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

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

Mr. HUME gave notice that, to-morrow, he would
move for a return of the amount voted for the ordi-
nary services of the Cape of Good Hope, during the
years 1846 and 1847, and of the nature of the ex-
penditure of 11,0001. in war services during these
two years.
WINDOW-TAX.

Lord DUNCAN, understanding that the Noble
Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests
had intimated his intention to bring in a Sanitary
Bill, should on an early day renew his motion on
the repeal of the window-tax.
IRISH RETURNS.

Mr. GROGAN moved for certain returns relat-
ing to the exportation of horses, cattle, and live stock
from Ireland.

Mr. REYNOLDS rose to oppose the motion, but
was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who called his attention to the
fact, that the motion was for a return of the cattle
and live stock exported from Ireland during the last
year.
Mr. REYNOLDS—Oh, I thought it was for re-
turns connected with the Corporation of Dublin.

The return was agreed to.
Tll E POPE.

Sir R. H. INGLIS gave notice that to-morrow he
should ask for leave to 'present a petition from the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster against the usur-
p4ion of the Bishop of Rome upon the integrity of
the British constitution and liberties of the British
people.
MONMOUTH ELECTION.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY moved that the pe-
tition of Lord Granville Somerset, as to the rocog-
nirinces entered into of the county of Monmouth pe.
tition, be referred to the Committee on the Chel-
tenham Election petition.
Sir G. GREY would not resist this motion, but
he could agree with the Honourable Member for
Youghal that the petition of the Honourable Member
for Dublin could legally be referred to the same
Committee.

The petition after a short discussion was ordered
to be referred to the Committee.

Mr. PACKE presented a petition from certain
electors of Leicester, praying to be allowed to attend
before that Committee. The petition was ordered to
be printed.
DUBLIN ELECTION.

Mr. C. ANSTEY moved, pursuant to notice, that
the petition of Mr. Reynolds, one of the Members for
the city of Dublin, should be referred to the Com-
mittee on the Cheltenham election, notwith-
standing what had been stated by the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, and he should press his motion, if it was
necessary, to a division.
Sir G. GREY observed that if the Hon. Member
pressed his motion, the House must decide it; but
he thought the Hon. Member did not fully under-
eland the objection he had to the petition
being presented to the Committee. The
points were fully discussed before the Examiner,
and he held that the person was properly described ;
and if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would look
at the next section he would find that the decision
of the Examiner was final and conclusive against all
parties.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS begged to state that the facts,
as they occurred before the Examiner, were precisely
as the Hon. Member (Mr. C. Anstey) had stated
them ; and though personally affected, but not
being a lawyer, which circumstance he might
have occasion to regret, he wished simply to
state, that in raising the objections which he did,
he acted under the advice of several eminent lawyers,
who stated that in consequence or the misdescription
of the recognisance that it was void. He was con-
tent, however, to leave the matter in the hands of
the House.—(Hear.) The Examiner stated to him that
if he could prove that the person described as
" George Gregan" was commonly described as
" George William Grogan," that he should declare
his recognisance void. The Examiner advised him
to visit Dublin to make inquiries, and having done
so, at great expense and inconvenience, he ascer-
tained that the person known as George
William Grogan, but described as " George Grogan,"
kept his banker's account, voted as a freeman at the
last election, and was admitted as a barrister in the
former name, and that he was never known under
any circumstances as " George Grogan " alone.
Ile pressed this before the Examiner, and
his solicitor asked Mr. Grogan if his
name was George, and he replied that it was not,
that it was George William; and on being asked if
he was the George Grogan mentioned in the re-
cognizance, he declined to answer the question. Not-
withstanding proof of these facts were adduced, the
Examiner decided against him, stating, in explana-
tion, that he had changed his mind. If, however, he
was to labour under this legal injustice,
he asked the House if it was not time to amend the
Act by rendering the decision of the Examiner not
omnipotent in the future as during the past.—(Hear,
hear.) Ile suggested to his Hon. Friend that he
should withdraw his motion.

Mr. C. ANSTEY consented to withdraw the mo-
tion. He wished the House clearly to understand
that he simply stated that the petition ought
to be referred to the Committee, and that he did not
express any opinion on the legal merits of the question.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
RETURN FOR BODMIN.
On the motion of Mr. C. ANSTEY, the following
motion was agreed to :—That the petition of James
Wyld, Esq., M.P., complaining of the recognizances
entered into in respect of the petition against the re-
turn for the borough of Bodmin, be referred to the
Committee appointed to inquire into the petition of
Sir Willoughby Jones, Bart., M.P., or be otherwise
dealt with as the House may deem fit.
Mr. BAINES moved that the petition of Edward
Richard Littleton, against the return for the borough
of Walsall, be referred to the Select Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the petition of Sir Willoughby
Jones.—Motion agreed to.

RELIEVING OFFICERS.
Mr. P. SCROPE said that he had put a notice
upon the paper of his intention to ask the Secretary
for Ireland whether any and what legal proceedings
have been taken against such boards of guardians or
relieving officers as have neglected the duties imposed
on them by the Act 10 and 11 Vic., c. 31, of affording
due relief to the destitute poor, but as he wished to
preface that question by n few remarks, and the
House appeared to be very impatient to proceed to
the consideration of the Jewish Disabilities Bill, he
would postpone his question till to-morrow.
WEST GLOUCESTER ELECTION.
Mr. G. BERKLEY wished to know whether the
Home Secretary had duly received ten petitions from
the inhabitants of West Gloucester with reference to
the West Gloucester election?
Sir G. GREY said that he had received them ; but
owing to some inadvertence the receipt of the petitions
had not been acknowledged.
IRISH DESTITUTION.
Mr. SCULLY, in the absence of Slr. O'Connell,
wished to ask whether, considering the enormous and

every day growing increa'e of destitution in many
parts of Ireland ; the nearly total want of means
among her small farmers and agricultural labourers
to purchase food and maintain tbeir families ; and
the inability of the poor-law to support the over-
whelming pauperism of the country, the Government
had not some measure ready for the providing of
relief by means of food or employment; and thus for
preventing the wholesale wasting and destruction of
human life among the poorer classes of Ireland
Sir G. GREY complained of the inconvenience
attending upon putting questions of this nature,
involving considerations of the ►hole question of the
state and condition of Ireland, at so short a notice.—
(Hear, hear.) He would, however, state, for the
satisfaction of the lion. Member, that the Govern-
ment were not prepared to bring in any measure for
the commencement or resumption of the public works
in Ireland ; neither were they prepared to propose
any measure to feed the whole of the destitute
poor of that country. A t the same time
he would state that a great deal had been already
done in aid of the poor-law guardians by the British
Relief Association in relieving cases of extreme and
urgent distress, this assistance had been given in the
shape of food and clothing to the children attending
the various schools of Ireland without regard
to their sect or religious persuasion. From
a return which had just been made to him, he found
that in the week ending the 21st ult. 2,136 children
attending 118 different schools, had been afforded
relief by the association. The total number of
rations of food supplied to the children
had amounted to 6.50,000, which had been distributed
to between 94,000 and 95,000 distressed persons.
In justice to the Irish people, however, he must take
that opportunity of stating that the collection of
poor-rates during the last three months of 1847 far
exceeded the collection of any former period. The
total collection of those months amounted to
441,7801., as compared with 105,0001. for the same
period of the preceding year.
JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.

