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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 12. 1848.

LONDON, BROAIGHST RATN, and SOUTH
CILOWAY.
The half yearly meeting of this company was
held yesterday, at one o'clock, at the London Tavern,
for the transaction of the ordinary business of the
Company ; Mr. Grenfell, M.P., in the chair. The
attendance of proprietors was very large ; it was stated
that nearly 200 were unable to obtain admission.
The advertisement convening the meeting having
been read,
The SECRETARY (Slr. Buckton) was proceeding
to read the report, when loud cries arose from all
parts of th room for a larger room ; but
The CHAIRMAN stated that the largest room in the
house was occupied.
A GENTLEMAN said there were more out of the
room than in it, and hinted that the meeting would
be a packed and a hole and corner one if they were
not admitted.
The CHAIRMAN repudiated the insinuation with
contempt, upon which great uproar ensued.
Mr. WILSON (the gentleman alluded to) did not
wish to be offensive; he considered that every share-
holder had a right to be present, and if this could not
take place, he should withdraw.
The CHAIRMAN said he was entirely in the hands of
the meeting. He was most anxious that every pro-
prietor should be Fresent.—(Loud cries were then
raised for an adjournment, which appeared to proceed
from the majority of the meeting.)
The CHAtRmAN explained that they had sought the
large room, but they found it had been engaged on a
Friday for the last two years.
Several gentlemen here stated that a great number
in the room were not shareholders, and that they had
got surreptitiously into the meeting.
Mr. CASH suggested that they should either adjourn,
to meet in the large room, or the Hall of Commerce,
at four o'clock.
The CnaiumAN said he had other duties to perform
at the time mentioned. lie had to be at the House
of Commons to support the Jewish Disabilities Bill—
he would allow nothing to interfere with his duty to
the Jewish body.
Mr. WisnAw proposed that they should adjourn
until one to-morrow, which was seconded.
Mr. TAYLOR hoped that efficient means would be
taken to admit none save the shareholders and the
press.
Ultimately, after much discussion and delay, a
motion was carried that the meeting should be ad-
journed until eleven on Monday, in the large room.
The following is the report prepared for presenta-
tion to the shareholders, which, from its importance,
we give in extenso
" In submitting the following report for the half-year
ending 31st December, 1847, your directors regret that
the traffic of the company has suffered from the pressure
of the times and the extraordinary crisis in the commer-
cial world, which have affected every branch of industry
throughout the country.
The gross earnings of the half-year are 250,6101.,
showing an increase of 23,8991. over the corresponding
period of last year. The additional mileage on which
this excess has been obtained is thirty-four miles, includ-
ing the Keymer Branch, opened in October, but not
the Newhaven, opened on the Bth of December last. An
analysis of the traffic shows the following results:—On
tho trunk line between London and Brighton, as com-
pared with the corresponding half-year of 184il, the re-
ceipts are less by 19,0271.; and on the Cr )ydon line by
2,0801.; a similar comparison cannot be established pith
the new lines, as a large portion of them were not at that
period open; but the decrease of revenue on the trunk
lines demonstrates clearly the effect of the times, and
must lead to the conclusion that the development of the
extension lines has been checked and impeded by the
same causes.
" In reference to the progressive growth of railway
traffic, when unimpeded by extraordinary causes such
as have marked the year 1847, the following statistics
are submitted for consideration. The receipts on the
Brighton Trunk Line, prior to the opening of any of the
extensions, in the six months ending-
-1842 were 104,5341., or 1,850/. per mile,
1843 „ 113,3141., or 2,005 per mile, or 8i per cent.
increase,

1844 „ 128,525!., or 2,275/. per mile, or 13i „
1845 „ 143,9641., or 2,548/. per mile, or 12 „
showing an increase in 1845, as compared with 1842, of
38 per cent., or proceeds equal to 2,5481. per mile. In
the year just ended the receipts ou the same portion of
the line ware only 1,9771. per mile, clearly showing
the influence of the times upon the traffic of your rail
way. Upon the whole length of the line now open, the
proceeds amount to 1,649/. per mile during the last half-

