The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONCON) TUESDAY EVENING, JUST r' 16, 1857.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

e'ection of every Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland or
in England, the new prelate took en oath of canonical
rdinelience to the Pope, and yet they were told that the
Pope had ne ecclesiastical jurisdiction in these realms.
So as to spiritual dominion. The Pope imposed, say, the
doctrine of transubstantiation, and it was believed by
Roman Catholic. How then c.mld it ho said that ho
bad no spiritual jurisdiction ? (Hear.) He (tlr. Roe-
buck) perfectly understood the sneers of the learned
gentleman—he knew what that meant ; but why should
they be called on to swear that the Pope had no ecele-
staeticA jurisdiction in these realms when they all knew
that be had ? (Hear.) He wanted to be put in this
matter on the same footing as the Roman Catholic
members ; and in the name of the Protestants of this
country, of the truth-loving people of this country, of
the gentlemen of this country, be called on the house
not to allow the words to be retained. (Hear, hear )
Mr. NAPIER said the hon. gentleman within the last
month had taken this oath. He (Mr. Napier) denied
that the Pope had any jurisdiction in this country.
(Laughter.) Jurisdiction and orders were, too, quite
different things ; and though the Pope might make a
bishop here, he could not give him jurisdiction, which
flowed only from the sovereign. Lord Cioncurry and
another noble lord had made the same objection as the
bon. gentleman ; but then they made it betore they took
the oath—they did not take the oath and then make the
objection. The Duke of Norfolk, Sir R. Peel, and other
eminent gentlemen' did net understand the oath as the
hon. member for Mayo did. In 1849 Sir R. Peel stated
that there was a solemn compact, and that the Roman
Catholics had offered to give the security of a plain and
unambiguous oath, that they would make no attack on
the purport of the oath. With respect to the oath of su-
premacy, he would remind the hon. member (M. B.
Hope) that in 1854 Archdeacon Wilberforce wrote a book,
in which he spoke of that oath as the national sin of Eng-
land, because it was the embodiment of private judg-
ment. (Hear.) Against the papal supremacy the oath
was an emphatic protest, and he hoped the house would
not interfere with words on which the whole fabric of
the constitution stood. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. THESIGER explained that when the Queen's
counsel referred to by Mr. Roebuck objected to take the
oath, the benchers discovered that they were the only
society which imposed it; and feeling doubts whether
they had any right to exact it, they discontinued it alto-
gether. (Hear, hear.)
The committee then divided—
For the amendment
Against it

HOUSE OF LO RDS YESTERDAY
EAST INDIAN JUDICATURE.
The Marquis Of CLANRICARDE', in moving' 1)r a
copy of the minutes of the Lieut.-Guyer for of Bengal on
the criminal administration of that country, and other
papers on the sane subject, took occv.ion to obqerve
that the measures a+lopted by the Illst India Company
ware a mockery of jeA'ce, and tended only to secure
deby. The Company's court-4 were objected to by the
natives generally, and by Eiropeans especially. Many
of,the j adges were no!oriously unfit for their function,.
The direct,r3 wero a fiction, which cams between the
Gdvernment and India, and alone saved tae former from
the indignation of tbq country.

Toe kart of ALBENIARIE would not present cer-
tain petitions on the subject at that time, 33 there were
only two or three peers present.
,The Duke of ARGYLL consented to the production
of the papers requested.
Their lordihips then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
OATHS BILL.
(Continued from The Sun of last night.)
Ur. ROEBUCK said there was no doubt that an oath
ought to be short, but there was another qualification in
an oath which the light hon. gentleman left out, and that
was truth. Now, he wanted to know if the oath as pro-
posed was true. It said that " the Pope or any other
foreign potentate had no power or authority, ecclesiastical
or spiritual, in this realm." Now, was that true ? (Hear.)
He wanted to know if the Pope had any power ecclesi-
astical and spiritual in England ? He was called on in
that house, and he was called upon twenty tim-s in his
life actually to swear to a lie. (A laugh.) It was a fact.
There was not a man in that house who did not know
that the Pope has spiritual dominion in this country.
Did he not parcel out this kingdom into bishoprics,
and did they not pass a law concerning his doing that
which was no law, and which they dare not enforce
against the authority of the Pope of Rome. Why they
knew that at this very hour there were people in this
town who exercised ecoles:a-tical dominion therein.
More than that, the Pope of R iroe had declared in favour
of the doctrine of immaculate conception, and did he not
impose it on Cathol cc in this city ? Was not that spiri-
tual dominion ? If it were not, he wanted to know what
was. Then he, knowing that the Pope exercised that
dominion, was asked to swear that he did not. If he did
swear that, was be not swearing to a lie, and to what
he knevi to be a lie ? Inasmuch as he dMiked that for-
mal mode of lyinz, he should vote for the amendment.

.... 80
.... 373-292

Owing to the number of members in the house, and
the great preponderance on one side, this division occu-
pied upwards of 20 minutes.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved, after the word "spiritual" to
insert the words "by law." It had 'len stated by Sir
F. Thesiger that the meaning of the oath was that the
Pope had not by law any jurisdiction in this realm; he
therefore wished to introduce those words into the clause
to render that perfectly clear.
The committee again divided—
For the amendment .-
Against it

