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. After the many repeated assurances he had 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. (Hear, hear.) He
did not believe that the bill represented the opinions of
the people of England on the question ; and he deeply
regrettedjthat the noble earl had not recommended to
her Majesty to appeal to her faithful subjects and aft-
certain their feelings with respect to the admission of the
Jeers 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 bee complete abandonment of the principle upon which
the constitution of tho country rested. He declared the
measure had been brought for ward without necessity, and
merely to pebder to the demands of party politics. Ex•
pedieney 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 gentlemen
on that side of the house with respect. to thin measure as
a great dereliction of duty, and as calculated very much
to weaken the confidence of the country in Lord Derby's
G overnment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK believed that they could not destroy
the Christian character of the house without impairing
its iulnence 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 LegMeture.
Hitherto the only result accruing from their agitation on
the subject had been to return the noble lord opposite for
the City of Lender), instead of for some small borough.
Hence he regarded the passing of this bill as most 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 pnblic 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.
Ho expressed his sincere regret at the position the ques-
tion 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. (Hear.)
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. &DAMS was not surprised the noble I)rd the
member fer London had not recommended the second
reading of the bill in a long speech, because he did not
thick it was euch 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
so much to the prevention of the Jews to have vats 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 House of COTl3lll3ne 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.
Ho thought it would have been more graceful in the
other branch of the Legislature if they had conce led the
,first bill, instead of passing the bill now before the House
of Commons. The 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 the arguments that had been used against the
admission of Jews to Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He
said that if be had been compelled to submit a resolu-
tion to the attention of the house for the seating of
Baron Rothschild, ho should have done it in a full belief
that it was according to the law, but they would be pre-
vented 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.
(fear, 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 for the house to pursue was to accept the bill.
Although this was a bill he n.uld not have proposed, be
was glad to accept it as a mode of escape from the diffi-
culty in which they were placed, and that was why he
recommended the bill for a second reading. He believed
it weal 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 should have no misgiving
as to the result. A. difference 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
fathers. (fear, hear, and laughter.) He asked the
house to read the bill a second time,
Mr, H, DRUMM.OND agreed with those who coo.