The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-10 00:00:00

RETURN OF THE TROOPS.

Sir C. WOOD wished to correct a statement he had
made the other night with respect to the arrival of the
Princess Royal at Malta with troops on board. He had
not, when he made the announcement, seen the tele-
graphic despatch, but he had done so since, and it
announced the arrival at Constantinople and departuie of
the St. Jean d'Acre and Agamemnon, one with a regiment
of the Coldstreams, and the other with a regiment of the
Rifles o❑ board. The Princess Royal was at present at
Constantinople taking out her lower deck guns in order
to go up to take troops on board.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

Mr. J. G. PHILLINIORE asked whether it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to bring forward
any meaQure founded on the unanimous report of the
committee of inquiry into the appointment of a public
prosecutor?
Sir G. GREY said it was not intended during the
present session to introduce such a bill, but a bill with
the above object would be brought forward early next
session.
WILLS AND ADMINISTRATIONS BILL.

In l eply to Mr. HADFIELD,
Sir G. GREY said the Solicitor-General would, to-
morrow, state the course he intended to pursue with
respect to these bills.
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Mr. KENDALL asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether be could inform the house when the
report of the committee would be laid on the table, and
what had-been the ware of the delay
, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated

Mr. M. GIBSON moved the third reading of this bill.
Sir F. THESIGER moved, in clause 2, to leave out
all the words from the beginning of line 7, down to end
of line 14, and to insert these words :—" I, A. B. do
truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and
declare in my conscience before God and the world that
our Sovereign Lady Queen Vicoria is lawful ar d
rightful Queen of this realm, and of all other her Ma-
jesty's dominions ands nintriee thereunto belonging. And I
do swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to
her Majesty Queen Victoria, and her will defend to the
utmost of 'my power against all traitorous conspiracies
and attempts whets ever which shall be made
against her person, Crown, or dignity. And I
will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and
make known to her Majesty and her successors all
treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know
to be against her or any of them. And I do faithfully
promise to the utmost of my power to maintain, support,
and defend the succession of the Crown against all
persons whatsoever, which succession, by an act in-
titulecl 'Au act for the further limitation of the Crown
and better securing the rights and liberties of the sub-
ject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Elec•
toress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs
of her body, being Protestants.' And all these things I
do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear accord-
ing to these express words by me spoken, and accord-
ing to the plain and common sense and understanding
of the same words, without any equivocation,
mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever ; and
I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, and pro-
mise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith
of a Christian. So help rue God." His object in mov-
ing this amendment was to arrest a step which, accord-
ing to his view, would be of the most serious detriment
to the public interest, and to bring the oath of abjura-
tion back to what it substantially was, and had existed
without objection for 150 years, omitting from it those
portions which were considered objectionable on the
ground of their having ceased in their application. He
and his friends had been taunted with not bringing for-
ward some definite measure on the subject of the ad-
mission of the Jews to Parliament. Now, they were
not under the necessity of bringing forward a bill for
the exclusion of the Jews, as they were included to-
gether ; and as to any modification of the oath of settle-
ment, they were not in a position to propose it. It was
quite impossible to mix up the oath which ought to be
required from Jews it they were to sit in Parliament,
and which ought to be required from Christians. If
they were mixed, Jews could be admitted to places in
the Government to which it would be highly objection.
