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

DISABILITIES BILL.

On the question for reading the order of the day
for the adjourned debate on the Jewish Disabilities
Bill being put, a number of petitions were presented
for and against the measure.
On the question being put,

Mr. C. PEARSON rose and addressed the House. He
could not pretend, ha observed, to be altogether unini-
tiated in the mysteries of a deliberative assembly, but so
many years had elapsed since he had taken part in
public discussions, and, moreover, as he was at the pre-
sent moment labouring under the fashionable complaint
of a severe cold, he hoped he should receive that indul-
gence which the courtesy of the House invariably
awarded to new speakers. He regretted exceedingly,
in common with other speakers, that this subject should
require the introduction of religious topics, which were
hut little suited to the atmosphere of a political assem-
bly. He had hoped that, from the mild and moderate
manner in which the Noble Lord at the head of her
Majesty's Government had brought forward the ques-
tion, it would have been discussed solely upon the broad
principle of civil liberty. But many of those who had
addressed the House had, from conscientious motives,
given the discussion a religious direction. Those, there-
fore, who represented large constituencies might deem
themselves bound to take that view also of the subject in
order to prevent their conduct from being misunderstood
by those to whom they had to give an account. But if this
subject were to be discussed as a religious subject, it be
boved them to be exceedingly careful that, while they
used great frankness and candour, as well as great
courtesy, they should especially strive to avoid encroach
ing upon the feelings of those whose sentiments upon
the subject were opposed to their own. He, for one, felt
bound to state that he did not participate in the senti-
ments expressed by the Honourable Member for Buck-
inghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who, although he intended
on this occasion to vote on the same side of the question
as he (Mr. C. Pearson) did, had arrived at the same
conclusion with himself; not only by a different, but by
a directly opposite route. That Honourable Gentleman
had expressed himself in favour of a religious conformity,
taking the shape of religious truth. He (Mr. C. Pear-
son) could support the Bill upon no such grounds. It
appeared to him that if the House adopted that view of
the case; they must be prepared to return to the
'Test Acts, the Corporation Acts, the Act of Confor-
mity, and the Act of Uniformity. The State had no
right to coerce the consciences of men and cast them in
the mould of conformity as a condition for their obtaining
public employment. He should support the Bill upon
the principle of religions liberty. He was aware it had
been said, and he adhered to the proposition even to its
fullest extent, that the ultimate result of this measure
would be the admission of Mahometans into the House
of Commons. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that if
the son of Ramohun Roy, inheriting his father's virtues,
and imitating his conduct, should receive the confidence
of a large constituency, and be returned to that House,
he believed the House would be prepared to recognise
the broad principle of civil and religious liberty, and
admit that son of Ramohun Roy. It had keen said by the
Hon. Member for Oxford that privation was not perse-
cution, and that exclusion from office was not to be con-
sidered that description of disparagement of which the
Jews had any right to complain, so long as we did not spit
upon their gabardines and call them Jews. Now, of all the
treatment to which the Jews, in the long history of the
persecution which had been directed against them, had
been subjected, there was no disparagement that more
severely wounded their feelings than that of being called
Jews and the spitting upon their gabardines. But if to
spit upon their gabardines and to call them Jews was
considered persecution, what were they to say of the impu-
tations, and those of the severest character, which,
within the walls of the House of Commons, had recently
been cast upon that body ? The speech to which he
inure immediately referred, and upon which he should
make a few remarks, had since assumed a place among
the literature of the country. He regretted deeply that
the Hon. Member, he meant the Hon. Member for
Nlidhurst (Mr. Walpole), should have permitted him-
self to have given it this prominent position, containing,
as it did, expressions in regard to the Jews, that con-
veyed imputations which he had no right to cast upon
them. It had been said that the exclusion of the Jews
was conformable to other exclusions sanctioned by the
law of the lard; and the Honourable Member for Mid•
burst instanced the cases of age, sex, and property as
tieing tests applied to all persons, whether Jews or
Christiana. But the only reply he (Mr. C. Pearson)
thought it necessary to make to such an argument was,
that it was not proposed to admit either Jewish minors,
Jewish women, or Jewish paupers into Parliament. All
that the Jews claimed, or rather all that was claimed for
them, was the right of eligibility; a right to be elected
in common with every other individual iu the country.
He stood there as an elector of the city of London, which
had returned this gentleman (Mr. Rothschild)—one of
between 6,000 and 7,000 persons who composed the
ancient livery companies of the city of London, consist-
ing •f the merchants, bankers, traders, and inhabitant
householders of the find commercial city in the first
commercial country in, the world, and who in the exer-
cise of their rights and the discharge of their duties had
thought tit to ele ct as their representative one of the
most eminent of their commercial men, whose name
was known in every port of the world where
the peaceful flag of commerce floated. Why should
this gentleman not to be returned to that House? The
first reason assigned was his inability to join in the
prayers with which the proceedings of the House were
‘pened. It had been stated that he could not join in
prayer with other Members of the House without awful
blasphemy towards God and hypocrisy towards his fel-
' low-men. He had known many Jewish gentlemen
during the course of the last 35 years, and he solemnly
declared that he had never heard from the lips of any
one of them any such expression as that our Saviour was
a " crucified impostor," or any other expression which
could hurt the feelings of the most delicate and fastidious
Christian. On a late occasion, a Jewish alderman of
the city of London attended at Bow Church, having, as
was always expected from an alderman of London, the
Riot Act in his pocket; but although there was a great
tumult, and the words " mockery, mockery" echoed from
pew to pew, those sounds did not proceed from the Jew,
but from the Christian portion of the assembly. He recol-
lected when, inlB3l, the Protestants of Rio Janeiro were
unable to obtain a piece of ground on which to erect a place
of worship that Mr. D. Samuel, a Jew, obtained from the
Emperor an edict sanctioning the grant of a piece
of ground for that purpose, and laid himself the founda-
tion-stone of the new building; and he had in his pocket
now the copy of a vote of thanks addressed to that gen-
tleman for his liberality. That gentleman was now in
England, and if this Bill passed he might probably be-
come a candidate for a seat in that House, where he
(Mr. Pearson) had no doubt he would comport himself
during prayers as he had uniformly done on other occa-
sions. He understood, however, that the attendance of
Members during the time of prayers was entirely volun-
tary, and that tho only object of attendance was to se-
cure seats; for he believed that, excepting during the
honeymoon of a new Parliament, not more than twenty
al
tl e
praym b e re o,f the
therefore
House
waere
seuwsiushallgyenitialemaatnteamdaighhcet
perform all
the duties of a Member of Par-
liament without any blasphemy, and without any in-
terference with the feelings of others. The Honour-
able Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), who had spoken 110 well and
and
so long on this subject, had divided the history of
our country into three periods, and had challenged the
future historian to point out any period, from the time
of Edward the Elder and Alfred to that of Praise-God-
Barebones, from the time of Praise-God-Barebones to
the Revolution, and from the Revolution to the present
time, in which the taking of some Christian form of
oath was not a condition precedent to holding office.
