merely urged th is as a reason why their Lordships
should not refuse 'So admit Jews to privileges which
had been already granted to others who stood in