able they should be admitted. This was felt on nre-
vious occasions, when clauses were introduced exclud-
ing Jews from certain positions, which showed how
impossible it was to provide for the admission of
Jews, by a simple arrangement of the oath of abjura-
tion. Again, even in taking a position in the Legis-
lature it would be neceicalary t' makes provision for
their peculiar circumstances. He might be a member
of committee, who respected Christmas-day and Good
Friday. Why, for the sake of admitting the Jews, were
they to omit all the important and significant portions
of the oath On this point he might claim the vote of
his right hon. friend the member for the University of
Oxford, who on a previous debate had said that he was
glad that the words, " On the true faith of a Christian "
were used, fur Christian members, as a solemn pledge of
their duty and religion. This was what he asked. He de-
manded that the oath, wescled of a sew objectionable
terms, should be retained in its integrity, and that the
question of the Jews should be separately treated. He
was, however, prepared to go further, and to retain the
words, "On the true faith of a Christian," as a distinct
pledge that there was to be no thoroughfare to that house
except to a Christian. He denied that this was a question
of religious liberty. The impression was abroad that the
house bad by decrees widened its doors to all religious
persuasions, and that the Jews were the last to be ad
mitted. Now there was no other measure of the kind
except for the admission of Roman Catholics, who had
been excluded from political rather than religious grounds.
The Dissenters had never been excluded, and the mea-
sure by which the Quakers were allowed to appear was
passed in the reign of George 11., and in the case of Mr.
Pease, a committee distinctly decided that by the words
of that act the affirmation of a Quaker would be re-
ceived as the passport to that house. The measures for
dealing with the Jews were therefore the first for ad-
mitting any but Christians into the Legislature. It
had been said that it was merely by an accident--
by the insertion of certain words in the Act of Ab-
juration—that the Jew was excluded from Parlia-
ment. He was surprised that the exploded fallacy
had been revived. At the time the words sere used
it was not intended to exclude the Jews, because there
were then no Jews in England ; but it had been laid
down by Baron Parke, in the case of Salomons, that the
Legislature had never supposed even the possibility
of any but Jews sitting in Parliament any more than
Pagans or Mahornetaus. Hence the Legislature ordained
an oath which none but Christians could take as a mat•
ter of course. It had been said that during the reign of
William 111. these words did not exist, as these words
were not in the act ; but the Jews at that time were
reckoned simply as aliens. Considering the question
in the abstract, he admitted that all the subjects of
a free State were eligible to civil rights ; but he
denied that civil rights meant political privi-
leges. He was entitled to his property, to reli-
gious liberty, to equality before the law. But political
power belonged to the State, to those only to whom the
State had assigned them ; and if this were not so, there
would be no right or justice in the political disqualifica-
tion which at present (misted. rherefore, no one could
maintain that the right of the Jews to a seat in the Legis-
lature could be made to re't on these abstract principles.
But it was said that the question was decided—that a Jew
was even now admitted to civil office. He might be a
subordinate magistrate, he might be mayor, sheriff, or ma-
gistrate. But these officers were under the law ; they
were amenable to punishment if they violated it ; but
the legislator was in this sense above the law ; he had
no rule or law to guide him in his legislative action.
He was obliged to go to other considerations—as to the
moral fitness of tie Jews. Ile found that on the Thanks.
giving-day the Lord Mayor and Aldermen went in state
to St. Paul's Cathedral. There, seated on high, was one
to whom that solemn service must have been a mockery
or a farce. Were Jews to be admitted to the judicial
bench they would have the same profanation over again.
It was said that the Jew was admitted to a share iu the
legislative power of the country by admitting him to the
elective franchise. He denied that infinitesimal power
given by the privilege of voting had any relation to the
great power of the member of the Legislature. Theo-
retically or metaphysically there might be something in
the argument, but practically it was a mere absurdity.
