The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-18 00:00:00

EYENINGS

r threatened their Church was greater from Roman Ca-
tholics and Dissenters than it was from the JewS. He
trusted he should not charged with indifference to.
Christianity in advocating the omiesioa of these words
from the oath. Far from their having any tendency to
elevate the moral influence of Christianity, he thought.
it a dishonour to it, even to suppose that it could bo
so honoured or supported.—(Hear, hear.) lie remem-
bered having heard at church that we ought to show our
gratitude to Providence far the great victories our
troops had achieved in India. Now, he trusted that
whether under victory or defeat, calamity or prosperity,
he should never be disposed, or any of their Lordships,
to show a disregard for religion, but how any prospe-
rity or victory could be said to depend on those
Jewish disabilities, or, rather, Christian disabili-
ties—for such, he maintained, was their real
nature—he was at a loss to comprehend ; and as to their
victories in India, he wandered whore they would,
have been, if those soldiers of our Indian army had
been rejected, who would have refused, upon its being
tendered to them, to take their oath on the true faith of
a Christian.—(Cheers.) Why, nine-tenths of them were
Hindoos, who, though they fearlessly marched to their
services in the field, they were jealously excluded from
Parliament by this oath.—(Hear.) In conclusion, he
maintained that the electors had a right to demand this
free exercise of their functions as British subjects and
as Christians, and as followers of Him who declared
that his kingdom was not of this world, and disavowed
to,his apostles all notion of political ascendancy, or of
power to overthrow temporal dignity.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY much regretted
that this question should have been again revived.
Nothing new had occurred to alter any of their opinions.
The tome proposition was now offered--the same resis-
tance offered, and it must be met again by the same ar-
guments, for the question was so simple that it could
not be regarded in different lights.—(Hear.) Now, he
must first defend himself against the charge of
hostility to the Jewish faith. The objections
that he had now to urge, and had before urged
against the measure, did not arise from any such feeling
towards the Jews, but from circumstances which pecu-
liarly affected them, and against which they could not
shut their eyes. Neither did he say that they were an
incompetent race to discharge the important functions
to which they were aspiring, far from it. Neither did
he oppose the Bill, because, in numbers, they were few.
The principle upon which they (the objectors) rested
was aagoodsfor one individual as for a hundred millions.
—(Hear, hear.) And still less did they seek to exclude
them, as had bften been alleged, and alleged just now
even, by the Noble and Learned Lord the Lord Chan-
cellor, and in the last speech made on the subject by the
late lamented Sir Robert Peel—still less did they op-
pose this Bill in any spirit of. -vengeance. God forbid
that any such thoughts should ever enter their minds !
But they had no warranty for executing any such a de-
cree as was now proposed to them on behalf of the
descendants of the race that was stained with the sin
of the crucifixion. The real difficulty lay on our-
selves, not in respect of the Jewish people, but be-
cause of the vigour and intensity of our own principles.
They would admit that the Jews were an intellectual
race of men, and otherwise qualified for the business of
legislation; but it was necessary to recollect that their
very existence and professions were a protest against
Christianity itself. The Jew denied the true faith of
Christian, and he called on them to strike out these
words, as being improper or unnecessary. Now, he
maintained that no one had a right to make such a de-
mand as this. This was going beyond the legitimate
grounds upon which they were able to make concessions.
This was not a question of detail, but a principle. Ile
maintained that they had no right to make any conces-
sion of the kind. Here was a declaration which actu-
ally, or virtually, had excluded a Jew from Parliament
for more than 200 years, and they were called upon to
repeal it—not because it was improper or unnecessary,
but because it tended to exclude Jews from Parliament,
who were the great antagonists of the Christian reli-
gion. If the question before us were the repeal of oaths
generally the debate would stand upon a different footing.
He was really astonished at the words that had fallen
from the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack in
this debate. " What had they to fear," saidhe, and
" did they think the Jews wished to Judaize the state?"
—(Hear.) They had no such fears, but they feared the
sacrifice of principle, which was always perilous, and
might result in the most melancholy consequences,
though it might be impossible now to specify any one of
them. Now it was a matter for serious and anxious
consideration, whether it would not be better to abolish
oaths altogether, than to go on thus temporising year
after year.—(Cheers.) He very much doubted the ex-
pediency of making such a change. They might, per-
haps, not have been of any great use. They had not
excluded infidels from Parliament, but let them under-
stand the full value of the oaths at the table. It was
said that the oaths containing those words did not ex-
clude Lord Bolingbroke, Gibbon, and other infidels.
But, in regarding the declations of these men, as
operating against the value of the oath, they took a
very narrow view of the subject. 'These oaths were
not to bo taken as Ithe private affirmations of the in-
dividual, but as the declaration of the nation itself.
The whole nation could not take the oaths, and
hence they were taken by its representatives in Parlia-
ment. He could not see why, whilst_Bolingbroke
and Gibbon took that oath, and, by so doing, jeopar-
dised their souls, the principles of religion were the less
strongly asserted. He could not retreat from those
words, therefore, without consenting toga sacrifice of prin-
ciple, which must inevitably be followed by the moat