He had taken the trouble to turn over history in refe-
rence to these particular periods, because, as they had
been selected by a gentleman of such good taste and
sound judgment, he thought that he could not do better,
as a young Member of the House, than walk in that
course. Ile would refer then first to the time of Ed-
ward the Elder and Alfred. It was a very remarkable
circumstance that the precise period which had been
thus designated for the attention of the House was
the first period in our history which he could
find in which there had been any attempt to coerce
conscience, and force an oath upon individuals in-
consistent with the faith they held. The Parliament
or Council of Alfred had just then struck out of the
Decalogue the second commandment, and had mutilated
and restored it in a diminished form, which authorised
the worship of relics and images. At the same time, in
the Romish Church they had struck out the second 1

commandment altogether, and had split the last, making '
the ninth into two. The historian stated that Alfred,
having overcome the Danes, and being acquainted with
their usual perfidy, obliged them to se, ear upon holy
relics to keep the treaty which he had made with them,
not that he had expected them to keep their oath, but
that if they broke it their impiety would draw down
upon them the vengeance of heaven. This was the first
period in our history in which an attempt was made to
coerce conscience, and what was the consequence? Like
Samson bound with green withes, the Danes burst their
bonds asunder, and never left the country till they had
established themselves in it. The next period to which
the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Ox-
ford had adverted was that of Praise-God•Barebonas.
He thought it would be found that this also was
an unfortunate selection. The Parliament which took
its name from that individual did not begin with prayer,
but we were told that some fifty brethren having assem-
bled, the Parliament, took as the subject of their delibe-
rations the abolition of clerical functions, as a savouring
of Popery—the abolition of tithes, as a relic of Judaism
—of learning and the universities, as heathenish and
unnecessary—and the adoption of the Mosaic code of
laws instead of our own. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, the Member for Midhurst, had brought under
the notice of the House the various writs which had been
issued for summoning the Parliament, and having fol-
lowed the Hon. and Learned Gentleman thrdugh Prynne
and Glanville, he was ready to admit that the writs
were substantially such as bad been quoted. The change
in the form took place in the time of the Protectorate.
He would now proceed to the period of the Revolution ;
but he must observe, by way of parenthesis, that from
the time of the Conquest till the banishment of the
Jews they were admitted to offices, and acted as jurors,
after after having t een sworn up on the Pentateuch. He
knew that in the time of Lord Coke this was denied, but
after the Revolution it was laid down by Lord Chief
Justice Willes, that under the common law of the land a
Jew using the words " So help me, God," might take
any promissory or assertory oath. The Hon. and
Learned Memher for Midhurst made a quotation from
the rolls of Henry VI. to show what was required from
a king at that time ; but he thought it remarkable that
the House was not told what was the oath then required
from Members of Parliament. It had been stated that
the first time the words, "on the true faith of a Chris-
tian," were introduced was in the 3d of James I. Such
was the fact, and these words continued down to the
period of the Revolution, when the oath was abrogated
by the Ist of William and Mary, and the abjuration oath
introduced without the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" being included. Nor were these words
again introduced till 1703, in the 13th of William and
Mary, when the King of France caused the Pre-
tender to be crowned King of England. Now,
since the Revolution every act that has passed bearing
on religious disqualifications has tended to the re-
laxation of those laws. There was first the relief given
to the Quakers; then the Act relieving the Unitarians,
passed in 1813; the next was the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts in 1828, and following that was the
Catholic Emancipation Bill in 1829. It has been said
that on the present occasion Baron Rothschild might
have presented himself at the table, and offered to take
the oaths in a way acknowledged to be binding by the
Jewish persuasion; but if that gentleman had offered
himself at their table to take such an oath, the House
would have found itself placed in a very difficult posi-
tion. They must either have admitted him on a forced
construction of the law, or rejected him and sent him
back to his constituents, when a conflict might have fol-
lowed of which none of them could have seen the result.
—(hear.) That gentleman, however, had not taken any
course which might have placed the House in a position
so awkward, but had relieved it from the difficulty by
waiting for the requisite alteration of the law. He thought
there could be no doubt as to what the sense of the coun-
try was on this question. The fact of the city of Lon-
don having returned Baron Rothschild was practical
prcof as to what were the opinions held by the citizens
of the first commercial city in the world on the subject.
The fact, also, of a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion
having been three times elected as an alderman in the
city of London, and that two had been elected sheriffs,
left no room for doubt on the question. The second
reading of the Bill had been postponed till now in order
that the country might have time to express itself on the
subject; and the result had shown that the public at
large were in favour of the measure—otherwise, why
was their table not covered with petitions against it as
in the case of the Maynooth grant?—(Hear, hear.) He
(elt strongly on this subject. It had been his fortune to
move for the admission to the corporation of London
of the first Jew who had been admitted a citizen;
he had had the satisfaction of working with them
from that time; and he trusted the House would
not deny that people the act of justice which the
present Bill awarded them.—(Loud cheers.) When he
recollected the many advances which had been made
towards the establishment of religious freedom, and
considered the great changes which had taken place from
the time when men were liable to persecution for hold-
ing opinions which all were now at perfect liberty to ex-
press, he felt confident that that House would not
restrain the further progress of that freedom by throw-
ing out the Bill.—(Hear.) Ile had the greatest respect
for the Church of England, and had ever admired her
liberal spirit towards those differing from her in opinion.