It had been said, again, that when an important consti-
tuency like that of London had chosen a Jew for a repre-
sentative their decision ought to be attended to. This
had been said to be the view of Archbishop Whateley,
whose meaning at all times was at least clear, and who,
in a recent publication, said that he would not consent
to join issue on the question whether a man not a Chris-
tian should be a member of the Legislature, because
this ought to be left to the electors. Now, the electors
of London claimed to have their choice accepted,
and seemed to insist that their choice was not
to be interfered with. Now the constituency of Lon-
don were but a small portion of the whole constitu-
encies of the kingdom, and they had no right to dictate
to the rest. If so, other places might choose clergymen,
or aliens, and, on the same principle, insist on their ac-
ceptation by Parliament. After all, there remained the
sacred ground, the religious element of the case, without
which the rest was perfectly insignificant. This was the
ground on which they really, as Christians, had the
'vantage ground, and which he would not consent to
abandon. Apart from this, it was unimportant to hear
if the Jews were aliens, what were their habits or if they
regarded themselves simply as sojourners in this country
or not. It had often been emphatically said that Chris-
tianity was part of the law of the land. If so, it was an
anoinally that any one not a Christian should be allowed
to take part in the making or altering of the laws of this
Christian country. It had been said by a morning paper
that morning, which generally dictated to them what
their line of argument ought to be, that the admission
of Jews to Parliament would not unchristianise the coun-
try more thauqt had,been =christianised already. There,

was not the slightest resemblance between the case of
persons mingling with our people, hr rather hying
amongst us, but not of us, without concerning them-
selves about our religion, or interfering with the reli-
gious observances of the country, but enjoying the bene-
fits and blessings of a Christian country, and their hav-
mg the' privilege of seats in the Legislature, and to make
laws for a Christian community. It appeared to him
that it would be the most extraordinary state of things
possible to conceive, and the noble lord the nianber for
London was obliged to act inconsistent with his opinions
in becoming an advocate for the Jews. The noble lord
was deeply impressed with a sense of religion, and was a
sincere believer in the Christian belief ; but unfortunately
he was in a false position when, with those convictions
strong on his mind, he was compelled to come forward
in that house and advocate the cause of the Jews. The
noble lord had on a former occasion given utterance to
the sentiment that religion has, or ought to have, an in-
fluence on every man's actions, which of course he meant
to refer to the Christian religion. That was the standard
to which all our laws ought to conform, and the guile
and governing principle of our legislation ; but did the
noble lord really believe that he was preserving that prin-
ciple pure and 'simple by varying it with a little Mosaic?
Laughter.) The hen, and learned gentleman then re-
ferred to the extraordinary combination in support of
the bill. In the first place there were the advocates of
civil and religious liberty—those who were generally
Dissenters and opposed to the Established Church.
Then there were a certain number of gentlemen who
were of opinion that it would be very desirable to eman-
cipate the Church from the State, and thereby revive
convocation in its original form ; and nothing would be
more likely to advance that object than for Parliament
once to pronounce the opinion that religion had nothing
to do with their deliberations in that house by the ad-
mission of a Jew to a seat in the house, because if it be
once admitted be could not understand how it would be
possible to defend afterwards the continuance of a State
establishment. These two parties were therefore bound
up in that particular alliance with different motives, but
possessing the same end. Associated with them were
the Roman Catholics, who, of course, were no friends of
the Establishmeat, and who were ready to assist the
other to weaken and destroy the Establishment, and
thus be advancing each their particular views, which
were to be attained by the admission of Jews to Parlia-
ment. He trembled for the censequences that would
ensue by the omission of the words "on the true faith of
a Christian ;" for having once made this concession they
must go on, and demands would be made by the infidel
who was uninfluenced by any religious obligations at all,
who hid but his consciet co, which was guided by what
he;called his morality, to relieve him from all oaths,
which they would be obliged to grant, finding it impos-
sible to stop in their downward progress. When he first
entered that house he considered the taking the words
referred to as part of his duty in a legislature, and as a
badge of his Christianity, and that he would defend
Christianity so entrusted to him, and not for the purpose
of a crusade against other religions. He should no doubt
be charged with being actuated by a persecuting and in-
tolerant spirit ; but he had no such intention or desire,
his sole object being to defend the ark of Christianity
against the intrusion of those opposed to it. He trusted
the house would hold test possession of the faith, with-
out wavering, as inaugurating them to solemn and im-
portant duties, and not set the example t ) the people of
their rulers being indifferent to Christianity, but preserve
for them that respect which would always attach on
themselves, and constitute the glory and happiness of
this country. (Cheers.)