baneful consequences. He could not yield on this point
to an authority less than that which originally imposed
this limitation.—(Hear.)
The Earl of CARLISLE said, that with reference to
the question before their Lordships, after what had fallen
from the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, and
the Archbishop of the sister kingdom, he did not think
it necessary to do more than occupy the shortest time
in recommending the Bill -to their Lordships.—(gear.)
With reference to the absence of petitions, he had only
to say that circumstance alone had prevented the pre-
sentation of the unanimous petition of the corporation
of London, in favour of this measure. He did not think
much of the religious argument against the admission of
Jews to Parliament, and could not bring himself to be-
lieve that there was the slightest danger to Christianity
from the presence of Jews in the other House of Parlia-
ment. The existence of this oath, so far as it excluded
the Jews, was a mere accident. They wordslwere intro-
duced with reference to no religious circumstances The
question now was,iwas it advisable to retain them? lie
doubted whether, if they had not been there, either of the
Noble Lords opposite would have been bold °neigh to
propose such a test.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
great risk would follow from the continued opp)sitinn
of their Lordships to this Bill,:and he felt:convincel that,
sooner or later, their Lordships would consent to this
Bill, and terminate the struggle with the electors and
the other House, by allowing the second reading of this
13i11.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of WINCHILSEA. said they were now
called upon to renounce the Christianity of the
State,
and if they did so they would offend the great body of
the people of this country. Was it a matter of perfect
indifference to this great country what religion a man
professed ? For the Jewish people he entertained a sin-
cere respect, but in their favour ho could not consent to
abandon the Christianity cf the State.--(Cheers.)
The Earl of WICKLOW confessed that it appeared
to him that it was just because they were a Christian
country that no danger could arise from the admission
of Jews into Parliament. But, notwithstanding the
profession of such principles, he had the strongest ob-
jection to this Bill, because it did not abolish oaths alto-
gether. This Bill differed from the Bill
of 1849.
He did not think the Government was justified in
making these alterations.—(Hear, hear.) Ile firmly
believed that there was a moral and religious feel-
ing in the people of this country that they would de-
cline to take these oaths, and he was..-of opinion that if
the mass of the people were obliged to take these oaths,
a feeling would speedily by raised which would compel
the attention of the Legislature. It was on the grounds
he had stated, that he refused his assent to the second
reading of the Bill; but in the event of their Lordships
acceding to the second reading, it would be easy in Com-
mittee to make those alterations which, in his opinion,
he considered to be necessary.
The Duke of ARGYLL, after referring to the speech
of the Noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), said he
could not easily forget being present a few years ago at
a public meeting in Glasgow, to which the Noble Lord
at the head of her Majesty's Government had been in-
vited by the people of Glasgow. He (the Duke of Ar-
gyll) had attended that meeting, and he had heard with
infinite surprise and regret, the Noble Lord say that,
for the purpose of keeping up a spirit of persecution,
the House of Lords had' refused their assent to the
measure of that day in favour of the Jews. He
(the Duke of Argyll) deprecated such observations.
He believed the Jews were not actuated by a prosely-
tising spirit. But the Noble Earl said, that so far as
they went they were hostile to Christianity, and that it
was no answer to his object, to say that only a few could
be introduced into Parliament, and that it was the prin-
ciple he contended for. But this argument was contra-
dicted by the fact that the Jew was admitted to thelelec-
tive franchise. He was an elector, and therefore exer-
cised legislative power, although he admitted it was in
a miner degree. With reference to the admission of
avowed infidels into Parliament, Bolingbroke and Gib-
bon had been referred to, and the Noble Earl said that
although the House knew the fact, it was with great
pleasure they were called upon to declare on the faith of
a Christian. Now he (the Duke of Argyll) felt no plea-
sure in such things, for he thought that nothing was
more improper than to ask such a man to take such sn
oath, and so to add hypocrisy to his other offence:.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY disclaimed using the
words imputed to him, and explained that what he had
said was, the act of taking the oath by such men as
Bolingbroke and Gibbon was jeopardising their con-
sciences.
The Duke of ARGYLL said that bore him:out in
what he had said.—(Hear.) In so far as the consti-
tuency was concerned, in electing a representative they
were oalled on to elect a Christian, and notwithstanding
they knowingly elected an infidel, and the House of
Commons, with that knowledge, oalled on him to take
the oaths.—(Hear.) It was not contended that the Jew
would be hostile to their ecclesiastical Establishment.
It was not contended that he would be as hostile as
Dissenters who had been admitted.—(Hear, hear.)
After some further remarks the Noble Duke concluded
by saying that he was prepared to vote for the measure
on broad and general principles.—(Hear.) He had a
great reverence for the principle propounded by Dr.
Arnold, as to the connexion of the Church with the
State, but it appeared to him that the spiritual and the
civil must be wholly separated.—(Hear, hear.) That he
was prepared to affirm, end according to the constitu-
tion of Parliament, it was wrong that men should be
wholly excluded from taking their seats, 'whip were
otherwise competent, on purely spiritual grounds,
The Bishop of NORWICH agreed that this oath
I wad not intended to be made a religious test. How, he

