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

THE SUN, LONDON,

such a footihg as he trusted would very shortly bring
aaout a sottlensr,ra of these accounts vatistactorily to the
British merchants. In North America the salaries of
the consuls depended latterly upon the tees received by
them Fur the last four years. If. however, their fees fell
off, that fact might form a good reason for restoring to
them some portion of their salaries. The general result
of what he had stated was thist—He had abolished the
consul general at Algiers, substituting a consul and vice-
consul—he was going to abolish the consul-general at
Tripoli—he had abolished the consul-general at Syria
wi.hout any substitution whatever. The agents at the
different ports in that quarter ware to report to the con-
sul-general at Constan inopte instead of reporting to the
consul -general at Syria. There could be no general
rule as to any particular amount being applicable to all
cases, as such amount must depend upon the nature of
the duties performed, and other circumstances connected
with the office. He had paid every attention to the
subject, with the view of rendering these duties as effi-
cient, and the salaries as economical as possible, and he
would continue to direct his attention to the same
views, and to the abolition of all offices that were un-
necessary.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ALCL)CIi wished to draw the attention of the
Committee to their consular establishment at Peru.
There was a heavy duty placed upon that most impor-
tant article connected with British agriculture—namely,
guano, in Lima, and he could not help thinking, that if
the consul-general there had exerted himself more much
greater facilities would be given to the procuring of
this article for the purposes of British agriculture. The
Peruvian Government owed us a very heavy debt, the
interest of which they were partially enabled to pay by
the sale of guano here. They, however, limited their
supplies to the British market, and he thought that
their farmers to mark their displeasure at the conduct
pursued by the Peruvian Government, ought to abstain
from the use of the article for a year or so.
Lord PALMERSTON could assure the Hon. Gen-
tleman that if guano was not more plentiful in this
country it was not the fault of the consul-general nor
of the British Government. The late Sir R. Peel, who
took a great interest in this question, had endeavoured
to persuade the Peruvian Government not to continue
this monopoly, but rather to permit this guano to be
sent over here in great abundance. The present Go-
vernment had twice attempted to persuade them to the
same course, but without success. The Honourable I
Member said that the sale of guano here had given the
Peruvian Government the means of paying the bond-
holders of this country what they owed. That
Government thought that by increasing the
supplies the prices of the article would fall, and
they, therefore, would not have such means to meet
their engagements. He did not mean to say that that
was a very sound ,ar just reason, but still such was the
fact. The mode by which the Hon. Gentleman proposed
to procure a more plentiful supply of the article—namely,
the adoption of the principle of prohibition, was, he
thought, a very novel one —(Laughter.) He was rather
inclined to think if' this privation was to have the effect
of depriving the Peruvian Government of the means of
paying their debt, they would be disposed to submit to
it with greater patience than the agriculturists of Eng-
land would exhibit in submitting to the privation of
guano.—(Laughter.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS complained of their expensive
establishments at Constantinople, Paris, Madrid, and
other places, where, together with consuls-general, they
had ambassadors and attaches in great Lumber. lie
also wished to ktoaw how the fees received by consuls
were accounted tor, and whether they formed au addi-
tion to the salary ?
Lord PALMER, ETON said that with regard to the
duties e' the consulate at Constantinople, it was well
known that British subjecto were not tried before the
Turkish tribuuale, but befara the consular court, and that
in consequence of the number of our lonian eubjec,s
who visited Conslatltin,ple a good deal of business was
entailed upon the consul. The Hon. Memb r said that
he did not see why the British people should be taxed
for the hospitali y of the consul. but there were others
who did nut see why the consul should be taxed for
English subjects travelling in the East. With respect to
Buenos Ayres, that being a place of trade, it was impos-
sible fur the &Ilia eter to perform :he consular duties.
The fees went to defray the expense of the consular es-
tablishment-, and an account of them was rendered to
the Y-reign-office.
Mr. LENNARD remarked that no notice was taken
of the Consul at Rome is the estimates. He wished to
know whether the Noble Lord had any objection to lay
a statement of the fees received by consuls on the table
of the House?