On the motion for reading the order of the day for
the second reading of the Bill for the removal of
Jewish disabilities,
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition in favour
of the measure, signed by 280 members of the British
bar.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, Mr. DRUMMOND, and
several other Honourable Members, presented peti-
tions against the Bill.
Lord Duncan, Mr. Cockburn, Sir Charles Burrell,
Mr. Baynes, and Mr. William Brown, presented a
large number of petitions in favour of the Bill.
Mr. LAW presented petitions from places in
Suffolk and Norfolk against the Bill.
Mr. MITCHELL presented petitions from Brid-
port, Wolverhampton, Enfield, and several other
places, in favour of the Bill.
Sir 11. VERNEY presented petitions from Bed-
ford to the same effect.
Dr. BO WRING presented similar petitions from
Bolton, signed by 3,000 persons ; from Newington-
green, and other places.
Mr. WARD presented similar petitions from the
aldermen and burgesses of Sheffield and other places.
Mr. SIMEON presented a petition from thirty-
one clergymen of the Isle of Wight against the Bill.
Lord GEORGE MANNERS presented similar
petitions from Fifeshire.
Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from
Bungay in favour of the Bill.
Mr. GIBSON CRAIG presented a similar petition
from Edinburgh, signed by 4,000 persons.
Lord I). STUART presented similar petitions from
the select vestry of Marylebone and Kentish-town.
Mr. J. WALTER presented a similar petition
from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Not-
tingham.
Mr. KERSHAW presented a number of similar
petitions from Stockport.
Mr. FOX presented a number of similar petitions
from Oldham and other places.
Mr. lIODGE presented similar petitions from
Tunbridge Wells, Gravesend, and other places in the
county of Ken t.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from the Jews
of Birmingham in favour of the Bill ; also another
signed by 4,000 of the inhabitants of the town to
the same effect.

Mr. STRUTT presented a petition to the same
effect from Derby.
An lIoN. MEMBER presented a petition from Barn-
staple against the Bill.
Lord G. BENTINCK presented petitions from
King's Lynn, Canterbury, and other places, in favour
of it.

An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from a
place in Wilts against it.
Mr. BOLLING presented a petition from the
parish of Bolton to the same effect.
Mr. BRIGHT presented several petitions in favour
of the Bill.
Mr. COWAN presented several petitions from
Edinburgh to the same effect.
Mr. COBDEN presented similar petitions from
Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Bridgewater, and Caer-
narvon. _ .

Mr. C. PE ARSON presented a similar petition from
the borough of Lambeth, signed by 2,879 persons.
An IloN. INlEstuun presented a petition from
Wigan against the Bill.
Mr. IIEYWOOI) presented three petitions in
favour of it.
Mr. lIUME presented four petitions to the same
effect, one of which was from Boston in Lincolnshire,
and another from Arbroath.
Mr. TUFNELL presented a petition in favour of
the Bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition, signed
by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and upwards
of three thousand inhabitants, to the same effect ;
also one from the Loyal National Repeal Association,
signed by the chairman, on behalf of the members,
whose number amounted to 1,000,000.
Mr. LAW said he apprehended that the petition
could not be received otherwise than as the petition
of the chairman. It was a mere figure of speech to
say that he represented all the members.—(Laughter.)
The petition was, however, received.
Mr. M. GII3SON presented a petition from the
Catholics of Manchester to the same effect.

7 -7
Petitions against the Bill were also presented by Lord
Brooke, signed by 1,600 persons of Warwick; by
Mr. Henley, from Oxford; by Mr. Plurnptre,
from various places in Kent ; by Sir W. Jolliffe,
from Somerset; by Lord 11. Lennox, by Mr. Spooner
from Belper; by Mr. Newdegate from several places
in the county of Warwick; by Mr. Bullies from the
clergy of Dorsetshire.; by Mr. Floyer, and Mr. B.
Cabbell.

Petitions in favour of the measure were pre-
sented by Mr. Sharman Crawford from Rochdale,
signed by 2,786 persons ; by Mr. G. Thompson ;
Mr. Cowper, from Hertford ; by Sir W. Clay, from the.
Tower Hamlets, by Mr. Aglionby, from Carlisle;
by the Attorney-General from Chester ; by Mr. Rice
from Dover; by Mr. B. Osborne, from Finsbury, signed
by 2,080 persons ; by the Earl of Lincoln from the
Falkirk Burghs; by Lord Palmerston from the
majority of members of the Senate of the University
of Cambridge.
Mr. GOULBURN stated that he had himself re-
ceived a petition from the University of Cambridge
against the Bill, and trusted that the House would
not consider the petition of the Noble Lord as that
of the majority.
Lord PALMERSTON, upon referring to the num-
bers of the votes in both Houses, found that his
petition was that of the minority, and not of the
majority. (The discovery:of the mistake caused con-
siderable laughter.)
On the question that the Bill be now read a second
time,

Mr. STAFFORD proceeded to move, pursuant to
notice, that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months. He contended that there was comparatively
little feeling out of the House on the subject, and that
the proposition was one which almost entirely ought to
be discussed as an abstract principle. It was no ques-
tion of religious persecution, of religious toleration ; that
question had been settled by the concession to the Jews
of the civil liberties which they already enjoyed. Those
liberties he had no desire to renal, but while he was
w lling to admit the Jews to a full participation in the
benefits of our legislation as fellow-subjects administered
far, he conceived that it would be wholly contrary to
our duty and interests as Christians to admit those who
were the enduring antagonists of Christianity to a share
in the legislation itself. The chief argument that had
been used in favour of the Bill was the certainty that so
few Jews would be admitted under its provisions as to
be utterly unimportant in the Houses of Legisla-
ture.—(hear, hear.) But if such an argument were
worth anything what would it have amounted to in the
case of a neighbouring island, part of the realm,
wherein there were 7,000,000 Catholics who demanded
admission, and to whom the answer would conse-
quently have been—" We cannot admit you because
you are so great a number of Catholics." Why, the ar-
gument itself was an insult, or little better, to Judaism.
The Bill was described by the Noble Lord who had
broaght it in as one that would abolish the last remains
of the intolerant spirit of former ages. With reference
to this assertion he might refer to a notice of motion
which stood on the paper, to the effect that it should no
longer be imperative that the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
land should profess the Protestant religion. Let such a
measure as that obtain the sanction of the Commons
House of Parliament, and it would then not prove to
have expunged the last remnant of what was termed the
spirit of intolerance, for the English Lord Chancellor
would still of necessity be a Protestant, and those who
resisted a similar relaxation of the law in his favour be
termed intolerants and bigots, as were the persons con-
scientiously opposed to the present Bill. Nor would the
steps of concession after concession which led into the
broad path of infidelity be finally passed until the
measure to which ho had alluded had been
agreed to, and then it would be for the
Legislature and the country to reflect how it could
be proposed to prevent the holder of the Crown from
becoming a Roman Catholic, when the keeper of the
royal conscience was allowed to profess that faith. With
regard to the operation of religious opinions on the chief

magistrate in a state, he might instance the case which
had formerly presented it:adf in a ii;2ighbouring king-
dom; and he was justified in asserting that when Napo-
leon placed the imperial diadem on his own head with
his own hands, he well knew the meaning of that
symbolic act which was to withdraw his temporal power
from the power of religious reaction. When the fleece
and the country were told that the present 13.11 had
actually swept away the last remnant of religious dif-
ferences, and of the compulsory observance of certain
forms, let him assume that it had passed, and that the
Jews had taken advantage of its provisions to become
Members of that Hothe. He had been exceedingly
anxious to secure a seat at the present sitting of the
House, and he had accurziingly come down to prayers.—
(Much laughter.) Hon. Members might laugh, but he
did nut wean to imply thut he had been inattentive or
unob.ervant of the form of prayer. In order to n:ake
good his claim to one particular seat it was necessary
for him to take one of the cards which lay on the tali!c,
whereon were inscribed two words, "at prayers
write his name under those words—and fix that card
to his seat. Could it be expected that the name of
Lionel Rothschild would ever be found to fill up that
blank? That gentleman might very fairly and justly
say that he came down to the House because he had
been told by the Prime Minister that religion Lad
nothing to du with politics, and therefore he might urge
that politics ought not to be mixed up with religion. A
Jew might, on such gronnds as were advanced in favour
of the present Bill, argue that he was prepared to act On
the maxim cited in its favour. Let every man wor-
ship God in private according to the form of his own
conscience. It had been very fairly put by the Honour-
able Member for Oldham, that it was unfair to compel
the Jew to observe the Christian Sabbath when he
so strictly kept that which was to him sacred in that
sense. And yet how could the law enforcing the obser-
vance of the Christian Sabbath be maintained towards a
Jew, if, in other respects, he was placed on a level with
Christians? Could society be kept together if the
House were to sanction and promulgate the opinion that
legislation proceeded only from human authority? The
forma; enjoined by the Church must, in relation to
such a system of legislation, prove a sorrowful subject
of reflection to all who did not believe in a higher des-
tiny than that marked out for her. But the question
for the House was not one which regarded the forms of
tlie Church only, it affected the Christianity of the whole
nation, He was not desirous of involving the Church as
a singe institution in such a controversy as the present.
Ile was ready to fight the battle of the Church when
that institution was assailed, but did not wish unneces-
sarily to expose it to assault. The Honourable Member
concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second
time that day six mouths.
Lord BURGHLEY seconded the amendment, and
said that, in his estimation, the question before the
House was one of no small importance, for it was
whether the House was or was not to possess a Chris-
tian character. lie regretted very much that the very
form of the words necessarily inscribed on the oath,
" on the faith of a true Christian," did not sufficiently
show to the Noble Lord (J. Russell) that, by proposing
to emit them from that oath, he would inevitably offend
a vast number of the Christian community. But it
would be heard from the Noble Lord that when the
form of oath now extant had been proposed during the
reign of James, there was no reference whatever con-
templated to the situation of the Jews. What he would
say on that subject was, that the oath had hitherto ex-
cluded the Jews, and what reason was there why it
should now tie altered? The answer was, that a par-
ticular indivdual of that nation could not take his seat
unless the law was altered. If that was done, the door
of the House was opened at once to Turks, Mussultnen,
or indeed to whoever might possess money or influence
enough to induce people to send them to that place.
He hoped it would not be considered that he was actu-
ated by a hostile spirit towards the Jews. He had not
read their history in any such spirit, and he trusted his
opposition to the Bill would not be ascribed to a want of
Christian charity. He begged leave to second the amend-
ment.

