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

LONDON, FRIDA.Y,

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 17.
The LORD HANCELLOR 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 B It passed through Committee.
,
BBiLlllCpas"7s3 RK
roSu, eFhlCSolimEmßiltrleeS.
ThisHIGHWAY RATES BILL., BILL.
On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE this Bill was
read a third time and passed.
PETITIONS.
The Earl of ENNISKILLEN presented a petition
from Tyrone, praying that the Church Education So-
ciety
ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSlON
BILL.
Lord BEAMUONT moved the Committee on his
Bill. The circumstances of the case of St. Albans were
nearly similarto the case of Sudbury. The Noble Lord then
entered into a narrative of the circumstances attending
the late election for St. Albans, and the ebsence of, the
witnesses summoned to give evidence before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons.
The Bill then passed through Committee.
JEWISH EMANCIPA ['ION.
Lord REDES D ALE presented several petitions against
the admission of Jews into Parliament; amongst others
a petition from 261 members of the English bar.
The Bishop or OXFORD presented several petitions
with a similar prayer.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to mote the
second reading of the Bill for the amendment of the law
regulating the administration cf the oath of abjuration.
The Bill proposed to omit from that oath the words "On
the true faith of a Christian." Those words bad the ef-
, feet of excluding conscientious Jews from Parliament.
L The subject had been so often before their Lordships
that nothing very new could be expected to be said on

the subject. ANument the most convincing, elo-
quenc-e the most brilliant, had -been brought to bear
upon this subject; buy yet that was no reason why they-
should abstain from the discussion of this subject. Pre-
judices the most determined had been found to give way
to argument, and therefore he called upon their Lord-
ships to discuss this question, which was nothing more
nor less than to extend the benefits of civil and religious
liberty to the Jews. When it was first proposed to admit
foreign Jews tonaturalization in this ceuntry, such was the
ferment occasioned that their Lordships thought it ex-
pedient to withdraw that boon; yet that boon had been
subsequently extended to them, and now Jews were en-
abled to hold the highest municipal offices. Their
Lordships had always opposed a barrier to sudden
innovation. Their Lordships deliberated, and delibe-
rated cautiously, but when they saw that the sense of the
country was in favour of an alteration iu the law, their
Lordships deliberated and considered the subject, and if
they saw no insuperable objection, they determined in
accordance with the feeling of the nation. Five times
had the House of Commons determined in favour of
Jewish emancipation. It had been said that the
absence of petitions proved the indiff qence of the country,
but recent occurrences had shown them that the people
were by no means indifferent to the safsty of the Estab-
lished Church, or of the Christian religion, and there-
fore the absents of petitions showed that the people
entertained no apprehensions as to the effects of the
passing of this 11,11. Few, indeed, had been the peti-
tions presented in opposition to this Bill.—(Hear.)
Ile called upon their Lordships to do an act of justice
to the Jews, and in so doing he would recall their Lord-
ships' attention to the situation in which the Jews now
stood. Their Lordships bad consented to permit Jews
to be magistrates, and to fill all municipal offices. They
might sit in judgment on life and death. We now
depended on their oaths for the safety of all that
wes valuable ,in society. They might determine
all questions relating to liberty and property, and no
whisper had been heard against their administration of
justice. The obstacle which this Bill proposed to re-
move was the only barrier to the ambition of the Jews
to fill the highest offices. The British Jews were to all
intents and purposes British subjects, and as such were
entitled to the enjoyment of all civil rights.
He freely admitted that no rights could exist incom-
patible with the capacity for the due and proper per-
formance of those duties ; but be contended that there
was nothing in the position or conduct of the Jews
which would incapacitate them for the due performance
of the duties of the rights to which they aspired. They
were perfectly observant of the rights of property.—(A
laugh.) He hailed that good-humoured admission of
his argument as to the right of property ; and he hoped
that all his other arguments would be as unanimously
assented to. They were good subjects, they were no
disturbers of the public peace or of the public religion.