year.
"Your directors have now to advert to the subject of
expenditure. There is a considerable increase under the
head of maintenance of way and works, which arises
from the increased mileage at the charge of the company
since the last report.
" The next increase, a very serious one, is in the loco-
motive department, attributable not merely to the ex-
tended mileage to be worked, the high price of coke, and
the advanced rate of freight ; but also to the fact that
one of the manufacturers failed in his contract for the
delivery of a large number of engines, intended to meet
the exigencies of the autumnal traffic, by which the ex-
penses of keeping up the working stock in a state of
efficiency were seriously augmented. A large supply
of engines has, however, since been received, which
will ensure a more economical working of the
traffic ; and in the important item of coke, also, a
considerable saving will be effected, inasmuch as large
qaantities have, of necessity, been purchased, in conse-
quence of the company nut having the means of mak-
ing sufficient for their own consumption. The coke
made by the company is less costly and of far superior
quality to that a hich has been purchased ; and, as
additional ovens have been built at Kineeton, and
others will shortly be erected elsewhere, the company
will be enabled to supply themselves with nearly all
they require.
" It may be desirable to inform the proprietors, that
no charge for engines, carriages, or other stock is car-
ried to capital, except for additions to the number of
each class, rendered necessary by the extended mileage
of the company.
" Under other heads of annual charge, your directors
would be misleading the proprietors were they to hold
out hopes of any material diminution. They have
effected as great reduction; in the expenses incidental to
the working of the line as they deem compatible with
its efficiency ; an exception, however, must be made in
the case of the London-bridge Station, where a con-
siderable reduction is contemplated, and which is one of
the beneficial results likely to arise from the friendly
relations new subsisting between the South-Eastern and
this company. Your directors also propose the re-
linquishment of the remuneration hitherto paid to them
for the management of that station.
" The 04eptint of oapital upon which the dividend [is
now payalie greatly exceeds that of the corresponding
period of last year, arising not only from the increase of
share capital, on which the balance is divisable, but from
the interest heretofore deducted upon unproductive
capital being now altogether charged to the current
revenue, from the dates of the respective openings of the
additional lines.
" Your directors, under the circumstances above re-
ferred to, can only announce a dividend equal to 11. per
501. share ; such dividend, if it have not the merit of
being large, has at least that of being just ; and they
are confident, that if the propritors maturely weigh the
present position of the company in all its bearings, they
will have well-grounded hopes for the future.
" Since the last report the Kepner and Newhaven
Branches have been opened. The benefit derivable by
the company from these lines will be considerable as
soon as the communication with Paris from Dieppe is
completed, by the opening of the Dieppe Railway,
which is expected to take place in March next. Not-
withstanding the existing disadvantages, however, this
company has carried about five thousand passengers
Within the space of three months, during the autumn, in
connexion with the boats of the Brighton and Conti-
nental Steam-packet Company from Shoreham. The
Hailaham, Eastbourne, and Deptford Branches have
been
'
suspended for the present. The Branch to Hors-
hans
of th 1 s.Ze"ely for opening, and has received the approval
e Railway Commissioners.
" No definite arrangement has yet been carried out
between the Brighton and Portsmouth Companies, but
your directors
entertain no doubt, from the feeling which
exists between therespective boards, that their pro-
ceedings will tspetiregulated
ar by a due regard to the in-
terests of all s. n addition to the shares in that
Were
undertaking which
your formerlycir the property of the
Croydon Company, ectors, in
the arrangements for theaccordance with
famalgamation with the Ports-
mouth Company, subscribeedemnrie4t,ooo shares therein, as
your trustees, in order to complete the requisite capital;
the agreement having precluded the shareholders in the
Portsmouth Company from participating in any capital
beyond the amount teen subscribe?. ating
nsteto announce
" Your directors have the satisfacztioa
that an arrangement with the South-
has been entered into, which is founded urnohCnotwhepafonly-
y
deer
Junction,
(owing basis, viz.:—That the tolls payablep
company to the other, for the use of their the one
lines between London- bridge and the Croy
pally eranties:
unction
are commuted,— South-Eastern Com
to this company the free use of the Bricklayers' Arm's
line and station ; they also assign in perpetuity nearly
five acres of land at the Bricklayers' Arms station, as
goods depot for this company, and remit the payment
by this company of 25,0001., for the third line or rails on
the Greenwich viaduct.
" Be the substitution of the Bricklayers' Arms Station
for goods in lieu of New Cross, this company will effect
a saving in cartage and other expenses incidental to the
goods traffic; and by the facility afforded, an augmenta-
tion of this traffic is expected. A collateral advantage,
of no ordinary importance, will also result in the dimi-
nution of the outlay which must otherwise have been
neurA re
red at the London-bridge Station.
, ` solution will be submitted to the meeting for the
conversion into stock of the fifteenth shares, amounting
to 38,0001.,
whereon five per cent, preference interest has
been abandoned since the last meeting.
"It is proposed to tak e powers to borrow on mortgage
176,5981, under the authority of the several Acts for
making
the branch les
i passed in the 9th and 10th
years of the reign of her present Majesty.
"Four of the directors, Edward Wigan, Edward
,
Crowley, James Whiskin
, and
alit
retire, pursuant to the Act f John Lawrie,
r Esquires,
ehnetre,
se hitivte
sareeeeer
eli-
gible for re. election, and offer am
dingly."
The accounts, which were very elaborate,
expenditure for the half-year to have
showed the
6s. 5d., the receipts 251,0761. ss. 2a been 119,8864
balanco for dividend 131,189/. 183.9d. and the available