Mr. P. WOOD said that he had come to the conclu-
sion, as well on social grounds as on those of Christi-
unity, and as a member of the Church of England, that
it was high time so disgraceful a memento of intelerance
as the Bill before the Howie was framed for the purpose
of removing should be swept from the statute-book.
Twenty years since he had signed a petition for effect-
ing that which the Noble Lord (J. Russell) now pro-
posed to the House to sanction. That religion had
nothing to do with politics, was an adage which, though
constantly cited, was not altogether true, for religious
opinions, which ought neither to qualify or disqualify
any one for holding a political station, still did have that
Of ct The! I on. Member for North Northamptonshire had
talked of a Jewish theocracy, but he (Mr. I'. Wood)
challenged him to show from Scripture any word by
which the union of Church and State was enjoined
or even sanctioned. One of the arguments used
against the present Bill was, that Christianity was
part and parcel of the common law of England.
lle begged to deny that proposition, in so
far as the present question was concerned. That
such was the case to a certain extent was undeniable;
but if that doctrine had prevailed to the full extent
claimed for it, the Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford
University, could nut have practised his religion without
beir'! a traitor, for he offended against the statute of
Six Articles of Henry VIII., enjoining the belief in
transubstantiation. That statute was part and parcel
of the common law of the land. By the old law of the
land, all persons in it were assumed to be Christians,
and consequently these who were not so were excluded
from the State. This practice had been enf,recd in
Spain, Portugal, Naples, and other continental states;
but the first. instance which occurred in English history
of a law being directed against heretics was in the
reign of Henry V., when a law was passed against the
Lolla.rds. The Jews were not dreamt of during those
days. From the time of Henry V. to that of Henry
VIII. no statutory mention was made of them, nor did
they re appear in England from the tisne of Edward I.
until that of the Commonwealth. The decisions
in ilie law courts, which had been referred to as
having affected the social and political position of
the dews, did not upon examination bear out
such construction. That of Hale which had been cited,
was directed against an infidel, and the judge's dictum
en that occasion was, that the man who said all religion
was teeheat could not claim the protection of the law,
for his sentiments were subversive of all government of
whatever description. Lord Hardwicke's decision in
1753, in the case of a Jewish bequest to educate Jewish
children, was questioned by Lore Eldon, who had ob-
served, that much surprise would be felt in his time if
such a decision as that come to by the Court of Chan
cery were to be given then. But Lord Hardwicke's
judgment was intelligible when it was recollected that
the year in which he gave it was that of the celebrated
Jew Bill. Again, as to the assertion that the Jews were
all aliens, and could not hold land, Lord Mansfield had
settled that point at once by purchasing an estate from a
Jew. The Jews were banished from England in the
reign of Elward I, and they did not, as he had
st ited, re-appear in this country until the time of Crom-
well. The first place in which they were encouraged to
settle was that of the Honourable Baronet (,ir Robert
Inglis) and himself were the representatives (Oxford),
where the Jews had three halls, namely, Moses-
hall, Jacob-hall, and Bernard-ball. (it laugh.)
So that, until the time of Cromwell, the social and
political condition of the Jews, as such, was a costes
onsisus both in respect to the common and the statute
law. The declaration " on the faith of a Christian"
was introduced merely as a protection against the
Jesuits, who were supposed, rightly or wrongly, to
have been implicated in the gunpowder plot. And yet
it was on that declaration that the Jews were at this
day held excluded from the Legislature.—(Hear, hear.)
But to show the animus and true meaning of the decla-
ration, he would remind the House that when, in the
reign of William 111., an Act was passed against Uni-
tarians, it spoke of " any persons making profession
of Christianity who should deny the doctrine of the
holy Trinity." The Jews never made profession of
Christianity; and therefore the very Act which ex-
cluded the Unitarians must be held as admitting the
Jews.--(Hear, hear.) But since that time there had
been numerous cases in which the Jews were
relieved from making the declaration. So late
as the year 1533, his late Majesty sane
tioned an act of the Jamaica legislature, admitting the
Jews to all privileges 01 citizenship, and in 1837 they
were in like manner relieved from all civil disabilities in
Canada. Thosa colonial acts were all received sub
sileadio by the Imperial Parliament, and there was no
alarm about unchriitianising Canada or Jamaica.—
(Hear, hear.) We had no fear of admitting Jews into
colonial legislatures, while we refused to admit two or
three gentlemen of that persuasion into the home Perlin,-
meet. He considered that there was a vast fallacy in
the phrase, " We are a Christian people, and ought to
have a Christian legislature." Our Parliament could
never be looked upon as a Christian aramet
From
in the
ear, h Pealir.) the
exclusive sense of the term.— (II
reign of Edward I. down to that of Charles 11. the
English might have been called an exclusively
Chris-
tian people, but from that time, having admitted
the Jews to live and settle among us, we had no
right to treat them otherwise than as natural born
citiaens—that was to say, on the Christian principle,
" Do as you would be done unto."—(Hear, hear.)
It was not right to say to them " You may come and
settle among us, assist us by lending money, pay taxes,
and even marry our Christian daughters, but yet having
done all this, you are not fit to have a voice in making;
the laws or the imposition of taxes." Ile thought it
monstrously unchristian to take from the Jews as much
as we could get, and yet to deny them the privileges of
citizenship.—(Bear, hear.) It was a great mistake to
suppose that we promoted Christianity by continuing
this exclusion. He held the direct reverse. He held
that if he wished to convert the Jew', the first step was
to put him on a par with ourselves in all civil rights.
Conversion was not a mere affair of declaration at that
table. It was an affair of the heart and the conviction.
The Honourable Member having quoted a passage from
Lactantius, a writer of the age of Theodosius, condemna-
tory of simulated Christianity, proceeded to say that,
if we wanted to touch the Jew's heart, we must con-
cede to him his full share of political privileges.—(Hear,
hear.) He was not one of those who contended that
between Jew and Christian there was no difference.
There was a wide difference; but, as it had pleased the
Almighty to throw for the present a veil over the Jew's
heart, while the language of his own writers gave pro-
mise of a brighter future, let not the British Parliament
continue those mists by a narrow and exclusive legisla-
tion, One word more. It had been said that, if we
admitted the Jews, the next step would be the admission
of Mahomedans and Hindoos. He saw no reason why
not.—(lronical cheers from the Opposition.) It might
appear absurd in this country; but transfer the question
to India, and if a local Legislature were about to be
established, could undoes or Mahomedans be excluded?
—(Hear, hear.) We had tried exclusion lung enough
with the Roman Catholics, and he would ask whether
the long period of exclusion had converted one member

of that persuasion? He believed the principle of exclu-
sion to be an unchristian principle, and therefore ho
called upon the House, as a Christian Parliament, tc pass
the Bill then under consideration.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE would never admit that Chris-
tianity was not part and parcel of the law of the land.
lie felt great difficulty in applying himself to the present
Bill, because it not only enunciated a general principle,
but it applied that principle to the case of an individual
or whom no Member of that House could speak other-
, ise than with respect. The Baron de Rothschild Was
distinguished by the greatest lib -rally of opinion, and
it:01 subscribed to many Christian charities.—(Hear.)
The example of France had been quoted, bat were we
prepared to go the lengths which cad been reached in
that country ? They had enfranchised the Jews during
the excitement of 1830, and since that time a member

of the Chamber (M. Shee) has ascended th©

tribune and boasted that he was neither Catholic nor

Protestant. lie trusted that we were not tending to

such extreme latitude in this country.—(Rear, hear.)
The,..llouse had been congratulated nn the Apathy and

