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

THE SUN, LONDON' TUESDAY EVENING,

truth, but now the Pope did exercise power in this
country, by the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops,
and they all knew how acts of imperial policy had been
impeded in Ireland by the mandates of the Pope being
strenuously proclaimed in that country. It was impossi-
ble for them to say the Pope did not exercise spiritual au-
thority directly in Ireland. That he exercised no direct
authority by act of Parliament he could understand, but
it was difficult, without mental interpretation or mental
reservation, to swear he had no indirect authority in
that country. To call upon a Roman Catholic to swear
that the Pope had no spiritual authority in this country
was to call upon him to deny one of the tenets of his
chureb, and it was no ;cr..3wL,r to be t.ll that many very
good awl pious men had from time immemorial sworn
to those words, because it was notorious that a few
years ago oaths multiplied with so much levity, that
persons took them with no more religious feeling than
in paying taxes. A great change had, however, taken
place in that respect. A great many thought and held
it to be a solemn proceeding instead of an idle form, and
instead of being laughed at, it was considered a solem-
nity in which the heart and the conscience of the party
did their part, He was inclined to consider the oath
as humiliating to Protestants, from its inconsistency to
acknowledge facts foreige to our legislative intentions,
setting a bad example of lax political morality which in
the eyes of religious people they could not pass uncon-
cerned. The case of the Roman Catholics he thought
was still harder, for they had to subscribe an oath which
in their eyes was untruthful in substance. He should
laim to himself the right of raising the question on some
future occasion, and should now content himself with
entering his protest against the Roman Catholic oath.
(Cries of •` divide.")
Lord PA.LMERSTON concurred in the opinion ex-
pressed by his noble friend the member for London that
it was desirable there should only be one oath to be
taken by all members of the house - (hear, hear)—if
such an oath could be framed sufficient for its purpose.
And although he did not agree with his right honour-
able friend who had just sat down that there was any-
thing in the Roman Catholic oath that was untruthful—
(hear)—or that there was anything in it he could not
c•mscientiously take, although it contained statements
disavowing doctrines which he entertained, he agreed
with his right hon. friend that it was very desirable
some alteration should be made in it. Yet he con-
curred with his noble friend in thinking they bad
better dispose of the matter in hand without coup
ling it with another obj,se. They could not disguise
from themselves that it was a matter of difficulty to
pass a bill for the admission of Jews to Parliament, and
be did not think it was the best way to surmount one
difficulty by unnecessarily creating a second difficulty.
(Hear, bear.) It appeared to him that if they all at-
tempted two things at once they were likely to fail in
both, and that by agreeing to the amendment without
improving the condition of the Roman Catholics they
were likely to impede the chances, of the bill for the ad-
mission of the Jevrs to Parliament being carried. He
recommended the hon. member not to embarrass the
present question by going to a division on the amend-
ment. _ _ _ _

Mr. WIGRA.M said the motion before the house in
volved a mater of great importance. If the bill passed,
Protestants would still be required to make abjuration
of the Pope having any spiritual power in this country,
whilst Rogan Catholics, under Roman Catholic emaoci-
pati.-n, were at liberty to substitute the oath abjuring
the temporal power of the Pope ; but if they made the
proposed alteration the effect would be that Roman Ca-
teolics could come and take the oath which the clause
struck out of the bill, and avoid making the abjuration
now required of the Pope's temporal power. The change
was an important one, and, if carried, would meet with
the disapproba'ion of the country. Three or four years
since, the house was occupied nearly the whole of a ses-
sion in di-cussing the temporal power of the Pope, which
they were now about to abandon. He suggested that
the words should he retained with the addition of the
words "not lawful'' jurisdiction in this country. (Divide.)
Mr. STEUART suggested the words "not rightful"
jurisdiction in this country.
Mr. FORTESCUE bad ne wish to endanger the
cause of the Jew, but he could not refrain from expres-
sing his objection to the re-enacting objectionable parts
in the old oath which he as a Protestant thought should
be expunged. (Divide.)
Mr. HASSALL, amidst loud cries of divide, was
understood to oppose the bill.
