The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-23 00:00:00

EVENING, IVIARCH 23, 1858

TUESDA Y

his system from the Talmud and from traditions which
hal been productive of so much misery to the Jewish na-
tion. Few people seemed to know what Judaism was,
or its fatal effects upon the Jewish people. In the inte-
rest of the Jew it had been asked whether the mere pro-
fession of Judaism mentally disqualified Jews from the
functions of legislators? Should not some cause be found
which disqualified them also from participating in the
general responsibilities of societies ? St. Paul had long
ago answered this question when he said that the Jews
would remain judicially blind until the fulness of
theGeutileshadcomein. The traditions of the Jews
rendered them anti-social, and made them a separate
nation. A work had recently appeared from the pen of
Earl Grey—a work which would well repay perusal. In
that book the noble earl contented that the representa-
tions by the noble lord the member for the city of Lon-
don had operated prejudicially to his success as a Miois-
ter, and that the late Sir R. Peel had enjoyed much
greater personal freedom as the representative of Tarn-
worth. The noble lord had been forced into carrying
out the views of his constituents on this quession. There
was abundant testimony to show that the religion of the
Jews acted prejudicially upon their mental vigour and
action ; as instead of determining questions of morality
in a spirit of independence, they slavishly followed the
traditions of their religion. Dr. M`Ceul, in no spirit of
i hostility to the Jews, but n a fair spirit of criticism,
distinctly affirmed that the oral laws cf the Jews had
been so much multiplied, that it was quite absurd to
suppose that they could be committed to memory. That
learned person also snowed that these oral laws loosened
the moral obligations, taught men how to evade the
Divine commands, permitted dispensations, the extermi-
nation of the " uo learned," and effected other tie:forte-
nate resu'te, much to be lamented. The elder Disraeli,
in his "Genius of Judaism," dwelt eloquently upon the
tyranny of the religion taught by the Pharisees ; and yet
it was sought to in!r9duce men into the legislature who
would act in the spirit of that tyranny. Tne doctrines of
the Joe ish religion were immoral, and the practices
sanctioned were equally so. The present practice of the
Jews was affected by theirdectrinee. He cause to the
second point, that the religion of the Jews was anti-
rational. That was admitted by the Jews themselves.
The hon. gentleman quoted from a pamphlet called
"British Emancipation, by David Anderson," in support
of his views. The Jews were tame, not by the accident
of their birth, but by the precepts of their religion. Their
doctrines constituted them aliens from this country.
This was shown in a recently published sermon of the
chief rabbi Adler. The Jews were to be found in all sorts
of characters. Why, it was even said that the first Jesuits
were Jews. There WAS now a similarity of objects be-
tween the Jews and the Jesuits. Never had the Roman
Catholics joined in upholding the Christian character of
the legislature. Those who wished to break down the
coestitution of the country used this question fi,r their
object. They wished to introduce Judaism into the house,
and thereby minister to the despotism which existed
abroad. He spoke in behalf of the freedom of this coun-
try. Those who desired to separate the Church from the
State wore the most ardent in their support of this mea-
sure. All the enemies of the Constitution were agreed in
support of the measure. The Jew despised tie Christian
faith. It had been said that if the Je we were admitted to
the Legislature, the affairs of the L gislature would go
on just the same. Now, what occurred in Amsterdam ?
In 1850 the Jews were admitted to the corporation of
that city, and then the prayer with which that asseuAly
usually opened its proceedings was abandoned. It might
be said that was a trifling instance, but he would show
how that vicious system was spreading. The name of
Jesus was was exeluded from all the prayers u-ed in the
national schools, in order not to offend the Jews. That
showed how just were the apprehensions of those in this
country, who viewed the present measure with alarm.
In forcing this measure on, the noble lord was running
counter to the feelings of his unoffeuding countrymen.
Many people supposed that the Jews were relaxing their
submission to the rabbis. The proof that that was not so
was to be found in the fact that the Jews had rejected
the test which had been applied to them is Prussie. That
was a test renouncing doctrines which were subversive
of the Christian religion. This measure was a proposal
to exalt a religion which denied the divinity of the
Divine Author of our religion. He could not think such
a measure was consistent with the prayer of that house.
He could not hope after the passing of this measure
that the country would be prosperous. Those who
supported the measure would sin against freedom, whose
foundation was Christianity.
Mr. GILPIN, in opposing the amendment, main-
tained that not only the principles of re igioue libsrty
bat the dignity of Christianity itself, would be promoted
by the removal of Jewish disabilities.
Mr. DRUMMOND admitted the political propriety
of the measure, which admitted Jews to Parliament,
but believed that it was altogether incompatible with a
maintenance of tha union of church and state.
BYNG observed that toleration was the life-
blood of the Christian religion. One relic of intolerance
still remained in our code, indirect in its operation, and
introduced for the purpose of prohibiting a Jew from
entering the legislature. He called on the house to
obiterate the last trace of the ancient disabilities.
Lord R. CECIL insisted that the functions of par-
liament were to a great extent connected with tee dis-
cussion of religious questions. Oa this ground he argued
that no one was fit to be a legislator who did not profess
the national religion.
Mr. HUGHESSEN opposed the amendment.
After some explanation from Mr. T. DUNCOMBE,
Mr. C. FORTESCUE contended that the clause it
was proposed to cancel was the best and most important
feature in the bill.