. _
indifference with which the present Bill had been re-
ceived by the people. He looked upon it with far dif-
ferent feelings ; he looked upon it as a very terrible sign
of the times.—(A laugh.) It looked as if the people
having yielded up so much of their constitution in
Church and State, they were determined to fling the
remainder after it. The lion. Member concluded by
stating his intention to oppose the Bill.
Mr. MILNES, in supporting the Bill, denied that its
advocates were indifferent to Christianity. Ile thought
it was possible—indeed the case of several distinguished
men had proved the fact, that it was possible—to recon-
cile very deep religious feeling with liberality in this
matter.—(Hear, hear.) He should regret if the passing
of the Bill proved repugnant to the feelines of the people;
but he would appeal to what had lately occurred, and
ash whether they had shown any active hostility to the
measure ?—(Hear, hear.) Compare the feeling at the
present moment to that which had been exhibited when
the proposition of an increased grant to Maynooth was
under discussion. How earnestly the people of England
fought against it, how very nearly many Members of
that House lost their seats by the votes they had given
in its favour.—(Hear, and a laugh.) There was a
time when the people of England thought this a reli-
gious question, and the manifestations of their feelings
were plain en,ugh ; but he would appeal to the silence
prevailing at the present time as a proof that no fears
were entertained of the House becoming unchristianised
by the admission of a few Jews. All ho regretted
was, that the opportunity had not been seized for the
introduction of a still larger measure. He thought that
this would have been a favourable time for adopting the
reforms which had been recommended by the Commis-
sioners on criminal low. They had the testimony of
Lord Eldon, an unwilling witness, that the oath of alle-
giance was quite sufficient, and that the oath of supre-
macy should be abolished.—([lear, hear.) Powerful
attempts had been made in Spain to preserve unity of
race and religion, and these ottempts had been impla-
cably carried out. But what was the consequence?
Why, this; that in Spain there were desecrated churches,
and the houses of religion were abandoned. They had
attempted exclusion in this country ; but the people,
by electing Baron Rothschild, informed them that they
did not approve of the legislation of that House in that
respect. The times were greatly changed within the
last twenty years, and he thought the House would be
acting wisely in legislating in the spirit of the age. He
did not think that the form of prayer with which they
began their proceedings in that House should be
spoken lightly of ; and when they prayed that they
might not be actuated by private feelings he considered
that they would be carrying out that feeling and acting
in the true character of a Christian Legislature by
passing this measure. He agreed with the Honourable
Gentleman who spoke last that great benefit might be
derived from endeavouring to amalgamate the Hebrew
race with the rest of the nation. The decision of that
House would have a great effect upon foreign nations.
"Fhe Jews in other countries were not in that position
which they ought to occupy. They were recently ad-
mitted to many offices of the Prussian Diet, and were
excluded from legislative honours only by a majority of
three. If they, then, came to that conclusion at which
he hoped they would arrive, it might have a most bene-
ficial effect on other nations with respect to the Jews.
He thought that the English nation should endeavour to
propagate and extend liberal principles throughout the
world. He trusted, therefore, that the House of Com-
mons would net stand between the people and the person
whom they selected as their representative in the House
of Commons.—(hear, hear.)
Lord bI.IHON said, that in stating his reasons for
voting against the measure before the House, he trusted
that not a word would escape from him disrespectful to
the members of the Jewish religion. lie was ready to •
admit the private worth and extensive charity of many'
of that body; but these were not sufficient grounds to
induce them to abrogate their Christian constitution.--
(Hear, hear.) If they were to admit the Jews within
the walls of Parliament, they could not stop there. They
would be obliged to admit persons of any religion or no '
religion. Give the Jews the liberty of obtaining seats
in that House, and on what grounds could they refuse
admissi, n to the Mahomedan, the Hindoo, or the pro-
fessed Deist. The Noble Lord, indeed, declared that .
religious beeief should be no bar to any person's taking
a seat in that House; but .he heard many cf the sup-
porters of the measure say in private, that though
they were willing to make this concession to the Jews
from respect to their character, they were not
prepared to go farther. Ile begged to tell those gentle-
men, that it they gave way now they must giveway to the
whole extent. It had been said that the question of creed
should be left between the constituency and the Member
they choose to elect. Such an argument was not COW..
ft): mable to the system of the constitution. In the case
of qualification, for instance, it Might with equal justice
he said that it was for the electors to consider whether
they would have a rich or a poor Member. But the
principle of the constitution was otherwise, for it imposed
a certain qualification as indispensable. He might also
instance the oath of allegiance for the same purpose.
And in this consisted the answer to the argument which
hail been put forward in a recent pamphlet by the Arch-
bishop of Dublin, who said that this measure ought not
he considered as one entitling certain persons to become
Members of Parliament, but as one removing a disqua-
lification which prevented Christians from electing
certain persons; and that it was a great scandal to think
the exclusion of Jews necessary for the security of
Christianity, because, if the principle of the constitution
was acknowledged in the case of the qualification of
Members and the oath of allegiance, why should it be
inconsistent to acknowledge it in the case of a solemn
recognition of the Christian faith ?—(Hear, hear.)
"Then it was said that the numbers of Jews who could
ob!ain seats in the Legislature must necessarily be so
small that the privilege of admitting them could do no
harm. He was not quite persuaded that the number in
the Legislature must be so very small, because, though
few in number, their wealth gave them great influence.
But, admitting the fact for the sake of argument, that
was no reason why they should violate a principle. If
they were to look to immediate consequences, and not
to wide principles, there was no Act which might not be
success; illy delendtd. Pascal, in his "Provincial Let-
ters," showed that the worst crimes might be defended
on this principle. A principle, therefore, was to be
maintained because it was principle, and should not be
violated because some instances might be adduced in
which its violation might do no harm.—(Hear, hear.)
Much stress had been laid on the case of Gibbon, as
preying that their forms were of no avail to excludel
persons the most hostile to Christianity. On the
same ground it might be argued, when there
were pretenders to the Crown, that the oath of alle-
giance was of no use because the jacobites had
taken it. But the oath was of this value, that neither
honourable jacobites or honourable infidels would take
it.—(llear, hear.) And if they took it, they must at
least hide their infidelity, and would not be able to
propagate it, as Condorcet, who held similar opinions to
Gibbon, was able to do in the French Assembly. At
present, if a Member of that House spoke disrespect-
hilly of the Redeemer, the Speaker would be justified in
interfering ; but if the oath were withdrawn he would
have no power of doing so ; and the inevitable conse-
quence would be to lower the tone of debate in that
House.—(Hear.) He had voted for the admission of
Jews into corporate offices ; but that was quite con-
sistent with his resistance to the present measure, as
there was a wide difference between an Alderman and a
Minister of State. Another ground on which he re-
resisted the measure was that it would tend to make the
public believe that they were indifferent to religion in
that House. This consideration ought not to influence
them if the Jews were entitled to what they claimed ;
hut if they were not so entitled it was a very grave con-
sideration, and should make them pause before they
consented to the measure.—(Hear, hear.) For the
reasons he had stated he would give his vote against it.
Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTII—Sir, there is one
part of the subject which I think has been singularly
overlooked, not only by the Noble Lord who has just
sat: down, but by other Hon. Gentlemen who have
taken the same view of the subject, and it is this—lf the
Bill of' the Noble Lord be rejected, what substitute will
lion. Gentlemen opposite propose in its stead? Have
they well considered this question? Surely they will
not let the law remain in its present state? Have they
considered the dilemma in which the House is placed,
by the fact, that an Hon. Gentleman who professes the
Jewish religion is become a Member of the House of
Commons? It appears to me that, as a necessary con-
sequence of that event, Parliament must adopt one of
two alternatives. Either Parliament must agree to the
Bill of the Noble Lord, which will enable an Hon. Mem-
ber who professes the Jewish religion to perform his
duties in the House of Commons or Parliament must
pass a law which shall declare null and void the elec-
tion of any person who does not believe in the
Christian re,, igion.—(flear, hear.) It appears to me
that Parliament must adopt one or other of these
alternatives; for, if the House will permit me to call its
attention to the state of the law as it would affect an
lion. Member who professes the Jewish religion, I
think I can prove to the satisfaction of the House that
there is an immediate necessity for altering that law.
It is certain that, as the law now stands, an lion. Gen-
tleman who professes the Jewish religion may be law-
fully chosen a Member of the House of Commons, and
that he is not legally ineligible on account of his reli-
tgious belief. For, according to Blackstone, " every
subject of the realm is eligible of common right" to be
a Member of the House of Commons, subject to
certain standing restrictions and disqualifications.
—(Hear, hear.) Some of these depend upon the law
and custom of Parliament as declared by the House of
Commons ; others upon certain statutes. It is unneces-
sary for me to enumerate these disqualifications. They
are to be found in Blackstone, or in any of the ordinary,
law books on the subject. No one, however, will con-
tradict n. e when I assert that " belief in the Jewish
religiou" is not one of those disqualifications.—(Hear,
hear.) I contend, therefore, that Baron Rothschild
has been lawfully chosen a Member of the House
of Commons ; consequently he is legally bound