Lord Portman had an interview with Sir George
Grey yesterday, a►t the Home-office.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 11.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the
Woolsack shortly before Five o'clock.
Lord PORTM.AN presented a petition fr,,ni some
place in Somersetshire, praying for an enactment to
prevent denunciations from the altar in Ireland.
The Earl of ELLENBOROLTGH presented a
petition from some place in Devonshire against
Jewish emancipation.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition
from the magistrates of Ayr with a similar prayer.
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from
Stafford, praying that Odd Fellows' societies might be
placed-on the same footing as other benefit societies.
GA ME-L AW S.
The NOBLE LORD then presented a petition from a
meeting of tenant farmers held in Edinburgh, praying
for an alteration in the game-laws. He thought that
some alteration ought to take place. He thought that
hares ought not to be considered as game. They
were most destructive, and every farmer ought to have
the liberty of destroying them on his own estate.
The greater number of convictions for poaching were
for snaring hares. Hares should be placed upon the
same footing as rabbits. He also thought that some
important modifications ought to take place in
the duty payable for a license to shoot, and
that a person ought to be enabled to shoot
on his own ground on paying a much less
amount of duty than at present. So long as
the qualification for shooting eonsisted in
,the pos-
session of 100 acres of land, there was no great
objection to calling upon him to pay 41. for his
license, but when they did away with the qua-
lification they should have lowered the duty on the
license. He thought that every man should have the
power of killing game upon the land he occupied, and
that the license should be either done away with al-
together, or the duty should be so reduced as to
place the obtaining of a license within the power of
any man who occupied land.
The Marquis of SALISBURY though that since
the alteration in the law was made authorising the
sale of game, the game was as much private pro-
perty as the trees on the farm; and tenants, when
they made their bargains with their landlords, were
fully aware that Fame was to be preserved, and made
their agreements accordingly.
Lord ASHBURTON thought that it would be
almost a perfect remedy for the evils complained of
as regarded the present game-laws, if the Legislature
were to pass a measure disgaming hares, and placing
them in the same category as rabbits.
Lord PORTMAN thought it desirable that this dis-
cussion should have taken place before the budget was
brought forward, in order that the finance Minister
might consider the propriety of lowering the duties on
game certificates. He knew that the present high
rate of duty prevented many farmers from taking out
game certificates.
JE WIS EI EMANCIPATION.
The Earl of HARROWP. Y presented several peti-
tions against Jewish emancipation.
HEALTH OF TOWNS.
The NOBLE EARL also presented a petition from
Stafford in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
ORDNANCE SURVEY.
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition
from some place in Scotland, complaining of the
small progress made in the Ordnance Survey in
Scotland.
The Duke of MONTROSE trusted that the Go-
vernment would adopt measures to remedy the evil
complained of. If the survey progressed at its present
rate it would take 35 years to complete it in Scotland.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the
conduct of the Ordnance officials engaged in the
survey.
The NOBLE MARQUIS then laid upon the table
copies of certain communications which had taken
place with the Austrian Government.
RAILWAY COMPANIES' AUDIT BILL.
Lord MONTEAGLE moved the second reading
of the Railway Companies' Audit Bill, and in doing
SO he wished at the outset to guard himself against
the imputation that this measure was proposed in any
spirit of hostility to railways. Some persons con-
tended that the Legislature should not interfere with
railways, but he contended that railway companies
should be watched with great jealousy by the Legis-
lature. It was said that railways were private pro-
perty, and the Legislature had no right to interfere
with them. Why, these companies owed their exist-
ence to an interference with the rights of private
property—the right of private property in land—
authorised by the Legislature for the public good ;
and therefore the Legislature had the fullest right to
watch and regulate the movements of railway directors.
It was necessary the Legislature should exercise this
right for the protection of shareholders. Since 1826,
a sum of upwards of 324,000,000/. had been placed
at the disposal of railway directors and proprietors,
and this fact alone was sufficient to authorise the in-
terference of the Legislature to see how it was applied
The sum placed at the disposal of railway companies
during the years 1845 and 1846, was more than
double the amount of that required for the army,
the navy, and the whole administration of the
United Kingdom. They had, besides, had power
given them to enter the money market and
to raise upwards of one hundred millions
on losn. Parliament ought to take care this power
should rest upon a just foundation, and that persons
lending should know exactly the security upon which
they lent their money. This borrowing, power
rested upon foundations totally different
to any other borrowing power in the
kingdom. They had an inducement to borrow
at a high rate of interest, which no other
body possessed, in order to complete their works, and
the exercise of this power had contributed greatly to
produce the late derangement of the money market.
The Bank of England had recently held a large amount
of these securities, and had been unable consequently
to make advances upon the security of the floating
debt of the country. Was this security what it pre-
tended to be ? That was a matter for grave consider-
ation. He had shown that Parliament possessed a
right and authority to interfere with these rail-
ways if it should be expedient for the pub-
lic good to do so ; but that question was not
raised by his Bill, which merely gave to share-
holders the power of insisting upon a strict audit
of the accounts of the directors. At present the au-
ditors were so intimately connected with the directors,
that the audit was, in fact, a mere matter of form, the
real auditors being the directors themselves. Now
he wanted to give the shareholders the power of
establishing a real and efficient audit of the accounts,
perfectly independent of the board of directors. He
did not propose to give the new auditor power of
disallowing items, but to give him the power of un-
limited access to all the accounts, and the power
of reporting thereon to the shareholders his opinion. In
many cases a dividend might be made out of calls, so that
a dividend of five per cent. might be declared when
really the profits only authorised the declaration of a
dividend of two and a half per cent., and thus
only a mystification of accounts, an illusory
security, might be created, upon which
illusory security money would be raised.
and that which was in fact a debt due by the com-
pany, might be represented as the property of the
company. Now, if there were an independent systew
of audit established, this state of things could not
exist, and the necessity for the establishment of some
independent audit was becoming every day more and
more manifest. He hoped that in all future Railroad
Bills, before the second reading of such Bills was con-
sented to their Lordships would insist upon a com-
plete audit of the accounts being laid be ore the Com-
mittee. He did not propose that the person so appointed
should have any power of imposing any penalty or
punishment; all he asked was that he should have good
access to all documents, and full power of making the
investigation, that he might state his opinion frankly,
transmit it to the Railway Department, that it might be a
public document open to reference by that and the other
House of Parliament. Railway companies had two
separate modes of obtaining money to make a dividend;
one, out of actual profits, the other, out of their capital.
This occurred when a line was only partly completed, or
when being complete from terminus to terminus, it
got a Bill to extend itself by branches. The whole
position of a company might bo altered by increasing
its capital and issuing new shares, and those who lent
it money bad a security very different from the real
one; this was made possible by a mystification of the
accounts, and the mixing up two sources of property
which ought always to be kept separate. Suppose the
capital of a railroad was 100,0001., and it paid a divi-
dendto ( that
of 5 per cent., or 5,0001.; supposing its profits fell
off, so that it could only give 3,0001. as a dividend, yet
twith power to call its capital to its aid, or of transferring
main capital some of the expenses of the railroad,
gehrea_ter dividend of 5,0004 could still be sustained.
w"hno
adttnyisctoenresid these
consideredthe
funds were
enormous
exposedtemp to, the
temptation those
House would see that some remedy ought to be provided.
Upon these grounds
he rested the measure he had
brought before t
ouse. He knew it might be ob-
jected that it did not gc'
far enough, and if he followed
his own view, he should
had thought it better to try tehit more stringent ; but he
power,
Bill in its present shape,
reserving to himself the rilenrecFssary, of bringing
the suLject again under the consideration atioa of Parliament.
The Bill would give to a certain number of shareholders
(he had nut fixed the precise number)
vexatiously prying into the concerns of the flcl'ewer, not
of
company,
but of protecting the minority. It had been suggested
that when a Bill for any railroad, or amalgamatiogigagill
or branch Bill, came before their Lordships, they
should require that before the second reading of the
Bill there should be an audit of the accounts by
an independent auditor. He was very far from
saying it might not be necessary to resort to that
course ; but such a measure, however good in itself,
would not meet the object of his Bill, because many
of the railroad companies which might be proper ob-
jects of his Bill might not come before their Lordships
at all. 'With respect to the provisions of the Bill
(which bad very few clauses), he proposed that a ba-
lance-sheet of the company should be submitted to the
railway commissioners, who would be empowered to up-
point au auditor, to report upon it, the report to be in

duplicate, one part to be presented to the Railway Com-
missioners. As to the expense of the audit, he thought
the party who call, d for the audit should pay the expense
of it, if, in the judgment of the Railway Commissioners,
the call should appear to have been unnecessary. The
effect of this nicaiure, and of the separation of the
capital from the revenue accounts would be to prevent
the misapplication of the capital, and to secure the
public spinst being deceived by a fallacious appear-
ance of continued prosperity. The Noble Lord con-
cluded by moving that the Bill be read a second
time, observing that he should postpone the Committee
until it should suit the convenience of all parties.
The Earl of GRANVILLE said, a measure was
wanted that should prevent the large privileges given
to railway companies from being abused, and money
being expended in a manner in which it ought not to
be. Be did not think the Bill went so far as that, but
as far as it did go, it was beneficial and should have
his support. Shareholders had a just claim to know
how their property was disposed of, and, although the
Legislature had made provision for that object, there
was an impression in the public mind that the inten-
tions of the Legislature had not been fulfilled. The
auditors of railway companies were chosen from persons
most active in the management of the concern, and the
public impression was that there was something not
quite sound in railway accounts.
Lord KINNAIBD did not oppose the Bill, but he
did not approve of unnecessary interference with rail-
way interests, It was true that great powers were
given to railway companies, and it was very desirable
that they should be placed upon a better system ; but
constant attempts to interfere with the management
of these great interests was a serious evil. The Bill, te
thought, would be to a certain extent ineffective ; for it
would take such a time before any' person could go
through the accounts (which must be examined most
minutely), that some months at least must elapse before
a report could be made.
Lord ASHBURTON agreed with the Noble Lord
who had just spoken, that any vexatious interference
with these great interests, in respect to their profits,
would be the grossest injustice; but he did not consider
that to be the aim and intention of the Bill, which
merely obliged railway companies to do that which
every public body was ready to do and in the habit of
doing. This audit would not give the power of reveal-
ing any honest secret connected with the interests of a
company; but if a company was going on a false prin-
ciple of profit, paying a dividend of 10 per cent. when
the real profit was only 6 per cent., that was a fact
very proper to be disclosed. The persons most inte-
rested in the audit were the shareholders themselves,
who comprehended widows, and orphans, and others,
whose whole property was invested in these great un-
dertakings, and who ought to have an opportunity of
knowing what was the real state of the company, and
that they were not risking their money in a concern
which rested upon an unsound foundation. He con-
fessed he should himself prefer a regular periodical
audit of railway accounts; tor, looking at the compli-
cation of these accounts, capital being blended with the
revenue derived from traffic, it was a difficult thing for
shareholders to unravel and understand them.