Mr. BOWYER replied to the statements of the hon.
and learned gentleman relative to the publication of the
bulls referred to by him, which, he said, rested on the
authority of Dr. M‘Gee, on which the house, he
thought, would not like to place much reliance. The
hon. and learned member said he had received a letter
from Dr. Cullen, authorising him to state that the bulls
in question were not published from any political object
the Roman Catholic Church had in view, but as historical
documents, and not as having any reference to our times,
when the Stuart family did not exist. The Roman Ca-
tholics had no desire to bring in any of the Stuarts.
(Hear, hear.) They were as loyal subjects as any the
Queen had in any part of her dominions, of whatever re-
ligion they may be. (Hear.) The idea of their disloyalty
was one of those absurd and ridiculous nightmares which
the hon. member for Stamford and the two hon. mem-
bers for Warwickshire —(laughter)--and which the Ro-
man Catholic members did not condescend to answer,
because they were so ridiculous and absurd that the goqd
sense of the Protestant members of the house would not
for a moment give credence or attach any weight to
them. (Hear, arid laughter.)

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the introduction of the
bill by the hon. member for Manchester had enabled them
to gain one more advantage with reference to the ques-
tion, because the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir F.
Thesiger) had consented to the abandonment of the old
oath of allegiance and theintroduction of a new one from
which much was excluded, but sufficient retained to ex-
clude the Jews. The avowance that the oath could not
be maintained in its present form was a concession of one
of the many points those contended for who were desir-
ous to see the introduction of Jews into Parliament. The
noble lord said that the hon. and learned member, by his
amendment, proposed to load the oath with a number of
superfluous words, and which were rendered unnecessary
by the oath of allegiance. There was a time when Par-
liament thought it necessary, but whether wisely or not he
would not they consider, to introduce into the oath of
abjuration repetitions as to the rightful sovereign, when
the people said William 111. was King de facto, and
James 11. was King de jure, but there was row no neces-
sity for it. (Hear.) There was the same objection to the
provision and securities introduced into the amendment
with respect to the disclosing and making known all
treasons and traitorous conspiracies, ner did he see the
necessity there existed for the members of that house
taking such an oath more than the people generally, espe•
cially as provision was made for it in the oath of allegi-
ance. He was not aware of members of that house being
likely to have any peculiar knowledge of traitorous con-
spiracies more than any other persons, but it was that
secretaries of state and privy councillors might whose
duty it was to make themselves acquainted with secret
conspiracies, and take measures to counteract them.
(Hear.) The hon. and learned gentlemen appeared to
lay most stress on the words " on the true faith of a
Christian"—(hear)—which there could be no doubt were
not introduced into the old oath for the purpose of ex•
eluding the Jews, but for the purpose of additional secu-
rity against the disloyalty of the Roman Catholics of the
times, and which could never be required under a mo-
narchy such as that at present existing in this country ;
but if it was the desire of the house to effectually exclude
the Jews, he (Lord J. Russell) knew of no more plain
and simple way of doing it than by the retention of those
words ; and to do so would be inflicting a great hardship
on the Jews. (Hear.) It was necessary for the house to
show some grounds of State necessity or State policy for
excluding any British subject from the highest State
honours which the favour of the Crown, and his capacity
to discharge them, entitle him to fill. He contended that
religious faith was no ground for so excluding a man ;
and, secondly, that if it were so, these tests or oaths did
not enable them to obtain the religious feelings of the
members of the house. (Hear.) He knew nothing in the
religious faith of a Jew that would prevent him doing his
duty as a faithful member of the Legislature and main-
tain all the institutions of the country. (Hear.) The hon.
and learned gentleman had referred to an opinion he
(Lord J. Russell) expressed on a former occasion, that
there was a religious obligation incumbent on tho mem-
bers of that house, and which he repeated ; but he was of
opinion it was not secured by the wording of any oath.