_..•••••••• sm.
to serve in PariHnent, for, according to the well
known prinelph s of coi•stitu+iur,al lace, 4 very person who
is lawfully chosen a Nlentber of tile lleu-e of Com-
mons must serve, whether ho b' willing to de so or
not, and the House has even hell that an honourable
Gentlemen who had been elected against his will was
eligible, and could not refuse to serve. Now, by the
statute for the trial of election petitions, every Honettr-
able Member who is not disqualified fur reasons
specified in that statute, may be ail pointed upon an
Election Committee. And 1 find the name of 13 iron
Rothschild on the election panel E, No. 4. He is not,
disqualified to serve, for " belief in te'e Jewish religion'
is not tine of the gsouiels of di:-.(pialificatien specified in
the statute in question. I assume, then fore, that Baron
Rothschild will, when his turn comes, be appointed
upon an. Election Committee. It may be said that the
Committee of Selection will not appoint him. No
doubt they will at present exercise a sound discretion
upon the subject; but if they were to lay down the rule
that Baron Rothschild is not to be appeinted, on account
of his religious faith, then it is evident they would as-
sume a power which they do not possess under the
statute, and for the exercise of which they would deserve
censure. I assume, therefore, that sooner or later Baron
Rothschild will be appointed upon an Election Committee,
and that on a certain day he will be ordered to
attend in his place to be sworn on that Committee.
If he do not attend, the law is imperative that " he shall
be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for
neglect of his duty, and otherwise punished or censured."
If he do attend, without having previously taken certain
oaths, what will be the consequences ? There are three
oaths, which every Hon. Gentleman who does not pro
fess the Catholic religion ought to take before he sit or
vote in the House of Commons ; namely, the oath of
allegiance, the oath of supremacy, and the oath of abju-
ration. Now the statutes which have reference to the
oaths of all giarice and supremacy are different from
those which have reference to the oath of abjuration. I
need not trouble the House by referring to the statutes
with regard to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. I
will merely observe that if Baron Rothschild were to sit
or vote in the House of Commons without previously
taking those oaths, he would become a Popish recusant
convict under an Act of Charles 11., entitled, " An Act
for disabling Papists from sitting in either House of
Parliament," and which Act has been repealed as far as
Papists are concerned. Being convicted of Popish re-
cusancy, Baron Rothschild would incur certain pains,
penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities ; firr instance, he
would for ever be disabled from sitting or voting in the
House of Commons ; the house would be entitled to de-
clare his place vacant, and to issue a new writ for a new
election for the city of London ; and if he were then
to be re-elected, all votes given to him, atter due notice,
would be lost, and an Election Committee would be en-
titled to seat his opponent. But Baron Rothschild can
have no religious objection to taking the oaths of alle-
giance and supremacy. It is certain that he would be
entitled to take those oaths in the same manner
as he would take an oath in the courts of justice. For
there is no provision in the Act of the 30th Charles 11.,
Oat. 2, as to the mode in which these oaths are to be
taken; consequently ho would be entitled at common
law to take those oaths according to the Jewish mode of
taking en oath. There can be no doubt upon this
subject after the precedent established in the case of Mr.
Pease, formerly Member for South Durham. In that
case the House held that Mr. Pease, being a Quaker, was
entitled to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath at the
table of the House, without any specific statute to that
effect, on the grounds that Quakers are entitled by sta
tute to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath in the
courts of law; and being so entitled in courts of law,
the House held that they were therefore entitled to make
an affirmation in lieu of an oath at the table of
the House. Now, in the case of Jews no statute
was ever required to enable them to take an
oath in the courts of justice, according to
the Jewish mode, for they always possessed that
right at common law. Therefore, it follows that Baron
Rothschild would be entitled to take at the table of the
House the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the
same manner as he would take an oath in the courts of
141T—in the same manner as Jews have taken the oaths
is question, when required to do so by various statutes,
to which I can refer—namely, according to the Jewish
mode. There remains, therefore, only the oath of ab-
juration which Baron Rothschild is unable to take.
What would be the consequences if Baron Rothschild
were to attend in his place to be sworn on an Election
Committee without previously taking that oath? The
statute now in force with regard to the oath of abjura-
tion is the sth Geo. 111., c. 53, which refers to 1 Geo. I.
St' 2, c. 13, which latter statute contains penalty s which
Honourable Member would incur for voting
in the House without taking the oath of abju-
ration. Now I beg the House to observe—first, that
these statutes give no power to the House to unseat
an Honourable Member who shall sit or vote in the
house without taking the oath of abjuration ;
secondly, that though they require that every Honour-
able Member should take that oath before " he shall vote
in the House of Commons, or sit there during a debate,"
yet in the penal clause, the words " sitting there
during a debate" are omitted. The penalty is attached
only to the act of " voting," and no penalty is attached
to tbe act of " sitting in the House."—(Hear, hear.)
Now, I will not assert that there is any legal difference
between the act of " voting" and the act of "sitting in the
House." But it appears to me that if Baron Rothschild
were to obey an order of the House, and merely to at-