After a few words from Earl FITZ WILLIAM, who
approved of the Bill,
Lord NIONTEAGLE briefly replied iu explanation
of some of the details, and
The Bill was read a second time.
Their Lordships then adjourned to Monday.

DOUSE OF COMMOIVS, Feb. 11.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

GLASGOW WATERWORKS.

Mr. MACGREGOR presented a petition from the
Lord Provost and town council of Glasgow against
the Glasgow Waterworks Bill.

ELECTION COUMITTEES.

Mr. FOX MAULE brought up the second re-
port of the General Committee, of Elections, report-
ing that they had selected the following Members
for the Committee to try the merits of the return
for West Gloucestershire :—Mr.Grainger (Chairman),
Sir John Walsh, Mr. Aglionby, Major Cumming
Bruce, Mr. R. J. Thcrnely ; and for the Committee
on the Great Marlow election petition, Sir J. Peking-
ton (Chairman), the Hon. E. Mostyn, Sir J. Duck-
worth, Sir R. Price, and the Hon. H. Fitzroy.

Bruce, one of the nominated members, was not in the
House,

Mr. FOX MACTLE said it now became his pain-
ful duty, in consequence of the Hon. Mem-
ber not being in his place one hour after
the House had met, to move, under the 67th section
of the Act of Parliament, that he be taken into custody
by the Sergeant-at• Arms. In making the motion,
he must take the opportunity of drawing the attention
of Hon. Members to the rules which prevailed in the
nomination of those Committees. It appeared to him
that such cases as the one he was now dealing with
arose from the circumstance of Hon. Members not
being sufficiently attentive in consulting the panels
upon which their names were placed ; and he would
most earnestly recommend Honourable Members,
not so much with the view of saving themselves
trouble, as for the purpose of saving trouble and ex-
pense to the parties concerned, that they should
consult the panels in which their names were placed
every day during the time the panel was under con-
sideration. 'With these observations it was his
Painful duty to move the resolution which he had
just read.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS suggested that in future
the notices issued by the General Committee of Elec-
tions should be delivered to Honourable Members
bona fide through the hands of an officer of the House.
Mr. FOX MAULE directed the attention of the
Hon. Baronet to the third section of the Act of
Parliament, wherein it is stated that the clerk of the
General Committee of Elections should give notice in
writing to each Member who should be chosen to
serve on Election Committees.

Sir It. H. INGLIS said his suggestion was quite
consistent with the Act, which evidently required
that the notices should be personally delivered by an
officer of the House.

Lord HARRY VANE did not see the necessity
of a personal service, but in his opinion four or five
days' notice ought to be given to Honourable Mem-
bers before they were called upon to serve on these
Committees.

Mr. AGLIONBY agreed with the suggestion of
the Noble Lord. The summons which he received
to serve on this Committee did not mach him till late
last night. He did not attribute this to the neglect
of the officer whose duty it was to deliver it, because
it r; as left at his house so early as four o'clock yes-
terday afternoon, but at that hour he had left home
to attend the House, and, no doubt like many other
Members, he did not return till late at night.—(Hear.)
Sir W. HE ATHCOTE said the General Com-
mittee of Selection were bound, under the Act of
Parliament, to give the notices on the day of selection,
and they had no authority to interfere with the rules
laid down by the Act. It was the province of the
House, and not of the Committee, to make the
alterations suggested by llonourable Members.
He trusted therefore that his Right Hon. Friend and
the other members of the Committee would be
exonerated from any blame.—(Hear, hear.)
Dr. BOWRING said there was no complaint of
the conduct of the Committee, but he thought the
hardship was considerable.
Mr. THORNELY said that in the votes of the
House there was fourteen days' notice given of the
day on which the Committee was appointed, and the
panel from which the Committee would be taken.
He thought, therefore, Honourable Members could
not blame the House.
Mr. FORBES was sure that the Hon. Member
had no intention wilfully to absent himself; he trusted,
therefore, that the House would allow him to move
that the debate on the subject should be adjourned
till Monday.
The SPEAKER doubted whether he could put
the motion, because the Act was imperative in its
provisions, that when a Member who had been ap-
pointed on an Election Committee did not appear
within an hour from the sitting of the House, he
should be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms.

Mr. F. MAULE believed the Act was imperative,
and that the house had no discretion ; he should,
therefore, move that the Sergeant-at-Arms be ordered
to take the Hon. Member into custody.
Mr. HORSMAN suggested the withdrawal of the
motion, upon the understanding that all fees should
be paid, and the subject considered on Monday.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the adoption of such a course would be incon •
sistent with the the dignity of the House and a waste
of their time, as the Act was imperative.—(Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN—Then does the Right Hon.
Gentleman mean that the Hon. and Gallant Member
should be in custody to-morrow and Sunday ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—
Certainly. It was his duty to attend the house
having been appointed on the Committee.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER having put the question, that the
Sergeant-at-Arms be ordered to take the Hon. and
Gallant Member into custody, strangers were ordered
to withdraw.

In a few minutes the gallery was opened, when we
found that the motion had been agreed to without a
division.
THE GREAT MARLOW ELECTION COM-
MITTEE.