Though a Dissenter himself, he would rather live under
the Church of England as a dominant body—if there
was to be dominancy at all—than under his own or any
other sect.—(Cheers from the Opposition side of the
House.) That was a feeling which he believed was very
predominant throughout that assembly, and he might say
it was that feeling that preserved the equilibrium of the
Church.—(Hear, hear.) He might add that there
were no warmer friends of things as they are than the
Jewish people.—(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Inglis) had spoken of the Bill as a measure to admit
persons who must be guilty of "awful mockery" and
"gross blasphemy," and who called our Saviour a "cru-
cified impostor." Now, if the aldermen, bankers, mer-
chants, and householders of London had really attempted
to inflict that disgrace on this House, then on their
heads ought to fall a great censure. But it was because
the Jews were not in the habit of calling our Saviour a
crucified impostor, and were not likely to be guilty of
blasphemy, that they had returned Baron Rothschild as
their representative, conceiving him to have many
qualifications which fitted him for that office. They had
elected Baron Rothschild because they considered him
peculiarly qualified to represent the interest and feel-
ings of a mercantile body.—(Hear.) A Committee had
recently been appointed to make inquiry into the causes
of the monetary crisis. Did any one doubt that if Baron
Rothschild had been in the House he would not have
been of that Committee?—(Hear, hear.) The city of
London was at present deprived of a portion of its repre-
sentative power; but when they returned Baron Roths•
child they had a right to expect that he would be ad-
mitted. The election of Mr. O'Connell for Clare was
followed by the Catholic Emancipation Act, and Mr.
O'Connell and other Catholics were admitted to Parlia
went; Mr. Pease, when elected, was also permitted to
take his seat. Wlsen Mr. Salomons was elected Sheriff of
London and Middlesex he objected to take the abjura-
tion oath, and a Bill was brought in and carried which
enabled that gentleman to hold that office. The Hon.
Member for the University of Oxford was too shrewd
not to see, under the general terms of the title, that the
Bill was a Bill to admit Mr. Salomons. But this
House relieved Mr. Salomons from the condi-
tion precedent to his entering on the duties
of his office. Mr. Salomons was admitted, and
that was the first lesson to the citizens of Lon-
don. Mr. Salomons was afterwards appointed an alder
mail, but, having to be admitted within eight days, he
had to be passed over as there was not time to carry a
measure; but a Bill was introduced in the other House
by the Lord Chancellor to remove the obstacle. That
was lesson second. They proceeded to a third election,
that of Mr. Rothschild. The Hon. Member was here
interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who called upon the Sergeant to in-
quire whether Sir R. Price was in custody?
The SERGEANT intimated that he was not.
The SPEAKER then inquired whether Mr. Cumming
Bruce was in custody?
The SERGEANT replied in the negative.
The SPEAKER then announced, that the two Com-
mittees on which these Members were to be sworn, •iz.,
the Great Marlow and the West Gloucestershire Elec-
tion Committees, were adjourned till Monday.
Mr. PEARSON then proceeded. The writingi of
the Rev. Mr. Simeon contained a remarkable statement
with regard to the position of the Jews in Holland. Mr.
Simeon, in the course of a tour there, had met Dr. Ca-
padoche, who observed that the Jews were admitted in
Holland to all offices and honours, and that therefore
Mr. Simeon's aid was not required, the Rev. Gentleman's
visit being made with a view to the conversion of the
Jews. But Mr. Simeon, on the contrary, thought that
the very reason why he should begin his labours there ;
first, because the prejudices of the Jews would be less;
and, secondly, because he might hold forth Holland as
a pattern for other countries. The fable in which Aeop
related the contest between the wind and the sun as to
which of them should mrke the traveller part with his
cloak, afforded an apposite illustration of the means
most likely to induce men to throw off their prejudices;
or, in language which the Jews would prefer in this case,
their adherence to the faith of their forefathers. The
story of the passenger and his cloak was told in the old
nursery rhynae—.

The wind quite a hurricano blew,
But could not provoke
Him to part with his cloak,
Which around him he closer he drew."
" The mild melting ray," 'however, of " the sun at
noon. day " made him feel his cloak oppressive, and
".inclined him to throw it aside." " Moral."—(Laughter.)
" 'Tis thus that we find
The great mass of mankind
By mildness are easily won.
Persecution compare
To the boisterous air,
Relieion's the light of the sun."
Lord DRUMLANRIG observed that the time had
been when the name of Christ was the sole guide and
the solo test which was acknowledged, but now it was
urged that as a body this House should no longer to-
lerate that name.—(" Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.")
They who had shrunk from such a national repudiation
were appealed to. Their acquiescence was desired in
the name of political justice. When they, in respond-
ing, referred to the declaratioi, " on the true faith of a
Christian," they were met by the remark that because
such unfortunate men as Bolingbroke and Gibbon had
sat in that House, what they claimed as a condition of
admission had become virtually extinct. But wai there
no distinction between suffering from an abuse be-
cause it belonged to human nature, and making
provision for an abuse because it existed? The
press had spoken on this subject as if Christianization
was nothing but civilization ; and the Morning Chronicle
had indulged in sneers at what it called the "evangelical
indignation" of the country. Then the example of
France was referred to—the example of a country cele-
brated for its atheism. What was it that first induced

the electors of London to return Mr. Rothschild ? Their
numbers amounted to 6,600 or 7,000. One's admiratiou.
however, of their conduct must be mixed with surprise
and cui-iosity. It was a question which suggested itself
for consideration how they had dune so much and yet so
little—how, with this spirit in favour of the Jews, they
had contented themselves with electing one Jew only and
not four. There was great moderation in that. With a
splendid contempt of appearances they chose only the
richest Jew. It had been stated by the Hon. Member
kir West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond) in the course of
the debate on the currency, that in this country they
were unfortunately actuated by a love of money which
was highly discreditable; and he (Lord Drumlanrig)
was not surprised to find in this election a living proof
of the Hon. Gentleman's statement. If any such thing
was suspected, it was not one Member only who had
been led to conclude that such was the case.