Mr. COGAN explained that the noble lord the mem-
ber for London bad mistaken his motion if he thought
that the Roman Catholics, having been admitted to that
house, they wished to slam the door in the face of the
Jew. He had no desire in moving the amendment to
oppose the bill as regarded Jews. (Divide.)
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority_
Mr. STEUART then moved the introduction of the
word bath, or ought not to have, "rightfully" any juris-
diction, etc.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought some difficulty
would arise in giving a correct definition of the word. He
preferred the words " by law."
Mr. GLADSTONE said it was admitted on all hands
that it was desirable something should be done in regard
to these words, and the question was, which of the
words suggested was the best for taking the opinion of
the house I The noble lord the member for London pre-
ferred the word "lawfully," but he (Mr. Gladstone) be-
lieved the noble lord's construction of the oath with it
introduced would not hold. It was a question composed
partly of history and partly of the private impressions
of individual,. The object of the oath, and that with
reference to the supremacy, was to exclude Roman
Catholics, and it was retained at the Revolution to ex•
du le them alone, but there may be many Roman
Catholics in this country who were conscientiously ef
opinion that the Pope neither path, nor ought to have
any legal or coercive jurisdiction or power in these
realms, as was the case with the Roman Catholics
of the -Waited States, who, as a body, objected in the
strongest manner to any such power being exercised
by the Pope—(hear, hear)—and such was the lan-
guage always held in that house by the late Mr.
O'Connell, and if that were the right construction there
was nothing to have prevented Mr. O'Connell from
taking the oath at the table of the house, if such
were his opinion. His (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion
was that the construction to be put upon the words
of the oath was, that the Pope bath not or ought not to
have "rightfully, properly, and justly" jurisdiction in
this country, and as there appeared to be a difference of
eons. ruction of the oath, he wished to bring to the minds
of hon. members the great constitutional importance
of the matter, which difference was of itself a proof that
the °instruction of the oath required the atten ion of
the house—(hear, hear)—and that it should not be le ft
to A, B, and C to consider for themselves. There
ought to be a legislative construction put upon an oath
that purported to aim at a great constitutional object, and
which different gentlemen construedin different modes for
themselves. His right hon. friend referred to the
position of the Moravian body in reference to the oath of
supremacy. He believed no body enjoyed more universal
respect from all cla3ses of Christians teen the Moravians
(hear)—but they, having the misfortune to be governed
by a foreign jurisdiction, termed the " Con-i-tory," at
Hermanstadt, in Germany, a case had recently been sub-
mitted to the eminent civilian, Dr. Twisr, and he had
given it as his opinion that a Moravian could not properly
and correctly take the oath of supremacy, and conse-
quently he was deprived from taking rffice under the
Crown. Thera were no great difficulties in the case. One
hon. member gave one meaning, the "rightfully, and his
noble fri-nd another, the "lawfully," consequently it
was the duty of the house to bring to the matter some
authoritative solution. He hoped that the amendment
would be adopted as originally proposed.
Mr. ROEBUCK pressed for a legal and authoritative
solution of the difficulty. Toe word proposed, "pro-
perly," would only complicate the difficul.y. As the law
stood the Pope had spiritual power in this country, and
the real way to deal wi h this bill would be to leave out
the words altogether. Roman Catholics were no longer
excluded by those words—the exclusion applied to Pro-
testants. The oath, as it stood, was untrue, and sorely
pressed conscience. (Hear.) Men took the oath without
attaching the meaning to it which the defenders of it in-
tended. But he regarded the words in the oath as a
nettle in his path, and he trampled upon it. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) The word ought not to be "rightfully,"
but "by law." (Hear, hear.)
Sir R. BETHELLthought that much confusion would
be avoided by referring to the ceogieal WaCle it
would be found that the words " spiritual and ecclesias-
tical" were of one and the same importance. The word
" spiritual" applied to the authority exercised by courts
of justice. The authority of the Crown was pre-eminent,
and the oath abjured all foreign spiritual authority in
temporal matters. What a man declared when he took
the oath of supremacy was, that whatever jurisdiction
might be exercised in the land derived its source from
the Crown. The words " lawful'y" or "rightfully" were
mere surplusage, as they were already expressed in the
oath. (Hear.)