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Consul at Rome
had no salary. He had no objection to lay a statement
of the fees on the table.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
Fur the motion ... ... 43
Against it ... ... 153
Majority against the motion ... —llO
Mr. URQUEARI7 then objected to the vote for the
salary of Sir James Brooke, not on account of the
amount of the salary. but because Sir James Brooke was
not only Consul bat Raja of Sarawak and Governor of
Labuan, and because he was engaged in commercial
pursuits.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the salary was di-
vided between the two offices, and that Sir James Brooke
was not at present engaged in trade.
Mr. URQULIART said that he must object to the
vote. Sir James Brooke had been engaged in trade, and
the Noble Lord's answer was too general.
Mr. HAWES could assure the Hon Member that Sir
James Brooke had not been engaged in any commercial
speculation whatever since he was appointed Governor
of Labuan.
The vote was then agreed to.
16,000/. for extraordinary disbursements of diplomatic
missions abroad.
Mr. EWART thought that some means should' be
adopted for educating persons for the diplomatic ser vice
before being appointed to it. He suggested that there
should be examinations of all persons admitted to hold
public offices.
ma
appointments
Lord PALMERSTON agreed with the Hon.
theMem-
cbaenrdiindateexpressed. He t thought t
to thbeatall
s for diplomatic
sub-
jected to some such test as a previous examination.
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the charge for transla-
tion of documents, and other minor expenses.
Lord PALMERS VON observed that where statis-
tical documents were required to be made up, and in a
short time, it was necessary to incur the expenses; to
which the lion. Member referred.
Mr. URQUHART proposed to reduce the sum of
2,7001. for interpreters by 750/.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the vote. Ho had
applied some years ago to the Universities to have two
or three young men sent to Constantinople to learn the
Turkish language, so that they might act as dragomans.
The vote was agreed to.
The next vote was 180,205 L for superannuation al-
lowances.

The vote was agreed to.
The vote fur 2,1001 for the National Vaccine Esta-
bli,hoaent was passed after some discussion.
3 750/. for the expen•es of negro and Corsican sufferers
we uo,d. rtood.—Agreed to.
3,2501. for the R loge for the Destitute.—Agreed to.
4 4501. for the Polish refugees and others —Agreed to.
6,1261.. allowance to ministers, Regium I lonum.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXULIEQUER said the
vote had been objected to, but it was the last time the
vote would, be asked.
Mr. WILLIAMS would divide the House against the
vote. He would first move that the Chairman report
progress.
Mr. G. BERKELEY thought the Hon. Member ought
to be satisfied with the Right Hon. Gentleman's pro-
position.
Mr. KERSFI AW also thought the Hon. Member ought
not to pie's the amendment after the promise which had
been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Colonel SIBTLIORY had no faith in Ministerial pro-
mises. He objected to the threat held out the ocher
night by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that if the esti-
mates were not got rid of, the House must sit till the
middle of August. He had no objection to sit till that
time if the public interests require it. The Right Hon.
Gentleman wanted to prorogue the House at an early
day, that Ministers might go to their amusements and
pocket their salaries all the time. He objected to going
at the present railroad pace, especially when voting,
money matters.—Vote agreed to.
650/. for the Foundling Hospital and House of Indus-
try--Agreed to.
9,783/. for House of Industry, Dublin.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved that the chairman report
progress.
The motion was agreed to without a division, and the
House resumed,
The Marriages (India) Bill was read a third time and
passed.
report on the Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill, as
amended,w
Collectiona received.o
f
Fines, &c. (Ireland) Bill passed
The
business on the paper was then disposed
thrTohueghotCheormmittee.
of, and the House adjourned
at a quarter to Two
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 17.
The LORD CHA.NcEnnoit took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
MILITIA BALLOT SUSPENSION BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
ASSESSED TAXES COMPOSITION BILL.
This 13•11 passed through Committee.
HIGHWAY RATES BILL.
ThisPlj BB iLI IWp a slsVe t)d
ItlbKr oSu' it Ell ICS (I)lmEmßi It
tEe eS, &c., BILL.
On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE this Bill was
read a third time and pasted.
PE FITIONS.
The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented a petition
from Tyrone, praying that the Church Education So-
ciety might have a share in the grant for education.
ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL.
