The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-02 00:00:00

!T n.

4 a z!el,lr

~; i ..,,

.1„...—.e
_—_--.
not----8 that pr , rtcd to blrn by

5... .
ofesers Meths ii ~..e, but C. pered eel wrieen by sees-
self, and having signed thillikeper, be then left it. It
was not for him to complain that the House had not
dealt with Baron Rothschtld in the same way as it bad
dealt with Mr. Pease. He thought then, and he still
thought, that equal jusCce had not been dealt to
Baron Rothschild.--(Hear, bear.) But he di i maintain,
and he, called upon the Hoc. Member for Warwick-
shire to disprove the statement, that the mode
in which Baron Rothschild affected the question
was the
.same as the Member for Darham.—(Hear,
hear.) He felt it due to the electors of London, over
whose meetings he had presided as chairman, to take
notice of another charge of the Hon. Member (Mr. New-
degate), namely, that bribery had been used to carry
the election in 1848. He begged also to meet that
assertion with a denial as positive and explicit as the
former charge.—(Bear, hear.) He told the Hun. Gen-
'emen that bribery at that election would have been as
eseless us it would have been illegal—(Cheers)—end
when it was recollected that there was a majority of
3,600 persons, it would be seen that bribery would have
been as absurd as it was unlawful.—(Hear.) He begged
to tell the Hon. Member that the most strenuous, ear
nest, and careful exertions were made by Baron Roths-
child, and all connected with the election of 184$, to
secure it from even the slightest taint or liability of such
a charge, and he would say the same of the election of
1847. He trusted that this distinct and positive denial
would settle these charges. And now with respect to
the general question.—(A laugh.) He did not know
whether the Hon. Gentleman meant by that laugh to in-
timate that his statements were untrue. If so, he hoped
tese Hon. Gentleman would say so. With respect to the
general question, then, he said that be had as sincere and
earnest devotion to the faith he believed in as the He.
Member for Warwickshire, or any Hon. Member in that
House; but he had done his best to promote the passing
of that Bill, and would continue to do so, because he be-
lieved that faith was inconsistent with the imposition of
civil disabilities on others.—(Hear, hear.) When.th
Right . Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) asked what right
ilad
Jews had among us, he replied that he believed they
the same right as the Hon. Baronet, or any Member of
that House. He believed that their discharge of all the
duties of citizens had been of the
exemplary kind,
andni"et votion to all the
and that in the hospitere italic
ecoeddto no other class of
charities of life they w
He thanked the Hon.
our countrymen.—(Cheers.) Fie
Baronet for alluding to the Sabbath question, for if there
was one trait in the character of the Jews more honour-
able the continued
to them than another, it was sacrifice
they made to observe their
observed the day that w
e own Sabbath, and certainly,
so stringently
when theyconsciences, could scarcely
binding upon their own
0 as closely a day which had no
they
be expected to observe
religions sauction for them.—(Hear, hear) With re-
spect to the reception of this Bill in another House, he
trusted that the remarks which had fallen from the Hon.
Member, more in the way of threat than anything else,
would not be realized. As the Solicitor General he'd
said, the
powerful arguments by which the Bill was sup-
ported could not fail to be appreciteeti, and, ere long,
produce their due uffrct, and he trust,.d therefore these
would be no collision between the two Houses of Parlia-
ment in future. In conclusion, he should gladly give
his vote for removing the last badge of civil disability,
which, he regretted still disgraced our statute-book.
hlre GOULBURN had so often addressed the House
on this subject, that he would not have intruded again
were it not that he wanted to know what measure was
really before the House, and what was the nature of the
Bill they were called to vote upon.—(Hear, hear.) The
Solicitor-General and other Hon. Members had argued
the question merely as a question of admitting Jews to
seats in both Houses of Parliament. When he heard
such arguments as these, he thought it desirable they
should know what was the actual measute on which they
were called to vote. The first Bill brought in by. tee
Noble Lord was in 1846, but that was very ditieut from
the measure before the House. That Bill provided a
new oath for Jews, instead of the oath of abjuration,
cnd which. if taken, would hare rendered them eligible
to fill all placee which those who took the oath of abju-
ration were gest:fled to fill. That Bill was thrown out
by the other II .use of Parliament, and after consult-
ing with Baron Rothschild and his frienes, and fully
considering the question, another Bill was brought in
in 1849. But that measure excluded the Jews from
many high offices. It prevented them from being
guardians or regents of the kingdom, from filling
the office of Lord Chancellor, of the Queen's Lord
High Commissioner of the .Church of Scotland, Ec-
clesiastical Catheeral and University offices, or Head
Masters of Schools in Royal Foundations, that measure
was also rejected, and it was not now before the House.
The Noble Lord proposed to admit under this Bill every
Jew to every office; and, thus, while the Roman Catho-
lic was to be excluded, the Jew was to be admitted. lle
would ask the Noble Lord was that consistent? and was
such the way in which he was prepared to maintain the
Constitution of this country?—(Hear, hear.) It was
not merely a question of admission of Jews to the House
of Commons, but it was admission of them also to the
House of Peers, and to every administrative office from
which they were as present excluded by the oath of ab-
juration. Could the Noble Lord, and other Honourable
Istembers opposite, deny that? Looking at the reading
of the Bill, a Jew tnieht be Regent, and in the same
way might be Lord Chancellor or Home Secretary. Was
that the way es maintain the safeguard of the Protestant
Church? Was it by proposing to place power in the
hands of individuals of different faith, that the Noble