tend in his place to be sworn on an Election Committee,
it would be a question for the judges to decide whether
such attendance in obedience to the order of the House,
tuntder the statute of 7 and 8 Vie., c. IP3, would conati-
ue the crime of voting under the statute of 1 Geo. 1.,
et. 2, e. 13. But whatever might be the decision of the
judges with regard to the legal character of such an act,
it is certain that the House would have no power under
the statute to unseat Baron Rothschild, even in the
event of his voting in the House without previously
taking the oath of abjuration. And it appears to me,
likewise, that the House would have no power to dis-
pense with the services of Baron Rothschild on an Elec-
tion Committee, if lie were appointed to serve ; for the
statute for the trial of election petitions is imperative,
that every Hon. Member who is appointed must serve,
unlsss specially disqualified, and the omitting or re-
fusing to take the oath of abjuration is not among the
disqualifications specified in the statute in question.
It is evident, therefore, that the law is in a very anoma-
lous state, and that the House has no power either to
enable Baron Rothschild to perform his duties as a
lawfully chosen Member of the House, or to relieve
him from the obligation to perform those duties. It
May be supposed that the House has the power to ex-
pel Baron Rothschild, and to order a new writ to be
Issued for the city of London. I do not deny that the
House did possess the passer, and may still possess the
Power, of expelling any one of its Members f_er any
reason or for no reason ; but since the period when the
Rouse transferred its primary jurisdiction in election
_mattersn to its Committees, it has not exercised its power
?t- expulsion, except in cases in which its Members have
_ene_nconvicted of grave offences. According to the law
and el_ custom of Parliament, the house would be entitled
tree'-pel an Honourable Member who was convicted of
th,ftwon, felony, or fraudulent misdemeanour, but not, I
I k, for any minor offence ; and certainly no law nor
be!s_turrii_ of Parliament can be cited, nor precedent can
:_P Produced which would entitle the House to expel
12,71,c(2r its Members on account of his religious
".•—(llear, hear.) But if the House were to
hort Baron Rothschild, it is quite clear that as the
di, now stands, a vote of expulsion would not legally
Qualify from being re-elected in
y him to serve the same
Parliament. It is true that in the well-known case of
mr. W
beilk ,es the House resolved that Mr. Wilkes, having
torn expelled the house, was incapable of being elected
serve 4 in that Parliament, and when Mr. Wilkes was
dullelected the House resolved that his election was
ella.
artd void, and that his opponent, Mr. Luttrell, was
del eketed. But this vote cannot be cited as a prece-
I.it, for it was subsequently ordered to be expunged
ib's!trtrthe journa's of the House, as " being subversive of
d: Vita of the whole body of 'he electors of this king
don. "g another well-known' case an Hon. Member
'sea
_,corivicted (unjustly it appears)of •
now
H°
has
and was on that account expelled the Houses
wa_ wot
(immediately re-elected; his return, however,
tueetioned, and he continued to be a Member of
dentlouse of Commons, though a prisoner in the King's
1114;1
,notC.onsequently, if the House were to expel
render h!cht.ld, that vote of expulsion would not
Jet him ineligible, would not disqualify him from
eeing re-cleated
the dilemma . aud would not relieve the House from
(Bear, hear.) in it is placed by his late election.—
is this: The sum and substance of my argument
kernber —Baron Rothschild has been lawfully chosen a
he of the House of Commons, consequently
usotd— legally bound to serve, and may be sum
~_toe
,attend in his place in Parliament. If, when
toe :"`" rt, he do not attend, he must be taken into cus-
ue and othe •
"vise
punished. If he do attend,' he
would he
su-
premacy entitled to take the oaths of allegiance and ccording to the Jewish mode of taking an
taking th but e
oath his reli
of lie would therefore re-
Nrprtutake that
oath. What would be the consequence?
*Quid or would)] Pretend to say whether such a refusal
constitute
not, under the circumstances of the case,
an offence for which he could be punished. It
,iSecertain, however, that the house has no power to re-
"e Baron Rothschild from the obligation to take the
oath of abjuration—no
uhlieation power to relieve him from the
to
attend in his place in the House—no power
e'plroweruse with his services on an Election Committee
that „0 to declare his election null and void; and
precede w nor custom of Parliament can be cited, no
nt can
sou,, in be. produced, which would justify the
were to expelling him. If, nevertheless, the House
not expel the Honourable Gentleman, he would
then riwiboYu become legally ineligible; and as often
electors of use
naght expel him, so often would the
re-elect ..the city of London be legally entitled to
do s,
otr ums—(ll. ear, hear.) Whether they would
not is beside the question. I have shown that
diknirna
et,. exists, from the horns of whichthe
escape only by
meanshouse
) an Act of Parliament.
thatLeorethtehsat Act should be is the question ? The Noble
°b-jeet to proposed his Bill. The Hon. Members who
yin‘, that measure are bound to propose a substitute
in --ere
accordance with their principles. Why have
r Pe Y not done so ? Th_ey.
.maintain.. that Christianity is
pertoand parcel of the British constitution, and that all
b.. 4 es should be excluded from the House of Commons
tb2r do not profess the true faith of a Christian, and
of'l' affirm that the oath of abjuration is a sufficient test
hat faith. To enforce these principles their
le situpl "s
sell and easiest plan would be to prspose that the
the aei'l regard to the oath of abjuration should be
giatieerce as the law with regard to the oaths of elle-
only h.nd supremacy. For this purpose they need
se, rine- i_
eels n a short Bill to extend the provi-
ces, the 30th Charles 11., st. 2, to the
' Lonourable Members not taking the oath of
euratio
BlIQh n• Then if Parliament were to agree to
Bill every Honourable Member who
44C1 rel4,se or emit to take either oi the oaths