The Members of this Committee were then called
to the table, and Sir Robert Price being absent,
Mr. F. MAULE said Sir Robert Price, the
Member for Hereford, not having attended in his
place within one hour after the sitting of the
Hou,e, to be sworn as one of the members of the
said Committee, he felt it his duty to move that he be
taken into custody by the Sergeant at-Arms.
_ _

Mr. V. SMITH said, when an Hon. Member
moved that the debate on the last motion be adjourned,
the Speaker told him that he could not do so. If the
Act was imperative with respect to the committal of a
Member who did not appear, he could not see the
necessity of making a motion on the subject, and was
surprised that one was about to take place. As the
same thing might occur again, he begged to ask
the Hon. Gentleman to explain the law, and whether
the motion must be agreed to as as a matter of course,
or whether it was open to discussion ?
The SPEAKER read the 66th clause, which stated
that if a Member, summoned on an Election Com-
mittee, did not appear when called upon that he
should be ordered to be taken into custody. By the
old Act a motion was made that the Members so
absenting themseelves be taken into custody ; and
though it was not imperative under the new regula-
tion, he had thought it well to adhere to
the ancient mode. It might be open to
discussion whither a Member could be committed to
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms by the Speaker
alone.

Mr. HORSMAN said, in the event of the arrest
of a Member being agreed to, the Sergeant•at- Arms
or his officer was compelled to follow him
even into Scotland or Ireland, and he was
liable to pay all the expenses.—(Hear, hear.)
A Member might be absent from accident; and,
therefore, he thought the House should take care that
Members had full notice. The putting of the motion
showed that it might come to a division, and, of
course, if this came on a discussion might take place,
and any one might move an amendment; and the
Member himself, or his friends, might be enabled
to state some mitigating circumstances to entitle the
absent Member to the consideration of the House.
He believed that the notices were only served last
night, and it was just possible that they did not reach
the residences of the Members until after they m'ght
have gone off to dinner, or left town by the mail.
He invariably looked at the votes every
morning to see if he had been appointed
a Member of any Committee; no notice, howver, ap-
peared in the votes until Members were actually ap-
pointed; their nomination did not appear, and con-
sequently a Member might easily be inadvertently
absent.

Mr. ILUME said that no doubt, with respect to the
practice of the House, the Speaker was quite correct.
He thought, however, that by the terms of the Act it
was imperative upon the Speaker to cause the lion.
Member to be taken into custody without any mo-
tion whatever.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it most
important that every Hon. Member should attend
and perform the duties required of him, and
if he were not present when required it
was the duty of the House to order that he should be
taken into custody.
Sir G. GREY said, that no doubt it was quite
lawful to order the party to be taken into custody
immediately.
Mr. MUNTZ was of opinion that the present
Honourable Member ought not to be alio wed
to escape. There was great danger in not
keeping strictly to the Act of Parliament. If the
first Member had been allowed to escape, the second
would have escaped. All the Hon. Members had the
same notice, and it was their business to attend in
their places. The business of the House ought not
to be allowed to stand still in consequence of the non-
attendance of any of the Members.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion was then agreed to without adivision.,

Admiralty had taken into consideration the several
memorials of the commanders and lieutenants with
regard to a retired list, and of the masters with re-
spect to the preient anomalous rank which they hold
in the service.
Mr. WARD said that it was not the intention of
the Crown to make any provision in the .•stimates
for the purpose referred to by the Gallant Member.
With respect to the second part of the question, he
would state that the Board of Admiralty had had the
memorials in question under their consideration, and
had come to the conclusion that they could not ac -
cede to the suggestions of the memorialists.

commandment altogether, and had split the last, making
the ninth into two. The historian ,fated that it Dred,
having overcome the Danes, and being acquainted with
their usual perfidy, obliged them to swear 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 wmgf.anee 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 wither, 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-Barebonee.
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 lion. and Learned Gentleman through Prynne
and Glanville, he was ready to admit that the writs
were substantially such as had 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 Iseen 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 Meml)er 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 arid
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
proof 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.) lie
!eft 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,—(flear.) He 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 110 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 " eru-
, 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
ment; Mr. Pease, when elected, was also permitted to
take his seat. When 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
man, 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 lion. 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, viz.,
the Great Marlow and the West Gloucestershire Elec-
tion Committees, were adjourned till Monday.
*Mr. PEARSON then proceeded. The writings of
the Rev. Mr. Sitneon 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 alisop
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 ease,
their adherence to the faith of their forefathers. The
story of the passenger and his cloak was told in the old
nursery rhyme—
" The wind quite a hurricane blew,
But could not provoke
Him to part with his cloak,
Which around him the 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,
Religion's the light of the sun."
Lord DRUJILANRIG observed that the time had
been when the name of Christ was tho sole guide and
the sole 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 declaration, " 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 was 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 iuduood

the electors of London to return Mr. Rothschild ? Their
numbers amounted to 6,000 or 7,000. One's admiration,
however, of their conduct must be mixed with surprise
and curiosity. It was a question which suggested itself
for consideration how they had done so much and yet so
little—how, with this spirit iu 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
for 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 !lon. 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. If the Bill were an isolated
measure he would admit it was startling. But it was
only the natural consequences of the various steps taken
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, if 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 a
great injustice in being refused the privilege demanded
tor 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 he
became a Christian, and there were, he believed, six
gentlemen at present Members of the !louses 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 Dill pugged. It
had been argued that the business of Parliament was 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. Ex-
perience and reason showed that any endeavour to cor-
rect religious error by legislation was always inimical to
truth.—(liear.) 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 frog 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.