Mr. W. COWPER said that the Noble Lord had not
stated one single argument against the Bill, which met
the question on its merits. It the Bill were an isolated
measure ho would admit it was startling. But it was
only the natural consequences of the various steps takes
of late years towards removing civil disabilities, founded
on religious differences. The Jews were freemen and
citizens of the State, and being subject to no disabilities
as such, they were entitled to all the privileges as free-
men. But it was argued that there was so strong a
spirit of nationality amongst them, as to call for their
exclusion from the office of legislators. But, in answer
to this, it might be said, it' it was true, as he believed it
to be, that the Jews were to remain a scattered race to
the end of the world, then they would be subjected to •
great injustice in being refused the privilege deniat.ded
for theta because they never would be enabled to ac-
quire any footing as a nation in their ancient land.
A Jew retained his nationality notwithstanding be
became a Christian, and there were, he believed, six
gentlemen at present Members of the Houses who bad
the honour of deriving their lineage from Abraham.
If any great good could be shown to result to morality
or religion from the exclusion of the Jews, he might
have been induced to alter his opinion on the subject.
but no such advantages had been urged as a reason for
rejecting the present Bill, and he must therefore adhere
to his original intention respecting it. Christianity was
not a mere cloak which a man took up whilst the oath
was being administered to him. It was a living prin-
ciple quite independent of any oath, and therefore it
would remain unaltered if the present Bill passed. II
had been argued that the business of Parliament wits to
regulate the principles of speculative and religious truth.
He did not think the House had any such character.
'They were there as the representatives of the
people, not on the representatives of truth. Mx•
perience and reason showed that any endeavour to core
rect religious error by legislation was always inimical to
truth.—(Hear.) The homage paid to Christianity by
persons professing but not practising its precepts, was
no advantage to that divine institution, and more danger
was to be apprehended from them than from avowed
atheists and infidels. According to his view of the sub-
ject, the best way was to leave the question of moral
qualification of Members to the electors, and to throw
upon them the responsibility of having made the choice
of a Jew, of a Christian, or of any other religious sec-
tarian. It would be far wiser to throw open the door
of the House to all classes of persons, rather than for
them to assume the task of inquiring into and reproving
the creeds of those sent there.

I.

Mr. K. SEYMER did not concur in the principle*
which had been laid down by the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for London in opening this question. He did not
think that with the settlement of this question the edi-
fice of toleration would be considered by its advocates to
be complete. But in the concessions which had been
quoted as precedents, more especially those to the
Roman Catholics, distinctions had been preserved. They
had had been told that the Legislature did not consider
that a person of their persuasion should ever fill the
throne of these realms. There was a distinction on re-
ligious grounds which no ono would attempt to abolish.
For his part he held firmly to the Established Church,
and would stand by every defence which had been met
up for its preservation, not because he liked them for
themselves, not because he wished to see any man per-
secuted for his religious opinions, but because he thottght
them absolutely necessary.—(llear, hear.) The N.able
Lord had said that they could hardly maintain a g teat
principle by fair words at the fag-end of
an oath. Granted. They could not make all toes
Christians by imposing a declaration ; but neither
could they make all men moral by a code, and still
they were constantly legislating fur moral objects.-..
(Hear, hear.) He did not see any analogy between the
cases of the Roman Catholics and Dissenters and that of
the Jews. The numerical increase of both sects pre-
eluded the possibility of considering the country es
oz-
elusively Protestant; but the number of Jews living
amongst us was not so great as to take from the title of
a Christian country, or to disentitle us to a Chris den
legislation.—(Hear, hear.) A great deal had been !said
about the city of London election, but he confessed he
did not attach much importance to that event. Ile be-
lieved that the citizens of London, who are fond of ape.
culation, had elected Baron Rotchschild on speculation.
They had drawn a bill on the Lords and Commons,
taking their chance of its being accepted.—(A laugh.)
Their Noble Member had argued for the connexion of
religion with politics, but his constituents seemed to
have taken an entirely different view of the question.
And the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
' had argued, that as we had urged upon -the Grand
Seigneur the policy of emancipating his Greek subjects,
we should set an example of liberality by emancipating
the Jews. But there were reasons of State policy for
our advice to Turkey. The Emperor of Russia. was
constantly exercising his influence over the Greek cab.
jests of the Porte, and it was not consistent with our
views that he should do so. Besides, the treatment of
the Greeks in Turkey was very different from that which
we gave to our Jewish fellow-subjects. He (Hr. K.
Sumer) remembered that when travelling in Asia Miner
he had the greatest difficulty in restraining his Turkish
courier from horse-whipping the Archbishop of I?hila-
delphia, because that prelate would not turn out in the
middle of the night to give him his bed.--(Laughter.)
Too much fencing in might be bad for the Established
Church, but that was no reason why they should. raze
its defences altogether. He feared that if the privileges
of the Church were taken away she would soon cease to
be an Established Church, and that being his opinion
he must oppose the present Bill.