Mr. WALPOLE said that the question had been so
often before the house, and was of so painful a nature ;
it was so wearisome to travel over the same ground again,
that he wag somewhat unwilling to occupy the house ;
but as the question was again brought before them, he
felt bound to state the reasons, though so often repeated,
why he adhered to a course founded on his conviction of
the eternal compact between God and man. (Hear.)
He did not condemn the Jews for their social or moral
qualities ; on the contrary, he would say that their
obedience to the law of this country, their studious care
of their own people so remarkable, that there was only
one instance in history of a Jew receiving relief from his
parish. (Hear.) Their charities were not confined to
their own people, but extended to those from whom they
differed with the most liberal hand, were considerations
which, if this were a question of dealings and not cf
principle, would induce him to support the measure.
He should state the sole ground on which he opposed
the measure, and if he said anything wrong the noble
lord would have an opportunity of answering him, But
he wished to exclude not only the consideration of the
personal character of the Jews, but also the suggestion of
the hon. member for Mildlesex that they were keeping
out the Jews by certain accidental words. Ho believed
that they were excluded, not by those words, but in con-
sequence of an inability inherent in themselves of amal-
gamating with the people and institutions of the coun-
try, which nobody would even have thought that they
ceell get rid of but for this discussion. At the time
those words were enacted there were no Jews amongst
them, and the case was all the stronger as they were not
eattluded by any express enactment, but because it was
hat none but Christians would ever
o
as members of this house. One point
takenffer t
themselves
selve granteds
had been much presiel by the hon. member for Sheffield,
and seemed to have weight with many members of this
house, that there was nothing in this declaration which
could make Christians of them—(hear, hear)—and that
Bolingbroke and others had taken their seats notwith-
standing. It was not contended that it would make
Christiane, but to get a profession of that faith which
Parliament had thought that a man ought to profess
before being allowed to take part in the legislation.
That declaration was a homage which down to this
period they had been bound to pay to Christianity at
the table of the house—(hear, hear)—and being paid
they had certainly deterred the bad and encouraged the
good, and it warned them that that was the only prin-
ciple on which they were prepared to legislate. (Hear,
hear.) He wished one topic had been excluded from the
debate relative to Roman Catholics—viz., that because
there was large numbers of them in this country emanci-
pation, as it was called, was conceded, and an inference
hal been drawn by the right hon. member who used the
hear) ;--but the/ carried no
argument, that what was granted to the many was
‘Valpole's) mind, because(' ho cared
—(hear,
rweef
iu;he dt t too h
itsh e(s,ficirw.
not whether ma, or many were to be affected by a change ;
all he wanted was for it to be proved that the thing
was j;Ht— (cheers)—for if a thing was not igroved right
in i
according
to all priuciptee, the fact
of numbers element to be left out of ea'-
celatien, boa use by wise legislation regard must be had
to the voice o; the many, and sati-fy them rather than
the few, though by this measure they were attempting to
'le then,
hNoeTs
not
an
satesfy the few out cf doors on the ground of expediency,
which was a reason that ought to weigh against their
ado i sign ra her than fir it. He accepts I the challenge
often given by the noble lord the member fur Loudon as
to the right of a person belonging to this country to en-
joy all its privileges, and if he (Mr. Walpole) were to be
asked fairly to state the case on butte sides, he should
say that the promoters and supporters of the bill urged
ai a matter of right that every person prima facie was
entitled to claim the privilege, if elected, of si ting in
Parliament—(laud cheers from the supporter-)—and that
no religious feeling ought to exclude him—(renewed
cheers) —or, if it Old, it was according to the noble lord's
opinion, a species of intollerance and persecution, and
to apply the case to Bares, Retlaschild was a positive
wrong to the constituency of London in depriving them
of their representative, and then they elected him, so de-
priving him of his seat. (Hear.) If they took the side
of the opponents of the bill, they fourol it urged there
was no such thing in these matters as positive right.
(Cneers from the Opposition.) The right or privilege of
legislating was a trust or responsibility imposed on those
clothed with it, subject to such qualifications as were
previously laid down, as were considered right f.)r the
proper disc' urge of that trust. It was so in all coun-
tries, from inexperience, women, because they attended
to their dome-tic duties—(loud laughter)—'hey ex-
cluded p,rions eiteout a certain fortune because they
waisted ineirp ilidsbea ; they excluded the clergy because
they should cenflae themselves to their pa-terel duties ;
and they excluded though naturalized, for two 1
reasoes, laid down ia Queen Anne's time—viz.,
psi tie, because they owed allegiance to another, and
partly because their notions of law, liberty, rend religiou
were different from our own—(sheers)--it being es,,en-
tial that as our own laws were based on Christianity, no
one sisuuld have a voice in changing those laws who was
not itiflectic,d by Christian feelings.(Cheer:.) It
cerne tberef re to this, were there or were there not a
right in the Jew to be admitted to Parliament—(loud
cheers)—and if there to such a right it was evident it
wu-t be either in the constituency represented, t,r in the
p r.or :epiesenting it, or partly both. The right of con-
stituencies was to elect those who were eligible—(hear)
—and if London, or any other place elected a person
whom the law declared to be ineligible and lust their re-