They all knew that Bolingbroke, after he had changed
his views, would have taken this oath on his becoming
a member of the Upper House, and would have
uttered the words " On the true faith of a Chris-
tian" without any equivocation, and Gibbon had
no difficulty in adopting them. The hon. and learned
gentleman had admitted that the oath with those words
was no security against a man who did not feel that his
using them, though against his conscience, was an im-
moral act, and if that be so, by the adoption of the words
the house had no security in respect of those who did
not believe in the Christian religion. The effect of this
was, that a man who felt a religious obligation, and
would not deceive the house, but would act according
to the religion he had been taught, was unfit to sit in
that house, but a man who would dissemble—who was
known by his writings to be opposed to every Christian
feeling and sentiment, but would take the oath—would
be trusted to have a seat in that house. He looked upon
this exclusion as savouring of persecution for religion's
sake. He had always based this question on the general
ground of justice to the Jews, and he trusted that the
smallness of the number of Jews in this country would
not prevent them obtaining their rights. (Hear, and
cries of " Divide.")
Mr. WARREN said that the admission of Jews to the
Legislature had during the last quarter of a century been
repeatedly and earnestly urged upon them and as resolutely
resisted, without reference to par'cy considerations, by the
most distinguished men of the age, by as eminent unit en-
lightened statesmen, and by as devoted Christians as ever
adorned either House of Parliament. Following, as he
might be thought somewhat presumptuously to do, the
noble lord who had just spoken, he would take that oppor-
tunity of saying from his heart that his own unworthy
opinion was, that that noble lord was deserving of being
classed amongst the latter number ; for prominent as was
the part he had always taken in advocating the ad mission of
Jews to the legislature, he believed him to be as sincere and
hearty a Christian as ever spoke from either side of the
house. The question, therefore, which had given rise to
this difference of opinion must be one of serious difficulty,
and involving considerations of proportionate weight and
magnitude. He (Mr. Warren) had always felt a profound
interest in this question, bad read everything that had
been said upon it in both Houses of Parliament,
and weighed most carefully and dispassionately the argu-
ments for and against it, being most sincerely desirous of
forming a correct judgment upon the matter. For he hesi-
tated not to avow that he could not bear the sight of any
class of his fellow-subjects unjustly denied or deprived of
either a " right" or a " trust"—two words between which
there was a fundamental distinction, which ought to be
epsreodpiesrcluyssdieoenms,eedapeinciaatlltyer ifn ft
thraatnrsicgehnt
abnodrntehai
dant importance. leo true Englishman could look at per
nt
trust mind
i wore e these
e h
sons so situated without being moved; and his sympathies
would go out all the more readily and eagerly if he found
preferred with persevering modera-
• He would be disposed to look with a cer-
tthioendaenmdadnidgnfoitryj.ustice
tain sternness at the reasons which were relied upon for ex.

. ' • -

eluding a British;born subject from a seat in the British
Legislature, and he would not yieldie those reasons unless
his conscience and his judgment were convinced of their
overwhelming cogency. Such was the spirit, then, in
which he approached for a very few minutes the discussion
of the question before them. As to the Jews, so far from
his (Mr. Warren's) feelings partaking of anything of preju-
dice against them, he regarded them with a feeling almost
akin to awe as the most marvellous of the dwellers upon
earth ; intermingling inoffensively, but never identifying
themselves with other nations, but fulfilling and yearning
after the accomplishment of their own grand and myste-
rious destiny. He would not think or speak of the Jews
for one moment or on any consideration with levity.
(Fleur.) He would not wrong them in act or in word, for
if he were capable of doing so, though they might be true
Jews, he should be no true Christian. (Cheers.) At the
same time, if they were true to their respective faiths, he
could not help cowing to a conclusion, which no reflections
of his had been able to disturb, that there was in respect
of qualifications, pretensions, and principles, a fatal in-
compatibility from their being brother legislators, regard
being had to the nature and objects of legislation for a
Christian state. But during the last 25 years, to satisfy a
liberal and an enlightened people, whatever was an unjust
restriction or disability upon the Jew had been removed.