Mr. HORSMAN said he should support the Bill, bat
not on the grounds that it involved merely a political
question. He denied that politics and religion could
properly be separated. It appeared incomprehensible to
him how any man could disclaim religion in public
matters without also repudiating its influence in the
affairs of private life.—(Cheers.) The question was, in
fact, partly a political and partly a religious one. It was
political and constitutional as touching the rights of s
portion of our fellow-subjects, and it must be decided on
the maxims of justice and sound policy. It appeared to
him that with respect to it the House was called upon to
assume the judicial character. The question wroi none
of their seeking, it had been forced upon them by the
citizens of London.—(Hear, hear.) They had elected a
man as their representative, and he wow wair,ed at the
door of the House for admission. Constitessisseiny he
was their representative, but a legal objection had been
raised to his admission into Parliament. Ile (Mr. Hors.
man) would decide the question upon high grounds. A
great fallacy had run through all the arguments which
had been urged against it, more especially that of the
lion. Member fur Midhurst. It was ssserted that
Christianity was part and parcel of the irsw of England,
and that in the present Bill it was thought to annul that
law. The plain English of such an assertion was, that
for the purpose of better securing Christianity we had
passed a statute expressly excluding the Jews from
Parliament. Why, there was no law of the kind ill the
statute•book, and therefore there was none to be
annulled.—(Hear, hear.) Formerly there had been s uch
laws, but those having been repealed there was li the
reason iu seeking to exclude the Jews by laws enac, ted
for the exclusion of an entirely different set of men..--
(Hear, hear.) The question was, whether Parliame Kt.
having repealed every direct statute against the Jews,. a
member of that body was to be deprived of his seat in
that House under a statute having no referenc e
whatever to him or his religion.—(Hear, hear.,)
the Jews were made to bear their, part of Ow
national burdens ; we compelled the= to carry arum,
or to give us money when we wanted it ; in fact, ilia. -
posed upon them all the responsibilities of subjects •;
but when they asked for the privileges of citizens, Ica
denied them, with the answer that they were only Jess ne.
—(Cheers.) As the law stood at present they night bee
magistrates, sheriffs, or aldermen, but the moment it r as
sought to admit them into Parliament a cry was rais ad
that Christianity was at an end. It had also been sa id
that persons who were uninfluenced by feelings of Civil a.-
tianity should not have any share in legislating for Owe
Established Church. But they did interfere at preseigt.
They voted at vestries, at the election of vicars, and in
the distribution of parochial funds. A Jew propriet or
of advowsons might nominate the rector of a paris hp
and Hon. Gentlemen opposite might possibly have r a-
ceived the sacraments of the Church from the hands of
a clergyman who was the nominee of a Jew.—(Heal t's)
Again, a Jew sheriff might ex officio be present at sot me
of our religious ceremonies. He believed that a shot jiff
of that persuasion had been present at the recent edit s-
ing preceeedings in Bow Church, when protests ere
were invited only to be stifled, and objectors call ad
to be summarily knocked down.— (Hear, hes ,r,.)lt had been laid down as a principle, and admitted tit MU
all sides, that no man was to be punished for his risli-
gious opinions. Was that principle to be rescinded?
No; we were too true to our principle to retract, bed toe
false to advance; and if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were to
be attended to, would stop half way, preserving a groan
in
anomalylegislation. If men were fit to administer
the law, it was a strong presumption that they welts
competent to make laws, and those who denied the eon la
potency were bound to prove their assertion. If dangs or
was asserted, danger should be shown, and no dangt or
had been specifically pointed out by Gentleme
on the other side. The old cry of" the Church in danger
had been given up, and a new cry of " Christianity i
danger" had been substituted. What was the danger r
There was a viseue, mysterious, unmentionable Islam a,
but aothiug tangible or real in the shape of danger ha it
been pointed out. Would the Bill, if it passed, make on *
Churchman less or one Jew more?—(Hear, hear.) Ha,
really telt that such fears on the part of Christians were
more degrading to Christianity than would be the incur-,
sion of a whole tribe of Jews.—(Bear, hear.) Such week
not the weak faith of the devoted men who had braved-
the dungeon and the rack in support of that belief which:
they knew would one day overspread the world. Was
the Church, which in the time of her adversity, harp,.
been a fearless martyr, to become in the day of her ex-'
altation: and pride a trembling tyrant?—(Hear, hear.)d
Could nut Christians in the present day enter into the t
contest without auticipating defeat?—(Hear, hear.) 11‘!:,
asked that question of Hon. Gentleman opposite, of
the Hon. Baronet below him (Sir R. Inglis), than whom+
no man had a higher place in the estimation of the 11(?lei
ur the country.—(Bear.) That Hon. Baronet would fora

give him if he said that a great part of his life had been
spent in proclaiming the weakness of his religion,
and its possible, it not probable, downfal.—(Cries
of " Oh, oh," f..,en the Opposition.) He was speaking
politically, and he asserted that on every occasion of
concession the lion. Baronet had p.edicted that the sun
of Protestantism had set for ever. And :awe it was
feared that if but one Jew were admitted into Parlia-
ment, the faith of six hundred and fifty five Christians
would make itself wings and fly off to Jerusalem er
Jericho.—(A laugh.) Was Christianity a thing which
would not bear shaking, imposing when unassailed, but
liable to be shaken to pieces by every wind that blew
upon it ?—(Hear, hear.) lie had no sympathy with
those who doubted the stability of the religion
which they professed, nor would he take Christianity
on their statements. She did not require enactments to
enable her to prevail. Locke had wisely said that the
inventions of men required the inventions of men to
sustain them, but that the religion of God required not
the aid of human inventions.—(Hear, hear.) That
was his doctrine. He believed that it was
the function of religion to interfere with poli-
tics, but in a great, a gracious, and progressive
spirit ; and in that belief he felt himself justified in sup-
porting the present Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER said that one part of the Hon.
Member for Cockermouth's speech had completely con-
tradicted the other.—(Hear, hear.) He had begun by
stating broadly that religion should influence both public
and private conduct, and yet had come to the conclusion
that Jews should be admitted to seats in that House.
The Hon. Member had talked of the fears of those who
opposed the Bill. Fears 1 They had no fears for
Christianity. Their conviction was, that truth would
triumph, no matter what attempts might be made to
put it down.—(Hear, hear.) But they feared lest a
Christian nation, which had for so many centuries been
blessed with Christian privileges, should now prove
themselves so unworthy of them as to admit those to mak e
laws for that nation who denied the law as laid down
by our Saviour ; who denied the divinity of Christ,
and treated the great author of Christianity as a cru-
cified impostor.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Cockermouth had called upon the opponents of the mea-
sure to show him how the Constitution was endangered
by it. In the first place, he altogether disputed the con-
clusion deduced from the Hon. Member's argument, viz.,
that every natural horn subject of the Queen had consti-
tionally a right to sit in Parliament if elected; and,
further, be contended it would be impossible to uphold
the religious principles of the Constitution if unbelievers
were admitted as Legislators. What were the words of
the compact entered into between the Sovereign and the
people at the coronation? The Sovereign was sworn to
maintain the true profession of the Gospel and the Pro-
testant reformed religion as established in these realms.