They administered justice uprightly, and they were
therefore entitled to all the privileges of good and faith-
ful subjects. Vattel had laid it down as a principle that
in is civil state, although the Prince was bound to up-
hold the established religion, yet as the State could know
nothing of religion, save by the acts of its professors, the
Prince was bound not to deprive any loyal subject of
his civil rights on account of his religious opinions, ex-
cept in the case in which the subject should make his
religious opinions a cause for disturbing the peace of
the State. Now, such could not be said to be
the cats as regarded the Jews. The burden of proof in
such a case rested with those who sought to exclude,
and no such proof could be brought against the
Jews. Among the objections which had been brought
against the Jsws was that this was not their country.
He could not understand this objection. Every Bri-
tish Jew was as much a British subject as a Christian.
He apprehended that all British subjects, without dis-
tinction of sect or religion, were entitled to the full and
free exercise and enjoyment of their civil and social
righes, without one single exception. In the language
of s Right Rev. Prelate, ho believed that all those rights
were trusts, and that there must be a capacity for the
full and faithful discharge of those trusts before those
rights could be claimed; but he did not think it would
be asserted that the Jews were incapacitated from ful-
filling those trusts on the ground that this was not their
country. He did not think that those who made use of
that phrase were aware of, or used it in its full extent.
They said the Jews were of no country, and, therefore,
ought not to be admitted to a free participation of civil
rights with the rest of their fellow-subjects. But why
were they of no country? Because until recently no
country would admit them to enjoy their full share of
civil and political rights. When it was said the Jews
were of no country, the meaning was that they enter-
tained hopes or-looked forward to a period when they
would be restored to the position of a united people.—
(Hear, hear.) But did that prevent them from
being of any country, or if permitted to become part
of any country, would they lose that for which
they prayed and asked? The period when they might
expect the accomplishment of the prophecies towards
which they looked, was somewhat uncertain, and were
they to attach themselves to no country in the meantime?
He apprehended that the Jews who were born and bred
in this country were for all substantial purposes as much
subjects of her Majesty as the members of any other
persuasion, and viewed themselves as being equally
citizens of this country. Admit them to a perfect en-
joyment of their rights, and he apprehended they would
soon see that every mark of distinction, social as well
as political, would be speedily obliterated. The fact of
the Jews having no country promoted no argument
against their admission to Parliament. They had no
divided allegiance. In this country give them the rights
of citizenship, and there was no reason to believe that
they would not be equally loyal as any other class of
subjects. Looking to their conduct limier a system
of persecution, he argued that nothing what-
ever existed to warrant their further exclusion
from the rights and privileges which it was
now contended they should enjoy.—(Hear, bear.)
This, thank God, was a Christian country, and he be-
lieved it would ever continue so. It certainly would not
become less Christian by admitting a few Jews into Par-
liament. What motive could the Jew have in imp-ach-
ing the Christian faith, or in endeavouring to diminish
the weight and authority of the Established Church?
When did the Jew ever attempt to make proselytes?
He was interested in preserving the prosperity of the
country, because it tended to the prosperity of his own
property. What breach of conduct in the Jew, as a
citizen, disentitled him to Parliamentary honours? If
they wanted specimens of adherence to faith and sub-
lime truth, they would find it in the ancient Jews. As
good citizens, and as men faithful to their creed, they
were clearly entitled to that which they asked. Why
then withhold from the State the benefit of their wisdom
and experience? Their Lordships having had this
subject so frequently under their consideration would
deal with it with that attention, intelligence, and wisdom
which he attributed to them. He asked them to do jus-
tice and love mercy, confidently calculating on their
adoption of the Bill.—(Hear, bear.)
Earl NELSON moved that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months. It was no argument to say
that because the Jews were admitted to offices of civil
responsibility they should be allowed to have seats in
Parliament. There was a vast difference between ad-
ministering and making laws.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord on the woolsack had not attempted to touch the
argument that the words—" on the true faith of a
Christian," introduced into the oath, were intended to
exclude the Jews from Parliament. It was parfectly
true the Legislature was not bond fide of a Christian
character, but from that fact the religion of the Church
and State had been greatly shaken, and was it right to
add to instead of diminishing the anomaly ? The as-
sembly was professedly Christian, and it they allowed
the Jew to take his seat in Parliament without using
the words "on the true faith of a Christian," how far
could they exclude the professors of any creed? On these
grounds he opposed the Bill, he concluded by expressing
an earnest hope that it would be rejected.