Lord BEAMUONT moved the Committee on this
Bill. The circumstances of the case of Sr. Albans were
nearly similar to the case of Sudbury. The Noble Lord then
entered into a narrative of the mrcuinetsuces attending
the late election for St. Albans, and the absence of the
witnesses summoned to give evidence before the Com-
mittee of the Hotly() of Commons.
The Bill then passed Ithiough Committee.
JEWISH MIANCIPA HON.
Lord REDESD ALE presented several petitions against 1
the a-tmission of Jews into Parliament; amongst others
a petition from 261 members of the English bar.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented several petitions
with a similar prayer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to move the
second reading of the Bill for the amendment of the law
regulating the administration of the °At% of abjuration.
The Bill proposed to omit from that Oath the words '• On
tne LI ue faith of a LilutyLtut-t." "the "'d' had tlh 'l*
feet of excluding conscientious Jews from Parliament.
The subject had been so often before their Lordships
/111" n9Vhing Pert' new could be expected to be said on

the subject. Argument the most convincing, elo- f threatened their Church was greater from Roman Ca-
quence the most brilliant, had been brought to bear tholics and Dissenters than it was from the Jews. He
upon this subject; but yet that was no reason why they trusted he should not be charged with indifference to
should abstain from the discussion of this subject. Pre. Christianity in advocating the omission of these words
judicee the most determined had been found to give way from the oath. Far from their having any tendency to
to argument, and therefore he called upon their Lord- elevate the moral influence of Christianity, he thought
ships to discuss this question, which was nothing more it a dishonour-to it, even to supposes that it could be
nor less than to extend the benefits of civil and religious so honoured or supported.—(Hear, hear.) He remem-
liberty to the Jews. When it was first proposed to admit bered having heard at church that we ought to show our
foreign Jews to naturalization in this g Awry, such was the gratitude to Providence fur the great victories our
ferment occasioned that their Lordships thought it ex- troops had achieved in India. Now, ,he trusted that
pedient to withdraw that boon; yet that boon had been whether under victory or defeat, calamity or prosperity,
aubaequently extended to them, and now Jews were en- he should never be disposed, or any of their Lordships,
tabled to hold the highest municipal offices. Their to show a disregard for religion, but how any prospe-
Lordehips had always opposed a barrier to sudden rity or victory could be said to depend on those
innovation. Their Lordships deliberated, and delibt- Jewish disabilities,, or, rather, Christian disabili-
rated cautiously, but when they saw that the sense of the ties—for such, he maintained, - was their real
country was in favour of an alteration in the law, their nature—he was at a loss to comprehend ; and as to their
Lordships deliberated and considered the subject, and if victories in India, he wandered where they would
they saw no insuperable objection, they determined in have been, if those soldiers of our Indian army had
accordance with the feeling of the nation. Five times been rejected, who would have refused, upon its being
had the House of Commons determined in favour of tendered to them, to take their oath on the true faith of
Jewish emancipation. It had been said that the a Christian.—(Cheers.) Why, nine-tenths of them were
absence of petitions proved the indifference of the country, Hindoos, who, though they fearlessly marched to their
but recent occurrences bad shown them that the people services in the field, they were jealously excluded from
were by no means indifferent to the safety of the Estab- Parliament by this oath.—(Hear.) In conclusion, he
lished Church, or of the Christian religion, and there- maintained that the electors had a right to demand this
fore the absence of petitions showed that the people free exercise of their functions as British subjects and
entertained no apprehensions as to the effects of the as Christians, and as followers of Him who declared
passing of this Bill. Few, indeed, had been the peti- that his kingdom was not of this world, and disavowed
Lions presented in opposition to this Bill.—(Bear.) to:his apostles all notion of political ascendancy, or of
He called upon their Lordships to do an act of justice power to overthrow temporal dignity.—(Cheers.)
to the Jews, and in so doing he would recall their Lord- The Earl of SHAFTESBURY much regretted
ships' attention to the situation in which the Jews now that this question should have been again revived.
stood. Their Lordships had consented to permit Jews Nothing new had occurred to alter any of their opinions.