•Sir F. THESIGER sail Mr. Roebuck bad put a con-
struct-ion upon this oath which bad perfectly a,tonished
him. His hon. and learned friend said any one who took
that oath swore to a lie, his hon. and learned friend h m
self having taken that oath. Nothing could be more satis-
factory than the mode in which Mr. Deasy had moved
this amendment, and if he had any compleint to make
against him it was that, having addressed himself
to the various objections that recurred to him with re-
gard to the Roman Csthrlie oath, he never once ad-
dressed himself to his own amendment. He was in hopes
thet when the noble lord at the head of the Government
rose for the purpose of answering him, be would have
explained why it was that he objected to the amend-
ment. The noble lord ought perfectly to understand
that the r -ason why this amendment was proposed was
for the purpose of rendering the oath one which it was
possible for Roman Catholic gentlemen to take. It was
quite clear that Roman Catholics did net deny that the
Pope " has, or ought to have, jurisdiction, power, pre-
eminence, and authority ecclesiastical and spiritual with-
in this realm." Therefore, in order to have one form of
oath which the Roman Catholic might take as wed as the
Protestant, it was necessary to divest the oath of these
words, they being a recognition of the supremacy of the
Crown, which was denied by the Roman Catholic. Let
them see what was involved in this question, which might
become a serious one. Mr. Roebuck said it was a lie to say
that the Pope has not spiritual jurisdiction within this
realm, and he referred to a movement called papal ag-
gression, by which some time ago the Pope endeavours I
to parcel out this kingdom into bishoprics. Now, his
hen. and learned was entirely mistaken, as it appeared
to him, in his understanding of the oath. In the first year
of the reign of Queen Rizaheth this oath was introduced
for the purpose of upholding the supremacy of the crown
and the act said it was introduced to the intent " that
all usurped and foreign power and authority, spiritual
and temporal, may for ever be extinguished, and never
used in this realm;" and then it enacted "that no foreign
power shall use, tejoy, or exercise any jurisdiction,
power, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or
ecclesiastical, within this realm." There was the explicit
declaration of the supremacy of the Crown, not estab•
lished for the first time, because on the highest authority
he stated that was an essential point of the constitution of
this country from the earliest times. But it was felt that
thereshould bean explieitdeclaration against the innovation
of any foreign authority. Then followed the oath of supre-
macy, and tooled np with that declaration of supremacy,if
he might use such an expression, was the declaration
that the Queen was supreme in all spirituel as in tempo-
ral matters, and then it went on to state that " no fa-
reign prince bath or ought to have any power ecclesias-
tical or spiritual within this reale)." Now, what was the
fair construction of an oath framed in that particular
manner at that particular time. Did it mean to say that
de facto the Pope had no jurisdiction, pre-eminence, or
authority ; or did it declare, that according to the con-
stitution he bad no such authority ? Therefore, so far as
his hon, and learned friend's construction went, be was
happy to relieve his conscience, it ha would be relieved
from the painful impression of having sworn to a lie.
(Laughter) This declaration embodiet a principle that
'`no foreign prince or potentate was legal auth rity in this
realm." Mr' Deasy, without any explanation of his rea •
eons, proposed to omit the words "ecclesiastical or
ritual." He (Sir F. Thesiger)appealed to the Protestant
members of the horse—not that ha wished tot xcite any
unpleasant religions feeling, but ha appealed to them, as
he toasidered these declarations to be the keystone of the
archof Protestant supremacy in this country—whetber
they would silo wit to be swept away. But that was not the
worst, because the hon. and learned gentleman proposed
not merely to omit those words, but to insert the words
"temporal or civil." They would th:rehy virtusby ad-
mit that a foreign potentate had ecclesiastical and spi-
ritual authority, (Hear.) In 1822, when it was proposed
to introduce the words " temporal or civil," Sir R. Psei
said he would infinitely prefer that there should be no
oath at ail because it was impcasible to admit those
words without recognising spiritual authority. Then, if
the Protestant was not disposed to give up this portion
of the oath which ha must consider as of -uch great im-
portance, was there any reason why the Roman Catholic
should ask that the settlement of 1829 should to in the
slightest manner interfered with! It was perfectly clear
that that oath was one of the securities which were taken
at the time, and Sir R. Peel said—"lt is an oath to
which the Roman catholics can have no valid or con-
scientious objection, and which is as great a security as
an oath can give, that the difference in religious Nth
will not affect their allegiance to the King, or their ca,a,-
city for civil service." And the Ronein Catholic arch-
bishops and bishops in their pastoral letter, issued at that
time, sad, " Sores we last addressed you a great and
beneficial and heailig measure has been enacted by the
legislature for your relief. We trust that your feelings
on this sulject are in unison with our own, and that a
steady attachment to the laws and can=titutien of your
country will be manifested ha your condue.” S.) that at
that time every one was satisfied with what was done.
And when the president of the Board of Control at a sub-
sequent time proposed aeother form of oath, the noble
lord the member for London said he thow4ht it not wise
to disturb the settlement which after so touch considera-
tion had been come to. Now there was an assumption of
ecclesiastic and spirituel, if not rf temporal authority, in
the endeavour that was made on the part of the Pepe to
divide this country into districts. It was quite true that
the measure that was passed to prevent the aggression
was not perfectly satisfactory, but it had some effect in

68
_ 243-175

Sir F.-THESIGER then rose to move his amend-
ment—after the word " realm," to insert the words,
" And I do make this promise, renunciation, abjuration,
and declaration heartily, willingly, and truly, on the
true faith of a Christian." Tho noble lord at the head
of the Government had proposed a new form of oath as a
substitute for those they had previously taken ; and he
was disposed to allow that it was a great improvement
on the old oath But the noble lord proposed to aban-
don a profession of faith which had been taken for 250
years, without objection or scruple by the Christian
members of the house. (Hear.) Considering that
part of the oath to be solemn and essential, he desired
to retain it. (Hear, hear.) If the times had not sadly
changed, he should have anticipated suppert to hisaraend-
meat from Mr. Glad-stone and Lord J. Russell ; for, in
1849, when the noble lord introduced one of his nume-
rens bills for admitting the Jews to Parliament, he
framed an oath for the Christian members of the house,
containing precisely those words which he now proposed
to add ; and Mr. Gladstone said he rejoiced that the
noble lord retained those words, and that ho had acted
wisely in not reducing the high standard they had hi-
therto maintained. There were many Christian members
of that house who, although they desired to see the Jew
admitted amongst them, would yet be unwilling to re-
nounce the profession of their faith. (Hear.) They would
desire to " profess and call themselves Christians," at
the same time that they considered that the question of
the admission of the Jew to Parliament ought to be dis-
•ossed and settled as a distinct and separate measure. In
the former discussions on this subject, the advocates of
the admission of the Jew had used the fallacy which
was crdinarily called " begging the question." They had
supposed that the native-born Jew bad an inherent right
o a seat in the legislature ; and they called upon the_
opponents of the Jew to establish or justify his exclu
sion. But the supporters of a long established course of
things had a right to call upon those who were desirous
of disturbing it to bring forth their reasons. Those who
supported existing institutions had nothing to do but t
maintain their ground ; but it was asserted that there
aas an exception to this rule in the case of the Jew, be-
cause he was excluded merely by the accidental insertion
of certain words in an act of Parliament which were
directed to a totally different object. And then they re-
peated the history of Sir F. Treshain, of the Treatise on
Equivocation of the Jesuit Garnet, and of the gunpow-
der plot. But it was a great mistake to suppose that the
opponents of the admission of the Jew had ever contended
that those words in the act were intended at all to be
directed against the Jew ; for at that time there was
scarcely ore, if one, Jew in this country. But they a
rignt to contend that by the insertion of those words
the strongest proof was given that no person could he a
n ember of the Legislature unless be held the faith of a
Christian. That. L,gislatu:e bad been hemmed in with
Christian ceremonials and observances. The oaths mem
hers were required to take were taken upon the Giepels;
they began their daily labours with prayer, offered up
in that only name which could renc!er them acceptable;
they were compelled to observe certain festivals and
fasts; and they could turn in no direction without being
reminded that they performed all their functions under
the sanction and seal of Christianity. (Hear.) It ivas
true that by legislative interference in other directions,
persons were now enabled to tare an oath upon any oc-
casion (`or those were the words) in the form which was
most binding upon their conscience. But those words,
"on the true faith of a Christian," had remained in their
oath to testify that they were a Christian Legislature,
and that no person who was not a Christian had a right
to a seat in that house. (Hear.) It was perfectly idle to
contend, to any persen acquainted with the history
and the position of the Jews in this country, that it was
only by the accidental insertion of those words that he
was excluded from admission to Parliament. Banished in
the reign of Edward 1., returning to this country after
the Restoraio,?, they were regarded, not as citizens, but
as aliens. In the time of William 111. an endeavour was
made by that monarch to relieve the Jews from an alien
duty which was imposed upon them in the receipt of cus-
toms; but he was compelled, by the remonstrances oftbe
merchants, to restore that. duty, which remained upon
them for a very coeslderatle time after. Every one knew
that in the r:in of George He a hill v a introduced for
the aurpoee of enabling Jews to prefer bills of naturalisa-
tion without tekiag the sacrament. The act passd, but
created so much clamour, that it was repealed in the fol-
lowing year. Down to 1836, when Mr. Robert Gra:it in-
troduced the first of the series of bi le for the admission
cf the Jews, they were excluded from all offices, civil and
military, and from corporations, and from first to last
upon the ground that they were infidels and aliens.
It was not possible, under these circumstances, for any
one seriously to contend that it was by reason of these
words in an act of James 1., "on the true faith of a
Christian,' that a Jew was prevented from becoming a
member of Parliament. Therefore, the onus of establish-
belling their right must be upon those who sought to ob-
tain their admission. The Christian character of the Le-
gislature had been established and continued to the pre-
sent time ; and it was necessary for those who thought
that persons who were noi, Christians should be entitled
to the honour of a seat in that house to establish it by
argument—to prove that, under the circumstances, either
the forms of the house offered no impediment to their
admission, or that the. time had come when all those dis-
tinctions should be swept away. (Hear, hear.) The
advocates of the Jews had offered afguments in
favour of their admission, but had never approached
the vital part of the question. In the first place,
they contended that the Jew, as a native-born sub-
ject, had an unquestionable right to admission to all
offices and all authority in this empire. That was
entirely a misapprehension. That the Jew and every
subject of this realm was entitled to an equality of civil
rights no one ever denied, but political power and autho-
rity were the creatures of the State, and no person could
be entitled to that power and autoority but he on whom
the State conferred it. No one would deny that it was
competent to the State to declare that no person should
be a legislator who wasnot a Christian. Perhaps it would
be hard not to admit that the legislature of the country
bad so declared. If such was the relation in which per-
sons stood to the legislature, a person who was not a
Christian might complain of the condition, and might
seek to have it altered, but he could have no antecedent
right to that which was prohibited by the constitution.
Again, it was said, " We ought to respect the opinion
of so large and respectable a constituency as the City of
London, who have returned a Jew to Parliament." That
was an argument very much of the same character as
that already referred to. The citizens of London knew
perfectly well that by law a Jew could not take his seat
in that house, notwithstanding that they chose to elect
him as their representative, and then they endeavoured
to urge the circumstance, unreasonably for the purpose
bf procuring an alteration of the law. They would have
shown more deference to the institutions of the country
if they had endeavoured in every available manner to
change the law, but they had no right to elect a person
disqualified by law, and then insist on forcing upon the
legislature by that means an alteration of the law. It
was a bad example to the other constituencies of the
country. They might have a preference for some other
disqualified person, might select him as their representa-
tive, and might then insist, as the citizens of London
had done, that the law should be changed to secure
their object. The citizens of London had shown that
to:feytveenrineyre determined to pursue a course which he
thought was perfectly unconstitutional ; and, at the
spramo,beabtlimye, having chosen to lose, now for a period
eea,rits,, one of their representatives, they had
suggested to the noble lord at the head of the
and he might attend to it when he brought
in his meahtrsenre of reform, that three members for the
city, by t
(Laughter.) own confession,
were perfectly sufficient.
sornwearatli this
i Another usually urged on these
occasions—
n the nature of the argumenium,
ad leoraineni—
hfirBa:ne'n' Youie;
hhwavceanaydmouitrteefausJeetwosa toad
sorcise the elective.
alit them to seats in this house?,
. o(Cheers ) Hon. gentle-
men seemed to think that that was a very. powerful and
conclusive argument; bus Le would submit for their con-
a person having an in-
sideratiou the distinctio4 between