presentation, the fault was with them, and not whi the

house, and they had nooTelo complain of but them-

selves. (Hear, hear.) And that brought him to the
' conclusion from which he thought the noble lord would
not displace him, that no such actual right existed in
• constituencies, and then arose the question of the right
• of the person elected, which he should be told turned on
civil and religions liberty. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord the member for London had defined it in his own
book to be civil liberty—the liberty of person and pro-
perty consistent with the laws of the land—and religious
liberty, the fullest and freest power of exercising the re-
ligious opinion in a way most agreeable to their own
consciences provided the interference of those rights did
not interfere with the consciences of others or endanger
the public peace—(hear)—though Lord Lyndhurst had
somewhat more extended it to the right of enjoyment
and privileges in a country unless there be some perma-
nent cause to the contrary—(hear)—and the question
was whether, seeing that al: tees° ieetitutione were
based on Christianity, and they had a Christian Queen
that was not a permanent cause against the Jew, and it
being, as he had stated, both with regard to civil and re-
ligious liberty; he thought Boron Rothschild bad no right
to be received within the walls of that house. (Cheers)
That being so, the only question remaining was the ex-
pediency of altering the LANs or not. To that it might
be urged that it was expedient in order to satisfy and to
gratify a most respectable body of men, faithful to the
Government and obedient to the laws, against which
might be not the alarm and shock it would give to the
religious feelings of the great body of the people, and if
it was expedient to respect the scruples of the Jew, was
it less expedient to respect the religiousscruples of their
fellow Christians (Ilear, hear.) Rather than that they
should believe that by the Exclusion of words 1104 taken
at the table of the house they were making Christianity
to retreat before them, to satisfy the objections enter-
tained by a few who had no faith ia it. Tieat, probably,
was the last time he should have the pain of making a
speech on the subject from that place—(loud laughter)—
but ha could not refrain from imploring the house
against the fatal step of admitting Jews to Parliament.
If they did not admit the Jaw as now proposed, he
hoped they would not have recourse to a conflict in the
other house in seating him byresclution, because nothing
on earth would allow him to consent to their putting
the House of Commons above the House of Lords. He
had always bean against the admission of the Jews to
Parliament, and he hoped heshould never have to speak
again on this painful subject, and in concluding his re-
marks he thought he could not do better than make an
observation which would illustrate his meaning better
than any arguments he could use. When first the noble
lord brought forward his [notion relative to the Jews,
which was shortly after he (Mr Walpole) got into Par•
liament, he took part in the discussion, and at the eon-
elusion of the debate he was induced to see a Jew of
great eminence, and of great ability, and for whom he
bad the highest respect, and who pointed out for an
hour to him (Mr. Walpole) the reasons which he con•
sidered ought to influence him in changing his
opinion. The reasons were ably urged, but there
were two points on which his arguments mainly
turned—one was to convince him (Mr. Walpols) that
his ancestors were not in the Holy Land when the cruci-
fixion took place, and the other a greater desire to con-
viu.pe him that if he were in his (Mr. Walpole's) positior,
he would really do towards him (Mr. Walpole) what he
was doing towards the Jew. (Cheers.) With reference
to his first argument he (Mr. Walpole) said he was
ready to believe him the Jews being scattered over the
earth when the crucifixion took place ; but with regard
to the other, ha asked him a question that pointed out
to him (Mr. Walpole) in the plainest, clearest, and most
distinct meaner the reason that appeared to his mind
why he should not consent to the admission of the
Jews into Parliament. He (Mr. Walpole)' asked the
Jew to put himself back three thousand years—(load
laughter)—and to suppose they were both lining in
Palestine at the tine of the appointment of the judges,
the Jew a descendant of Abraham, and he (Nlr. Wal-
pole) a heathen ; and he asked him if he would have
had him as a judge ; to which, like an honest Jew, he
answered " No"—(loud cheers from the opponents of the
bill). Such, then, were his reasons for opposing the ad•
mission of Jews to Parliament ; and he thought it
would be difficult for them to displace him from the po-
sition he had assumed, especially when he was standing
up for what existed from time immemorial in this
country, and which the monarchs on our Throne were
bound to maintain at the time of the coronation, anti
which the judges of our land bad laid down as part and
parcel of our laws, and on which Lord Hardwicke had
said depended the constitution and gsvernment of our
country. Teat house and Parliament had recognised
that principle, and however much he might personally
respect the integrity of the Jew—esteem his moral
qualities—his patience, endurance, and his ex-
tensive charity, and he was asked to change the
whole policy and principles of our institutions net.
had but one answer, and that was the same as the Jews
who told him he would adhere to his nationality, and
he (Mr. Walpole) would have the house and the coun-
try adhere to theirs, and he did so advisedly in the
words of the oath, on "the true faith of a Chri-tiara.
(Hear, hear.)