Lord proposed to uphold the Christianity of the mural.; ?
The measure was quite preposterous, and would inter-
fere with, and treat as a nullity, the coronation oath
taken by the Queen. He did nut hesitate to say that
the measure was fraught with the greatest danger to the
Cbristi.nity of the country and, looking at the whole
character of theflßill, he was disposed to give it the most
uncompromising opposition.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY, as a Roman Catholic, was anxious to
express his opinion on this Bill. He perceived by the
" laughs" of some Hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they
were disposed to oppose the measure now before the
1151190, but he would tell those Hon. Members that the
Jews had a right to be admitted to Parliament, and he
must say, that unless they admitted them to Parliament
they had no right to administer the oath of abjuration
at all.—(Hear, hear.) They bad on the journal of their
House a record of the capacity of a Je a ish gentleman to
take at the table o: tree House the oath most binding
on his conscience, while he was not prepared to take the
oath of abjuration, and could not assent to take the oath,
"On the faith of a Christian." The manner in which
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government now pro-
posed to meet the difficulty, was by a declaratory Act;
but Hon. Gentlemen opposite were opposed to the ad-
mission of Jews to Parliament under any circumstances.
Baron Rothschild bad been elected to sit in Parliament
fur the city of London, and he was at that moment as
much a Member of the House as any Hon. Gentleman
who enjoyed his seat iu it—(Hear, bear)—and as the
Honourable Baronet opposite (Sir R. Inglis), who was
much opposed to him. He asked Hen. M.-tubers tocoa
Bider how mesh the circumstances of this question werr;
changed since it was last before the House, and to re-
flect that it was not advisable on the subject to pro-
voke a collision between the two Houses of Parliament.
He hated hypocrisy, and it was because he was anxious
to see an end pat to hypocrisy, injustice, and bigotry,
that he should give his vote in support of this Bill, and
that he should vote, not only for the admission of Jews
to Parliament, but of Ms homedans. and men of every
religious denomination. (The Hon. Member resumed his
seat amidst cries of " Oh, ob," from the opponents of the
Bill.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said the Noble Lord forced on the
measure because he believed that it would be injurious to
the constitution of the country. With regard to the Ex-
hibition, he was not, he was glad to say, present at it.—
(andlaang3l ) He felt it to be a duty to his Guds--(Oh!)
. duty to his country, however showy, seductive, or
inciting Crystal He
deeply Palace might be, not to go there.
venerate'
to have heard—and from one, too, who
from
Protestant Church—a
blessine prayer invoking a
—a blessin him who guides—(Cries of " Question")
injurious to the
what he (Colonel Sibthorp) considered
tinued cries of ,wsliare of this great country.—(Con-
feelings, and he Nl:uestion, question.") Those were his
ould express them. Wito regard to
the present measure,Jaws into a Christian he
was opposed to the admission of
iitsserably, and took the same views
iee
on the subject as his Friend the Member for War-
wickshire. Now, it the
speaker commanded his (Col.
Sibthorp's) attendance on
Baron
he should feel
pound to obey it; but if Rothschild became a
Member he would not do se, n
because it was his Sab
bath, and he would, therefore, possess
privileges which
no other Member possessed.
id there was me-
thod in•madness—(Cheers andttlawnagteesar
whei)d—but he should
proceedings which
protest against
did not ac-
Christian, a Mahomedan, or a Jew,
wiel-emit an anti-
, before th
knowledge the Saviour of the world, into
a Christian
assembly.—(Cries of " Divide.")
tthee n
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished
e House
divided, to make a few observations on th
tinder consideration, though he would noetrneeast'a‘lirne
at any length, or prolong
particularly to the lion. Gentleman who
debate by any reply,
more
last addressee
them The, e were, however, some circumstances the_
format from those brought forward on recent occasions
to which he should apply himself; a Member of that The question re-
solved itself into the admission,
House, of n by a large body
a gentleman, who was chose
of electors. lie (Lord John Russell) would not dispute
with his Hon.
Friend the Member for the University of
Oxford,
question of so
whether Parliament had a right to decide on a
much importanc, or pat a restriction on
the admission of Me
importune to observewhile with regard to restrictions,
.
teherewere certain matters regard
to which Me In
of both Houses took oaths,
there was no oath requiring them to declare they
the were Christians, until, in -
Protector 'Cromwell, it Was firstsee Parliament of the
enacted they should be
Christians and
to the Prot ts
uee estan.
On the contrary, the oath
s the oath declaring of fidelity Qn
Cite supre-
macy of the Crown of this realm, sue excluding spiritual
supremacy as taken by Protestants, and temporal
su-
premacy; as taken by Roman Catholics, the oath of
euration by which the title of the present family to ath
e
Throne, and an adberence to a honied succession -
admitted, these three important oaths, which Members
s
- to
were required to take, Baron Rothschild tea, ready
take, without any difficulty whatever. The Baron was
three times elected, he was ready to take the oath of el_
legiazee, the oath of supremacy, either in the no-,th,
taken by Protestant or Catholic, and the oath of abju-
ration, and when called to the table was admitted to take
them, until he came to the coecluding words of the
oath abjuration, "on the true faith of a Christian."
These words were not the substance of the oath, but when

he came to thee words, and reue !to 3„bsciihe ic) them,
the House declared he could not sit withoe doirg
so. On that a citu soon •irose which gave ri•u to a very con-
siderable nebAte, when his Hon. anLi Learned Friend the
Solicitor-General, maintained with great power and
argument, that it was not necessary to tube such
tin tAth, as he /eh it could not be binding on "13