. _
checking that aggression. It they were to adopt this
amendment it would be admitting the Pope was justified
in that act of aggression. He otject..d to this amendment,
in the first place, because it interfered with the supre-
macy of the Crown, in the next place, because it would
amount to a virtual admission of the Pope's supremacy,
and in the third place, because it would amount to a sane
tion of the aggression which the Pope had male.
Mr. B. HOPE said he looked upon the claim of the
Jews as an abstract necessity, as a mathematical, so to
speak, demand of justice. It was at no little sacrifice of
feeling that he could not act with the hon. and learned
member for Stamford on this occasion. Ho regarded the
question in an aspect in which it had not been regarded
by any member—an aspect in which, as an honest and
sincere member of the Church of England, he had a right
to regard it. He must say the noble lerd at the head of
the Government had paid but a small compliment to the
Protestants of England by requiring of members of the
Established Church and the Jews one form of oath, and
requiring of Roman Catholics another. It was like the
Inscription which used to be written over a certain door—
"A Jew, a Turk, an infidel, an atheist,
(Lengleter
MTayhe meae enter here,ure bwasut noat
retr a papirade one—a re-
actionary mel og
1829 was asure from that Act of Toleration which in
attr itztorted by fear and not conceded from con-
viction ; for
wag
would not fete the
saying that if tbeee Roman Catholics
oaths thus °drove to them, they
should not enter at
or two Jews founeeall. (Hear.) If through the bill one
theira way into the house, it would
be at the expense of
inflicted upon millions of
their feilow-countrymenn.iniu,Y
irreatinTtil:e harm the bill would do,
in short, would be
an the benefit. It op-
posed to civil freedom, and wastothat toleration which, as
a churchman, he had at heart. (Divide. The
would only The cause of
toleration world not profit by a bet which
perpetuate religious animosities, and
year after year tsev
must look for ward to a recurrence of timil..ar questions.-
formidable dif-
- Mr. G. H. MOORE thought thetoveey.
_between Mr.
prettytaqknea:rte3yl
ference of opinion which seemed
Roebuck and Sir F. Tbesiger formed ~at:e1...y....1it
such elabo-
as it atbod ;" and it ought to be a warning to eon. en.
tlenaen against being too dogmatic on the oath g
athers, when they were obliged to resort. to
rn2e ves. :
rate casuistry to defend that taken by the 1 i
(Sears bear,)
• Mr. HOE BY.TCK said that when a well-graced actor
simulated a part, and so imitated truth as to wring from
every mettle acknowledgment how like the truth it was,
they admired the actor and they felt wonder at the simu-
lation, but they were net taken in by the attempt. He
misfit bring to the recollection of his learned friend (Sir
F. Theisiger) a circumstance which had occurred within
his own knowledge. The hOn. and learned gentleman
would recollect that when an eminent Queen's Counsel
was desirous to be admitted a bencher of one of the lens
q ICaurt, .he was required to take an oath that the
Pope had. no ecclasias;ical or spiritual jurisdiction in
these realms. That eminent Queen's Counsel eaid he
could not swear that, and the benchers dispensed with the
o ale. ' (Hear. The ecclesiastiastical jurisdiction of the
Pope ick tlcso realonwas a matter of fact. Upoa tDo
.... .