.
Mr. MAdUIRE said that the Roman Catholics had
always shown the greatest sympathy for the Jews. They
would rather have had one measure brought in for the
Jew, but as the noble lord had introduced a bill affect-
ing the oaths applicable to all, and had the Roman
Catholics allowed the oath required of them to have
passed without comment, they would be told hereafter
of their silence, and it would have been urged against
them that they acquiesced in it. He c untended that
the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary had laid
down an untenable proposition in regard to the right of
the citizens of London to return Baron 11. )thschild, see-
ing that the returning officer could not have refused to
return the same as he could an alien, a clergyman, a
bankrupt, and so on. The position of the Jew was cer-
tainly very different to what it was some years since.
They could not now take from him his money, his teeth,
put him in prison, and infliot ,tripes ou him, but they
deprived him of the privilege of Bitting in that assembly.
An appeal had been made to Christianity, but he con-
sidered their conduct in reference to the Jew was any-
thing but in accordance with the precepts of that holy
religion, which the honourable member ,for North War-
wickshire imagined was only to be found on his side of
the house. The Roman Ca•hol.es had always sup-
ported the noble lord on this question, and would do
so now.

Mr. ROEBUCK congratulated the house on the dis-
tinction that had been drawn by the Home Secretary and
the honourable member for North Warwickshire, rela-
tive to the estimation in which they held the Jews
of this coantry. He characterised the oaths as
n.eless to test a man's rEligi,m, and instanced the cases
of Gibbon and B,llingbroke, who took the oaths con-
taining the words "on the true faith of a Christian,"

which, he said, went to show that the oath, whilst it did
not exclude men of no religion, did conscientious men
and men of religion, and urged it was no test as to the
Christian character of the assembly. The real opposition
to the bill was based .on the word right, and he quite
agreed with the right hon. gentleman the Home Secre-
tary that the Jews hat no other rights than those con-
ferred on them by law ; but yet men who were good
fathers and cit;zens were excluded from that house be-
ulnae they did not behave as the right hon. gentleman
believed. (Hear.)

Mr. WALPOL.E—As the country bePeves.
Mr. ROEBUCK—As the country believed ; but the
Quaker, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian believed as
the country believed ail more than the Jew, yet they
admitted all the others but excluded the Jew, and he
defied the house to say there was universal belief ih this
country on this subject. The Jew believed a great deal
of what they believed, and they believed a great deal of
what the Jew believed, and most of their moral precepts
were based on the book which the Jew believed in. This
was a question of expediency and not religion, as had
been said by the hon. member for East Surrey, and he
(Mr. Roebuck) was prepared to maintain that by admit-

tine Jews to Parliament they would not endanger the
legislation of the country. It was idle to talk of the Chri-
stianity of that house, and he defied them to prove that
because a man took the oath prescribed by law at
that table, he was a Christian. He urged that so long
as the Jew fulfilled all the duties of a good citizen he
was entitled to its privileges : and said that if he were
a Jew they should not exclu le him. He would take
the oath repeating the words "on the true faith of a
Christian," adding, "this has no erect on me, but as
the law requires it, I comply to it, and make the decla-
ration. (Cheers, and bear, hear.) If the Jew would
say boldly, "I am a Jew, but I will take the oath,"
what ought that man to be ashamed of? The shame
should be on the house which rej cted him. If that

had been done 10 or 12 years ago, when he recom.
mended it, th -7 would Lave heard no more of this matter.