would ask, would. the Christian religion be affected by
this measure? Did any man think, if they passed it,
there would be fewer Christians in the country than
before?—(Hear, hear.) Did any man think that the
Christians who elected Baron Rothschild and Mr. Salo-
mons had any greater sympathy with those of the
Jewish persuasion than any other body of Christians?
He therefore Maintained that the measure before them
was incapable of inflicting injury on the Christian re-
ligion, but he did think they were inflicting injury on
the Christian religion by year after year refusing their
aszent to the measure.—(Hear, hear.) Such being his
opinions, be should give his vote in favour of the second
reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord ABINGER and the Bishop of Oxford rose to-
gether. The latter having resumed his seat, the Noble
Lord proceeded to address the House. He said it ap-
peared to him that the Jewish nation had not a right to
ask to be upon an equality in the eye of the law. He
held that every nation had a duty to perform to itself,
and that duty was to deny political power to those who
differed so widely from the people of this country as the
Jews did, and whose feelings were altogetherso different.
He had no objection Personally to sit by a Jew, but if
they once admitted members of that body to seats in the
Legislature, the influence and character of their Lord-
ships would sustain a severe blow.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of GALLOWAY said it was an admitted
scriptural doctrine that without faith they could not
please God. Now the Jews not only had not that faith,
but being wholly unconverted to Christianity, they could
not have it. Therefore; in the administration of the af-
fairs of the nation, they Would reject the truth, and for
that reason ho looked upon there as utterly disqualified
from acting as legislators.
[When the Earl of Galloway commenced his brief ob-
servations, the-Bishop of Oxford, who evidently was most
anxious to take part in the debate, left the House. The
Right Rev. PrOtete remained, away but a minute or two,
but when he returned he found, to his great astonish-
ment, that not only had the Earl of Galloway concluded,
but that the Lord Chancellor was in the act of winding
up the debate :by a reply.. Thisesircumstanee caused some
merriment among their Lordships.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR would not detain their
Lordships many minutes with his observations in reply.
He admitted that there ewas a difference between the
making laws and their administration. But the value of
their laws mainly depended on the manner in which
they were administered, and Jews were now a party to
that administration. If they continued to reject this
Bill, and to oppose that which must be taken to be the
sense of the country, they would not increase the love
and respect now felt in their Lordships' House.—(Hear,
hear.) Theymight be persuaded to reject the Bill, but
let them not persuathetheaiselves that it would not be
presented to them again and again until it was ultimately
carried. The Noble and Learned Lord suddenly re-
sumed his seat, "so suddenly; indeed, that the Bishop of
Oxford failed to observe his,Lortisbip, and again lost the
opportunity of addressing the House.
Contents (for the motion) ... 6O
Proxies
Non-contents B2
Proxies