finitesimal right to elect a Christian as a member of the
Legislature, and himself haviegasest in that Legislature,
and being able to make the laws which had higher sanc-
tions than those he acknowledged. He did not know
whether that distinction was satisfactory to those who
seemed to consider the argument powerful ; if not, he
was afraid nothing he could say would have the slightest
influence on them. (Laughter.) Another argument used
was something of the same nature: " You have admitted
the Jew to be a magistrate, to be a sheriff, to be au al-
derman—(hear) —you have advanced thus far ; how can
you then exclude him from taking a part hi the formation
of those laws which you permit him to administer."
(Hear.) But there was a clear and marked distinction
between permitting a person who was not a Christian to
exercise a subordinate office under the law' all his acts
rted conduct being governed and regulated by that law,
and allowing him to be one of those who should make the
laws that were to regulate a Christian community. Put-
ting the question liven the low eround of citizenship, it
had always appeared to him that there" were peculiarities
in the Jew, and his relation to the nations amongst which
he dwelt, which rendered him quite unfit to be a member
of a national legislative body. The prophecy which was
pronounced upon him so many years ago—" Lo, this
people shall dwell alone, and shall nab° reckoned among
the nations"—hacl been fulfilled in the whole course of his
marvellous career. Scattered over the face of the world,
distinguished from the people amongst whom they dwelt,
separate from them by custom and habit, and by the unsocial
character of their faith, they had been not a part of the
nations amongst whom they had lived, they had been sepa-
rate and distinct ; so they must ilevitably remain. He
could not help reading to the house an eloquent descrip-
tion of their position, which he found the other day in a
work that was probably familiar to most present :
" For, where is the other country in the world, and in
what quarter of it, which lies so vacant, so thinly occu-
pied, whilst its proper race are to be seen everywhere
else, a despised and distrusted population, abounding
anywhere rather than in their own land 1 In that di-
vided state they remain, present in all countries, and
with a home in none—intermixed, and yet separated, and
neither amalgamated nor lost. Like those mountain
streams, which are said to pass through lakes of another
kind of water, and to keep their native quality, and re-
pel comm;xture, they hold communication without
union, and may be traced as rivers within banks."
There was something in the:r customs, their habits, their
exclusive character—in the nature of their institutions—
in their holidays—which appeared to incapacitate them
from taking a competent part in the councils o' a Chris-
tian assembly. (Hear.) But these arguments were mere
skirmishes outside the barriers of the constitution. The
advocates of the admission of the Jews, must maintain
either that it was a mistake that this assembly was one •
of a Christian character, or that the time had arrived
when they must sweep away all Christian distinctions.
II was impossible to contend that this assembly was not
Christian in its character, because the words pr peed to
be removed indicated the character of the Legislature.
They must therefore take up the other ground. Now,
who were the advocates of this meahure ? The sup-
porters of civil and religious liberty, the Roman Catho-
lice, and those members of the Established Church who
were anxious to sea a separation of Church and State—
all these were united together for the purpose of accom-
plishing a common end, the destrucion of the Esta-
blished Church, to which this measure would. be the
first approach. He did not mean to say that all those
joined in this combination held that religion bad nettling
to do with the councils and business of this house
Many of them, no doubt, agreed in the opinion of
Burke, who said that religion, so far from b-ing out of
the sphere of the duty and province of the Christian I--
gislator was and ought to be not only his care, but the
principal thing in his care, because it was one of the
great bonds of human society. The opinion of Dr.
Arnold on the subject was well known ; and Archbishop
Whately, who was a sincere and consistent advocate of
the claims of the Jews, found himself greatly perpi xed
by the fact of the Jews having seats in an assembly which
had to deal with a religion to which they were hostile,
and he compared their case to the case of a person who
had a right to a room in a house, but wha had no right
to any other part of the house, or to a person who claimed
a right to land on which there was a building, but who
had no right to that building. Now if the most rev.
prelate meant to apply his observations to the legislature
there coul Ibe no such division. Such was also the
opinion of the noble lord (Russell) himself, for he said,
when speaking of a legislature which had to dispose to
and' contr., 1 the various interests—ecclesias.tical and re-
enlar—of the country, religion ought to control and in-
fluence the decisions of the legieleiure. If that were so,
how was it possible that a person who was an unbeliever
in that religion which was the constitutional sanction of
their proceedings and measures could properly be ad-
mitted to form a part of that legislature ? Those gentle-
men who believed that the legislature had no' hing to do
with the religion, yet believed that it had to do with the
morality and happiness of a people. But a Christian
people considered Christian morality to be the beet se-
curity for the peace and happiness of a nation. But Chris-
tian morality was founded on Chritian faith, and these
together constituted the Christian religion. Now, if
that religion must depend entirely on the truth and office
of our Saviour, bow could those who considered that the
morality which he inculcated, though of the most sub-
lime description, was that which they were ca led on to
enforce, or that they would not give the preference to
that which was said to them of old time and choose an
inferior standard I He therefore ventured to maintain
that it was impressible to abandon that bulwark of the
constitution, the Christian character of the lnzis'ature of
this country. It would be said that all this was the result
of intolerance and a spirit of persecution. (Hear.) They
might just as well call it persecution to refuse the admis-
sion of men to the citadel who had not the pass word.
They refused to admit the Jews to Parliament because
they had not the passport. and not baring the passport
they bad a right to ask the Jews why they came there.
He asked the house to pause before it took the step de-
manded of them—before they abandoned that which for
250 years had consecrated them to their duty, and be-
t' -re they proclaimed openly that they had been mistaken
in supposing that this was a Christian assembly, or that
they had been taught by the wisdom of the world that
it was time these distinctions should be entirely aban
Boned. He earnestly implored hon. gentlemen to hold
the profession of their faith without wavering, and to
consider that they were performing their duty under the
highest sanction by which their consciences could be
enlightened and gu•ded. (Hear.)
Mr. STANHOPE seconded the amendment. He ob
jetted to the admission of the Jews on political and reli-
gious grounds—on political grounds because they were a
distinct and separate race and nation—on religious
grounds because he thought it essential to the constitu-
tion that its Christian character should be upheld. How.
ever much they differed from the Roman Catholics and
the Dissenters, there was at least one common ground
on which they could meet—the eround of a common
Christianity. This made a great distinction between
the case of the admission of tht se bodies and the ad his
sion of the Jews, and on this ground he should oppose
their admission.