Mr. B. HOPE said that the best argument against
the desirability of such an oath as this, was the diver-
gence of opinion which existed as to its meaning on the
part of members who in their professional capacity were
a silk gown. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) It was of the
first importance not to introduce a definition which
could become the subject of doubt and contention. He
suggested the word " legally "
Toe ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND pre-
ferred the words as tbey stood in the oath, as affording
they
aprotectio
be ntoopmperenssied.nmany circumstances in which
might
Mr. L. WIGRAM expressed a similar opinion.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the omission of the
words "direr ly or indirecrly," at page 2, line 10.
Mr. WALPOLE assented.
Mr. N EWDEGATE then proposed to leave out clause
5. Ile did not affect to be a better man or better Chrie-
tier) than other gentlemen in that house, but he felt a
deep conviction that it was not only impolitic, hut abec.
lot ply wrong to seek to uncbristianise the Legislature as
this course would do. For many years he had acted in
unison with men of learning, Christian feeling, and be-
nevolence, who thought that the admission of Jews to
Parliament would uncbristianise the House of Commons.
Tee contest lay between a wealthy Jew, his City Con-
stituency, and a party in that house, who stood up for
what they called '` civil and religious liberty." lie be-
lieved that Baron Rothschild contemplated an inroad on
th:eeuetitution by seeking admission to the house ; but
he lookedpeople
with confidence to the continued opposition el
nbigttou;o:::01
1;1: :Ili:"
tile; suchi
luntice
jyhtodawuel:
eintwai
::ctphstol ipt:ipoarnnhali
Jinni npotowirtai
unnshi
assuming
.0 nto.:
But
gjnnfl
shoulduoi wt:lbiattempt.ihntphbieeeetwcoeipurposes
dieue Ministerial
oHipei
admitted
office,
reehadhisecianaeei
c:eedo,g.

his system from the Talmud and from traditions which
had 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
the Gentiles had come in. The traditions of the Jews
rendered them anti-social, and merle thee) a separate
nation. A work bad recently appeared from the pea of
Earl Grey—a work which would well repay perusal. In
that book the noble earl conten led that the representa-
tions by the noble lord the member for the city of Lon-
don had operated prejudicially to his success as a Mieis-
ter, and that the late Sir R. Peel had enjoyed much
greater personal freedom as the representative of Tam-
worth. The noble lord had been forced into carrying
out the views of his constituents on this quessioo. 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. MiCaul, in no spirit of
hostility to the Jews, but in a fair spirit of criticism,
distinctly affirmed that the oral laws of the Jews had
been so much multiplied, that it was quite alisurd to
suppose that they could be committed to memory. That
learned person also showed that these oral laws loosened
the moral obligations, taught men how to evade the
Divine commands, permitted dispensations, the extermi-
nation of the " unlearned," and effected other unfortu-
nate resute, 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 introduce men into the legislature who
would act in the spirit of that tyranny. The doctrines of
the Jewish religion were immoral, and the practices
sanctioned were equally so. The present practice of the
Jews was affected by their doctrines. He came to the
second point, that the religion of the Jews was anti-
rational. That was admitted by the Jews themselves.
The hen. gentleman quoted from a pamphlet called
" British Emancipation, by David Anderson," in support
of his viewe. The Jews were aliens, not by the accident
of their birth, but by the precepts of their religion. Their
doctrines constituted them aliens from this country.
Tis 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
constitution of the country used this question f ir their
abject. 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 were 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 ths Chrietian
faith. It hail been said that if the Jews were admitted to
the Legislature, the affairs of the Legislature 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 assembly
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 excluded from all the prayers used in the
national schools, in order not to offend the Jews. That
showed how jug 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 unoffending countrymen.
Many people supposed that the Jews were relaxing their
submission to the rabbis. The proof that that was not f o
was to be found in the feet that the Jews had rejected
the test which had been applied to them in Prussia. 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 relzion. 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 igious libsrty
but the dignity of Christianity itself, would be promoted
by the removal cf 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 the union of church and state.