Majority against the Bill
Their Lordships then adjourned.

THE LAW OF MORTMAIN.

Yesterday the Committee of the House of Commons,
appointed to inquire into the Laws of Mortmain, was
excessively crowded during the day, from the fact of its
being known that his 'eminence Cardinal @: iseman had been
summoned to give evidence before the Committee. There
was a great crowd of Members of Parliament, clergymen
of the Church of England, Catholic priests, and no small
number of ladies. The Committee consists of eighteen
Members, of whom Mr. Headlam is the chairman. The
other Members are the Attorney-General, Lord John
Manners, Sir H. H. Inglis, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Anstoy,
Mr. Hutt, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Adair, Mr. Houndell
-Palmer, Mr. Heald, Lord H. Vane, Mr. liardcastle, Mr.
Monsell, Mr. Napier, Mr. Keogh. The Earl of Arundel
and Surrey had also been cast for the Committee.
The CHAIRMAN addressinz the Cardinal (who, to the
disappointment of the public on the occasion, sate with
his back to them throughout the examination) said, the
Committee have raferred to you as the best authority,
probably, on the subject of Catholic matters in this
country, wishing to know your opinion on the law of
Mortmain as it affects property devised to Catholic com-
munities. Do you consider that the Catholics of this
country look upon these laws and the administration of
justice by the tribunals of this country with distrust?
Cardinal Wiseman—l do not.
The CHAIRMAN—Do you know of anything upon
which the Catholics of this country object to our pre-
sent laws of Mortmain? Cardinal Wiseman—No, ex-
cept it be property devised for what are called supersti-
tious uses and masses for the dead, which members of
what is called the Established Church may look upon as
superstitious, but which Catholics do not so consider.

The CHAIRMAN—Have Catholics any objection to the
administration of the same laws in reference to their
charitable trusts as are administered in a Protestant
community?—The Cardinal knew of no objection; and
then went on to say that in the case of money devised
for the purpose of saying masses, the money, unless it
were a very small sum, did not go to the priest in the
way of a small sum, as a personal gift, in which case it
was left with the priests. The larger sums were invested
in the name of trustees in the usual way. Had known
such a sum as 501. to be invested, and the uses to which
such moneys were applied were for the endowment or
foundation of a new church, or to the establishment of
some ministry in connexion with it. In the case of a
person entering a convent, a previous contract was en-
tered into with reference to their property; sometimes
part of the property was given to the convent, and part
to the relations. In the case of persons to whom money
was bequeathed while they were inmates of the convent,
it was not in this country always considered that it be-
came the property of the oonvent, but it was, generally
speaking, at the disposal of the party herself to give to
relations, and he had known cases in which that had
been done.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that a case had occurred
in Belgium where the superioress of the convent had
tried the question of the right of the convent to pro-
perty bequeathed to inmates of the convent; to which
the Cardinal replied that ,that was in Belgium, bat in this
country the persons had a legal right to dispose of any
property left them.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether considerable dissatis-
faction had not prevailed among the Catholics a few
years ago in reference to the law affecting trusts of pro-
perty for charitable purposes?—The Cardinal replied
that seine Bills had been introduced, one under the
auspices of Sir J. Romilly, butit was a question whether
it was not an unfriendly Bill, and he opposed it, or did
not coincide with it. He (the Cardinal) had not
pledged himself actually to any Bills introduced; but
he thought a different feeling new prevailed, and that the
Catholics continued as they were. He did not think
that the Catholics were favourable to any legislative in-
terference in matters of this description, as they had had
some lessons from late events, and looked on legislation
of that kind with distrust.