to be magistrates, and to fill all municipal offices. They The same proposition was now offered—the same resis-
might sit in judgment on life and death. We now tance offered, and it must be met again by the same ar-
depended on their oaths for the safety of all that guments, for the question was so simple that it could
was valuable in society. They might determine not be regarded in different lights.—(Hear.) Now, he
all questions relating to liberty and property, and no must first defend himself against • the charge of
whisper had been heard against their administration of hostility to the Jewish faith. The objections
justice. The obstacle which this Bill proposed to re- that he had how to urge, and had before urged
move was the only barrier to the ambition of the Jews against the measure, did not arise front any such feeling
to fill the highest offices. The British Jews were to all towards the Jews, but from circumstances which pecu-
intents and purposes British subjects, and as such were liarly affected them, and against which they could not
entitled to the enjoyment of all civil rights. shut their eyes. • Neither did he say that they were an
Ho freely admitted that no rights could exist incom- incompetent race to discharge the
important functions
patible with the capacity for the due and proper per- to which they were aspiring, far from it. Neither did 1'
o
formance of those duties ; but he contended that there he oppose the Bill, because, in numbers, they were few.
was nothing in the position or conduct of the Jews The principle upon which they (the:objectors) rested
which would incapacitate them for the due performance was as goodlfor one individual as for a hundred millions.
of the duties of the rights to which they aspired. They —(Hear, hear.) And still less did they seek to exclude
were perfectly observant of the rights of property.—(A them, as had often been alleged, and alleged just now
'nigh.) He hailed that good-humoured admission of even, by the. Noble and Learned Lord the Lord Chan-
his
argument as to the right of property ; and he hoped cellor, and in the last speech made on the subject by the
that all his other arguments would be as unanimously late lamented Sir Robert Peel—still less did they op-
assented
to. They were good subjects, they were no pose this Bill in any spirit of vengeance.. God torbid
disturbers of the public peace or of the public religion. that any such thoughts should ever enter their minds I
They administered justice uprightly, and they were But they had no warranty for executing any such a de-
therefore entitled to all the privileges of good and faith- cree as was now proposed to them on behalf of the
tut subjects. Vattel had laid it down as a principle that descendants of the race 'that was stained with the sin
in a civil state, although the Prince was bound to up- of the crucifixion. The real difficulty lay on our-
hold the established religion, yet as the State could know selves, not in respect of the Jewish people, but be-
nothing of religion, save by the acts of its professors, the cause of the vigour and intensity of our own principles.
Prince was bound not to deprive any loyal subject of They would admit that the Jews were an intellectual
his civil rights on account of his religious opinions, ex- race of men, and otherwise qualified for the business of
cept in the case in which the subject should make his legislation; but it was necessary to recollect that their
religious opinions a cause for disturbing the peace of very existence ,and professions were a protest against
the State. Now, such could not be said to be Christianity itself. The Jew denied the true faith of a
the case as regarded the Jews. The burden of proof in Christian, and he called on them to strike out these
such a case rested with those who sought to exclude, words, as being improper or unnecessary. Now, be
and no such proof could be brought against the maintained that no one had a right to make such a de-
Jett s. Among the objections which had been brought mand as this. This was going beyond the legitimate
against the J,.ws was that this was not their country. grounds upon which they were able to make concessions.
He could nut understand this (ejection. Every Bri- This was not, a question of detail, but a principle. He
tish Jew was as much a British subject as a Christian. maintained that they had no right to make any conces-
He t:ppretm‘ied ,hat all Biitish auokett, without dis- sion of the kind. Here was a declaration which actn-
tinction of sect or religion, were entitled to the full and ally, or virtually, had excluded a Jew from Parliament
free exercise and enjoyment of their civil and social for more than 200 years, and they were called upon to
rights, without one single exception. In the language repeal it—not bechuse it was-improper or unnecessary,
of a Right Rev. Prelate, he believed that all those rights but because it tended to exclude Jews from Parliament,
were trusts, and that there must be a capacity for the who were the great antagonists of the Christian reli-
tull and faithful discharge of those trusts before those gion. If the question before us were the repeal of oaths
rights could be claimed; but he did not think it would generally the debate would stand upon a different footing.
be asserted that the Jews were incapacitated from ful- He was really astonished at the words that had fallen
filling those trusts on the ground that this was not their from the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack in
country. He did not think that those who made use of this debate. " What had they to fear," said;he, and
that phrase were aware of, or used it in its full extent. " did they think the Jews wished to Judaize the state?"