Year after year the tide of ro!igiottit toli..rati4n had been
rolling on, and he had never seen it turned back. He
hoped he never should. Very soon he hoped we should
be what we ought to be, a really tolerant people.
Sir R. BETEIELL said he had never heard a speech
to which he had listened with greater pleasure than that
of the Home Secretary. Ills wor.ls were bona verba,
and heralded the approach of that which they all wished
to see, viz., toe close of this lengthened controversy.
(Hear.) He hailed the speech with gratitude, and he
was perfectly sure that thosi around him would not
falsity its excellent eff,ct. (C:leers.) The right hon.
gent,ernan stated that he had given the entire argument
against the Jaw as pervaded upon the nature of the
oath, and he admitted that the Jew was never within
the intention of the legislatios to observe the oath, and
therefore the Jew was deprived of his birthright by a
fraudulent interpretation of the law. (Hear.) Nothing
could show greater moral impiety than thus to pervert
the law to a purpose for which it was never intended.
He had the authority of the judges for saying that the
oath was never meant to aiiply to the Jew, and that
therefore he ought never to have been brought under i
provisions. The right hon. gentleman had urged that
the oath was necessary in order to bring men in accord•
ance with the institutions of the country ; but what in-
stitutions welt) there, except Parliament, to which the
Jews were not eligible I Civil and religion: liberty he
was entitled t,, and the only thing he was t xeladed
from was political liberty. He (Sir R. Batheli) differed
from the hon. member for Shrffield that men had no
right to politics' libt-rly, for it was only the fag end of
this miserable oath that_ deprived him of But the
right hon. goat'ernan (gr. Walpole) committed a.iother
very serious 'error in his arguiuents. He (Sir B.
Eethell) alluitted that any disqualifications might
be imposed which legislation required, but •he
contended that all ghoul,. be treated alike, and
the disqualitioltions should he imposed upon general
principles. (Hear.) To the Jews this was a fraudulent
application of the portion of the statute. A Jew was
capable of being eledted, but he could not take his seat.
That was surely an 4coliaiy from which the legislature
was called upon to emancipate itself. If this bill should
again be rejected else-where he (Sir R. Bothell) pledged
himself to move a resolution similar to that pr.: posed by
the right hoe. gentleman the member fir Droitwicla
(Sir J. Pakiogton) in committee last August, that, iu
the opinion of the .committelt, the words of sections 8,5,