He now stood upon a level with the best of our fellow citi-
zens, in point of personal security and of social position.
He was clothed with rank, hereditary rank and dignity.
He sat in the chair of the magistracy ; and the office of
chief magistrate of London was at that moment occupied
by a distinguished friend of his, who was then within
sound of his voice, and who filled it in a way that must
command the respect and admiration of every man. (Hear.)
(This allusion, 'it need scarcely be observed, was to the
Lord Mayor, who was seated on one of the peers' benches
with Baron Lionel Rothschild, and one or two other gen-
tlemen of the Jewish persuasion.) In addition to this,
the Jew wielded a money power NV hich gave him vast in-
Ifluence here, and enabled him to contro 'the greatest ope-
' rations of foreign states. And so far ne religious freedom
was concerned, why " he sat under his own vine and under
his own fig-tree, and none dared: to snake him afraid."
But, emboldened by those concessions, he now aspired to
something higher, and demanded to become a legislator
for Christian England. There, however (said Mr. 'Warren),
I pause, and say, "Between you and Ina there is a great
gulf fixed." I cannot help him. With the " true faith
of a Christian" are bound up all my hopes of happiness
here and hereafter ; but that which is everything tome
is nothing to him, or it is, in truth, a stumbling-block
lying in his way, whether he see it and appreciate it or
not, whenever he would attempt to legislate for a Chris-
tian community. That which is heavenly truth to me is
falsehood, imposture, and blasphemy to Lim. How then
can we get on together ? It is for him to answer. Our
motives, our objects are different; and how can we expect
to convert the Legislature into a fountain which sends
forth at the same place sweet waters and bitter? (Hear,
hoar.) Disguise it as you may, the direct effect of the bill
now before us is to obliterate those vital principles and
differences to which we must look for the inspiration and
action of the state, and to place the Legislature of Eng-
land upon a footing that it has never occupied before.
It seeks to effect an organic change in our political struc-
ture - one influencing its whole character, constitution,
and action. It seeks to change the characteristic distinc-
tion of our state and of its sovereignty, either by eliminat-
ing that sovereignty, an essential constituent, or by intro-
ducing into it a foreign, an incongruous and a destructive
element. What is meant by the sovereignty of a state ?
Its supreme power of legislation. Sovereignty and legis-
lation, then, are convertible terms. Wherever the power
of legislation resides there is the seat of sovereignty. In
the act of legislation sovereignty is seen in action, and as
a s'a a is a moral being, as much as any of the individuals
who compose it, so as in the case of individuals it is im-
pelled, influenced, and directed by given motives, ends,
and objects. It has a character involving, prescribing,
and guaranteeing its course of action. And what is the
character, the great and glorious character, of our ancient
English state ? It is Christian—professedly, essentially,
exclusively Christian, and always has been so if there be
any force in words, or any reality iu language to represent
things. Founded and built up during a long succession of
ages by Christians exclusively, it derives its character from
their principles, from their feelings, from their opinion.
The Holy Gospel has illuminated every chamber of the
structure, and Christianity has enshrined itself in the very
keystone of the arch of our laws and institutions. We
legislate in its spirit and in its principles. No one has
entered the legislative chamber except under an express
pledge of fidelity to Christianity, or under circumstances
absolutely and necessarily guaranteeing the same. We
are summoned to the discharge of our duties by a writ
which tells us that a prominent part of those duties con-
sist in legislating for the Church of Christ. We com-
mence our daily deliberations here with a prayer that
those deliberations may be aided and blessed by the ador-
able Head of the Church. From a Christian people there
ascend daily prayers on our behalf to that Head of the
Church. And the prayers of that Christian people are as
incense before Heaven, and have been hoard and answered ;
or why have we become so great and glorious as we are?