Mr. KINGLAKE craved that indulgence which was
always extended to a member weo addressed the house
for the firet time, and remarked that the observations
which he intended to make, with the exceptioe of a few
csminents st, the speech of the boo. and learned
member for Stamford, would be applied, not to the
old-contested point involved in the Jew Bill, hut to
the new phase of the question opened up by the
amendment before the h else. He did not questiou
some of the positions laid down by the Lon, and
learned member for Stamford. He did not think we
were bound to admit Jews to Pail ameet because the
city of London bad thought fit to elect a Jew as one of
its representatives, and still less did he found himself
upon the argument that we were bound to admit Jews
because some of th.t people were already electors and
entitled to vote for members of the Legislature. It was
competent to us to ter:lade from political power any class
or denomination of men—to do so might be needful for
the safety of the State ; but the question for considera-
tion was whether, in order thus to trample out the poli-
tical rights of men, there was or was not a State neces-
sity. (Hear, hear.) What was the State necessity which
bad been alleged by the hon. and learned member for
iStamford for exclusion of the Jews He hail told them
that Chri tianity established a higher standard of mora-
lity than any other form of religion, arid then, with a
fallacy which appeared strange in one so learned and in-
genious, he went on to assume that this test had a tend-
ency to give us, not only persons who caeled themselves
Christians, but good Christians. (Hear, hear) It was
there that all the difference lay. He happened to be
locally connected with a part of the country in which a
singular sect bad established them,elves. They were to
ail inients and purposes a Christian sect. Their doctrine
was that our Saviour was Divine, and that HO founded
a tabernacle, as they term it, in the body of one now
living. They profes,ied a faith shocking almost to all
who heard it, yet there was not one of them who could
not come to the table and take the oath in the form
which the hon. and learned member foe Stamford pro-
posed. (Hear, hear.) Again, the hon. and learned
gentleman, with the view of influencing the debate,
had adverted to the prophesy in which the Jews were
represented as a people who should not be reck-
oned among the nations. Was that an argument
which ought to be addressed to the House of Com-
mons, or could they be expected to deal with the
question whether Jews were or were not, upon the
ground of an ancient prophesy, to be placed under the
ban of the world I (Hear, hear.) Approaching the
new question opened up by the amendment before the
house, he might venture to say that he differed a little
from the hon. member for Stamford in the historical part
of his speech. The hon. and learned gentleman had told
them that the oath was originally framed, and had ever
since been used, as a proftseion of faith. Now, as he
read history, the words of asseveration annexed to the
oath of abjuration were inserted there for the purpose of
testing the sincerity of a particular sect—pot the Jews,
but the Roman Catholics. The words had continued,
and we bad them, as it were, adherieg to the oath. It
was competent to hon. gentlemen opposite to take ad-
vantage of words introduced for another purpose, in
order to effect what they believed to be a good object ;
but did not the amendment suggest to the house and the
country a totally new view of the principles on which
certain persons bad been admitted to the Legislature?
We might or we might not have an established church
—we might or we might not apply a religious test to
those claiming to sit in Parliament. Tnose who agreed
with him said they would be content to continue the
oath with the words "so help me, God I" avoiding al-
together any religious test. Those who took the oppo-
site side of the question said there ought to be a re-
ligious test, and yet, having an established church, they
took no counsel from that church as to the way in which
the religious test should ba framed. Sow was it possible
that a state of things so alarming and so inconsistent
with the dignity of the established church could co-exist
with the possession of the revenues which it enjoyed I
If the words of the hon. and learned gentleman
were accepted au Unitarian might well say he was

a member of the church established by the State.
Surely, if there were one function of a church
more important than another, it was that of
determining what test ehou!d be applied to those who
came to take seats in Parliament, and if the test were
determined without counstl of the church in the manner
proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, an Uni-
tarian might say they bad dt-libma,-ly set!led what
should be regarded as the true religion for political pur-
poses, and within that definition he was a member of
the church. In what a position would the Established
Church ho placed ? They wculd leave it in the enjoy-
ment of its revenues and decline to take its counsels.
The hon. gentleman resumed his seat rather suddenly,
notwithstanding encouraging cheers from both sides of
the house.