How could they expect that Gospel and that religion to
be teaintained if they admitted persons to make laws
and to advise her Majesty, whose religion told them
there was no truth in the Gospel?—(Hear, hear.)
Here, then, was the constitutional danger, and a great
constitutional danger it was.—(Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN—But how as to the Roman Ca-
tholics?
Mr. SPOONER, was speaking of the Jews.—(Hear,
and a laugh.) But if they admitted Roman Catholics,
they had at least so far preserved the Christion charac-
ter of the House as to require the profession of Chris-
tianity on the part of its Members ; but now it was
proposed to abolish even that test, and permit any man
to take his seat as a Member of the Legislature, though
openly avowing that he was not a Christian. If they
were not to insist on the profession of Christianity, what
was there to prevent the admission, not only of Mussul-
mans or Hindoos, its some had argued, but even infidels?
Depend upon it, if this demand were conceded, it would
not be the last sacrifice that would be required. The
Noble Lord the Member for Bath had alluded to some
expressions which had been put forth in pi int by a
Member of the Cabinet not now in the House—(Mr.
Macaulay)—in which he stated that this question was
merely one of police, and compared it with cooks and
cookery. That view so totally differed from that which
had been expressed in that House by the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, that he would ask some of
the Noble Lord's colleagues—
Mr. A. STAFFORD—Where are they?—(Hear, and
a laugh.)
Mr. SPOONER confessed that did strike him, and
though he was fully aware how difficult it was for Mem-
bers of the Government, who were engaged in their
official dutiesaill day long .&o attend night after night
in the House, hsteding, to dill-debates, he could not but
remember that when he sit on the other side he seldom
saw the Treasury hench unoccupied, especially when
Government measures were being discussed.—(Here
several Members of the Government entered the House
and took their seats.) Though Mr. Macaulay looked on
this as a mere police question, the terms of the corona-
tion oath showed that it was not so regarded in the
Compact entered into between the Sovereign and the
people, neither did the practice of the House justify such
an opinion, for their business was each day preceded by
a prayer to Almighty God to direct their deliberations
for the advancement of true religion and piety.
But taking the question on the principle of
a police measure, which he did merely for
the sake of argument-:—hoW were we to preserve the
property, liberty, and lives of our fellow-subjects
but by forming and adhering to a code of morals ; and
which code of morality equalled that of Christianity ?
The Right Hon. Member for Oxford, if he understood
his argument—vehich he was not sure that he did—came
to the conclusion that because Parliament had lost the
definite Christian character it once possessed, therefore
what was left was not worth retaining. The Right Hon.
Member in his book talked of tender dealing with the
Church. In that he thought there was a latent meaning
which did not meet the eye. Was it this—that as the
Parliament had ceased to be the Parliament of the
Church of England, therefore the Church was to have
again a Parliament of its own ? Were the Right Hon.
Member present he would ask him to explain his mean-
ing, but as he was not he would pass the subject over.
In conclusion, he called upon Hon. Members to remem-
ber the responsibility which attached to them on this
question, and to give their votes irrespective of party
feeling, expressing, at the same time, his own determi•
nation to support the amendment.
'Mr. COCKBURN—As a general proposition, it was
impossible to deny the principle on which this measure
was submitted to the House, that every subject of the
realm bound by the obligations incidental to that cha-
racter, paying allegiance to the Sovereign and contribut-
ing to the general burdens of the state, bound also in
case of national danger, to defend the country at the
risk of his life, and discharging all the ordinary oblige
tions of a citizen, was also entitled to parficipate in all
the rights, privileges, honours, sad advantages inciden-
tal to that position. independent of religious opinion.—
(Hear.) He admitted that proposition must be taken
with certain modifications—as, for instance, if the admis-
sion of any person, or class of persons, to those rights
should be detrimental to the constitution, or that religion
which it should be their first and primary object to up-
hold to the utmost of their ability—that case would be
an exception to the general principle.—(Hear.) And
when the proposition was stated with this qualification,
ranch of the argument which had been advanced by the
other side was totally inapplicable. He denied that
those who advocated this measure were justly charge-
able with any abandonment of the principles of the
Christian religion. They conceded that if the admis-
sion of Jews to Parliament should be attended with
danger to the State or the Church, that the opposition
to the measure would be just ; but he denied that the
Bill was fraught with any such dangerous consequences.
Those who would deny to 40,000 of her Majesty's sub-
jects, not only now, but in time to come, their rights
and privileges as Englishmen, were bound to make out
their proposition that this was a case in which the
exception to the general rule should apply.—(Hear.)
The Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst and those
who opposed the Bill took their stand on the law and
Constitution. He denied that the law or the consti
tution vi as as his Learned Friend (Mr. Walpole) had
stated it to be. Nor would the argument be worth
Much if it were—for if the law or the constitution sanc-
tioned injustice, or what was perhaps worse, folly,_
the only conclusion he should draw would be that it
required amendment.—(Hear.) Having admitted the
it'than Catholic claims in violation of the constitution
now to refuse to admit the Jews, against whom there
had been no law of exclusion passed, appeared to him
very like swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat.
