The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-28 00:00:00

denied aat a inlisFion of Jews to Parliament wool,

compleie the edifice of social and religious liberty in
this country.. Religious liberty had only been given in
ore instanci io referanca to a seat in Parliament,

and that was in regard to Roman Catholics. Diseenters
had always sat in Parliament, although they were ex-
cluded for a considerable period from municipal corpora-
tions by the T,•-t and Corporation Act; and when h
quaker was returned some years since the statutes were

found to be framed so wide a 4 to allow him to make ak

declaration. (Hear, hear.) They were called on by rail
for the fir=t time to break through the rule, Pend to
say that a declaration " on the true faith of a Cerimian"
should no longer be a passport to a seat in the
Lgisla-
ture, but take an immense stride over the and place
a Jew by the side of a Christian member. (Rear, hear.)
Tne noble and learned lord contecde,d there was no
analogy between admitting Jews to the elective franchise,
and to fill the office of sheriff, mayor, and maui trate,
and placing him in Parliament to assist in making la vs
for Christians. In the former case he discharged his
duties under the law, and eras liable to punishment if
he transgressed it ; but, in the other case, they placed
him amongst the legislators of the country, where be was
supreme, and had no law to submit to ex.eept that of his
own cenecionce. (near, hear.) It had been urged
tba,-, the opinion of the constitueLts of London sly;uld
be respected, and that as they ha 1 more than once
electeda Jew, some deference should be paid to the
expr
essed wish and desire. Nothing could be more
unconstitutional and dangerous than to consent to
such a thing. The citizens of London knew full well
it was impossible, when they elected a Jow that he
could take his seat, but, in defiance of law, they
had chosen him over ani over again. It was the

first duty of good citizens to obey the law, but it ap-
peared to him that the cit:z •us of LOndon were setting►
in this instance a bad example to the other con-
stituencies of the country ; and if their lordships
jiblded in this instance there would be nothing
to prevent their yielding to other constituencies who
might choose to elect a minor, a clergyman, a Custom-
house officer, or an alien, each of whom was at present
precluded front entering Parliament. The constituency
of London, though a large one, was but a small part of
the constituency of the kingdom ; and although they
elected a member for them3alves, they elected him also
as part of the Parliament, and in doing so they had no
right to violate the law. He had confined himself long
enough to that low ground cf argument, and in ascend-
ing to the higher ground, and considering the question
as a religious one, be did not for a moment veutnre to
tattribu!A to those who opposed him any absence of a
proper religious feeling and sentiment, though they pets
ceieed nothing of a religious character in it, There was
an old and trite maxim that "Christianity ~cae a part of
the law of God—(hear, hear)—and it cotveyed the im-
portant truth that it was virtually and essentially bound
up with our constitution, and pervaded almost every in-
,titution of the country. (Hear, bear.) Homage -vas
paid to it by many observances, the most striking of
which was the legislature, before commencing its daily
tatsinus, inv.,kod the blessing of God on its labours in
that only name in which our prayers could be accepted
—(hear, hear)—and by which they went forth cense-
Prated to their high duties—(hear, hear)—that of pro-
viding, for the eternal welfare of the people as well as
their co►nmercial prosperity. It was the opinion of
Burke and many others whom the noble and learned
had quoted, as well as Lord John Russell, these impor-
tant legislative functions were bound up in religion, and
he (the Lord Chancellor) expressed his. opinion that if
they admitted Jews to Parliament the Legisla-
ture would be uncrhristianised from the hay-

Log loosened the common tie of faith which at pre-

sent bound them together. (Hear.) He urged their lord-
ships not to be misled by the fear of a collision between
the two houses of Parliament, and by giving way become
merely the registrars of the wills of the other house of Par-
Lament. When the people spoke through their repre-
sentatives with a unanimous determination, it was

desirab!e for their lordships to well consider the de•
sirability of runniog counter to such Expressions of feel-
ing, but here ❑o such determination on the part cf the
people existed. In conclusion, the noble and learned
lord moved the omission of the fifth clause from the
bill.

Lord LYNDHURST said he rjoiced that a member
of such eloquence and talent ai bad been displayed by

his noble and learned friend had been added to their

Irrdz,baps' house—(hear)—though that eloquence and
that talent had been exercised against the cause which
he felt it his duty to advocate, His noble and learned

friend alluded to the observations which had been ad-
dressed with great weight and great anxiety the other
night to their lordships by the noble earl opposite. Now
it would be idle for them to attempt to disguise from
them,,elves the position in which they stood with regard
to this question. (Hear, hear.) Their lordships were

aware of what passeJ in the other House of Parliament
relative to this measure. Their lordships were aware
►.hat a member of the other House of Parliament of great

weight and superior talents—the late Attorney-General
—ple,lged himself most solemnly to move resolutions for
the admission of the Jews in case this measure failed of

success on the present occasion. ([Tear, hear.) Their
I,,r,iships were aware that a question might then arise
between the other H”use of Varliatnent and the Courts

of Law, and that the House of Lords in its judicial caps.
city might be thereby pla:.:cd in a position opposed to a
majority of the other house. (Hear, hear.) He thought
it right to state these weighty facts to their lord.hips,