They said the Jews were of no country, and, therefore, —(Hear.) They had no such fears, but they feared the
ought not to be admitted to a free participation of civil sacrifice of principle, which was always perilous, and
rights with the rest of their fellow-subjects. But why might result in the most melancholy consequences,
were they of no country? Because until recently no though it might be impossible now to specify any one of
country would admit them to enjoy their full share of them. Now it was a matter for serious and anxious
civil and political rights. When it was said the Jews consideration, whether it would not be better to abolish
were of no country, the meaning was that they enter- oaths altogether, than to go on thus temporising year
tained hopes or looked forward to a period when they after year.—(Cheers.) He very much doubted the ex-
would be restored to the position of a united people.— pediency of making such a change. They might, per-
(Hear, hear.) But did that prevent them from haps, not have been of any great use. They had not
being of any country, or if permitted to become part excluded infidels from Parliament, but let them under-
of any country, would they lose that for which stand the full value of the oaths at the table. It was
they prayed and asked? The period when they might said that the oaths containing those words did not ex-
expect the accomplishment of the prophecies towards elude Lord Bolingbroke, Gibbon, and other infidels.
which they looked, was somewhat uncertain, and were Bat, in regarding the declations of these men, as
they to attach themselves to no country in the meantime? operating against the value of the oath, they took a
He apprehended that the Jews who were born and bred very narrow view of the subject. 'These oaths were
in this country were for all substantial purposes as much not to be taken as ithe private affirmations of the in-
subjects of her Majesty as the members of any other dividnal, but as the declaration of the nation itself.
persuasion, and viewed themselves as being equally The whole nation could not take the oaths, and
citizens of this country. Admit them to a perfect en- hence they were taken by its representatives in Parlia-
joyment of their rights, and he apprehended they would ment. He could not see why, whilst Bolingbroke
soon see that every mark of distinction, social as well and Gibbon took that oath, and, by so doing, jeopar-
as political, would be speedily obliterated. The fact of dised their souls,, the principles of religion were the less
the Jews having no country promoted no argument strongly asserted. He could not retreat from those
against their admission to Parliament. They had no words, therefore, without consenting to;a sacrifice of prin-
divided allegiance. In this country give them the rights ciple, which must inevitably be followed by the most
of citizenship, and there was no reason to believe that baneful consequences. He could not yield on this point
they would not be equally loyal as any other olass of to an authority less than that which originally imposed
subjects. Looking to their conduct under a system this limitation.—(Hear.) "
of persecution, he argued that nothing what- The Earl of CARLISLE said, that with refenenoe to
ever existed to warrant their further exclusion the question before their Lordships, after what lead fallen
from the rights and privileges which it was from the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wooleack, and
now contended they should enjoy.—(Hear, hear.) the Archbishop of the sister kingdom, he did tint think
This, thank God, was a Christian country, and he be- it necessary to do more than occupy the shortest time
lieved it would ever continue so. It certainly would not in recommending the Bill to their Lordships.--(gear.)
become less Christian by admitting a few Jews into Par- With reference to the absence of petitions, he had only
liament. What motive could the Jew have in impeach- to say that circumstance alone had prevented the pre-
ing the Christian faith, or in endeavouring to diminish sentation. of the unanimous petition of the corporation
the weight and authority of the Established Church? of London, in favour of this measure. He did eot think
When did the Jew ever attempt to make proselytes? much of the religious argument against the admission of
He was interested in preserving the prosperity of the Jews to Parliament, and could not bring
himself to be-
country, because it tended to the prosperity of his own Rave that there was the slightest danger to Christianity
property. What breach of conduct in the Jew, as a from the presence of Jews is the other House of Parlia-
citizen, disentitled him to Parliamentary honours? If ment. The existence of this oath so far as it excluded
they wanted specimens of adherence to faith and sub- the Jews, was a mere accident. They wordsiwere intro-
lime truth, they would find it in the ancient Jews. As duced with reference to no religious circumstances. The
good citizens, and as men faithful to their creed, they question now wasdwas it advisable to retain them? He
were clearly entitled to that which they asked. Why doubted whether, if they had not been there, either of the
then withhold from the State the benefit of their wisdom Noble Lords opposite would have been bold enough to
and experience? Their Lordships having had this propose such a test.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
subject so frequently under their consideration would great risk would follow from the continued
deal with it with that attention, intelligence, and isd o m of their Lordships to this Bill,:and he felticonvjaced that,
whicht he attributed to them. He asked them to do jus- sooner or later, their Lordships would consent to this
Lice and love mercy, confidently calculating on their Bill, and terminate the struggle with
adoption of the Bill.—(Hear, bear.) the other House, by allowing the second reading of this
Lad NELSON moved that the Bill be read a second Bill.—(Cheers.)