In answer to further questions as to the power of
the propaganda affecting spiritual and temporal ques-
tions submitted to their jurisdiction from this country,
and as to the power of the Catholic archbishops upon
marriage matters, the Cardinal said he bad already ex-
plained his views on these matters to previous Com•
mittees of the House of Commons when he had given
every information in his power, but at the present
moment he was under entirely different circumstances.
An Act, a declaratory Act, was pending before the
Legislature
in ,of. this country, but which was to be re-
trospective AS operations, which rendered him liable
to certain penalties, or Lo the information of any coca.
mon informer, incase of his acknowledging any official
communi▪
cation with the see of Rome. On questions,
therefore, relating to subjects which would require his
admission of communications with the see of Rome, ho
must respectfully decline to giza answer.
The CHAIRMAN observed, that whatever was said
they would have the protection of the House of Com-
mons. The Cardinal replied, that that did not alter his
opinion. He had known cases where the protection of
the House .of Commons did not avail. Was not aware
that any portion of funds bequeathed by the Catholic
communi▪ ty forcharitable purposes were not administered
strictly within the intention of the donor, and it was not
within his own knowledge as regarded any property
over which he (the Cardinal) had control. Property, in
some instances, might be applied not improperly, accord-
ing to the spirit rather than to the letter of the bequest
—a fund might be applied to a purpose analogous to that
for which it was intended. If a priest of the Catholic
Church received a legacy it was his own property, and
if the case was in England ho treated it just as he
pleased. If he (the Cardinal) had a large sum of money
given him ho should apply it to his own purposes, and
not altogether or specifically to ecclesiastical purposes.
In the case of gifts of this kind to priests or prelates of
the Catholic Church, tho disposal would be dictated by
their own conscience, and according to the ties operating
on them. If he (the Cardinal) had a legacy left him of
1,0001., without any particular conditions attached, he
should not consider it was necessary to apply it to any
particular purpose. With respect to secret trusts, and the
secret disposition of property, was of opinion measures
might be taken to secure their application to ecclesiasti-
cal purposes, and he would much rather have it so. Al-
ways individually, in matters concerning the bequeathal
or disposition of property acted under legal advice,
and according to his sense of duty. As regarded the
main question before the Committee, and their re-
lation to !the Catholic community, was of opinion
that a question might arise as to whether the laws of
Mortmain, as opposed to any other laws, were just.
Judging from his own conviction of the policy of the
Mortmain laws, and that they were not in accordance
with other laws, did not think it would bo indispensable
to insert clauses in any measure rendering publicity in
all matters of charitable bequest necessary. Thought
that any legislation that affected the charitable trust of
any other body should give equal security and protection
to the Catholic body, and was not prepared to say that
there should be any clauses exempting Catholics. The
property of Roman Catholics in England generally was
in land rather than money.
The above is the substance of the Cardinal's examina-
tion, many parts of which, owing to the crowd, and from
his back being `urned, it was difficult to catch. At
three o'clock ais.Eminence, bowing to the Committee,who acknowledged it, left the committee-room with the
Rev. Mr. Serle, his secretary, and was 'followed along
the lengthy corridor by the crowd, until he reached his
ard, and drove off rapidly.
carriage in Palace-y

• .
DEATH OF THE EMIL OF CLIARLEVILLE.--It is
with great; regret we have to announce the death of the
Earl of Charleirille, which sad event took place suddenly on
Monday last in the neighbourhood of London. By his de-
cease, a vacancy occurs in the representative Peerage of Ire-
land. His Lordship is succeeded in his title and estates by
his eldest son, Viscount Tullamore, now Earl of Charleyille.
W.. 4vening