Mr. WIGRAM adverted to the argument used by
Lord John Russell in a former debate, that it was as
much a matter of persecution to exclude Jews from
Parlament, as it would be to exclude lawyers ; and
said he would be prepared to exclude lawyers, or lords
either, if a reasonable objection were urged against
them through the country. On this question of per-e-
-.cution he thought no man need be ashamed to find him-
self called a bigot in company with the late Dr. Arnold.
Mr. EVANS said that as a new member he had ex-
pected to hear some very strong arguments in support
of the resistance of an alteration of the oath. While he
admitted the correctness of many of the propositions of
the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir F. Thesigei) he
thought he had left the main question unt inched. He
thought it was a very small argument against the
continued exclusion of Jews, that they had been
excluded for 200 years, and he thought also that
some strong State reason should be shown why
those privileges should be withheld. He admitted'
also that if there -vas, any chance of Jewish
members becoming a majorlity in the house, or that
they would destroy the Established Church, or
that they would make the religion of the synagogue
the religion of the country, there might be some
reason for opposing the alteration in the oath ; but he
thought no one would for a moment urge that there was
any force in such suggestions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARREN expressed a hope that the committee
would bear with him while he entered into a brief expo-
sition of his sincere convictions upon a momentous ques-
tion, the consideration of which bad been forced
upon them, not by any pressure from without, but by
the whole weight and authority of the Government.
When the measure under their notice had been intro-
dnced the noble lord the leader of the house and the
noble lord the member for the city of London had both
stated that they had never heard any argument advanced
which could be held to establish that the admission of
Jews to a seat in Parliament would be attended with
danger to the c nstitution. In reply to that observatioo
he would say that the objection to such admission was
much m, re a queetion of feeling than of argument. Re-
ligion, after all; was a matter of faith rather than of
reason ; it concerned more intirnwely the heart than it
did the bead of mank nd, The existence of this feeling,
therefore, that Jews ought not to be admitted to the
Legislature, was in itself a strong argument against the
bill under discussion, and the committee ought, in his
opinion, to hesitate long before they assented to a pro-
r,eition which did nu' rage to the real sentiments of the
English per pie. (Hear.) He said the real sentiments'
of the English people, because he did not believe that
the sedulous and scientific agitation which had been
brought to bear upon the subject had in the least degree
altered the feelings with respect to it which they
always entertained. A certain apathy upon the ques-
tion might appear, indeed, to exist out of doors,
owing to the smallness of the number of petitions
which had been presented against the bill, but that cir-
cumstance was, he thought, to be accounted for by the
prevalence of an impression, whether well or ill-founded,
that the measure could never pass into a law. (Hear.)
Be that as it might, however, it was a matter of some
curiosity to observe the mode in which the advocates of
the bill met the arguments of its opponents. They con-
tended that it war absurd to sunpose that the operation
of the bill would affect the Christian character of the
legislature, and when pressed by argument tending to
prove that such must be its operation they turned round
and maintained that the legislature had no Christiao
character at all. (Hear.) He, however, must contend
that it had, and that, moreover, it would lose that cha-
racter if the bill of the noble lord were to pass into a
law. Christianity was inexplicably interwoven with all
the institutions of the land, and yet Parliament was
asked by the noble lord to derange that mainspring of
our whole social system, without which it must crumble
into nothing. (Hear, hear.) If the committee were to
accede to the proposal of the noble lord then they
would have done much to paralyze the exertions of this
country in the spread of civilisation, in which she suc-
ceeded because she was the pioneer of Christianity
throughout the world. What would be the feelings
generated in the minds of those who obeyed the sceptre
of the Queen of England in distant lands when they
learnt that men who discarded all belief in the glorious
truths upon which our institutions were based, who
regarded the author of our faith as a simple impostor,
were admitted to the highest places of the legislature I
The result of such a step woul I be the creation of a
deadly feeling of indifference in religion—(hear)—and
the destruction of that confidence which was derived
from the pledge that he professed the principles of
Christianity which was now exacted from every
member of that house. In the celebrated case of
" Miller v. Salomon," the present Lord Wensleydale in
giving judgment made use of these words :—" How can
we say that it is a flagrant violation of national
rights that the legislature should make laws the effect
of which would be to prevent any one bet a
Christian from becoming a member of the Parliament of
a Christian country I" and the rioht hon. gentleman the
member for the University of Oxford, whom he ('sir.
Warren), in common with others, regretted not to see
in his place, hail, in a powerful speech, in which he had
strongly advocated the claims of the Jews, made the fol-
lowing observation :—" But I must admit that if we
Pass this measure we must be content to. give up the
Christian character of Parliament." That was a remark,
coming from the hisehquarter from which it did, which
he deemed to be well worthy of the attention of the com-
mittee, and which he trusted would receive that atten-
tion, notwithst inding that the subject did not appear to
excite that degree of interest in the House of Commons
which its importance demanded. But, although that
was the case, it possessed a deep interest for thousands
throughout the country, who professed themselves Chris-
tians, and who understood its deep influence of Chris-
tianity upon the great relations of life. Providence, they
felt, had not raised up this great nation for temporary
purposes, but for the achievement of high and grand
obje ts, and they knew that He made the tenure of the
advantages which bad been conferred upon her depen-
dent upon an implicit compliance with His behests. If
we thought proper to discard the condition of these ad-
vantages we should lose the Divine favour, and write
" Icsabod, the glory is departed." He could net sit
down without saying that in this chamber of the Legisla-
ture, the centre of the operations of the civilised races of
mi
mankind, if the veil were still upon the heart ell'rael,
the sceptre wogulodmlalal,f(rionniti,ii,uhrehdariitd,,,an(dlwleausgbioLu)ld
tee
o
with dismay the words, "Mena, Merle, God bath num-
bered fin
h o pes thy
thatkit d
everyvChristiann
his
vote, u
net 'r of n
lthe
hhisouiisledilwitoluualdl
remember, in g
responsibility, but also the claims of the Christian con-
stituency that sent him to that house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir-J. PA KINGTON—Sir, often as I have been pre-
sent in this house during these discussions I stand in the
same position as the hon. and learued member in having
never addressed the house on this subject. I now address
the house under circumstances which are to me extre-
mely painful, and which may possibly inflict some pain
upon those with whom I am connected by the closest ties
of friendship. Hitherto I have given a silent but not
unhesitating vote in support of the principle embodied
in the amendment of my hon. and learned friend the
member for Stamford, but I have been led by circum-
stances into which I need not enter to give to this
subject more study and more anxious reflection than 1
had yet given to it, and the result is that I cannot con-
scientiously repeat the vote which I have hitherto given
for excluding the Jews from a seat in this house. Sir,
having arrived at this conclusion, I cannot think, consi-
dering the position which this question has. now as-
sumed, that I am at liberty to shape my vote according
to the particular manner in which this question bas been
brought before us. I deeply regret themanner in which
her Majesty's Government have brought this subject be-
fore the house. I think it desirable to retain these words
—" on the true faith of a Christian." They give addi-
tional solemnity to an oath to which it most desirable to
impart as much solemnity as possible. lam sorry that
the Government have decided to change the shape of
the oath, and I think they would have adopted a far
wiser course if they had allowed Christians to take the
oath and to conclude it with that solemn form of words
to which we have been so long accustomed, and had
proceeded to effect the emancipation of the Jew by
a bill similar in principle to that one by which
the Roman Catholics were formerly emancipated,
which might have gone direct to its object of admitting the
Jews to a seat in this house, while at the same time the
Jess, like the Roman Catholics, might have been re-
stricted from holdingthose higher offices of the State, the
holder of which is brought into direct connexion with the
established church. If the Government bad adopted this
course we should have been spared that scene, and a very
painful one it was, which we witnessed to-night of Ro-
man Catholic members protesting against being placed
in an invidious position in being compelled to stand apart
and take a different form of oath. As, however, the
Government have decided upon proceeding in this way,
and as I have made up my mind that I can no longer
conscientiously continue to oppose the admission of the
Jews, it only remains for me—and I do it with regret—
to support that form of proceeding upon which the Go-
vernment have decided. I will not detain the house by
referring to the higher religious objections to the admix
sion of the Jews to political power. There are still per-
sons who think that by extending political power to the
Jews we are acting in opposition to the divine will and
contravening the direct injunctions of Holy Writ. It
this be so, the subject is at an end, and we are not at
liberty, as relgious men, to enter upon the question.
But I am bound to say that my hon. and learned friend
the member for Stamford, acting in this question with
that perfect fairness and candour which he di-plays on
all questions, has never taken this ground of argument.
If I remember aright, be has declared that it is absurd,
and worse than absurd, to suppose that we, the prior
inhabitants of this lower world, can by any conduct of
our own influence or control the decrees of Providence,
or affect that marvellous fulfilment of the prophecies re-
garding the Jews which constitutes one of the strongest
proofs of the truth of our religion. As my bon. and
learned friend has always avoided this subject, I will not
advert to it, and there only remains the argument, of
which we have heard a good deal to-night, and which has
been referred to by the hon. and learned member for