(Cheers.) Look again at the Sovereign. He cannot as-
cend the throne without giving the most public and
solemn pledge comeeivable of his fidelity to Christianity.
When Queen, Victoria ascended the throne of these
realms, kneeling in the presence of all the people, and
pleciug her hand upon and kissing the Holy Gospels, she
swore, as all her ancestors had done, that she would do
her utmost to " maintain the true profession of the
Gospel." Now, if one can be permitted to entertain a
momentary supposition of so dark a character, let sus
imagine some future Sovereign coming to the throne, and
objecting to take this oath its this form, and saying, " I
will not maintain the true profession of the Gospel, be-
cause I believe it to be false. It does not bind my con-
science. I have no sympathies with it. I owe nothing to
it. I fear nothing from it. Relieve me, therefore, from
these words." Would that he a Christian king ? Would
such a sovereign be permitted to ascend the throne of this
ancient and glorious England? Never. And if he were pet -
rnitted to do so, and were to join the other constituents of
the Legislature, how could it be said that the Legislature
was Christian ? Then, look at the other branches of the
Legislature. No one has entered either House of Parliament
for the last 150 years without either giving, on his solemn
oath, an express pledge of his Christianity, or else being re-
lieved from doing so under circumstances which neces-
sarily and absolutely guaranteed his profession of the Chris-
tian faith. About Roman Catholics, for instance, there is
no question ; and as to Quakers, Moraviaus, and Separa-
tists, why are they relieved from taking the oath ? Why,
absolutely because of their scrupulous and reverential obe-
dience to a supposed command of their Divine Master,
whom the Jew repudiates as a crucified blasphemer. This
being so (proceeded the hon. and learned gentleman), he
could not help expressing his dissent from the remark of
the right hon. member for Oxford University (Mr. Glad-
stone) during a debate on this question in 1848. The right
hon. gentleman said that, with whatever grief it might be
said, it must, nevertheless, be admitted that the house had
ceased to be of an exclusively Christian character. With
the utmost respect for the right hon. gentleman, he (Mr.
Warren) denied the assertion, and asked for evidence of its
accuracy. He affirmed the contrary. He granted the la-
mentable fact that in the eagerness of a desire to possess a
seat in that house, a gentleman might stand at the table
and bo guilty of declaring that to be true which he alto-
gether disbelieved. He (Mr. Warren) could not help that.

"To his own master he standeth or falleth;" and such per-
sons must answer for that matter before their Almighty
Judge hereafter. There was no form of oath which could
be devised or administered which impious men might not
take falsely, or might not violate. (Hear, hear.) The '
bill before them challenged them deliberately and
solemnly, with the eyes of all Christendom upon them,
to discard the only visible safeguard against the obtru-
sion of the Jew into the Legislature, and not only of the
Jew, bu ithe Mahomeceian thepagan, and worse than all,
the professed and apostate infidel. Those convulsive
efforts of the Jews to get rid of the words, so excruciating
to him, "on the true faith of a Christian," what were those
efforts but so many conclusive evidences of their inestim-
able value, and the paramount necessity for retaining
them ? (The hon. and learned member was continuing his
address, when he was interrupted with repeated cries of
" Divide" from the Ministerial benches.) He had not often I
troubled the house (he proceeded to say) since he had had
the honour of having a seat there—(bear, hear)—and it
was not his intention, as at present advised, to trouble it
again for the remainder of the session. (Loud laughter.)
He trusted, therefore, they would give him an opportsaity
of offering some further observations, and they should be
brief, upon this important subject. Ho then said—Let
them conceive the idea of a state consisting exclusively of
sincere and zealous Jews, and a sincere and zealous Chris-
tian coming forward, demanding to be admitted into the
Sanhedr.in, and for that purpose requiring that the oath
imposed upon the member, " on the true faith of a Jew,"
should be abrogated. Did they think it would be done ?