Lord WODEHOUSE briefly stated his reasons for
supporting the Bill. The object of introducing the
words "on the true faith of a Christian" into the oath,
was not, as the Noble Earl opposite had said, with the
view of excluding Christians, but to give more than an
ordinary degree of solemnity to the oath. Ho observed
with regre t that the Bill before their Lordships had been
framed so as to apply to gentlemen professing the Jewish
religion alone. He thought they should admit to Parlia-
went those who professed any religion whatever. There
might be state grounds of policy for excluding some citi-
zens from political rights, but he did not believe that if
they rejected this Bill on religious grounds, they would
act in the spirit or essence of their sacred religion.
Amongst the most eloquent and able opponents of the Bill
had been the Right Rev Prelates beside him. He vete.
tured to ask them where they found any authority, orstia-
dow of sanction, for the idea, that where Christians were
the majority in a country, it was their duty to reserve for
themselves the exclusive possession of civil privileges.
If the argument upon which Jews were to be excluded
from Parliament were to prevail, on what ground could
they justify the admission of Catholics and Dissenters?
But if this oath was any safeguard for the great principle
of their Constitution, be wondered how it had happened'
that they could have allowed the avenues to that great
part of the Constitution--the House of Commons—to be
vitiated by the elevation of Jews to the highest munici-
pal offices.—(Hear, hear.) They allowed men of that
persuasion
to acquire the confidence of their fellow-citi-
zsns, and to rise to places where they might naturally
look forward to a seat in Parliament, and then they
turned round upon them with this pretence of an oath,
and refused them to enter. That was not a consistent
oath to take, and he hoped the House would put an end
to the grievance by the adoption of this Bill.—(Hear.)
The Arcnbishop of DUBLIN and Lord Shaftesbury
rose together, but the general call was in favour of the
Right Reverend Prelate. On this question, and on
that debated the other night, he thought at the
present time exactly as he had done for many years.
He had never advocated the admission of the Jews into
Parliament, but he had ell along advocated the expedi-
ency of leaving the question to the electors. He did not
think more of restricting the Jews than ho did of re-
striction on Mahomedans or Hindoos, but he contended
for the removal of all restriction') whatever from the
electors--(gear, hear)—unless it could be shown that
civil danger was likely to ensue. For him, it was not
whether Jews sit in Parliament, but whether Christian
electors should have a right to elect whom they thought
fit.—(Llear, hear.) On this point, however, he must
express his full coincidence in the opinion expressed by
the Noble Lord who had just sat down, but this. Bill
did Lot take a proper hold of the subject. His view
was, eyoughtto
enaction
all religious
oiousr
dis-
tinction
es t b a h t
whatever,t either
im-
posing civil disebilities, unless it could be shown
that those religious distinctions were in some way
or other connected with some civil dangers. To
the present question that had not even been suggested.
lie was far from saying that there was no political
danger its admitting Roman Catholics and Dissenters ;
but be thought they ought to brave that danger, rather
than depart, as they would have departed, had they con-
tinued to exclude them, from the spirit of the Christian
religion. But there was no doubt that the danger that

threathruid their Church was geeethr from Rohm Ca-
tholics and Dis_senters than it *as from the Jews. He
trasted ha ehetilil not be charged with indiffereeide
Christianity in cdvocatieg the omission of these words
from the oath. Far from their having eny tendency to
elevate the heiral iefluence of Christianity, he thought
it a diShonour to it, even to suppere, that it could he
so honoured or supported.--(blear, hear.) He rernem•
bared having heard nt church that we ought to show our
gratitude to Providence for the groat victories our
troops had achieved in India. Yew,' 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
ties—for euelie he maintained, - was their real
nature—he was at a loss to comprehend ; and as to their
victories in India, he wandered wheie they would
have been, if those soldiers of our Indian army bed
been rejected, who would have, refasel, upon its • benne
tendered to them, to. take their oath on the true faith of
a Christien.—(Cheery.) Why, nine-tenths of them were
Hindooss who, though they fearless:4 marched to their
services in she flail, teey were je lously excluded free,
Parliament by this ostb.—(Hear.)lsen conclusion,
maintained that the eleetora bed a:right to dernend this
free exercise of their funceens as 'British subjecte arid
as Christians, and as folloWers obi lilies who declared
that his kingdom was not of this whOrld, and disavowed
to his apostles all notion of politieal asceridaticy, or of
power to overthrow temporal dienity.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of SHAFTES:3IMY much regretted
that thiS question should have beee again revived.