that b. cause the Jews were admitted to offices of civil called upon to renounce the Christiania time that day six months. It was no 'argument to say The Earl of WINCHILSEA
the electors and
responsibility they should be allowed to have seats in and if they did so they would offend the great body of
Parliament. There was a vast difference between ad- the people of this country. Was it a matte,' of perfect
ministering and making laws.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble indifference to this great country what
Lord on the woolsack had not attempted to touch the professed ? For the Jewishreligion a man
sin-
argument that the words—. on the true faith of a cure respect, but iu their favourph
Christian," introduced into the oath, were intended to abandon the Christianity of the State.—(Cheers.)
donbeoersTeu"
exclude the Jews from Parliament. It was perfectly The Earl of WICKLOW confessede. (hal it appeared
true the Legislature was not bona fide of a Christian to hirn•that it was just because they weret a Christian
character, but from that fact the religion of the Church country that no danger could arise from the admission
and State had been greatly shaken, and was it right to of Jews into Parliament. But, notwithstanding the
add to insteud of diminishing the anomie') ? The as- profession of such principles, he had the strongest ob-
sembly was professedly Christian, and it they allowed jection to this Bill, because it did not abolish oaths alto-
the Jew to take his seat in Parliament without using gether. This Bill differed from the Bill of 1849.
the words "on the true faith of a Christian," how far He did not think the Government wits justified in
could they exclude the professors of any creed? On these making these alterations.—(Hear, hear.) Ho firmly
grounds he opposed the Bill, he concluded by expressing believed that there was a moral and religious feel-
an earnest hope that it would be rejected. ing in the people of this country that they would de-
Lord WODEHOUSE briefly stated his reasons for cline to take these oaths, and he was of opinion that if
supporting the Bill. The object of introducing the the mass of the people were obliged to take these oaths,
words "on the true faith of a Christian" into the oath, a feeling would speedily be raised which would compel
was riot, as the Noble Earl opposite had said, with the the attention of the Legislature. It was on the grounds
view of excluding Christians, but to give more than an he had stated, that he refused his assent to the second
ordinary degree of solemnity to the oath. He observed reading of the Bill; but in the event of their Lordships
with regret that the Bill before their Lordships had been acceding to the second reading, it would be easy in Com-
framed so as to apply to gentlemen professing the Jewish mittee to make those alterations which, in his opinion,
religion atone. He thought they should admit toParlia- he considered to be necessary.
meat those who professed any religion whatever. There The Duke of ARGYLL, after referring to the speech
might be state grounds of policy for excluding some citi- of the Noble. Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), said he
zone from political rights, but he did not believe that if could not easily forget being. present a few years ago at
they rejected this Bill on religious grounds, they would a public meeting in Glasgow, to which the Noble Lord
act in the spirit or essence of their sacred religion. at the head of her Majesty's Government had been in-
Amongst the most eloquent and able opponents of the Bill vited by the people of Glasgow. He (the Duke of Ar-
had been, the Right Rev. Prelates beside him. He yen- gyll) had attended that meeting, and he had heard with
tured to ask them where they found any authority, orsha- infinite surprise and regret, the Noble Lord say that,
dow sanction, for the idea, that where Christians were for the purpose of keeping up a spirit of persecution,
the teiajority in a country, it was their duty to reserve for the House of Lords had refused their assent to the
themselves the exclusive possession of civil privileges. measure of that day in favour of the Jews. He
If the argument upon which Jews were to be excluded (the Duke of Argyll) deprecated such observations.