of allegiance, supremacy, or abjuration, would, un-
less he were a Roman Catholic, become a Popish re-
cusant convict, and subject to all the pains of Popish
recusancy ; and then the House would be entitled to un-
seat and d, dare ineli4ible both Baron Rothschild and any
other Honourable Member who professes the Jewish
reli;:i,n. The question is, therefore, between the Bill of
:he Noble Lord and a Bill to extend the provisions of the
30th Charles 11., st. 2. Now, will any one of the Ho-
neursible Gentlemen opposite undertake to bring in such
a Bill ? It. not, I appeal to them as practical men
whether they ought not to agree to the Bill of the Noble
Lord as the only practicable means of relieving the
House from the dilemma in which it is placed by the
state of the law, and by the election of Baron Roths-
child. Now the object of the Bill of the Noble Lord is
merely to make such an alteration in the form, not in the
substance, of the oath of abjuration (by omitting the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian"), as shall
enable an Honourable Gentleman who professes the
Jewish religion to take that oath.—(hear.) Now, what
objection can be made to the proposed alteration ? No
one can assert that the oath of abjuration was originally
intended as a religious test. The only one of the
three oaths which had the character of a religious
test was the oath of supremacy. And that oath
was directed against the Papists, who were the
only religions sect of whom our ancestors entertained
any apprehension. On the contrary, the oath of
abjuration was directed, not against the Papists, nor any
other religion, but against the adherents of the Preten-
der—(llear, hear)—to whatever sect they might belong
—(Hear, hear)—and the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" were employed merely to give additional
force to the oath of abjuration.—(Hear, hear.) It is
easy to prove this position, that the object of the
Legislature was merely to secure the Hanoverian suc-
cession by the strongest oath it could devise, and not to
create a religious test. For whenever the words in
question, by acting as a religious test, were found prac-
tically to prevent a person from taking the oath of
abjuration, then the Legislature interfered and sanc-
tioned the omission of those words. Fur instance, in
the year 1722, an Act was passed which required that
all persons of the age of eighteen and upwards who had
not previously taken the three oaths, should take them
before the 25th of l)ecember, 1723. Before that
period arrived another Act was passed (10 George
1., cup. 4), which contained a clause to the effect
that whenever any person professing the Jewish
religion shall present himself to take the oath
of ajuration in pursuance of the Act of 1722, then the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian" shall be
omitted out of the said oath in administering the same
to such person. I find likewise a similar clause in an
Act of 1740 (13 George 11., cap. 7, sec. 3), which was
passed for the purpose of naturalising persons settled in
the colonies, and which Act required that all such per-
sons should take the three oaths. These two Acts,
therefore, prove that it was the intention of the Legisla
ture not in any way to create a religious test by means
of the oath of abjuration, but only to secure the Hano-
verian succession by requiring its subjects to take the
strongest oath it could devise. Consistently with this
intention, whenever the Legislature found that practical
inconvenience was likely to ensue from the wording of
the oath of abjuration, and that persons who
ought to take that oath would be prevented from so
doing by the words " on the true faith of a
Christian," then the Legislature interfered and sanc-
tioned the omission of those words. Now, for the first
time, the case has arisen that an Honourable Gentle-
man has been elected Member of this House who
professes the Jewish religion, and who cannot,
therefore, take the oath of abjuration in the ordinary
form. Parliament ought, therefore, in accordance with
the undeniable precedents which I have quoted, to in-
terfere, and it ought to enact in this ease, as it did in
1723 and 1740, that when any person professing the
Jewish religion shall present himself to take the oath of
abjuration, then the words " upon the true faith of a
Christian" shall be omitted out of the said oath in ad-
ministeritig the same.—(Hear, hear.) And such is the
object of the Bill of the Noble Lord. I do not, however,
mean to assert that the question under the consideration
of the House is to be settled by mere precedents. For
it is in fact a question between two great principles that
have battled against each other since the commence-
ment of civilisation. On the one side is the principle of
religious equality ; on the ether the antagonist principle,
that the State is competent to determine, and ought to
determine, what religion is the true religion. Now this
doctrine of the religious infallibility of the State has
been in all ages, and among all people, the plea for the
crimes of intolerance and persecution. Under that plea
Socrates was put to death and the Saviour was cruci-
fied. Under that plea the Pagan emperors immoy
fated the early Christians, the Albigenses were
slaughtered, and our own fires were lighted in Smith-
field.—(Hear, hear.) Under that plea Catholics burnt
Protestants, Protestants burnt Catholics, Calvin kindled
the faggot of Servetus with the approbation of Melanc-
thon. Even the pilgrim fathers of New England were
persecutors, and hung Quakers on the gibbets of Massa-
chussetts.—(Hear, hear.) Under the same plea in
modern times we excluded Dissenters from our corpora-
tions and Catholics from Parliament. And for the same
reasons Jews are now refused a seat in the British House
of Commons. But religious liberty has triumphed over
the rude bigotry of antiquity and the cruel; persecutions
of our forefathers. It will ultimately achieve a victory
over the milder intolerance of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
—(Cheers.) The result will be peace and goodwill among
men of every faith who are subjects of the British em-
pire. In legislating on this question, let us remember
that we are not merely the representatives of the people
of this small island, which is inhabited by men of one
race, one language, and one religion; but we are rulers
over a mighty empire, over millions on millions of hu-
man beings of every race, every language, and every
religion ; and we are likewise the parent stock whence
in future ages still mightier empires may spring.—
(Cheers.) In the eminent position that we have attained
throu ;11 the energy of our forefathers and of ourselves,
famed as we are throughout the world for sagacity,
prudence, and forethought, our practical decisions on the
great questions that affect the interests of the human
race are watched with intense anxiety by all intelligent
and reflecting men. Every onward step that England
takes is a step in the civilization of the world ; and the
policy of England will gradually become the policy of
all enlightened nations. Now, twice, of late years, we
have rendered noble service to our fellow-beings--twice
well deserved the thanks of mankind for the example we
have set to the other rulers of the earth. First, when
we freed our negro slaves, and proclaimed that to hold
men in bondage was inexpedient, unholy, and unjust.
Secondly, when we removed restrictions on commercial
intercourse, broke down the barriers that had long
separated neighbouring states, and bound together
hitherto hostile communities by the strong ties of mutual
interest, which are by far the most potent securities
against the hideous calamities of war. Now, Sir,
to the principles of civil liberty and commercial
freedom let us join in the government of this empire the
third great principle, of religious equality.—(Loud
cheers.) Now is the time—now that the electors of
London, the wealthy and energetic citizens of this com-
mercial metropolis of the universe, have chosen as their
representative a gentleman professing the Jewish faith;
and let me remark that wherever Jews are to be found
despised, persecuted, and oppressed, in Germany or
Poland, in Russ in or Asia Minor, there the result of
this election for the city of London has been hailed by
them with joy and exultation, as elevating them to the
social state, and putting them on an equality with their
fellow-men ; for admission into the British House of
Commons is justly considered to be a mark of higher
distinction to their race than any title or honour that
monarchs can bestow. Now let us confirm this decision
of our foremost citizens. Now is the time to declare
that as legislators we have no business with articles of
faith, that our laws should be silent on all questions of
religion, and that as the adherents of every creed are to
be found among the subjects of the British empire,
adding to its wealth, augmenting its resources, and in-
creasing its power, so they should all possess the same
civil rights and privileges as citizens. And thus let us
sweep away the last relics of the ancient reign of imbe-
cile bigotry and intolerance in its dotage.—(The Hon.
Baronet resumed his seat amid loud cheering.)
Mr. H. S. W A LFOLE thought that the reasons for
admitting the Jews to Parliament did not predominate
over the arguments against the measure. Tho problem
they had now to solve was, whether a country ought or
ought not to be governed by those who professed its
national religion. Christianity was a fundamental law
in the constitution of our state ; and if that were so,
such a law never should be altered, except at the desire
of a very large majority of the people, and unless their own
wisdom deliberately approved the change. Had religion
nothing to do with the affairs of a legislature? Why the
very writ under which they were summoned desired their
attendance to advise her Majesty on the religion of the
realism. How could a Jew legislate for that religion,
when a sincere adherence to his own faith necessarily
debarred him from blending his opinions with the reli-
gion of the country? But was it established that the
majority of the people desired the change ? Histori-
cally they never had desired that the Jews should take
a part in public affairs, and whatever society you went
into now you would find the same feeling still prevail-
ing. And this brought him back to his first proposi-
tion, that sufficiently preponderating reasons had not
been given for the alteration. It was said that they
had gone so far that they must invitably go one step
further. But the distinction between those who made
laws and those who were to execute them when
made, was broad and well defined. The executors of
the laws had only to carry out the intent of the law
makers, but the makers of the laws were guided by their
own feelings. The executor of the laws need not be a
Christian—it sufficed that he should be a good citizen;
but not so with the law maker. But then it was urged,
that inasmuch as you admitted a Jew to be one of the
electors, why not allow him to be one of the elected?
But that argument proceeded on the assumption that the
qualification for a franchise and the qualification for an
office were the same. But the qualification of the fran-
chise belonged to every man as a subject, but the office
was a matter of trust, not to be held be right for the
benefit of the individual, but to be held by sufferance for
the benefit of the nation. The subscribers to an hospital
might all vote in the choice of a physician; but would all
the subscribers be qualified for the office? An entire
corporation might -vote at the election of a town clerk;
but they would be very much surprised to hear it urged
that they were all qualified to be town clerks. But the
strongest case of all was the case of a minister of reli-
gion. You said, " he may elect, but he shall not be
elected." Apply that case to the Jews. Both the
Christian minister and the Jew had rights that ought to be
protected, and therefore they said both may elect; but
as to their
eosright to be elected, they said of the one that
it was not desirable he should be mixed up with tempo-
ral
ladndbeofmtihxeedotthiperwtihthat a itsywstaesmnooft
whichdesirable h
e
f'orined no part.—(Cheers.) But the Noble Lord oppo-
site had urged one further argument—that all who bore
the
s p
rburdens o f
_a_setate ought to share its honours and
beat answer to this was f,hia TerY