and 6 William IV., c. 6, should be included. The House
of cernmous would thereby be empowered to make the
substitution of a declaration instead of an oath. (Hear.)
If this great public obj-mt could not be accomplished by
any other means he would give the house before this
session terminated an opportunity of adopting the lan-
guage then so well used by the now First Liird of the
Admiralty.
Mr. WIGRAM thought that the use which had been
made of the resolution did not accurately express that
which the right hon. gentleman meant.. There was ano-
ther question agitated in the committee, which wee,
whether it was o impetent to the house to omit tee
words "on the true faith of a Christian ;" and the
other question never came under consideration. It was
perfectly true that those words were introduced without
any intention to exclude the Jews, for there were no
Jews then in the country ; but since that time they had
been reintroduced into various acts, and theref :re they
were made to have a direct application to the Jews. The
question was, with what view were the words inserted
in the act of George 111 ? Undoubted!), they were intro-
duced into the act of George 111. with a full knowledge
that they would tend to the exclu-ion of the Jews, whose
claim had at that time been before the Legislature.
Nothing could be more fallacious than to urge that Jews
were excluded by a fraudulent perversion of the statute,
for every time the words on the true faith of a Chris-
tian" were inserted since their original introduction they
were made to have special reference to the Jews.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in asking the house to
give him its attention for a short time, he was very happy
to say that there were some parts of the argument to
which it would be unnecessary for him to advert. That
portion of the argument to which the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr. Walpole) bad referred to the origin of the
oath had been frequently discussed, and though he held
the opinion which had been so elaborately expressed by
Bi.ron Alderson in his able judgment, he should not
think it necessary to go into that part of the question.
He was likewise relieved from taking any notice of the
speech of the bon. member fur Warwickshire, of those
painful accusations in which he had indulged in refer-
ence to the moral character of the Jews, because they
had been scattered to the winds by the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for the University of Cambridge,
who had most fairly spoken with regard to the Jews,
who bad gensrously acknowledged the fairness of their
characters, of the high station many of them held, and
which made it desirable that those amongst them who
were elected should be admitted to seats in that house.
The right hon. gentleman had argued throughout in the
fairest possible manner, and there were many parts of
his argument in which he fully and entirely agreed with
him. The right hon. gentleman had stated that the City
of London had no right to elect as its representative one
who was disqualified by law, and that no person so die-
coalified had a right- to his seat while the law which dis-
qualified him was In existence. He (Lord J. Russell)
quip admitted that Baron Rothschild, unless the law
permitted him, had no right to come there and claim his
seat ; but he thought the City of Lond in had a perfect
right to elect him. The electors had a perfect right to
say that unless it was shown to them that there were fair
reasons for the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament the
Legislature ought to admit the person whom they
elected, and in whom they had confidence, that the
doors of the House of Commons ought to be tbrowis
open to that man. (Hear, bear.) The right hon.
gentleman said that in certain cases this Legis-
lature made rules for the non-admission of certain p -rsoris
within its walls. That was perfectly true, but he (Lord J.
Russell) contended that those should be equal, reason-
able rules, framed upon settled principles, and; therefore,
he thought it was the right of a British subject, unless it
could be shown that there was a positive and absolute
right to exclude him, to admit him to the privileges to
which he had been elected. (Hear, hear.) Novi, the
right hon. gentleman had said that certain persons were
excluded—persons under 21 years of age, for instance,
and women. He must say that there should be a certain
age fixed, under which persons should not be admitted
to seats in Parliament. For example, a boy of 10 or 11
years of age could hardly be qualified to sit there, and
therefore there must be some limit with regard to age.
As to the exclusion of women, be would not say whether
there might not be some other reasons for their exclu-
sion than those the right hon. gentleman had mentioned.
(Laughter.) It was a principle which they might admit
on general grounds, that only men should be entitled to
seats in that helm. But when the right hon. gentleman
said it was another ground of admission, that persons
should have a certain amount of property, he must say
he doubted whether the want of property was a suffi-
cient ground of exclusion. (Cheers.) But that was not
th question they bee to discuss that night. A boy of 10
