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

, to do it by an act of direct legislation, rather than
me ke use for that purpose of a phrase in an act which
s never intended to be directed against them. (Hear.)
e same opinion, almost in the same words, was still
ore strongly expres,ed by Mr. Baron Martin upon the
me occasion. An argnmentnm ad hominem had been
eased against him on a former occasion by Lord Derby
that, open repealing the Test and Corporation Acts,
lee had retained the wores "upon the true faith of a
brietian." It was of the utmost consequence at that
ime to secure the passing of the bid, and to obviate the
opposition of a noble and learned lord, of whom it had
been said that his learning was only exceeded by his
gotry—Lord Tenterden—be (Lord Lyndhurst) had
onsented to retain the worts. But a few years after,
when he found that he could succeed in repealing that
clause, he brought in a bill for the purpose, which was
carried triumphantly through both houses. (Hear.)
It was said that this was not a question of toleration
or relgious liberty, but of power and privilege, and
that the Legislature might do as it liked about granting
that privilege. But this was taking a very narrow view
of religious toleration. What he meant by religious
liberty was that every man, with respect to office, power
and emolument, should, without regard to his religious
opinions, be put upon a footing of perfect equality, un-
ess his opinions were such as to disqualify him from
properly performing his duty. (Hear.) Was thsre any
other footing, in this enlightened age, upon whicle reli-
gious liberty could be founded ! We did not now fine or
imprison men for their religion; opinions ; but if we
denied them the fair emoluments of office, the fair
objects of ambition, was not that a greater injury than
even imprisonment ? In so doing we denied the
t
principles of freedom—we established a rule that would
tidily persecution. (Hear.) Where were we to stop 2
1
It was asked if their opinions were harmless, and this
was admitted to be the case, then why should eve inter-
ere with those opinions ? The argument about unchris-
tianising the legieleture had been used—an old and fa-
vourite argument with the opponents of this measure.
When that argument was first urged in that house, it
met with an entire and complete refutation by a most
rev, prelate, then a member of the house, Archbishop
W hately. He said, "If you ask if this is a Christian
country, the answer will be in the affirmative ; but yet
it does not consist exclusively of Christians ; it com-
prises a certain number of Jews, but you still call it a
Christian country. But the constitution of Parliament
is to represent the country, and if it represent the coun-
try fairly, Jews is well as Christians, how can you con-
tend for a moment that because there are some Jews in
Parliament the legislature is not as much a Christian le-
gislature as the country is a Christian country ?" (Hear.)
Had any answer ever been given to that argument ?
Could any answer be given to it ? To go further, were
not benches of justices Christian ; were not corporations
Christian ? Who denied that ? Were there not Jews in
corporations, and did they un-Christianise them ? It was
not possible to support such an extravagant argument as
had been founded on the alleged un-Christianising of
the legislature. Take the case of the colonies. Were
not the inhabitants of Canada an I our other colonies
British suhjsc,s ? Had they not all the same rights
as we had, and were they riot all entitled to the
same protection? Were they not entitled to be pro-
tected as Christians? And yet Acts of Parliament had
passed their lsrdships' house, and constitutions had been
framed for Canada, the Australian colonies, and New
ealand, without any provision against the admission of
Jews to the legislative bodies of those colonies. (Heir,
hear.) Did anybody get np and say that those legisla-
tures would not be Christian assemblies ? No one had
ventured to make such an assertion. But, according to
the argument of the Lord Chancellor, those bodies sere
tanchristianised, for Jews were admitted into them
equally with Christians. It might be asked, had that
ever been acted on He knew that a most able mem-
ber of the Jewish religion was for several years a mem-
ber of the Horse of Representatives of Lower Canada.
That man evinced great talent and great powers ;
was extremely popular ; and discharged his duty in a
manner perfectly satisfactory. He was told that in one
of the Australian colonies a Jew was A member of the
legislature. What became then of the principle ? (Hear,
bear.) It seemed we did not care about the principle
in the colonies ; they were not considered worthy of
atten ion. (Hear, hear.) A distinction had been drawn
between the duties of a legislature and of a bench ofj us-
tices. What were the qualities they required in an ad-
ministrator of justice ? That he should be a man of
probity, a man of information, a man of impartiality, a
man of decision. What qualities did they require in a
member of the legislature ? Precisely the same. (Hear,
hear.) Those qualities that rendered a man fit to dis-
charge well the duties of an administrator of justice
were the very qualities which it was desirable he should
possess as a member of the legislature. (Hear, hear.)
Look at Prussia. In that country they said to the
Jews—'' You may be members of the legislature ; there
is no harm in that ; but you must not be administrators
of the law." (Hear.) We said precisely the reverse.