Nothing new had occurred to alterhney of their opinions. '
The same proposition was now offered—the same resis-
tance offered, and it must be met 'again by the same ar-
guments, for the question went se simple that it could
not be regarded in different liglats.—(lleer.) 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!fhom 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 as good,for one individual as fen- a hundred millions.
—(hear, hear.) And still less did they seek to exclude
them, as had often 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 reel—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 ley on our-
selves, Doe 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, end 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 a
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. He
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
venerally 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," widths, and
" did they think the Jews wished to Juduize the state?"
—(Hear.) They bad 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 regardieg 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 be: taken as Ither private affirmations of the in-
dividnal,' but as the declaration of the nation itself.
The whole nation could not take the oaths, and
hence they were taken by its representatives iu 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 to a sacrifice of prin-
ciple, which must inevitably be followed by the most
banclul consequences. He could not yield oa this point
to an authority less than that which originally imposed
this limitation.—(Hear.)
The Eerl 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, be did not think
it necessary to do more than occupy the shortest time
in recommending the Bill to their Lordships.—(Hear.)
t't ith reference to the absence of pstitious, 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 admiseion of
Jews to Parliament, and could no: 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 wesevras it advisable to retain them? He
doubted whether, if they had not been there, either of the
Noble Lords opposite would have been' bold enough to
propose such a test.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
great risk would follow item the continued opposition
of their Lordships to this Bill 'and he feleconvinced 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
Bill.—(Cheers.)
The Earl of WINCHILSEN said they were now
called upon to renounce the Christianity of the State,
and if they did so they would offead 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 he could not consent to
abandon the Christianity of the State.--(Cheets')
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
moking these alterations.—(Hear, hear.) He 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 mess of the people were obliged to take these oaths,
a feeling would speedily be 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 opiniuu,
he considered to be necessary.
The Duke of ARGYLL, after referrieg 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. lie
(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 fur. But this argument was o intra-
dieted by the fact that the Jew was admitted to thtlelec-
tive franchise. He was an elector, and therefore exer-
cised legislative power, although he admitted it was in
a miner degree. IVith 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 tact, 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 SHAFITSBI.TRY 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-
e,
sciences.
The Duke of ARGYLL said that bore hitnhout in
what he had seid.—(llear.) In so fur as the consti-
tuency was concerned, in electing arepresentative they
were called on to ;di et a Christian, and notwitheiaidieg
they knowingly elected au infidel, and the House of
Commons, with that knowledge, called on him to take
the oaths.—(Hear.) It was not contended that the Jew
would be hostile to their ecclesiastical Establishment.
It wor not contended that he would he as hostile! /is
Dissenters who had been admitted.—(hear, ear.)
After some further remarks the Noble Duke conclud,d
by saying that he was prepered to vote for the me enure
on brim and general prieciples.--(Rear.) He had a
~great reverence for the priucip e propounded by Dr.
Arr. Id, as to the connexion of the Church with the
State, but it appeared to him that the spirituel and the
civil must ho wholly separated,—(Clear, hear.) That he
was prepared to affirm, and according to the constitu-
tion of Parliament, it was wrong that men should be
wholly excluded from taking their seats, who were
potent, on purely spiritual grounds.
The
of NOR H WIC agreed that this oath
otherwise
schoomp
was not intended to be made a religious test. Flow, he