Mr. K. SEYMER did not concur in the principles
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 bad been preserved. They
had had been told that the Legislature did not consider
that a person of their persuasion should ever fill the
throve of these realms. There was a distinction on re.
ligioeis grounds which no one would attempt to abolish.
For his part ho held firmly to the Established Church,
and would stand by every defence which had been set
up for its preservation, nut because he liked them for
themselves, not because he wished to see any man per-
secuted for his religious opinions, but because he thought
them absolutely necessary.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord had said that they could hardly maintain a great
principle by fair words at the fag-end of
an oath. Granted. They could not make all men
Christians by imposing a declaration ; but neither
could they snake all men moral by a code, and still
they were constantly legislating for 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 as ex-
clusively 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 Christian
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. He be-
lieved that the citizens of London, who are fond of spe-
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 sub-
jeets of the Forte, 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 (Mr. K.
Seymer) remembered that when travelling in Asia Minor
he had the greatest difficulty in restraining his Turkish
courier from horse-whipping the Archbishop of Phila-
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. lie feared that if the privileges
of the Church were taken away she would le on cease to
be an Established Church, and that being his opinion
he must oppose the present Bill.
Mr. HORSMAN said ho 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 it
portion of our fellow-.ubjecte, 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 questiou was 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 now waited at the
door of the House for admission. Constitutionally he
was their representative, but a legal objection had been
raised to his admission into Parliament. He (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
Hon. Member fur Midhurat. It was asserted that
Christianity was part and parcel of the law 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 front
Parliament. Why, there was no law of the kind in the
statste-book, and therefore there was none to be
annulled.—(Hear, hear.) Formerly there had been such
laws, but those having been repealed there was little
reason iu seeking to exclude the Jews by laws enacted
for the exclusion of an entirely different set of men.—
(Hear, hear.) The question was, whether Parliament.
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 reference
whatever to him or his religion.—(Hear, hear.)
The Jews were made to bear their part of the
national burdens ; we compelled them to carry arms.
or to give us money when we wanted it ; in fact, int.
posed upon them all the responsibilities of subjects ;
but when they asked for the privileges of-citizens, we
denied them, with the answer that they were only Jews.
—(Cheers.) As the law stood at present they might be
magistrates, sheriffs, or aldermen, but the moment it waa
sought to admit them into Parliament a cry was raised
that Christianity was at an end. It had also been said
that persons who were uninfluenced by feelings of Chris.
tianity should not have any share in legislating for the
Established Church. But they did interfere at present.
They voted at vestries, at the election of vicars, and in
the distribution of parochial funds. A Jew proprietor
of advowsons might nominate the rector of a parish.
and Hon. Gentlemen opposite might possibly have re-
ceived the sacraments of the Church from the hands of
a clergyman who was the nominee of a Jew.—(llear.)
Again, a Jew sheriff might ex officio be present at some
of our religious ceremonies. He believed that a sheriff
of that persuasion had been present at the recent edify-
ing pr, ceeedings in Bow Church, when protesters
were invited only to be stifled, and objectors called
to be summarily knocked down.—(Bear, hear.)
It had been laid down as a principle, and admitted upon
all sides, that no man was to be punished for his reli-
gious opinions. Was that principle to be rescinded?
No; we were too true to our principle to retract, but too
false to advance; and if Hon. Gentlemen opposite were to
be attended to, would stop half way, preserving a gross
anomaly in legislation. If men were fit to administer
the law, it was a strong presumption that they were
competent to make laws, and those who denied the corn.
potency were bound to prove their assertion. If danger
was asserted, danger should be shown, and no danger
had been specifically pointed out by Gentlemen
on the other side. The old cry of" the Church in danger"
had been given up, and a new cry of " Christianity in
danger" had been substituted. What was the danger?
There was a vaeue, mysterious, unmentionable alarm.
but nothing tangible or real in the shape of danger had
been pointed out. Would the Bill, if it passed, make one
Churchman less or one Jew more?—(Llear, bear.) He
really felt 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.—(livar, hear.) Such wts
nut 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, had
been a fearless martyr, to become in the day of her ex-
altation: and pride a trembling tyrant?—(llear, hear.)
Could not Christians in the present day enter into the
contest without anticipating defeat?—(Elear, hear.) He
asked that question of lion. Gentleman opposite, of
the Hon. Baronet below him (Sir R. Inglis), than whom
no man had a higher place in the estimation of the House
or the country.—(Rear.) That Hon. Btrouet would for-

1

give him if he said that a great part of his life had been
spent in pis claiming the weakness of his religion,
and its possible, if not probable, downtal.—(Cries
of " Oh, oh," from the Oppssition.) lie was spe (king
politically, and he asserted that on every occasion or
concession the Hon. Baronet had predicted that the sun
of Protestantism had set for ever. And now 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.) He 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 religioa 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 Cuckermouth's speech had completely con-
tradicted the other.—(Herr, 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 I 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. Ia the first place, he altogether disputed the con-
clusion deduced from the Hon. Member's argument, viz.,
that every natural born subject of the Queen had consti-
tionally a right to sit in Parliament if elected; and,
further, ho 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 maintained 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-
MIMS or Hindoos, as 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 print 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 ho was fully aware how difficult it was for Mem-
bers of the Government, who were engaged in their
official duties all day long to attend night after night
in the House, listening to dell debates, he could not but
remember that when he sat on the other side he seldom
saw the Treasury bench 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
st 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—which 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.
en 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
ease of national danger, to defend the country at the
xisk of his life, and discharging all the ordinary obliga-
tions of a citizen, was also entitled to participate in all
the rights, privileges, honours, and advantages inciden-
tal to that position. independent of religious
(Hear.) He admitted that proposition must be taken
with certain modifications—as, fur instance, if the admis-
aison of any person, or class of persons, to those rights
snould 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,
Much 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
those
was fraught with any such dangerous consequences.
hose who would deny to 40,000 of her Majesty's sub-
Jeets, not only now, but in time to come, their rights
and privileges as Englishmen, were bound to mske out
their proposition that this was a case in which the
The
to the general rule should apply. —(Hear.)
',he Hon. and Learned Member for Midhurst and those
Wa° opposed the Bill took their stand on the law and
constitution. He denied that the law or the consti •
tution was as his Learned Friend (Mr. Walpole) had
stated it to be. Nor would the argument be worth
luch if it were—for if the law or the constitution sane-
tin
ioned injustice, or what was perhaps worse, folly,
the
only conclusion he should draw would be that it
quire amendment.—(Hear.) Having admitted the
enlan 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
'rery like swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat.
'(Hear, hear.) Since Parliament was first constituted
"'ere had never been any law, either in the constitution
o.' the statute book that had had for its end or design
the exclusion of the Jews. Their exclusions had been
the ."exult, not of Legislative design, but of Legislative
tecid tent. All the laws of exclusion passed by Parlia•
_
tilleent had been directed against Parliament, none against
pa.,: Yews. According to the original constitution of
ament, the eligibility of the representative de-
fend ed solely on the choice of the electors—there was
pei other ,nualification ; neither was there, until the
g
wght V Elizabeth, any religious test. In that reign,
Rona The great struggle between Protestantism and
a nism was ;still going on. and when
readProtestant-
again obteined the ascendancy, the Protestant
curt,' naturally adopted all the means and engines eir-
estili•.tallees placed in their power to secure that ascendancy
es "el) down their opponents. The oath of supremacy
.thus introduced for the obvious and avowed purpose
Of 'IX eluding Roman Catholics from all participation in
Politic al power. This was the only Act of exclusion in
rt jell- In the 3d of Sing James came the oath,
fowhich was the model of the present oath, and in which
r the first time the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" were introduced. This, too, was for the sole
purpose, of excluding Roman Catholics, and was entitled
4:e_ Ace for the suppression of Popish recusants." And
e words were introduced in this way. The Act was
,i:_
led ina mediately after the discovery of the gunpowder
plot, of w Bich the Jesuits were believed to have been
%t the butt om ; and as it was known that the Jesuits
ellanci sd the dangerous morality that they might
avoid the
at th the o bligation of an oath by a mental reservation
by e time .of taking it—a doctrine which was admitted
boGarnet,. the Jesuit chief, as one to which that
dy subs( iribed—the Legislature introduced a form
t.. Words wl rich should prevent any Roman Catholic ob-
ung Power by taking an oath in terms which in his
heart he did not hold to be binding. This was the oath
which continued till the celebrated oath against trans-
aubetantiation
that t
and
inhfa ate tit is the 30 Charles 11. No one could doubt
was directed
against Roman Catholics only;
that its was expressly declared in the Act itself
real object was to protect the King's person and
tn, by excluding R
m
stoon Catholics from power. So
thatd matters till the Roman Catholics from power. So
ttera till the reign of William and Mary. In
reigna all these oaths and statutes were abolished,
t uute dtthetelsi
oaths of allegiance and supremacy were substi-
this in the terms they now were. The opponents of
alleged that according to the constitution no
Jew could be admitted into Parliament. He asserted
that there was nothing in the law or constitution, down
jtothe. last year of William 111
which could prevent a
mune* from
was taking his seat if elected In that year when
some danger of the claims of a Popish

