The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-01 00:00:00

elements in the amendments which might be made this
basis of a compromise. He thought the house ought to
record their own opinions, whilst they consented to some
I sort of cn±u mi-o: The ho'lise shiitild.fiist decide whe-
ther they rzuold acoode to the amendment or not. (Hear.)
He hoped a reasonable compromise would be proposed
on one side or the other in the shape of a bill. This
would be the most straightforward and honest course,
and he hoped, therefore, that the motion for the adjourn-
ment would be withdraws. (Hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE felt considerable gratification at
the conciliatory tone adopted on the other side of the
house. (Hear, hear.) If the adjournment of the debate
took place fora fortnight, the position of their lordships
would not be prejudiced, and by taking that course time
would be afforded for some arrangement. By dealing a
hostile blow now, the House of Commons might be led
to retaliate. (Hear, hear.)
Earl PO WIS added his appeal in favour of adjourning
the debate.

The Earl of LUCAN" hoped that some peer possessing
more influence would introduce a bill embodying the
spirit of the amendment, which be was willing to with-
draw for the present.
Tne Earl of DERBY feared that by acceding to the
adi)ernment of this question, the motives with which it
was done would be mistaken. By delaying the consi-
deration of the subject it would be embarrassed. The
principle on which the house acted' would be waived if
the amendments they had made in the bill were aban-
doned. The best consideration he had been able to give
to this question, which had been rather unexpectedly
raised, id him to the belief that the house would be
sacrificing their opinions if they did not insist on the
amendment. At the same time an intimation could be
given that their lordships would be ready to give a dis-
passionate consideration to any bill which might be in-
troduced hereafter. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships then divided—
Contents—for the adjournment 68
Non-contEnts 80
Mejority —l2
The Earl of LUCAN hereupon said he believed the
general feeling was to proceed by bill, and he now with-
drew the amendment. •