case. If all who bore tho burdens of a state were en-
titled to share its honours, why exclude the Jew from
the office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Lieutenant? Why,
there were a thousand tests of exclusion from Parlia-
ment even at the present time—the tests of age, of
sex, of property, of office, or of country. Age was
not always a disqualification. Mr. Fox sat for the
borough he (the lion. Member) represented before he
was twenty. If another Mr. Fox were to arise, " How
hard," they might say, " to exclude him!" Property!
How many men there were competent to legislate in
this country, who had not sufficient estate to qualify
them for a seat in that House. Then take the case of
a naturalised alien; that individual was excluded, under
the laws, from a seat in Parliament, and yet they pro-
posed to admit a Jew, who, so far from being their own
countryman, either by birth or by law, was a native
of no country, had no land except that whereunto he
looked with hope that God in his own good time would
restore him.—(Cheers.) But the next great argument
was, that this Parliament was an expansive Parliament;
that at one time it was exclusively Church of England,
but that Dissenters had been admitted, Roman Catholics
had been admitted, and why not Jews ? True it was
that they were, in a religious point of view, a divided
people, but they were up to the present ,time at least a
Christian people. Their differences were in no respect
analogous to the essential differences between Judaism
and Christianity, and he thought it well worth con-
sidering whether a unity was not given them by the
mode of life prescribed under the New Testament, which
it was desirable at any sacrifice of feeling to preserve.
It was well worth considering, in his opinion, whether,
if they introduced all sorts of religion into that House,
they might not give the people a notion that the State
was indifferent to questions of religion, inasmuch as
whenever they saw a novelty or change, they adopted
it without mistrust or hesitation.—(Cheering.) He
would willingly here conclude his observations, but as
others had introduced into the subject not merely
questions of expediency and principle, but matter of
feeling, he could not refrain from one word upon that
point also. If there were one people more than another
to whom he would extend indulgence, that people were
the Jewish people; and it was not until he had considered
the subject well that he felt it incumbent to vote as he
propesed to vote. When he reflected on their peculiar
history—on all they had been, and on all they were-
-rich —rich in recollections of the past, and rich also in their
anticipations of the future--and when he bore in mind,
as he was bound to bear in mind, that this people had, as
it were, the promise that at some period they would
again be the favoured people of God; when he considered
these things, he owned that he felt for the Jews so deep
a sympathy, that he would extend for them every indul-
gence that a Christian member of a Christian Legisla-
t4e could conscientiously extend.—(Cheers.) But be-
lieving as he did that Christianity was so interwoven
with the principles of the State, that they could not be
separated the one from the other; and fearing, as he did,
the detrimental effect of such a measure as that which
was proposed, he would not consent to destroy or weaken
that national character, based as it was upon Christian
precept, which had so greatly contributed to the moral
and political elevation of the nation. The Hon. and
Learned Member concluded with expressing his convic-
tion that, as our national prosperity lay deep sunk in
our national religion, any blow struck at our national
religion would shake the pillars of our national pros-
perity.
Mr. SHEIL—If the Honourable, Learned, and ex-
ceedingly able Gentleman had been a Member of this
House of Commons in the year 1822, at the period when
the Member for Tamworth brought on the measure of
Catholic Emancipation, I think it must strike every
Gentleman in this House that the speech which he has
just delivered would have been almost as apposite-
-(Hear, hear)—as it was at the present time. Ido not
think that he himself, with all his habits of fine forensic
discrimination, would be able to show that he urged a
single argument which might not have been pressed in
1829. He referred to the writ by which we are called
together, in which special mention was made of the An-
glican Church. I will ask, is not that objection directed
against the Jews, applicable to the Unitarians, Baptists,
and Independents—(Hear, hear)—and equally so to the
religion to which I have the honour to belong ? lam
convinced that his speech, from the commencement to
the conclusion, if thoroughly sifted, would be found to
be equally applicable to that Bill to which I have
alluded, and that each of the arguments might have been
pressed with equal force, and even a great part of it
might have been made against the Bill introduced by
Lord Lyndhurst granting municipal franchise. The
Hon. Gentleman had adverted to the fact of a Jew being
admitted to the Ake of high sheriff. Why, it is a
fact that a Jew may empanel a jury, by which the
first Christian commoner in the land may be tried
for his life. Have you not already admitted the
Jews to power ? and the only question for you to de-
cide is, whether you will not go one step fur-
ther, and remove the only remnant of intolerance which
eppears upon the statute-book.—(Cheers.) It appears
to me, from the liability to duty the enjoyment of right
ought not to be dissociated ; and it appears to me, that
if a Jew was born in England, and was doomed to do
duty as a British subject, he ought by every right to be
entitled to the privileges of one. He does not derive
immunity from his religion, and his religion ought not,
therefore, to subject him to disqualification. I am aware
that this is only designated by the word privation—
(Hear, hear)—but between penalty and privation there
is no substantial difference. The privation of life, of
property, or of liberty, are only degrees upon the pra-
duated scale of persecution.—(Hear, hear.) The exclu-
sion of the Jews has been designated by the phrase to
which I have referred; but I think that privation is of
a most signal character. The exclusion is commensu-
rate with the dignity and imperial ascendancy of your
body; and I think that there are many of those by
whom the Jews are opposed who ought to be the
very last to advocate such a measure; and I
think I may speak most as a witness more
than an advocate. I am a member of a
community subject to those privations which now
affect the Jews. I will not now speak of myself, but I
%$ ill speak of one more deserving of praise. I have often
sat under the gallery of St. Stephen's, by the side of
that great man to whom my country owes her liberty. I
have sat beside him when the fortunes of my country
trembled in the balance, and too often have I seen him
repine at his exclusion from this field of intellectual
contest, until he was at last tardily admitted after much
capricious procrastination. How have I seen him chafe
at the chains that bound him down—those chains which
by an effort of gigantic :prowess ho ero long broke
asunder! He was at the head of millions of organized
and indissoluble men; the Jew comes here with no other
arguments than those which reason and truth provide,—
(Hear, hear.) But truth and reason are accounted
mighty; and in this great assembly, which I believe re-
presents not only the high intelligence, but the high-
mindedness of England, I am sure that reason will not
long be sbaftled, and I am convinced that truth, in
the fulfilment of its august aphorism, will at last prevail.
Sir, I think I may assume as conceded or indisputable,
that exclusion from Parliament is a great detriment. It
remains to be considered whether that great detriment
amounts to a great wrong. Nothing but necessity—the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst admits—no-
thing but necessity can justify the exclusion of a British
subject. But of necessity, of the plea of necessity, so
readily misapplied, beware Caraffs rued it. Pope
Paul 111. relied upon necessity when he revived, or
rather established, that celebrated tribunal for the ex-
tinction of error—(Hear, hear)—whose practices you
abhor, upon whose principles have a care lest you may
not yourselves proceed 1 Necessity must, upon the
witness of your heart and conscience, to the satisfaction
of all men, be clearly made out, and you must show
that you have some palpable, some unmistakeable ground
for fear. What is it you fear ? What is the origin of
this Hebrewphobia?—(A laugh.) Do you tremble for
the Church P That Church may have reason to fear,
perhaps, from eight millions of Catholics, it may have
something to dread perhaps from three millions of
Methodists, it may have something to dread from a
million and a half of Free Churchmen, it may have
something to apprehend from sectarian assault from
without, and from spurious Popery and mutiny from
within—(Hear, hear)—but from the synagogue, the
neutral, the apathetic, the unproselytising spirit of
the synagogue, pervaded by the spirit of Gallio of old,
the Church has nothing to fear.—(Hear, hear.) But it is
said that the Church will be unchristianised, and the
Hon. Gentleman, the lawyer, who apprehended so
much damage to the interests of religion, the Member
for Midhurst, again and again takes a distinction be-
tween Judaism and every other denomination of reli-
gionists. Sir, in my opinion, the Christianity of the
Parliament depends upon the Christianity of the
country.—(Hear.) I mean, by the Christianity of the
country, the belief in Christ crucified, risen from the
dead, It is secured in the faith, and inseparably in-
tertwined with the affections of the people; 1 think
the Christianity of the two islands as stable as the
islands themselves. And as long as the Constitution
of England stands, until the Parliament itself can
perish, as long as this mighty mirror of the nation's
mind shall remain untarnished and unbroken, so long
the religious feelings of the people of England will and
must be for over reflected in its surface.—(Hear, hear.)
This—this is the true security for the Christian religion
of the country, for the religion of the people, and it
affords a far better test than any that can by possi-
bility be applied by a mere phrase at which an
honest man will pause, but which the sardonic sceptic
disdainfully swallows.—(" Hear, hear," and cheers.)
Repeated reference has been made in this House to the
celebrated author of " The Decline and Fall
of the RoMan Empire," but I think that an example still
more illustrative might have been cited. Was not Bo-
lingbroke—the fatally accomplished, the admiration of
the admirable, he to whom genius offered tributes
amounting almost to idolatrous veneration—was not Bo-
lingbroke, who united in himself all the external accom-
plishments and all the intellectual endowments requisite
for a perfect Parliamentary speaker, and who, in the in-
tereeurse of private life, exercised a species of fascination
upon all those who had the misfortune to approach him
—was not Bolingbroke, the infidel Bolingbroke, a Mem-
ber of this House ? Was he stopped by the test which
arrests the Jew ? Did he not rather tread it contemp-
tuouslypower,
us ef Commons,
and
become,
o ui der
efoot,co m
the
as he mounted to the heights of
es through
confidential ll
and
intervention
favourite
adv e
of tsh e
ior
of his Sovereign ? Is it not, then, monstrous, that a man
by whom all revelation is rejected, who doubts the im-
mortality of the soul, who doubts a future state of re-
wards and punishments, who doubts eternal Providence,
who believes in nothing, fears nothing, hopes for
nothing, who has no restraint upon brutality, and no
incentive to virtue
.beyond such natural prompting:
as God may have given him—is it not, I say, mons-
trous that such a man should find his way into
the House of Commons, and should climb to the very
pinnacle of power, and yet that you should shut the
doors of this House with indignity upon an honourable
and conscientious man who adheres to the religion in
which he was born and bred, a man who believes in the
great facts that constitute the foundation of Christianity,