successor to the crown, the oath of abjuration was
passed. That, however, was passed as against Roman
Catholics, and against tha house of Stuart in particular,
and that oath continued to be Liken to the present
hour. That it was directed against Roman Catholics
was clear by the subsequent Act of Georg-e 1., which
enabled the Crown to seize upon the estatt s of Raman
Catholics who were guilty of treason. as aasinst the
state, in supporting the claims of the Prett nd, r. The
whole course of legislation, so far as it had reference to
any religious test or opinion as a qualification for ad-
mission to Parliament, was directed not against the
Jews, or in support of Christianity, hut solely and ex-
clusively against our fellow-Christians the Roman Ca-
tholics.—(Hear, hear.) Ile would pointsut a still more
striking anomaly. Patliatnent had thou' lit it right to
change the state of the law in respect to Roman Catho-
lics, and that portion of our fellossasubjects 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 Howe 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 had 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.—(fiear, 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. Nen act. The
tax paid by the Jew was in quite as good odour at her
Majesty's Exchequer as that paid by any other inhabi-
tant 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 1 were men whose fathers had
been established in this country for two centuries to be
only regarded as naturalised aliens ? {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 personaliy, politically. and domestically ?
and looking at the conduct of the Jews as a body, who
could say that they wt re not aninaited 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 takeu 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 DOC 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.—(llear, hear.)
But we had no right, arbitrarily and without specific
reasons, to exclude from a fell 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 all
the members of the legal profession should be 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 parliamentum indoctum, and
not without reason, for a good law had never been made
by it.—(Laughter.) Now, if such a course wero pursued
again, would not his lion. 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 Hon. 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 sights, 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 show 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 nut 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 positio❑ 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 Hon.
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

pollution 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 ►ower 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, and 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 Russia; and the question now was,
whether this country would take its stand with the en-
lightened nations 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 Jainsiea
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 Crcien? He would take the liberty of
asking 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
be 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?—(Hear, hear.) Let
them destroy the barrier—remove the obstacles—let
them 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
him within the sphere of its holy influence—and in time
to come be would be lett:ight within the pale of that
holy salvation for the maintenance of which Christians

were so anxious, and for the extension of which they
professed so much to desire.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES said that while he did not claim for
himself or those with whom he acted on this question
any monopoly a true religious feeling, he dis