or 14 years of age might look forward to the time when
he might have a seat in Parliament, but, when a com-
paratively poor man said he could bear the expense of a
seae in Parliament, it might, with some reason be said,
that if he could bear the expense he ought to sit. But
the right hon. gentleman proceeded to say, that the ex-
clusion of Jews was a right exclusion, and that it ought
to be maintained. That was evidently a beneficial ex-
clusion. A Jew had as much property as his Christian
neighbour—he carried on business as a respectable
man, he paid all taxes imposed upon a Christian, and
he bad a right to say—why, if I differ only in religion,
am Ito be excluded ! To that proposition the right
hon. gentleman had given a most unsatisfactory answer,
or he said that nothing provided fur it but this, that
all our laws were based on Christianity. (Hear ) When
they had questions with regard to other subjects in that
house, as he had observed sometimes before, he did not
find that this common Christianity, of which so much
was said, was such a bond of union as it was when it
was applied to the Jews. The bon. member for Stam-
ford had spoken of the many shades of Christianity from
the High Church principles of the Catholics down to
nearly the Deism, where all hail a common basis, but he
remembered the time when people said in phrases just
as good, that our laws were founded upon Protestantism,
and Lord Eldon, amongst others, used to argue that
question most ingeniously. He used to say that until
the Revolution, we had dissensions and perpetual dis-
turbances ; but that after the Revolution of 1688, when
the laws were founded upon Protestantism, everything
was quietness and peat-, and that they could not admit
Roman Catholics into Parliament without endangering
the principles of the Constitution. That was an excel-
lent argument at that time, but it was founded upon this
principle—l am right, but you are wrong, therefore
Jews must be excluded. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Afterwards it was said to the Catholics, you are wrong,
but you are strong, therefore you must be admitted. To
the Jew they are said, you are wrong, but you are like-
wise weak, therefore you must be excluded. (Hear,
hear.) That was the rule upon which the present ex-
clusion was still kept up. It had been said in another
place that there were only 40,000 Jews in England,and
that therefore they might safely be excluded from the
walls of Parliament. The serve feeling of intolerance
which once excluded the Catholic still excluded the Jew,
and he contended tbat that was entirely a wrong as a
basis of public police, and the sooner we get rid of it
the better it would be for the welfare and prosperity of
the country. (Cheers.) He thought that in discussing
this question men were apt to confound things of a dif-
ferent nature, namely, artiotee of faith and questions of
religious principle. -With regard to articles of faith, they
could not found a community upon Christianity generally;
they must found a community upon the Roman Catho-
lic religion or the Established Church of this country,
or the principles of Congregationalism, or these of the
Baptists, or some definite principles of religious feith and
agreement. That was the only basis upon which it could
be accomplished. But when they came to political aseern-
blies, they did not want agreement upon particular ques-
tion,, and that was not to be obtained from any basis of
religious truth, it was not be got at by oaths, but by the
general feeling of the community. He had heard Gibbon
aril Bolingbroke spoken of as taking religious tests, but
the Jews bad not that basis of religion upon which mem-
bers of Parliament were now admitted. And yet the
principles upon which we acted .were taken to a great
extent from those books which the Jews had handed
down to us, and in which they placed implicit faith. If
they were people who held that heft and murder were
justified, that they were right in bearing false witness
against their neighbours, the hon. member for Warwick-
shire might say they were unfit to sit in that house, and
twat they ought to oe excluded ; but if they possessed
tho e religious: principles and that foundation which he
had described, he contended that the Leg.slature was
tong in excluding them, for they were as well fitted as
others to legislVe ; and he thought there was infinitely
less chance on their part of raising those religious discus-
sions than there was on the part of the Christian sec's
who had representatives in that house. An hon. gentle-
man had said the other night that the house was per-
fectly decided on the subject of church rates, the grant
to Maynooth, church establishments, and secular ques-
tions, but these were macters which would arise not be-
tween Clwestians and Jews, but between one sect of
Christians and others, and be believed that they would
not find that Jews would be inclined to interfere in their
ecclesiastical establishments. Toe Jew was not by nature
or religion inclined to proselytism, but he was, on the
contrary, a faithful and quiet subject of the country in
which he lived. In Jamaica there was a council into
which Jews were admitted, and tkat council determined

