The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-04 00:00:00

he would nut be a party to giving to a new sect
Dissenters power to regulate his Church, because he be
lieved that that Church eas as much an integral part
the constitution as M igna Charta or the Bill of Rights
—(Hear, hear.) It was because he believed hi,
Church to be an integral p trt of the constitution that
he would not cons-nt to admit into that assembly a se.
of men to m tke laws and enact regulations for an estab
lishment with which they had avowedly no sympathy of
feeling in common. With reference to the proposition
of his Hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham, he con-
curred entirely with its principle, hut, as a question oi
expediency, he would recommen 1 his Hon. Friend to
withdraw it, and reserve his strength for the division on
the main question.
Mr. ADDERLEY expressed his regret that the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Oxford University had wasted
so much good feeling on the speech of the Hon. Mernte
for Leicester, a speech which had been listened to by tin
House with sentiments of unmixed disapprobation.—
(Rear, hear.) With reference to the measure before th.
House, he believed that public feeling was wire])
against it, and he regretted that that opinion seemed
.t.
have so little influence on the deliberations of Parini.
merit. He could nut understand how a people why
everywhere repudiated a common nationality could eve,
be expected to fuse or amalgamate with the people it
this country. The case of the Jews of Damascus would
be fresh in the recollection of the House. That both
when persecuted applied for assistance, not to
of the Christian princes of Europe, but to tilt
leaders of their own nation—the Rothschilds and
Montefiores. The only case in favour of the Bill
was that a Jew had been returned for the City of
London; but that was in his mind no sufficient ground
for passing this measure. Of all constituencies none
was perhaps more amenable to the influence of wealth
than that of London, and it might easily be conceiver
that to that influence the return which had occasioned
the introduction of the Bill was in some degree owing.
He hoped the House would reject the measure, because
he feared that its passing would give rise to a feeling
in
influenced
rather country that in these changes they were
rather by an indifference to religion than by a spirit of
impartiality.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GORING would not trouble the House to divide
on his amendment, which was withdrawn, and
The House went into Committee on the Bill.
Clauses 1 to 5 were agreed to.
On clause 6 being read,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY proposed to add word!
which should prevent Jews being appointed to "an)
office in the gift or appointment of her Majesty, her
heirs or successors, to which the appointment or
recommendation to any office or preferment
whatever in the United Church of England and Ireland.
or in the Church of Scotland may belong." He did not
object to some offices in the State being filled with Jews,
but it would be a most anomalous thing that a Jew
should have any power over the Established Church.
And as the Bill stood there was nothing to prevent
Baron Rothschild
becoming Prime Minister, and thus
having in his hands the appointment of the Bishops, and
the whole control of the Church of England.
Sir J. WALSH seconded the amendment, and hoped
his Hon: Friend would take the sense of the Committee
against it. Under the Bill as it stood, a Jew would not
be eligible to hold the office of Lord Chancellor, and, on
the same principle, he should be ineligible to the office
of Prime Minister—an office to which pertained a far
greater amount of ecclesiastical patronage than that of
the Lord Chancellor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that all the ar-
huments which were urged in support of this amendment
ad been urged against the Roman Cetholic Relief Bill.
It was a mistake to suppose that a Jew could not, as
the law stood, hold ecclesiastical patronage ; he was
fully competent to do so, and there was no occasion
Whatever for introducing further legislation on the sub-
ject. He hoped the amendment would not be pressed.
Mr. BANKES argued that, if the Great Seal could
not be held by a Jew, on account of the patronage of
ecclesiastical benefices, the same exclusion ought to ap-
ply to the Chancellor -.of the Duchy of Lancaster, the
President of the Board of Control (who had large eccle-
siastical patronage in India), and the Colonial Secretary,
who were all on the same footing. It was no answer to
him. to quote the 10 George IV. (the Roman Catholic
Relief Act), because he did not concur in that measure,
and would not consent to its being made a precedent for
other innovations.
Mr. REYNOLDS asked why the Jew was excluded
from the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland? If this was
done because the Roman Catholics were excluded
from this office, he would observe that the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland had not the patron.
age of a single living. An injustice having
been committed towards the Roman Catholics in this
respect, why should the injustice be indorsed on the
back of the Jew?—(Laughter) He would support the
omission of the word " Ireland " from the clause, other
wise it would be a justification of the exclusion of
the Roman Catholics for ever from that office. On the
bringing up of the report he would move this amend•
in, nt.
After a few words from Mr. ANSTEY,
Mr. G ARDNER contended that the private patronage
of the Church of England was a great disgrace to it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood the object of
the amendment to be to take away, not the power of
appointment, but of recommendation to any benefice.
In the Roman Catholic Relief Bill there wad no such
restriction; and, in fact, there was no office to which the
hewer of recommending positively btlonged. The
ighest recommendation, that of the Ministry, had fre-
quently been exercised by Secretaries of State and the
Lords l'rivy Seal; but tht re was no one to whom it be-
longed of right. Therefore it appeared to him that the
amendment was unnecessary.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY slid it was a fact, and a great
fact, that the Prime Mini,ter did appoint all the bishops
whatever might be the right to do so.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 99
Against it 196
Majority 94
Sir R. INGLIS proposed at the end of section 6, page
4, to add these words, " Or judge of any of her Ma-
jesty's courts of law, or member of her Majesty's Most
Honourable Privy Council." He objected to any measure
which would place in the Privy Council persons who
could not give her Majesty sound advice in her double
capacity as head of the State and head of the Church.
He also objected to giving the Jew power to deei&J
Christian causes between Christian men.
Col. SIBTHORP seconded the amendment. Under
this Bill a Jew might become Speaker of the House, and
in that case, how could he join in the usual prayer with
which business was commenced?
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendnient ... lO9
Against it
Majority