cit;iined the application to them of -the terms
bigots and barbarians. Notwithstanding that
thy Honourable and Learned Member for South-
ampton (Mr. Cockburn) had bestowed so much
historical and legal lore on this question, he (Mr.
Bankes) must say that his research did not bear upon
the subject, and that his speech, able and eloquent as it
had been, afforded no answer to that of the Honourable
and Learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole),
which on a former evening made an impression on the
House which would not easily be obliterated.—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable and Learned Member who had
just spoken had inquired what dangers would arise from
the proposed concession to the Jewish people. He (Mr.
Bankes) at once replied, that from them dangers would
arise in the Church itself, and that dangers from with-
out the pale of that Church would follow.—(Hear,
hear.) Before he showed these results, he must ob-
serve that the Honourable Member for Lambeth (Mr.
Charles Pearson) had stated that a Jew having been
elected a Member of that House by 7,000 of his
fellow-citizens, he claimed the rights to which that
election entitled him, and the lion. Member proceeded
to say that, as no statute law excluded the Jew, he was
dishonoured by the refusal of admission within the walls
of Parliamont. It was true that there was no statute
law to exclude the Jew, but it was equally true that the
only class excluded by name and by profession were the
clergy of the Church of England. If their exclusion
was dishonour, as had been contended, then were the
reverend members of the Established Church dis-
honoured as well as the members of the Jewish faith.
He (Mr. Bankes) had not had an opportunity of voting
on the questions which gave facilities to persons of the
Jewish persuasion for attaining the civil distinctions
which the offices of alderman, sheriff, or magistrate,
conferred, but he confessed that he did not object to the
grants of those powers of a ministerial character, but that
was very different from their admission to legislative
powers. Still he thought the arguments which had been
raised from those concessions forced upon the House the
necessity of cautiously watching every step tendingine-
vitably to lead to further concessions. He believed that
those who had agreed to the concessions already made
had never entertained a supposition that they would be
charged with being bigots and barbarians it' they refusd
to proceed further.—(Hear, hear.) To return, however,
to the dangers to be apprehended from the measure now
under consideration. He had already said that it was
fraught with danger within the Church itself. The
danger was of this nature. There had been circulated
within the last few days a reprint of a very important
speech of a most reverend pralate—still a dignitary of
the Church—the present Archbishop of Dublin. It was
obvious that those who entertained views in accordance
with those stated by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Southampton (Mr. Cockburn) considered this speech
a very valuable document, or they would not
have reprinted it and circulated it generally,
Able as the speech was, it carried a warning to those
who belonged to the Church, and ought to open their
eyes to the dangers which were hanging over them.
The Archbishop of Dublin then supported the measure,
and it was to be presumed that he did so still. On the
occasion when the speech was delivered, the Right Rev.
Prelate said, " I will say nothing on the political part of
the question, because I consider it desirable to avoid
as far as possible touching upon politics; but the second
part of the question is of a religious nature. It has been
urged that persons who not only do not acknowledge,
but who renounce, deny, and even vituperate the great
author of the Christian religion, ought not to have
voice in the Legislature of a Christian country. On this
point there arises a question, which I own I find it very
difficult to answer." And what was the answer given
by the Right Rev. Prelate to that difficult question? He
said, " I admit that the Jews ought not to have legisla-
tive powers with regard to matters regulating or
affecting the Christian Protestant Church, but I also
think there is an incongruity in admitting any one,
whether Christian or not, to have a share in affairs
strictly ecclesiastical, or in the government of the
Church, and I take this opportunity of declaring nay
opinion on that point to be that the purely ecclesiastical
concerns of the Church, apart from secular matters,
ought to be entrusted to some persons, whether called
Commissioners or by any other name, to be expressly
appointed for that purpose, they being members of the
Church." Thus, the Right Rev. Prelate would with-
draw from this and the other House of Parliament every
motion relating to the Church, and this he would do as
a necessary consequence upon admitting Jews to seats
in Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Was the House prepared
to adopt this preliminary stipulation for further conces-
sions—a stipulation which formed one of the charges
brought against James 11., and was declared by the Bill
of Rights to be illegal and pernicious? This was then a
part of the danger and mischief to be apprehended from
the proposition now under the consideration of the
House. A schism within the Church was more fearful
than anything that could result from the admission of a
few Jews into that House. He spoke not as a tractarian
or retractarian ; he presumed not to give an opinion on
such delicate points ; but the House seeing that they
might encourage schisms such as had arisen in the Church
from a recent unhappy appointment, made by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, ought to pause in
its course. He understood that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr.
Gladstone), on a former evening, had incidentally
touched upon a point which he (Mr. Bankes) considered
to be of the highest importance, but so slightly and deli-
cately as to render it difficult to understand his Right
Hon. Friend's meaning. His Right Hon. Friend had
alluded to the petition from Archdeacon Wilberforce,
who took the same grounds as those adopted ten years
before by the Archbishop of Dublin. True, his Right
Hon. Friend said he did not go the length lof agreeing
with Archdeacon Wilberforce as to the appointment of
a commission to deal with all ecclesiastical matters, yet
he could not hesitate to say that the general course of
events and the objects now proposed greatly increased
the degree of delicacy which applied to the Established
Church. These were very ambiguous phrases, and he
tausted that his Right Hon. Friend would explain his
very delicate speech, which nobody had plainly under•
stood. When they recollected that ministries bad been
kept in their places by majorities of three or four, it
should not be said that the admission of four or five
Jews could be of little importance. The Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth had not yet declared
why he had changed his opinions with respect to this
question. The speech which that Right lion. Gentleman
made in 1830 on this very subject appeared to him most
convincing, and he did not believe that any one but the
Right Hon. Gentleman himself could answer it. ,If
they made this concession to the Jews, they could not
stop there.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore hoped the
House would pause before they consented to the second
reading.—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL then rose and addressed the House. It
was with great reluctance (said the Right Hon. Baronet)
that I gave a silent vote on the first occasion when this
matter was brought under our consideration ; but the
peculiar circumstances under which that debate closed,
so immediately before the Christmas recess, and my
unwillingness to incur the risk of preventing the House
coming to some conclusion on the question, induced me
on that occasion to be silent. I now wish to state the
grounds on which I have come to a conclusion at vari-
ance certainly with first impressions—(llear,hear)—and
which places me in painful collision with many: with
whom I have almost invariably acted—with sonic of
whom I never, to the best of my recollection, on any
former occasion of equal importance have had the pain
to have differed—at any rate, ever recollect to have
given a vote to oppose. I can say with truth that I have
given this subject the fullest and best consideration, and
I will state the grounds on which I have come to the
conclusion that this Bill ought to pass. No part of the
resolution to which this conviction has led me has been
influenced by an opinion that religion is a matter of in-
difference.—(Bear.) I am deeply impressed with the
conviction that it is our paramount duty to promote the
interests of religion, and its influence on the human
mind.—(Hear.) I am impressed with the conviction
that the precepts and doctrines of Christianity ought
to influence our deliberations.—(Hear, hear.) I am
impressed with the belief that if our legislation be at
variance with the precepts and spirit of Christianity,
we cannot expect the blessing of God upon them ; and
I say this, that whether it be right or whether it be
wrong, my decision this night is influenced much less
from consideration of political expediency than from a
deep sense of religious obligation.—(Cheers.) I com-
mence by stating that in my opinion there is between
the tenets of the Jews and of the Christians an im-
portant and vital difference.—(Hear, hear.) In my
opinion, the religion of the Christians and the religion
of the Jews are more opposed, in essentials, than any
other two religions that exist ; for between those two
religions there is a complete antagonism. I do not
consider the concurrence of the Jews with the Christians
in recognising the historical truths and Divine moralities
of the Old Testament is sufficient to overcome that
essential difference, or that it can reconcile the religion
of the Jews with Christians, seeing that they reject
those doctrines which constitute the vital principle
and foundation of Christianity. I admit at once
that there is a concurrence between the Christians
and the Jews so far as the Divine teachings and
revelations contained in the Old Testament are recog-
nised by both; and I say this, that if I had any authority
to determine what was religious error, and if I had a
commission to punish religious error—in that case, were
my power exercised at all, it would be exercised in
punishing the Jews. But I have no such commission.—
(Hear, hear.) If the Jews did commit an inexpiable
crime some two thousand years ago, I have had no com-
mission given to me—even if I could determine who
were the descendants of the persons guilty of that crime
—I have no such awful power, as I believe it to be, to
punish the sins of the fathers upon the children not unto
the third or fourth generation, but unto the three hun-
dredth or four hundredth generation. " Vengeance is
mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." I have, therefore,
neither the duty nor the authority to punish religious
error. I maintain this, that the House of Commons has no
right, for mere religious error, to inflict a penalty.—
(Hear, hear.) I consider a civil disability to partake of
the nature and character of a penaltyel speak of pure re-
ligious error. If you can infer from that religious error
dangerous political opinions, and if you have no other
mode of determining what the political opinions of a
party are except by the administration of a test for the
purpose of ascertaining what are his religious opinions,
in that case you possibly have a right to impose a restric-
tion. In the case of the Ronan Catholic you did net
exclude him because he maintained the doctrine of tr:l-
- but because you thought he was a dan •
gerous subject in consequence of his acknowledging the
Supremacy of a foreign power. You excluded him from
political power because you believed he w-ould abuse it
when he possessed it ; but though he maintained relis
gious errors, you did did not inflict civil disability. If
you can show, in this case, that the maintenance of cer-