some justification for the continuance of the present oath,
tlie-efiefition of whtchedid not fall in-thedire-ctiarrwhich-
Wee first intended. But the hon. and learned gentleman
the member for Stamford had given up that oath, and
proposed another more suited to the present time, in
which the words -were inserted for a special purpeee—
for doing that which no legislature, at any previous
period of history had ever ventured to do, viz., opetly
to make religion—without any reference to the conduct
of the individual holding that religion—a sufficient justi-
fication for deprivation of civil office. Theht made the
question more serious than in any.sbape in which it had
been presented to that house. There was no political
axiom more generally received than the one that the
State had only to do with a man's opinion in so far as it
was a rule of conduct, and not as a rule of faith. In the
one case it affected society at large, in the other it only
affected the individual in reference to his own conscience
and his Maker, and to his conscience and his Maker it
must be left. When- proscription on account of opinion
could not be justified on account of the ,danger Of. the
opinion, it became persecution.. The hon. gentleman
opposite had been repeatedly invited to show any plea
of political necessity for emending Jews from Parlia-
ment, but they had avoided the question of political ne
cessity altogether, and took refugein Christian theology.
.He could understand the line which the hon. gentleman
opposite had taken last year ; but to-eight the hon.
' member for Stamford-came forward in the character of
a reformer and demolished the oath which bad the justi-
fication of political necessity, substituting words which,
without re-affirmieg the necessity for the first time gave
to legislation not a political, but a religious basis. It
was admitted that there was no political danger to be ap
prehended from the Jews, that their loyal y was un-
questioned, that their morality was unimpeachable. If
we still persevered to brand them and deprive them of
civil privileges merely to discountenance their creed, we
should pursue a course so inconsistent with our professed
principles of action, and with our religious professions,
that we really did that which was a reproach to us as a
Christian legislature, and must degrade us as a Chris-
tian nation.
Mr. WHITESIDE admitted the momentous character
of the question. He hel I the course taken by his hnn, and
learned friend was wise and discreet. Heinsisted on main-
taining the oath which was necessary. The hon, and
learned gentleman referred to the arguments that had
been made in the course of the debate as to the manner
in which a Jew would enter Parliament, and said it was
ridiculous to leave them there fettered and prevented in
taking part in questions relating to the Church of Eng-
land, and referred to what he termed a similar discussion
to this that look pace 1,400 years ago in the Senate of
Rome, when it was proposed to un-Christianise that
country, but which was unsuccessful, and he expressed
a hope that the same result would attend this measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL said—Sir, had it not been f T the
speech of the hon. and lea-ned gentleman, I shoal I not
have intruded upon the patience of the house at this late
stage. It appears to me that the arguments which were
used in behalf of the noble lord's bill, were so superior
in weight to those which were urged against it, that
I thought the house might fairly have been left to come
to a decision without answering those arguments. But
she hon. and learned gentleman who ha, just sat down,
confounding things that are totally diesitnilar, speaking
apparently on behalf of principles which we all acknow-
ledge, but speaking more on behalf of principles which
we should all readily condemn, has placed the question
in such a false position, that being atixious for the suc-
cess of the bill, I cannot refrain froen offering some re
marks in reply to him. (Hear, hear.) Be fore Ido so,
bowever, lee me express my joy and satisfaction that,
although be still retains his original opinions upon the
great question of Christianity, the right hon. baronet
the member for Droitwich is yet convinced the claim of
the Jew can no longer be resisted. Ido not mean to g'
again over the arguments which have been detailed to
the house by the hon. and learned gentleman the member
for Stamford, who says, and says truly, that it is for the
State to decide what shall be the cuaidettons upon which
power shall be held or ref u-ed by any subjsct. But, con-
ceding to him that proposition, he is far iedeed from
maintaining the validity of the exclusion that affects the
Jews. For instance, it is part of the law that no one
can sit in this house unless he is 21:years of age ; but if
any young man of 18 or 19 claimed to sit on the ground
that there was no sufficient reason why a certain age
should leo deemed necessary for the fulfilment of func-
tions so important as those of a member of that house,
the answer would be obvious ; it would be that the ex-
clusion was only temporary, as it affected him along
with all others, and that the time would come when he
would begin to be qualified to sit, if he were elected. But
that is a totally different thing to saying to a man that
on account of his religious faith he should be excluded.
It is necessary, before you raise that positive exclusion
to show that there are good reasons of state policy to
justify its maintenance. I say, then, in the first pace,
that this exclusion by the words, "on the true faith of a
Christian," cannot be shown historically to have been
intended. For what is the object. of the oath I
It is not to ascertain the faith of the party taking
it, but the exclusion of the Stuart family, or
any other pretenders to the throne. (Hear.) Again,
the oaths of allegiance and supremacy are of as much
importance to the state as this oath, and yet they do not
' contain the words, "on the true faith of a Christian."
Well, then, what is the object you seek to attain by the
continuance of those words ? You surely cannot pre-.
tend at this age that you intend to a-certain the senti-
ments, the religious faith of the person taking the oath ;
if you are to do that you must resort to different means ;
you must have some such means as are required for the
ordination of a cler,2yman. (Hear.) Toe mere wordA,
•" on the true faith of a Christian," will not exclude the
Mormonite nor even Deists, for they rill come to the
table and use the words with as much heartiness and
readiness as anybody. Therefore, supposing that were
'your object, your moans are insufficient. But besides
that. what le your wish I You ought to wish that the
great majority of the members of this house, should be
influenced by Christian principles in their conduct and
votes in this house ; but that is a security you could
never attain by an oath, and I confess I would rather
see-a Jew seated who was animated by his religious prin.
cafes and their meal precepts than the Christian who,
while taking the oath; does net hesitate to abardon
every respect for the Christianity he swears to profess.
It is not therefore riot by any declaration to be made at
tee table, but it is upon the influence which religion has
I upon the minds of members, that we must rely for the
spirit of our legislation. (Hear.) Now let me observe
that the hon. and learned gentleman, while he concea'ed
the object of it, shored the influence which lead to the
establi-hment of the ow h, or else why make re ference to
the time when persona were punished for not haling the
opinions of the establiehed church of the period, no mat-
ter whether Roman Catholic or Church cif Engetnd ?
NS ell, then, he was not satisfied asith that, but he must
go hack to the time when the senate of Rome declared
in favour of Christianity. (Hear, hear.). Bat what
happened' then I Why, any one who will read a
learned work recently issued from the pen of the Dean
of St. Paul's, will see that as soon as Christiani,y
was declared for a spirit of persecution became ram-
pant against those who were not Christians, and persons
were imprisoned, or had to suffer the total loss of
their goods, because they did not profess or belong to
the Christian religion. Now, sir, those are examples
which I think we ought not to fol.ow. I believe we have
come to better principles—and that we understand better
what Christianity really is than the senate of Rome
when they began a cruel persecution ; or than those of
our forefathers, who punished with fine and imprison-
ment those whn differed from them. (Cheers ) So far
, from injuring Christianity, you will extend its influence
by diffusing a Christian spirit ; for it is only toleration
that can cause Christianity to flourish. I think we may
safely go back to one of the earliest sayings that we read
when Christianity was established, namely, "if it is a
God itavill stand." (Hear, hear.) I think we may rely
upon the means which are being used with greater acti-
vity than were ever used before to teach Christian feel-
ing and Christian practice in this kingdom and through-
out the world. (Hear, hear) I believe that it is not by
intelerance—it ie not by those absurd notions to which
my right hon. friend the member for Stroud alluded,
namely, that we must shut out the Jews because they
woul I otherwise have the whole property of the coun-
try in their pOssession-4 is not by imprisonment, it is
still less by capital punishment—it is by none of these
means that the Christian religion is to be promoted.
(Cheers.) I believe that if you opened the door wide, if
you permitted every kind of discussion that was not of
the nature of scoff or ridicnle—l believe that if the Jew
was allowed to profess his own faith, and to come into
this house, you would be doing more to diffuse Chris-
tianity than you could possibly do by following the ex-
amples of intolerance set us in former times. (Cheers.)
- I believe that the hon. and learned gentleman who re-
ferred to those times, and who asked us to follow such
examples, was leading the house entirely astray ; and I
hope that the majority this night will show that we
have better examples to folio w, and better precepts to
obey. (Cheers.) . .
Mr. NE WDEGATE, amidst loud cries of "divide,
divide," addressed the house, in which he said
that the truth of the speech of the right hon, gentleman
the member for Enniskillen was admitted by the miser-
able pleas the noble lord bad urged in reply to it. He
contended that it was necessary that there should be
religious qualifications for persons holding high office,
and who became members of that house.
Lord PALMERSTON rose .amid•loucl cries of "Di-
vide." He said—l wish, in the first place, before I make
the very few observations which I shall feel it my duty
to address to the committee on the subject under discus-
sion, to offer my tribute to the, right hon 'baronet—
(lronical cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition
benches)—the member for Droitwich for the honourable
course which he has pursued on the present occasion.
(Cheers and counter-cheers.) It is honourable to any
man to stedfastly adhere to Any opinions which he con-
tinues to think right ; but it is still more honourable to
a man, when he changes his opinion by the process of
reasoning or from experience—(ironical cries of " Hear"
from the Opposition and cheers from tthe Ministerial
benches) —to boldly and manfully avow that he has done
so, careless of the taunts of those who still wander in the
regions of error —(laughter, and cries of " Hear")—re-
gardless of any allusions that may be made to him in
reference to distinguished persons in ancient history.
(Renewed laughter.) Sir, in common with my right
bon friend the member for Stroud, I could understand
the course of those who maintain that you ought not to
touch the oaths which have.been so long administered to
members of this house. I could understand those who
might say that, though those oaths contained in them
matter that was repugnant to good feeling and right
sense, they. were still sacred from their antiquity, and
who therefore would not meddle with those oaths, even
though to meddle with them would improve them. (Hear,
hear.) But what lam at 'a loss to understand is the
conduct of some of those hoheurable.menbers who