what money should be devet3d to ecelea,iastical and religi
ous subjects. The .Jews voted as well as others for allow
ancos to tue E‘tabl.sned Church and the various roll-

gioua sects. (Hear, hear.) There was one expression
in the speech of the right hon. gentleman, which, like
the late Attorney-General, he heard with great deli-h•.
He was glad to hear the right hon. gentleman ray that
he hoped this was the ;ast time he should. have to speak
on that question. He sincerely trusted it might be the
last time. (Cheers.) He bad seen of late years that
there had been that symptom which he well remembered
on the Catholic question—a favourable symptom that
the contest was approaching to its termination, fer.raen
came down one after another, and acknowledled their
conversion to the principles of freedom. (Hear, hear.)
He remembered that on the last debate on this question.
the right hon. baronet, now the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty, came down to the house, and in a most able
speech declared himself to be in favolr of the admission
of the Jews to Parliament. He feared the present Ca-
binet was n'ot so unanimous as the last upon this sub-
ject, but still he thought that there were only three
members of the Cabinet who had seats in that house
who were opposed to the admission of the Jews, and
that he thought was a prognostic that this question
was approaching a favourable termination. He be-
haved the right hen. gentleman was entirely wrong
in supposing that the people of this country were
opposed to it. He,le-lieved the general feeling of the
country was that the time had come when the Jews
ought to be admitted into the house, and even if it were
not so, the house would be se,Aing a good example in
removing the restrictions which wrre at present imposed
Avon them. (Hear, hear.) If they looked back to former
times, they would find that there had beeo persecutions
of the most violent charact,r, gist pfrsons were put mo
death on account of their relOous opinions, but that wa,
now discountenanced by persons of all religious detomi-
nations. At a later period diffraeaters were prohibited