Mr. BUNG observed that toleration was the life-
blood cf 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 front
entering the legislature. He called on the house to
obliterate the last trace of the ancient disabilities.
Lord R. CECIL insisted that the functions of par-
liament were to a great extent connected with the dis-
cussion of religiou s questions. On this ground he argued
that no one was fit to be a legislator who did not profess
the national religion.
Mr. HUGIIESSEN opposed the amendment.
After some explanation from Mr. T. DIJISICOMBE,
Mr. C. FOILTESCUE contended that the clause it
was proposed to cancel ;cal 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 t) travel over the same ground again,
that he was 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, be would say that their
obedience to the law of this country, their studious care
of their own people so remarkable, that there was only
lone instance in history of a Jew receiving relief from his
perish. (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 of
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 Middlesex that they were keeping
out the Jews by certain accidental words. He believed
that they were excluded, not by those words, but in con-
sequence of an inability inherent in themselves of tuna!-
' gamating with the people and institutions of the Coun-
try, which nobody would even have thought that they
could 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
any
express enactment, but because it was
taken
u themselves
foredm elv ~s grantedas that none but Christians would ever
offer members of this hot-tee. Oise point
wlele bys
had been much presi e I by the hon. member for Sheffield,
and seemed to have weight with many members cf 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
Christians, 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 Wile of the house—(bear, hoar)—and being paid
they had certainly deterred the bad and encouraged the
good, and it warned them that that was the only prin-
ciele on which they were prepared to legislate. (Hear,
hear.) lie 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
bad been drawn by the right hon. member who used the
argument, that what was granted to the many was
!
few—(hear, hear) ;—but that carried no
weightafg
%Valpole's)
mind, becaused he cared
not whether few or many were to be affected by a change ;
all he wanted was for it to be proved that the thing
seas t-- (cheer-) —flr if a tHrf-z r.- t
ed t
to o hist h e(
Nfle rw.
in itself, then, according to ail principles, the fact
of numbers was not an element to be left out of ca'-
calation, because by wise legislation regard must be had
to the voice of the many, and satisfy them rather than
the few, though by this measure they were attempting to
satisfy the few out cf doors on the ground of expediency,
which was a reason that ought to weigh against their
admission rather than for it. He accepted the challenge
often given by the noble lord the member for Loudon as
to the right of a person belonging to this country to en-
joy all its privileges, and if he (iir. Walpole) were to be
asked fairly to state the case on both sides, he should
say that the promoters and supporters of the bill urged
as a matter of right that every person prima facie was
entitled to claim the privilege, if elected, of siting in
Parliarnent—(loud cheers from the supporter)—and that
no religious feeling ought to exclude him—(renewed
oheere)—or, if it did, it was according to the noble lord's
opinion, a species of intollerance and persecution, and
to apply the case to Barer, Rothschild 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 found it urged there
was no such thing in these matters as positive right.
(Cheers 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 for the
proper discharge of that trust. It was so in all coun-
tries, from inexperience, women, because they attended
to their domestic duties —(loud laughter) —they ex-
cluded pereona without a certain fortune because they
wanted indepsndeuce ; they excluded the clergy because
they should cenfine themselves to their pastoral duties ;
and they excluded aliens, though naturalized, for two
reasons, laid down in Queen Anne's time—viz.,
partly tecause they owed allegiance to another, and
partly because their notions of law, liberty, and religion
were different from our oven—(cheers)--it being esecns
tial that as our own laws were based on Christianity, no
one should have a voice in changing those laws who was
not iefleenced by Christian feelings. (Cheere.) It
ceine theref, re to this, were there or were there not a
right in the Jew to be admitted to parliament—(loud
deers)—and if there be such a right it was evident it
must b 3 either in the constituency represented, or in the
party ►opt esenting 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
wham-the law declared to be ineligible and lost their re-
preeeetation, the fa.,ilt was with them, and not whit the
house, and they had no one to complain of but them-