Such was the inconsistency of intolerance. (Hear.) In
almost every continental nation members of the Jewi,ll
religion were admitted to their respective legislatures
almost without exception. This was the case even in Catho-
lic; countries, in France and Belgium. The admission of
Jews to those legislatures had not been productive of in-
convenience or the slightest disadvantage ; and we were
called upon by every principle to extend the same privi-
lege to them here. The first lesson of Christianity
was to do to ethers as we wished them to do to us ; this
principle was at the basis of all Christian teaching. What
bad we done recently in Turkey He could conceive Lord
Stratford de Emaciate appealing to the Sultan and saying
—"How cruelly you act towards Christians ; you don't
admit them to office. They are equally entitled with your
other subjects to hold office of every description." And
that noble lord had been able to say that we, who
were an enlightened nation, pursued that course in Eng-
land, most likely the Sultan, after due consideration,
would have made the concession, and have put the Chris-
tians in Turkey on the same footing in respect of offices
as his other subjects. (Rear.) But it was not fair to cell
upon other countries to put in practice those principles
which we ourselves refused to act upon ; it was neither
just nor honourable. (Hear) We imposed upon the Jews
the liability of filling such offices as those of sheriff and
alderman, in which they must serve under a penalty. It
was said that their Sabbath being on Saturday, and
their various holidays incapacitated them from perform-
ing their duties as Christians ; but there was nothing in
this argument. Then it was asked what part would they
take on questions affecting religion ! That suggestion
came rather too late. The objection was made some 30
years ago, with great force and effect, on the Catholic
question. It was said that the Catholics considered us es
heretics, and would act upon that belief in religious
question". But that was over-ruled • and there was no
pretence for saying that Catholics gal. interfered with
the Church of England. The Jews were even allowed to
present to benefices ; and in no case had any complaint
been made of the way in which they had exorcised their
rights. It had actually been stated in the other house
that the Jews were the subjects of the devil. (Laughter.)
The attempt to get up a religious cry against the Jews
was worthy of the dark ages ; and he regretted that it
bad proceeded from a gentleman of intelligence and reli-
gious feeling. It had also been said that Jews were mem-
bers of the inquisition, and that they were the original
Jesuits. What was the authority for this ? Nothing nose.,
than a pepuler novel, by a member of the present Go-
vernroent—Coningeby. (Laughter.) Then it was sail
they were a separate nation, a race of sojeur,iere, I cok-
ing forward to removal at no distant period. Were they
not as enterprising, loyal, and industrieu,s, as other
classes ? On all occasions when they were freed from op-
pression they evinced great talent. A remarkable in-
stance of this was found in the Jews of Germany ; the
moment their liberties were restored many eminent men
arose amongst them, di- tingulshed in literature and sci-
ence. (The noble and learned lord enumerated several,
but the names did not reach the gallery.) He trusted
that this was the Jest time the bill would be discusseJ,
and the last time it would be necessary for him to urge
the claims of the Jews upon their lordships. (Hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of DESA.RT,
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said the noble and
learned lord had admitted that if the question was to he
argued on religious grounds, the objections to the admis-
sion of the Jews were unanswerable. He admitted they
were good citizens and among the most peaceable of
hear
Majesty's subjects. The highest title of the Qaeen was
that of defender of the faith. The highest Sate cere-
mony, the coronation of the sovereign, was a religious
act; and in that ceremony her Majesty declared that she
would defend the Christian religion to the utmost of her
power. Their lordships had been reminded, too, that their
proceedings were always inaugurated by solemnly in-
voking a blessing upon their deliberations in the name
of the Divine Founder of our Faith, If the measure be-
fore the house passed into law, a most formidable step
would have been taken towards undermining the Chris-
tian character of the constitution. (Hear.) There was
Only too much reason to think that if any number of Jews
ever became members of either house, it would be found
necessary either to omit the preliminary prayers, or
to omit from those prayers the name of Christ. At all
events, he had heard of a case in which a Jew had in-
sisted upon the omission of the phrase " Christian"sym-
pathy from the prospectus of a public subscription, and
bad succeeded in having the document altered to suit his
views. (Hear.) But he (the noble duke) had another ob-
jection to the bill. He wished to know why Jews should
be treated more favourably than Roman Catholics ?
(Hear.) By the present law a Roman Catholic could not
nominate to any ecclesiastical appointment. He could
not hold any office in the universities. He could not pre-
sent to any benefice. He could not advise the Crown
upon any ecclesiastical appointment ; and he coald not
hold certain offices under the Crown. But the only one
of these restrictions proposed to be enforced against the
Jew was that he should not boll certain offices ; but he I
might be the Prime Minister or Privy Councill-r, in the I
former of which capacities he would have to advise her
Majesty as to the appointment of the chief pastors of
the Established Church. (Hear.) The other evening the
noble and learned lord (Lord Lyndhurst) had ridiculed ,
with inirnitabt eeet
Pwera bill which had been brought in I
Chief by the Lord Justine, because the convocation
would not be a lawfeuantinneeting assembled for a lawful
m
purpose within the
of that bill ; but what would
the noble and learned lord meaning of
if he were an (woe-
nent of the present measure, toe said,arini enactmentl by which a i
Jew, as a member of the Privy c
'
judge of Christian doctrine ? (Cheers.)le'
T
cenoluded by adjuring their lordships,eshileight become ahe noble duke
respect to the principle of civil and religious
w picalhien:gt wt yeLne ever
to sanction the abuse of the phrase, by h
often made to mean the separation el Church and Stets:
(Laud cheers.)
Lord STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE wished, atter I
the reference which had been made to the country in
which he bad passed so large a portion of his life, to offer
a few observations upon the question before the house.
The noble and learned lord (Lord Lyndhurst) with that
sagacity and love of justice which distinguished him in
so remarkahle a manner, had brought to his recollec-
tion that which was perfectly correct, namely that in
Turkey, where the great rational reform that was ,