Lord LYNDHURST rose to move that the house
would not insist on their amendment to the bill. It was
clear that in consistency the House of Commons could
not agree to the amendment which placed the Jaws in a
mere unfavourable position than they now were. (Hear,
hear.) The bill, as it now stood, was the first overt act
of the Legislature excluding the Jews. At present they
were only excluded by the misapplication and miaappre,
hension of a particular clause in an Act of Parliament
never intended to apply to the Jews. (Hear.) The ab-
surdity of attempting to fix this act upon the Jews was
patent, as might be seen by a reference to the act sup-
posed to exclude them. The act empowered two jus-
tices of the peace to compel a man to take the oath of
abjuration, and if he refused he was to be adjudged
the prna'ty a taching to a " Popish recusant."
(Latghter.) So that a Jew was to be turned into
a Christian a Catholic Christian —.first and a
Protestant Christian afterwards. (Hear, hear.)
The House of Commons would have stultified itself if it
had adopted the amendment. If this bill was rejected,
it would be necessary to revert tothe oath of abjuration
—an oath repugnant to many persons. To abjure the
descendar.ti of the Pretender was a solemn mockery—
(hear)—and those who eontinued that oath were guilty
of such mockery. (Hear, hear.) But what was the
present position of this question ? A member of the
Jewish persuasion has been three times elected to the
House of Commons. That individual could vote for a
Speaker, sit upon a committee, be its chairman, and
perhaps, by his casting vote, decide some important
question. A Jew might be a barrister And argue before
their lordships— he might presot.t a petition at their bar.
The oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, this
gentleman was ready to take mu the manner most bind-
ing to his conscience ; but this amendment insisted that
he should take those oaths in a form not binding on bin
conscience. How was it possible that this monstrous
absurdity could be continued i The House of Commons
Lad repeatedly asked the house to yield the point, and
be believed that a general anxiety existed to put an end
to the present anomaly. Iu any matters affeetingtlae con-
stituencies, re pular rights, and civd and religious liberty,
it behoved their lordships to rest their opposition
on reason and justice. Did their lordships think they
were safe in resisting this appeal ? Upon a question of
this kind their lordships ought not to rely simply on
reason and authority, but should seek the cooperation
tf the people. That people were represented by the
House of o)mmions. Five successive Parliaments, by
increasing majoriti, s, had reaffirmed the will of the
people in this respect. As to compromising their dig-
city in yielding., let it be remembered that the House of
Commons could also stand upon that ground. Foreign-
ers wondered how three independent bodies, forming the
legi,lature, could work harmoniously—a very natural
sentiment ; hut-the 13,glish people were trained to con-
ciliation, and to mutual concessions, hence the harmo-
nious working of the State machine. (Hear.) Some
persons were of opinion that " toleration" was all that
was required. This was a very narrow .view of the
subject, and had never been accepted by the friends of
civil and religious liberty. It was " persecution" to
shut out men from the opportunities of fair distinction.
He had recently read a speech delivered in the House of
Commons 30 years ago, in favour of Jewish emancipa-
tion, by an orator new a member of their lordships'
house (Gerd Macaulay). Would that the powerful and
felicitous advocacy of that noble lord could now be ac-
tively enlisted in favour of the emancipation of ;he Jews:
(Hear.) The noble and learned lord moved that their
lordships do rot insist upon their amendment in the bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that not only legal
ability but personal interest had entered into the
framing of the Commons' " reasons." If they meant
to melee an impression on their lordships and produce
an extr,orclinary effsot, their lordships certainly had re-
ceived them with in st provoking coolness. The reasons
astigned by the House c f Commons began with no rea-
son, but a fact in reference to the words " on the true
Lath of a Chrhtian," and which had been conceded over
and over again. The words were never intended to apply
to Jews, but whilst accepting that concession the House
of Commons forget that there was a declaration follow-
ing the taking of the oath, that all members of Parlia-
ment should be Christians. The House of Commons said
the exclusion of persons from Parliament or office was a
violation of the maxim of freedom of conscience, but he
was at a loss to understand what was meant in this in-
stance by the maxim of freedom of conscience, and the
cx.ression in another of the reasons that the Jews should
not be deprived of their fair share of legislative power.
Persons were entitled in a free country to all civil rights,
but not to political rights, unless granted to them by the
community, and not as a matter of course. The icflic-
Con of disabilities on persons on account of their religion
was persecution, but in the case of the Jew he was not
ex,:livled en the ground of his faith, but from his bosti-
-I,ty to the principles on which the Government was esta-
blished. The noble and learned lord, after critically en
&mining other portions cf the resolution, said if their
lord hips gave way in this instance on the ground that
the bill had been repeatedly passed in the House of Com-
mons by large majorities, their lordships would have to
do the same in the case of church rates and marriage
with a deceased inter ; whereas, as was well known
to their lordships, the large majority of the people were
against these measures. There had been no decided ex-
pression of feeling by the majority of the people in favour
of the admission of the Jews to Parliament; and were
the question to be put to them, he thought that the
apathy of the people would change to hostility, and the
majority of the people would be found to be against the
measure. He felt rather relieved when he found such a
result of the united wisdom of the House of Commons,
as these reasons, which, in reality, furnished none for
their lordships departing from the resolution of a pre-
vious night.

Earl GRANVILLE asked the noble lord if he in-
tended to divide on the question again that night, because
be (Lord Granville) thought the division that had
already been taken that night bad virtually decided the
criettion, and he congratulated their lordships on the ad-
vance the question had that night made in their lord-
ships' house. After what had transpired, he suggested
the noble lcrd (Lord Lyndhurst) should turn his atten-
tion with the Government to the question, and produce
a measure that would set this question at rest for ever.
If not, he (Earl Granville) should'vots for the resolution.
Lord BROUGHAM joined his noble friend in urging
the suggestion on the noble lord.
LorJ LYNDHURST—I accept it with the hope of
support from her Majesty's Government.
Their lordships' amendments were then agreed to
without a division.
THIRD READINGS.
The following bills were read a third time:—Bristol
Municipal Charities ; Harvey's Charity ;.St. Mary Mag.
dalen's (Newcastle) Charity ; Cowlay's Charity ; Bristol,
BILL. St. NicholaFshaAnisrdcSat.lLseßonparßdissCohNasri
This bill passed through committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER'S