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

'MARCH 23, 1858

selves. (Hear, bear.) And that brought him to the
conclusion from which he thought the noble lord would

not displace him, that no such actualitight existed in
constituencies, and then arose the question of the right
of the person elected, which be 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 irterferenco of those rigttz; did
not interfere witii the consciences of others or endanger

the public peace—(hear)—trough 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 all these institutions 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 Baron Rothschild ha•l 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 laws or not. To that it might
be urged that it was cxpadient in order to satisfy and to

gratify a most respectable body of men, faithful to, the
C4-,ivernment 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 scruple of the Jew, was
it less expedient to respect the religiousscrnples of their
fellow Christians ? (dear, hear.) Rasher than that they
should believe that by the exclusion of words n 0,7 taken
at the table of the house they were making Cnristianity
to retreat before them, to satiPfy the objections enter-

tained by a few who had no faith-in it. fr.at, probably,
was the last time be should have the pain of malting a

speech on the subject from that place—(loud laughter)—
but he could not refrain from imploring the house
against the fatal step of admitting Jews to Parliament.
It they did not admit the Jew as now proposed, he
hoped they would not have recourse to a conflict in the
other house in seating hi;n by resolution, because nothing
on earth would allow him to con,ent to their putting
_ _

the House of Commons above the House of 1,-)rd;i. He

had always been against the admission of the J ews to
Parliament, and he hoped heshould never have to speak
again on this painful subject, and in cancludin,g 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 motion 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
had the highest respect, and who pointed out for an
hour to him (Mr. Walpole) the reasons which he con-
sidered sought to influence him in changing his
opinion. The reasons were ably urged, but there
were two points on which his argnments mainly
turned—one was to convince him (Mr. Wakpol ) that
his ancestors were not in the Holy Land when the cruci-
fixion took place, and the other a greater desire to con-
vince him that if he were in his (Mr. Walpole's) position,
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 cut
to him (Mr. Walpole) in the plainest, clearest, and most
distinct manner 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 living in
Pale-tine at the time of the appoint:ment of the judges,
the Jew a descendant of Abraham, and he (Mr. 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"—(lord chsers from the opponents of the
bill). Such, then, were his reasons for opposing the ad-
teiseion 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, and
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. That house and Parliament had recognised
that principle, and however much he might personally
respect the integrity of the Jew—esteem his moral
qualit es—his patience, endurance, and his ex-
tensive cbarity, and he was asked to change the
whole pel►cy and principles of our institutions he
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-tian."
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE 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 bad 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 c3ntended 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 B )thßcbild, 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, wad inflict i.tripes on him, but they
deprived him of the privilege of eitting 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 Vononrable member for North War-
wickshire imagined was only to be found on his side of
the house. The Roman C-a hol os 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 Nerth Warwickshire, rela-
tive to the estimation in whic'e they held the Jews
of this country. He characterised the oaths as
useless to test a man's rtligisn, and instanced the cases
of Gibbon and 13 dlingbeoke, who took the oaths con-
taining the words "on the true faith of a Christian,"
a hich, 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 had no other rights than those con-
ferred on them by law ; but yet men who were good
fathers arid cit'zsns were excluded from that house be-
ceuse they did not believe as the right hon. gentleman*
believed. (Rear.)
Mr WALPOLE—As the country beFeves.
Mr. ROEBUCK—As the country believed ; but the
Quaker, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian believed as
the e)uetry belieted eel 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 in 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 it). This
was a question of expediency and not religion, as bed
been said by the hon. member for East Surrey, and he
(Mr. Roebuck) was prepared to maintain that by admit-
ting Jews to Parliament they would not endanger the
legislation of the country. It was idle to talk of tbeChris-
tianity of that house, and be defied them to prove that
because a man took the oath as 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
wan entitled to its privileges : and said that if he were
a Jew they should not exclude him. He would take
the oath repeating the words "on the true faith of a
Christian," adding, "this has no effect on me, but as
the law requires it, I comply to it, and make the decla-
ration. (Cheers, and bear, hear.) If the Jow would
eny boldly, "1 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, they would have heard no more of this matter.
Year after year the tide of religious toleration had been
rolling on, and he had never seen it turned back. He
hoped heviever should. Very soon he hoped we should
be what we ought to be, a really tolerant people.
Sir R. BETUELL said he had never beard a speech
to which he had li,tened with greater pleasure than that
of the Home Secretary. Ilis words were bona verba,
and heralded the approach of that which they all wished
to see, viz., toe close of this lengthened controversy.
(Rear.) He haled the speech with gratitude, and he
was perfectly sure that those around him would not
falsify its excellent effects. (Cheers.) The right hon.
gentleman stated that he had given the entire argument
against the Jew as pervaded upon the nature of the
oath, and be admitted that the Jew was never within
the intention of the legislation to observe the oath, and
therefore the Jew was deprived of his birthright by a
fraudulent interpretation of the law. (Rear.) Nothing
could show greater moral impiety than thus to pervert
the law to a purpose fix which it was never intended.
He hid the authority of the judges for saying that the
oath was never meant to apply to the Jew, and that
therefore be 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-
stitutione were there, except Parliament, to which the
Jews were not eligible ? Civil and religious liberty he
was entitled to, and the only thing he was ( xeladed
from was political liberty. He (Sir R. Bethel') differed
from the hon. member for Sheffield that men had no
right to politica, liberty, fr • it was only the fag end el
this miserable oath that deprived him of it. But the
right hen. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) committed another
very serious ell-or in his arguments. He (Sir R.
Betlieli) admitted that any disqualitleatione might
be imposed which legislation required, but he
contended that all should be treated alike, and
the diequalificetiors should be 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 elected, but he could not take his seat.
That was surely an anomaly from which the legislature
was called upon to emancipate itself. If this bill should
again be rejected elsewhere he (Sir R. Bethel') pledged
himself to move a resolution similar to that proposed by
the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich
(Sir J. Pakington) in committee last August, that, io
the upinien of the committee, the words of atotions 8,5,