The clause was then agreed to, as were the remaining
clauses.

Mr. C. ANSTEY moved the following clause:—
" And whereas no alteration of right can or ought to he
made in any matter belonging to the doctrines or disci.
pline of any religious communion save with the full and
free consent and concurrence of the proper ecclesiastical
authority, and according to the laws and usages of such
communion: be it therefore enacted, that from and atter
the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for Parlia-
ment to make any euactrnent for changing or altering
any matter belonging to the doctrine or discipline of the
United Church of England and Ireland, or to the doc-
trine or discipline of the Church of Scotland, save with
the full and free consent and concurrence of the said
Churches respectively, such concurrence to be signified
in the case of the said United Church of England and
Ireland by vote of the convocation or convocations of
the said United Church, and in the case of the said
Church of Scotland by vote of the General Assembly of
the said Church and not otherwise."
Mr. HILDYARD asked if it c ere competent to move
this clause?
The CHAIRMAN replied in the negative, and the
matter consequently fell to the ground.
The preamble was then agreed to, and
The CHAIRMAN put the question, that "I report
this Bill without amendments to the House."
Mr. LAW said he should move as an amendment, that
the Chairman leave the chair on Friday.—(Laughter.)
Mr. LAW (angrily)—l mean, that this Bill be not
now reported.—(Renewed laughter.)
The CHAIRMAN—The question is, that "I report
this Bill without amendments to the House." Do you
divide?
Mr. LAW—Yes.
The CHAlRMAN—Strangers must withdraw.
Sir R. H. INGLIS hoped that the Right Hon. Gen-
tlemen would not divide.
Mr. LAW said, all he desired was to insure that this
Bill should receive full consideration at a period when
the termination of the assizes and sessions enabled all
the Members of the house to be present at the discus-
sion. If he could have the assurance that this measure,
which he felt assured would hereafter bo execrated by
the people—(oh)—which he felt would be the first step
to the extinction of the Christian character of this coun
try—(Oh, oh)—if he could have the assurance that the
measure wouldi have a fair consideration hereafter, be
would now withdraw his amendment.—(Loud cries of
" Divide," " Oh," and laughter.) Those cries were not
consistent with peaceful measures, and ho would not be
put down by clamour.— (Groans.)
Lord J. RUSSELL understood from the Hon. Member
for the University of Oxford that he wished the third
reading not to take place until Monday next. He had
had some difficulty in agreeing to that arrangement, but
considering that his Hon. Friend always united the most
conscientious opposition to the most courteous bearing—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—he had come to the
resolution of agreeing to that proposal. With respect
to the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
that the third reading ought to be postponed in order
that Members might have an opportunity of remaining
in the country—(Laughter)—he could only say, that if
the Right lion. Gentleman considered it necessary for
the interests of the Church to force the House-to a divi-
sion, he should only regret that the care of the interests
of the Church had devolved upon such hands.—(Loud
and reiterated cheers.)
Mr. F. .MACKENZIE, as a consistent opponent of
the Bill, thought it would not be consistent with usage
to divide the House on this occasion.
Mr. LAW, under such circumstances, would withdraw
his amendment.—(Hear, hear.)
On the House resuming,
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to say that, although he
had not considered the course pursued by the Right
Hon. Gentleman very discreet or wise, he had nut, in
what he had said, intended any personal reflection.
The Bill was then reported.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that on Friday next it was
his intention to move the second readies,- of the Landlord
and Tenait Bill, for the purpose of i'clerring it to a
Select Committee. In the event of that Bill not being
opposed, he should on that day move the further pro-