without drawing any inference from them. It was hardly
necessary for him to recal to their recollection that a
measure for the admission cf the Jews had been repeat-
edly passed by the other house with great and increasing
robjwities,•and upon no occasion by so marked a majo-
rity as on the present, and that it had never been re-
jected in their lordships' house by more than one-twelfth
of those who were called on to vote. Let them remern•
ber also that men of great worth, and research, and
piety, a most reverend prelate, and a right rev, prelate,
had supported this measure. Let them recollect that
their Legislature was cimposed of three independent
power, and that it was only by mutual concession and
forbearance that legislation could be carried on. It was
a most important part of their duty to check the rueon-
eiderate, rash, hasty, and ill-judged legislation of the
other housa of Parliament, to give time for considera-
tion, and to have the opinion of the constituencies taken.
(Hear) But it never was understood, and it could never
practically be acted upon, that they were to make a firm
a determined and persevering stand against the opinion
of the other house of Parliament when it was backed by
the opinion of the people. (hear.) Least of all should
they attempt to do that when it was a question concere-
ing the composition of the other House of Parliament—
hear)—or on questions which affected religious
liberty or other questions of that kind which were likely
to excite deep feeling. (Hear.) But when they did make
such a stand as that they should be sure that they stood
upon a rock ; that they did not place themselves in a
position where they had nothing to rely upon but the
fragment of an act of Parliament which had been passed
fur a different purpose. (dear.) Now with regard to
tiis clause, the uniform principle on which they uni-
formly acted was, that the oath should be taken in the
form which was most binding on the conscience of the
person taking it. That was proposed to be done here by,
striking out the words on the true faith of a Christian,'
when the oath was administered to persons of the Jew-
ish persuasion. But his noble and learned friend said if
you ete ike out these words, you will admit persons of the
:Tewi,h religion into thelegislature of the country. Why
should they not be admitted, he would ask ? (Hear.)
They were our fellow subjects—native subjects of the
realm—and entitled to the same privileges as the other
subjects of her Majesty. His noble friend referred to
some state notion, that toe Jews were aliens, and he ar-
gued the bill upon that supposition. Something of the
same kind had been stated by his noble friend last ses-
sion. It was supposed that the alien character was in-
herent in the Jewish religion, and that they were inca-
pable of properly qualifying themselves for seats in Par-
liament. But the highest authority in ancient times
stated distinctly that they were not aliens. Coming to
more modern times, we found that the Jews were
expelled from this country for more than 300 years.
Wtaen they returned they were of course alien',
because they had been born abroad ; their fathers and
grandfathers were aliens ; and they bad no natural pri-
vileges as subjects of this realm. That continued for a
considerable time, and of course during that time they
were incapacitated as aliens. But the question arose
early iu the following century ; it was submitted to the
grave consideration of men of the highest eminence, in-
cluding Mr. Teleot, afterwards Lord Chancellor T.lbot,e
Chief Justice Raymond, the Solicitor General for th
time being, and six or seven other men of the greatestan
eminence in the law ; and they came to the
rnen.
in 504
decision that the Jew could not b 3 cornet. d
Majesty's sue-
other light than any other class of he
could ject.4. And from that time to the
saupresent,jteicoti
person capable if attending to the
.neTlahweyLerorodr
in 1750 for
enter-
tain any serious doubt upon the
.!1 passed
Chancellor had referred to t.hewat)siltouppopular that it
neturalisin4 the Jews, which was
, but be was under
England. The
was repealed in the following g
to foreign Jews, not
were
natural-born subjects ; they
a misapprehension as
those
the
e resident reason o f
inthEatia.g It related
Jews of this countbtrry,
abriaretet! ht as we had; they were not sub-
.of aliens. He would ask any con-
any friend. of the constitution, whe-
ther ttohethsaemche
that situation could be stripped of their
-
except by some act of Parlia-
tshtietrutpi
eornseoßlnrsliatiiwns lawyer,
subjects,
righntts
fraasined for• that purpose, directed to that purpose
Parlia-
ment
intention of Parliament being declared after deli-
beration, to be to deprive them of their ordinary rights
and franchises ? (Hear, hear.) He would put the ques-
tion upon that issue. Was there any such power 'I Did
Any person pretend that there was ? (Hear.) Instead
of this, we reverted to an Expression in an act of Puha•
went—the words, "on the true faith of a Christian"—
ai ngtariondsut cdeidffeinto
ttih)ae
rt
saaents,f owr
iat
hdoiuffte raennyt
voi e cwt ,h
adtierveacrt etdo
the Jews—an act which was never intended to apply to
them. Aud this Indirect—he would not call it fraudu-
lent—course of proceeding was to supply the want of
an act of Parliament directed expressly against the
Jews. (hear, hear.) What did lawyers say, and
what was the rule adopted by our courts of justice
in construing acts of parliament ? That we were not to
take isolated words in an act of Parliament and put a
certain construction upon them alone, but to discover
what was the object of the act—what was the intention
of the legislature in passing it, and to give effect to that
intention even against th ordinary sense of certain
words in; the act. This being the rule in the adminis-
tration of justice, how much more ought it to be so whenl
the question was one of legislative policy ? Themost
extraordinary thing was, that though this particularws: but
ct
of Parliament was directed not against h
against Catholics, it had been repealed astageaineentfotrhcoesde
towards whom it was directed, but was still
against those on whom it was neverintwe intended edtdehritssoo.
no
(,pi
nre operate.
e.
(hear.) What a monstrous Perversion
It had been well said by the late Baron Alderson,
case a Miller v. Salomons, that it would be more worthy
of the legislature and of the country, if it was right to
deprive the Jews of the privilege of sitting in Perna+