(Hear, hear.) Since Parliament was first constituted
there had never been any law, either in the constitution
or the statute book that had had for its end or design
the exclusion of the Jews. Their exclusions had been
the result, not of Legislative design, but of Legislative
accident. All the laws of exclusion passed by Parlia&
the had beeu directed against Parliament, none against
Jews. According to the original constitution of
Parliament the eligibility of the representative de-
pended solely on the choice of the electors—there was
no other qualification ; neither was there, until the
reign of of Elizabeth, any religious test. In that reign,
R"oe the great struggle between Protestantism and
Inalthln Was still going on, and when Protestant-
ism had again obtained the ascendancy, the Protestant
party naturally adopted all the means and engines cir•
cumstances placed in their power to secure that ascendancy
1114 keep down their opponents. The oath of supremacy
7,ae thus introduced for the obvious and avowed purpose
excluding Roman Catholics from all participation in
Political power. This was the only Act of exclusion in
that reign. In the 3d of King James came the oath,
which was the model of the present oath, and in which
for the first time the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" were introduced. This, too, was for the sole
purpise of excluding Roman Catholics, and was entitled
an Act for the suppression of Popish recusants." An
Pishsed immediately after the discovery of the gunpowder
plot,e of which the Jesuits were believed to have been
at the bottom ; and as it was known that the Jesuits
countenanced the dangerous morality that they might
avoid the obligation of an oath by a mental re-ervation
at the time of taking it—e. doctrine which was admitted
by Garnet, the Jesuit chief, as one to which that
body subscribed—the Legislature introduced a form
of words which should prevent any Roman Catholic ob
taming power by taking an oath in
heart he did not hold to be binding. 'ass ww4icthheinoahtihs
againstconld trans-
which continued till the celebrated oath
substantiation in the 30 Charles 11. No one
that that was directed against Roman Catholics (olonulybt,
and in fact it was expressly declared in the Act itself.
that its object was to protect the King's person and
realm, by exclnding Roman Catholics from power. So
,stood matters till the reign of William and Mary. in
that reign all these oaths an,l statutes were abolished,
and the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were substi-
tuted as in the terms they now were. The opponents of
this
jew Bill alleged that according to the constitution no
could be admitted into Parliament. He asserted
that there was nothing in the law or constitution, down
to the last year of William 111., which could prevent a
Jew from taking his seat if elected. In that year when
there was some danger of the claims of a Popish

successor to the crown, the oath of abjuration was
nas'e:•ct. That, however, was passed as against Roman
Catholics, and against the house of Stuart in particular,
and that oath continued to be taken to the pre,ent
hour. That it was directed against Roman Catholics
was clear by the subsequent Act of George 1., which
enabled the Crown to seize upon the estates or Roman
Catholics who were guilty of treason, us against the
state, in supporting the claims of the Pretender. The
whole course of legislation, so tar as it had reference to
any religious teit or opinion as a qualification for ad
mission to Parliament, was directed not against the
Jews, or in support of Christianity, but solely and ex
elusively against our fellow• Christians the Roman Cs-
tholics.—(Hear, hear.) He would point out a still more
striking, anomaly. Parliament had thought it right to
change the state of the law in respect to Roman Catho-
lics, and that portion of our fellow•subjects who for two
centuries and a half had been excluded were at length
admitted to their privileges as citizens. But to do that
it was found necessary to modify the oath, by leaving
out the denial of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope,
but by retaining the words "on the true faith of a
Christian." An oath framed to exclude one class of
persons, and who by the alteration in that oath had
been admitted, was made to operate as against another
class in reference to whom it was never directed. The
Jew could take the oath of allegiance without hesitation,
for no man was more loyal or attached to the Sovereign.
He could take the oath of supremacy, for he did not
assert that any person had any authority over the realm
but the Queen. He could also subscribe to the oath
of abjuration, so far as its substance went, for he did not
admit the claims of any pretender to the Crown. All
that he objected to was the form, not the substance of
an oath denying the claims of a Pretender, who had
been dead nearly two centuries.—(" Hear," and a laugh.)
It was really an insult to the loyalty of the subject and
the dignity of the Crown to require an oath to be taken
which implied that the Sovereign needed the mockery
of such a protection against the unknown race of a Pre-
tender who was upwards of a century in his grave. But
were the Jews excluded from that House upon the
merits of the question ? If they were it mattered not
how they were excluded, whether by such an oath or by
direct legislation. Now if, when they admitted the
Roman Catholics, they bad so altered the oath as that it
might be taken " by the rest of her Majesty's subjects,"
they would have been under the necessity of bringing
forward a measure directly to exclude the Jews, and is

the present state of the House of Commons they must
know that tt would be impossible to pass such a mea-
sure.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore submitted that, upon
the merits of the question the Jews were entitled
to the rights and privileges of British subjects. But
were they British subjects ? They were cer-
tainly amenable to all the obligations incidental
to such. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put
his hands as willingly into the pocket of the Jew as
that of the most orthodox Christian. .Ven old. The

tax paid by the Jew was in quite as good odour at her
Majesty's Exchequer as that paid by any other inhaoi
tent of the realm. But it was said by his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Midhurst that the Jew was only
a naturalised alien. What I were men whose fathers had
been established in this country for two centuries to be
only regarded as ❑aturalised aliens ? I lad not the Jew
the same interest as ourselves in all that related to the
welfare of the State, in good legislation, and, in the pro-
per administration of the laws ? Had he not the same
inducements—the same sensibilities—to attach him to

the country personally, politically, and domestically ?
and looking at the conduct of the Jews as a body, who
could say that they wi re not animeted by the same de-
gree of patriotism ? If the country were invaded, they
would be equally interested in repelling the invasion ;
and he who doubted that they would assist in doing so,
had only to look at the active part taken by the Jews
of Germany in the war of liberation to which that
country had recourse when seeking to throw off the
yoke of France. His Honourable and Learned Friend
said that they had the same nationality as us ; that
their thoughts and affections were fixed upon the land
of their fathers, to which they hoped one day to be
recalled. That such formed part of the poetry and
aspirations of the Jewish people might be true; but to
suppose that it could have the slightest practical effect
upon their conduct as citizens or subjects was purely
imaginative. Assuming, then, as he contended, that
they were British subjects, were they not entitled to the
common rights of subjects? They already enjoyed pro-
tection to person and property; but that was not all the
constitution of the country afforded to free subjects. It
was not only for the- benefit of the subject, but of the
state itself, to increase as far as possible the number of
persons eligible to offices in the state. In the case of
minors, of persons of inadequate property, of ecclesias-
tics, and of judges, there might be reasonable grounds
for exclusion. It might be unadvisable to mix up the
sacred calling of the ecclesiastic or the impartial charac-
ter of the judge with party strife; but in these cases
exclusion was justified solely upon considerations of
public policy and advantage to the state.—(Hear, hear.)
