The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-17 00:00:00

THE JEW BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved the second reading of this
bill.

Mr. NEWDEGATE rose with the deepest regret to
oppose the progress of a measure which had received the
sanction of the vote if not received the approval of the
judgment, of the noble earl at the bead of the Govern-
ment. Atter the many repeated assurances be bad re-
ceived that he could sufficiently rely upon the deter-
mination of the noble earl at the head of the Govern-
ment to oppose the passing of the bill, it was with the
greatest grief and surprise that he had seen the noble
earl alter his determination, the more especially as there
was no occasion for his doing so. (Rear, hear.) He
did not believe that the bill represented the opinions of
the people of England on the question ; and he deeply
regretted that the noble earl had not recommended to
her Majesty to appeal to her faithful subjects and as-
certain their feoliegs with respect to the admission of the
Jews to Parliament. He deprecated the bill astending
to destroy the Christian character of the Legislature,
and as being founded on a principle entirely new to
their proceedings, on a principle calculated to overturn
the constitution of Parliament. The bill was no settle-
ment of this much-vexed question, while it mu-t in the
end utterly destroy the constitution of the country.
Mr. SPOONER, in opposing the motion, held the bill
to be a complete abandonment of the principle upon which
the constitution of the country rested.. He declared the
measure had been brought forward without necessity, and
merely to pAder to the demands of party politics. Ex•
pediency had done more to weaken the constitution of
England than the strongest attacks ever directly levelled
at it. He regarded the course taken by some gen tlemen
on that side of the house with respect to this measure as
a great dereliction ('f duty, and as calculated very much
to weaken the confidenoe of the country in Lord Derby's
Government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK believed that they could not destroy
the Christian character of the house without impairing
its influence in:the country. There was neither a ques-
tion of civil nor religious liberty mixed up with the agi-
tation upon the admission of Jews to the Legislature.
Hitherto the only result accruing from their agitation on
the subject had been to return the noble lord opposite for
the City of London, instead of for some small borough,
Hence he regarded the passing of this bill as moat lower-
ing to the character of Parliament. Since '46, when so
many statesmen removed their principles, so gross an act
of political tergiversation on the part of public men had
not been witnessed. Indeed, the present conduct was the
more degraded, for then the question at issue had simply
relation to commercial considerations, now they were
seen yielding up long-cherished religious convictions.
He expressed his sincere regret at the position the clues-
Men was now in, especially as the people who were op-
posed to the introduction of the Jews to Parliament
were not properly represented in that house. (Rear.)
The conduct of the other house in reference to this ques-
tion would suffer much in the estimation of the people.
(Hear, and " Divide.")
Mr. ADAMS was not surprised the noble lord the
member fir London had not recommended the second
reading of the bill in a long speech, because he did not
think it was cud] a one as the noble lord would have in-
troduced, but from a feeling of necessity he bad consented
to conduct it through the house. His objection was not
PO much to the prevention of the Jews to have seats in
Parliament as the principle of the form in which it had
been presented to the House of Commons. He denied
that this was a compromise. A man who was fit to sit
in the li,use of Commons was fit to have a seat
in the House of Lords, and he regretted the other house
should have adopted this bill, and rejected the other.
He thought it would have been more graceful in the
other branch of the Legislature if they had conceded the
first bill, instead of passing the bill now before the House
of Commons. Ties admission of the Jews into the House
of Commons had been conceded by the House of Lords
in a most offensive manner.

Lord J. RUSSELL said it was unnecessary for him
to go over t're arguments that had been used against the
admission of jaws to Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He
said that if he had been compelled to submit a resolu-
tion to the attention of the house for the seating of
Baron Rothschild, he should have done it in a full belief
that it was according to the law, but they would be pre-
vcnt,d from entering on that point if this bill were
passed. The bill had been sent there from the House of
Lords for their concurrence, and according to established
precedent he had introduced the bill for that purpose.
(Hear, hear.) He conceived the conduct of the House
of Lords had not been the most gracious, but considering
the difficulties of the question he considered the best
course f tr the house to pursue was to accept the bill.
Although this was a bill he could not have proposed, he
was glad to accept it as a mode of escape from the diffi-
colty in which they were placed, and that was why he
recommended the bill for a second reading. He believed
it would provide a practical solution of the difficulty.
With reference to the position of the Jew to the House
of Lords, the noble lord said that if her Majesty con-
ferred a peerage on a Jew he shou'd have no misgiving
as to the result. A diffeeence of opinion might then be
found to exist in the House of Lords, for they found the
sons of peers were in many instances wiser than their
fatLere. (hear, hear, and laughter.) He at_ked the
house to real the bid a second time,
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND aireed with those who eon•