No; it would be met by the argument that it would ren-
der them false to their faith. Well, if that were so, were
not the two cases parallel? And what became of the argu-
ment as to the small number of the Jews that might be
admitted to our Legislature. Once admit a solitary Jew as
such, after having been challenged to do so, and the prin-
ciple was conceded. The fortress surrendered at discre-
tion, and the Jew would proclaim the triumph ho had
achieved to the uttermost parts of the earth—even in those
parts where we were most busily engaged in propagating
the Christian faith. (Cries of " Divide.") Before resum-
ing his seat he would ask the house to consider the perilous
precedent they were about to sanction. Why did they
exact an oath from the Sovereign ? Why did they exact
an oath from the Legislature ? Purely and simply because
by the very act of becoming such they were incorporated
into the sovereignty of the State, and thereby individually
contribute to form its character and direct its action. And
as when once a person was placed in that capacity he was,
SO to speak, irresponsible to men and acting under moral
sanction alone, it was but fair and just that those who were
invested with such authority should have the highest possi-
ble sanction for professing such and such a belief, and for
determiningif they ree
released
stood ptuhres ujee suchw f
from
and each such a g
theline C o
cause he said, " I do not believe in Him whom you regard
as God," then he implored the house earnestly to consider
what answer it was to give by-and-bye, when they saw a
different character coming to them with this bid in his
hand, and saying, "Admit me, too; you have admitted
the Jew, who denies the God of the Christian. I do not
believe in the God of the Jew—l believe in no God at all
—admit me without an oath." What answer were they
to make ? The bill before them was a weapon with which
they would be coerced into making that concession also ;
and, if so, could it be longer contended that the Parliament
of England would be entitled to the term of "a godly
Legislature?" Rather would it not have become a pro-
fessedly godless Legislature ! He could see raspy disas-
trous consequences which must flow from the adoption of
this bill, but he would mention only one. The right hon. '
gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), in the speech to which he had
already referred, said that the direct effect would be to
separate the Church from the State, and he (Mr. Warren)
would ask any gentleman who thought that the two should
be united, as being essential for the welfare of the kingdom,
whether he was prepared to sanction such a measure?
(Hear, hear.) He had now done. He had found it im-
possible to let this, perhaps the only, opportunity slip of
addressing the house upon the question, without offering
his most earnest entreaties to all who were about to give
their votes to-night, that they would thoroughly consider
the consequences, immediate and remote, direct and in-
direct, of saying when challenged by the Jew, the words
" on the true faith of a Christian" were to be no longer
regarded, and that any and every ono might save A wit, in

The house then resumed the committee on the Cam.
bridge University Bill.
Ou clause 27.
Mr. STAFFORD moved the omission, atline 20 of clause
27, of the words " without prejudice to any existing in-
terest of any such member of such college." The object of
his amendment was to enable the governing bodies of the
colleges at Cambridge to shorten the time for which fel-
lowships might be held, even by the present holders should
they deem that the interests of religion and learning re-
quired the change.
Mr. BOUVE ME said that these words were in the
Oxford, and had been introduced into the bill from a
respect for the vested interests which the masters and
fellows of colleges had in their offices and fellowships. He
believed that in the long run the ultimate advantage of
these institutions would be promoted by respecting those
interes s.

The amendment was negatived.
Mr. HEYWOOD moved to insert after the word " sta-
tutes," the words "in the English language."
Mr. BOUVERIE thought the .matter might be safely
left to tho Cambridge authorities. If they liked to make
their statutes in the Latin language, it was to be hoped
that Cambridge men, including his hon. friend, would
be able to ie ti them. He thought it would be better that
the statutes should be made in English, but he did not
think it desirable for Parliament to make a stringent rule
on the subject.
The committee divided, when there were—
Fur the amendment..
Against