But we had no right, arbitrarily and without specific
reasons, to exclude from a full participation in
the honours and privileges of the state any
body of her Majesty's subjects. What would his lion.
and Learned Friend think if it were suggested that ail
the members of the' legal profession should he excluded
from that House.—(Much cheering.) He interred from
the cheers that such a proposition would not be alto-
gether unpopular.—(Renewed cheering, and laughter.)
It had been tried and effected in one Parliament. The
lawyers had been excluded, but they had their revenge,
for they christened it the parliastentum indoctum, and
not without reason, for a good law had never been made
by it.—(Laughter.) Now, if such a course were pursued
again, would not his Hon. and Learned Friend have
much reason to complain. The general body of lawyers
might be unpopular, but the great learning, the
eloquence, and the high character of his lion. Friend
might be referred to as sufficient to redeem them from the
disgrace and injustice of such an exclusion. Surely it
would not be a sufficient answer to say, that, as British
subjects, they had no political rights, and that, therefore,
Parliament was justified in excluding them. The
evils or dangers apprehended from the admis-
sion of the Jews could only be of two kinds,
political or religious. All the zeal of the oppo-
nents of the measure had not enabled them to suggest
the slightest political mischief likely to accrue from its
adoption. Political wisdom rather suggested that they
should crown their conduct towards the Jews by this
additional act of concession. In having granted them
civil rights the Legislature had either gone too far or
not far enough; if not too far, then should they be ad-
mitted to the fullest political rights as well as civil. In
order to justify their exclusion from Parliament upon re-
ligious grounds, they must chow some positive and tan-
gible mischief likely or possible to arise from their ad-
mission. Mere vague apprehension and surmise would
not suffice. What did they fear? Did they anticipate
danger to the Established Church, or the religion of
Christ, from the legislative acts of the Jews? Even sup-
posing the Jews had the power, what interest had they in
doing anything detrimental to that religion? Did the
House suppose that it entered even remotely into their
thoughts to convert us all to Judaism? Why, it was con-
trary to the very spirit of the Jewish religion to endeavour
to proselytise. Its very character was in its exclusiveness;
for the Jew looked upon it as a sacred inheritance de-
rived from his fathers, and to which he did not want to
admit the rest of the world. Besides the House was
not asked to give to the Jewish people the right of a
Jewish representation. It was asked only to give to a
Christian constituency the power, if it chose, of return-
ing a Jew as their representative. And was there any
one in that House who had so little confidence in the re-
ligious feelings of the Christian electors of this country
as to suppose that if they found that the Jews were
using their position to subvert the Christian religion
they would continue to elect them ? He thought not.
Well, then, were they apprehensive that the Jews would
pollute that House by their presence ; or did they ima-
gine that the piety or religious feelings of the lion.
Baronet, the Member for Oxford University, would be
endangered if a Jew happened to sit beside him ? In
the time of the Henrys and Edwards they thought right
to expel the Jews, because as the descendants of those
who crucified the God whom they adored, they saw
Follution in their presence ; and unless the
question were put upon a similar ground now, he
could see no reason for refusing admission to a
few Jews into that House. It was said that doing
so would lower the tone of the House. He could not see
how it would, any more than admitting them to the ma-
gistracy and the administration of justice had lowered
the tone of Christianity—(Hear, hear)—and to say so
would be casting a serious imputation upon the Christian
character of these realms. In whatever aspect, then,
they viewed the question, whether politically or religi-
ously, it was impossible to say that there was any real
or substantial danger to be apprehended from the admis-
sion of Jews to Parliament. Fortunately, this country
was not called upon to make the experiment in the first
instance. Other countries had done so. He would not
Say anything of France, because France was not regarded
as eminently religious. But in Holland, where the
people were fully as religious as in this country, the
Jews had been admitted to all the offices of the state,
and had worked in perfect harmony with their
fellow-subjects. Take Roman Catholic Belgium, or
the United States of America, in both of which coun-
tries strong religious feelings existed, sad were exhi-
bited, and there the Jews had been admitted to
political power. What were the examples to the
contrary—what the examples on the other side? They
were Austria and Rnssie; and the question now was,
whether this country would take its stand with the en-
lighteuednations of Europe or give its countenance to
the principles and views of bigots and barbarians?—
(Hear, hear.) Again, he might instance that the expe-
riment had been tried, and had been attended with sin-
gular success, in two of the British colones. In Jamaiea
and in Canada Jews had been admitted to seats in the
legislature; and it was well known that in the Canadian
rebellion the Jews had taken a prominent part in its
suppression, and in upholding the authority and rights
of the Sovereign of this realm.—(Hear.) But was there
nothing to be gained by the adoption of a measure the
effect of which would be to conciliate this class of the
subjects of the Crown? He would take the liberty of
ttekine: those who supported the Church whether they
did not feel that by granting this concession they
would not take the first great step towards bringing
the Jews to a sense of the value and blessings
of Christianity? Hew was it that Jews had lived
so long among Christians, and yet so little pro-
gress had been made in bringing them to the study
of that which made Christians believe their religion to
he the religion of God? Why, because Churchmen and
Christians had raised an insurmountable barrier, and
had taught them that they, as Christians, were their
bitter and implacable enemies?—(Elear, hear.) Let
them destroy the barrifr—remove the obstacles—let
teem treat the Jews as brethren in humanity—let the
Jew learn all that mercy that there was in the purity of
the faith which the Christian professed—let them bring
hun within the sphere of its holy influence—and in time
to come he would bo hi-ought within the pale of that
holy salvation for the maintenance of which Christians