from Parliament were to prevail, on what ground could He believed the Jews were not actuated by a prosely-
they justify the admission of Catholics and Dissenters? Using spirit. But the Noble Earl said, that so far as
But if this oath was any safeguard for the great principle they went they were hostile to Christianity, and that it
of their Constitution, he wondered how it had happened was no answer to his object, to say that only a few could
that they could have allowed the avenues to that great be introduced into Parliament, and that it was the prin-
part of the Constitution—the House of Commons—to be ciple he contended for. But this argument was contra-
vitiated by the elevation of Jews to the highest munici- dieted by the fact that the Jew was admitted to thelelec-
pal offices.—(Hear, hear.) They allowed men of that five franchise. He was an elector, and therefore exer-
persuasion to acquire the confidence of their fellow-citi- (deed legislative power, although he admitted it was in
zees, and to rise to places where they might naturally a miner degree. With reference to the admission of
look forward to a seat in Parliament, and then they avowed infidels into Parliament, Bolingbroke and Gib-
turned round upon them with this pretence of an oath, bon had been referred to, and the Noble Earl said that
and refused them to enter. That was not a consistent although the House knew the fact, it was with great
oath to take, and he hoped the House would put an end pleasure they were called upon to declare on the faith of
people
head n the nyt ee
oyr
fti,titwcnhoeeedr opposition_
Ss_ t
n State,
to the grievance by the adoption of this Bill.—(Hear.) a Christian. Now he (the Duke of Argyll) felt no plea-
The Archbishop of DUBLIN and Lord Shaftesbury sure in such things, for be
such
such a man to k
Right Reverend Prelate. On this question, and on oath, and so to add hypocrisy to his other offencees
that debated the other night, he thought at the The Earl of SHAFTESBURY disclaimed using the
present time exactly as he had done for many years. words imputed to him, and explained that what he had
He had never advocated the admission of the Jews into said was, the act of taking the oath by such men as
Parliament, but be had all along advocated the expedi- Bolingbroke and Gibbon was jeopardising their con.
e:le;ettoorr,
eney of leaving the question to the electors. He did not sciences.
think more of restricting the Jews than he did of re- The Duke of ARGYLL said that bore hingtout in
striction on Mahomedans or Hindoos, but he contended what he had said.—(Hear.) In so far as the conch--
whether
for the removal of all restrictions whatever from the tuency was concerned, in electing a representative they
civil danger
electors—sh(oHueldar,hear)—unless it could be shown that were called on to elect a Christian, and notwithstanding
was likely to ensue. For him, it was not they knowingly elected an infidel, and the House of
Jews sit in Parliament, but whether Christian Commons, with that knowledge, called on him to take
fit.—(Bear, hear.) On this
have a right to elect whom they thought the oaths.--(flear.) It was not contended that the Jew
point, however, he must would be hostile to their ecclesiastical Establishment.
express his full coincidence in the opinion expressed by It was not contended that be would be as hostile as
the Noble Lord who had just sat down, but this Bill Dissenters who had been admitted.—(Hear, hear.)
did not take a proper hold of the subject. His view After some further remarks the Noble Duke concluded
was, that they ought to remove all religious dis- by saying that he was prepared to vote for the measure
iii coon whatever, either duae..r,
g pen-tities or im- on broad and general principles.--(Hear.) He had a
posing civil disabilities, unless it could be shown great reverence for the princiVe propounded by Dr.
that those religious distinctions were in some way Arnold, as to the connexion of the Church with the
or other connected with some civil dangers. In State, but it appeared to him that the spiritual
alandth
the
the present question that had not even been suggested. civil must be wholly separated.—(Hear, hear.) That ho
He was far from saying that there was no political was prepared to affirm, and according to h
constitu-
dangor in admitting Roman Catholics and Dissenters ; lion of Parliament, it - was wrong that men should be
hut he thought they ought to brave that danger, rather wholly excluded from taking their seats, who were
(nee &dart, as they would have departed, had they eon- otherwise come event, on purely spiritual grounds.
tinned to exclude them, from the spirit of the Christian The Bishop of NORWICH agreed that this oath
religion. But there was no doubt that the danger that
was not intended to be made a religious test. Hew, he