Midhurst, that if we admit the Jews to seats in this 1
house we shall thew fire uncbristianise the Legislature. I
(Hear.) In answer to that objection lam prepared to
advance two distinct opinions. The first is thet by ad-
witting the Jews -we shall not nechristianise the Leeitla-
tore ; and the other is that in the sense in which that argu-
ment is used by the opponents of the claims of the Jews
this house is unchristianised already. Theers.) Taking
the first branch of this argument, I will not aLegether
trust to a query put by a right rev. prelate who was ereu-
not in favour of the admission of the Jews. Ile said it
had' been advanced by the opponents of the Jews that if
Baron Rothschild took his seat in the House of Commons
the Legislature would he unchristianised, and he asked,
supposing that in the next Parliament he should lose his
scat and that no other Jew should enter the house, whe-
ther the Legislature, which bad been unchristianised
while he was in thehouse, would become a Christian Le-
eislature again when he was no longer a member of the
Houss of Commons. That seems to be the reductio ad
absurclusr, and perhaps rather weakens the argument.
Foe right rev. prelate dwelt with more force, and I at-
tach more weight to another argument that he used—
namely, that the true definition of a Christian Lesisla-
sure is a body of representatives elected by Christian
constituencies. (Cheers) If 'remember Lightly, the noble
lord the member fir the city of London upon a former
occasion declared that a representative assembly could
only derive its character and its complexion from its
constituencies. The true way to preserve a Christian cha-
racter for the Legislature is to promote religion and
Christianity among the people, and so long as we are here
the representatives o` a Christian land, elected by Chris-
t,an constituencies, I cannot bring myself to believe that
the admission of Jews to seats in this house will deprive
this house of the character which it has so long had of
being in its best and widest sense a Christian Hou•e of
Commons. (Cheers.) In the sense in which it is said that
the admission of the Jews would unchristianise the Legis-
lature I think the Legislature is unchristianised already.
I would not intentionally give offence to any gentleman,
hut I think that the true construction and real meaning
I of those who use this argument in this manner is that no
person ought to be admitted to a seat in this house
who does not admit the divinity of the Saviour. But
is it net a notorious fact that there are gentlemen in this
house who belong to the sect of Unitarians, and that they
do not admit the divinity of our Saviour ? Therefore,
taking the argument of my hon. and learned friend in its
strictest sense, the unqualified and avowed admission of
the Sociniau to this house does, in their acceptation of
it, destroy the Christian character of the Legi-lature.
Again, let me remind the house that, although you debar
the Jew from a seat, there is no extravagance of religious
belwf which, provided it be founded on a nominal Chris-
tianity, will exclude its professors from Parliament. The
hon. inernaer for Bridgewater (Mr. Kiuglake), whom we
had the pl asure of bearing to-night for the first time,
has already alluded to the establishment of which we
have doubtless all read,—viz., the Agapemone ; and I
ask the house what is there to prevent the NJ ormonite
from taking his seat in this house ? If you look at the
reed of the Mormonite you will find that the very first
article in it is a professed bell fin the Trinity and in the
Divinity of the Saviour. The Mormonite would there
,ore come to your table and take the oath as it now
stands. In the sense, then, in which my hon. and learned
friend speaks of maintaining the Christianity of this
house I think I have demonstrated that in the first place
you admit those who deny the Divinity of the Saviour,
and next that, while you shut out the Jew, the state of
your law is such that it would let in the follower of
Joseph Smith or the adherent of any other form of belief,
no matter how extravagant. If the house were to sanc-
tion the view of my hon. friends near mein regard to the
maintenance of the Chretian character of Parliament,
they ought not Co content themselves with retaining a
few words accidentaby occurring at the end of this
oath, but should fairly and explicitly legislate against
the Jew in the manner now adopted in one part of
Europe, but in one part only, as far as I know. lii
Dwirnark Proper the Jew is perfectly free to be chosen
a member of the Chamber, or to rise to any political
office ; but in the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein
there is a very strong law against his admission to Par-
liament. But how is his proscrtption managed ? Not in
the indirect and chanceivork mode resorted to by us,
but by express legal enactment to the effect that no man
shall be competent to sit in the Legislature of those
duchies unless be professes the Christian faith. Upon
these grounds, then, I cannot concur in the argument
which is founded on the tear of unchristianising the Le-
gislature ; nor can I subscribe to that other argument,
to which I confess I was at one time disposed to attach
more weight, and which has been adverted to to-night--
namely, the nationality of the Jews. The Jew, it is said
is an alien—he is among us, but not of us—be belongs to
a separate nation—iu a word. he is not an Eeglishoiae,
but a man who looks forward to his restoration to an-
other land. Here, again, I hope I shall not, be under-
stood as intending to say anything that can give pain to
any man ; hut perhaps we cannot have a stronger illus-
tration of this argument than that presented by the
Rothschilds. When that celebrated brotherhood
went forth from the galled. house in Frankfurt, and one
f its members settled in one European capital, and an-
other in another, doubtless they were a peculiar family,
hardly belonging to any one nation. But it is impossible
to draw a general conclusion iron an isolated cane of
that kind, and to apply *hat reasoning to an entire sec-
tion of her Majesty's subjects, more erpeciarly as when
once that family become rooted in a country they remain,
there and acquire propery and all the vat-ions interests
which a tack to the residents and citizens of that State.
And what is now their position ? Is not the Jew a re-
cognised subject of the Queen ? Is he not, by general
consent, a loyal subject ? Dams he not pay taxes ? D es
he not hold property ? Do you not permit him to fill
every office in the State excepting those which confer
political power ? Ii he not a magistrate and an alder-
man ? Have we not lately seen one of the most respected
and most efficient Lord Mayors who ever pre-ides] over
the city of London in the person of a Jew ? (Hear.) is
here anything, then, in the argument based sin the na-
tinuality of the Jew to justify us in telling him, " You
shall have no voice in imposing the taxes we make you
pay, or in constituting the laws which regulate your pro-
perty I confess I think there is not. It is said the Jew
has no inherent right to political power from the fact of
his being born a citizen of this country. I quite
admit that ; it cannot be contravened. But, on the other
hand, though there is no legal right to the possession of
pa laical power, I hold that every Englishman base moral
right to all the privileges enjoyed by others who are sitn.,
lady qualified to himself, unless there is some State ne-
cessity to the contrary, and that if you are to debar him
from those rights by reason of his religious opinions, you
I are bound to show that there is something in the nature
of his creed which renders the imposition of such a disa-
bility imperative One point which has been but little
adverted to in this debate cannot, I think, be wholly ex-
cluded (rem our consideration—l mean the state of the
law on this subject in the other Christian rations of E -
rope, o some of which aro in the enjoymentntjeyeet of conetitutionel
government. What do wo find tin be the political condi-
tion of the Jews in other parts of Europe? I have already
t r!d you that in the Danish monarchy the Jew is perfectly
free to sit, if elected, in the Representative Chamber, and
to enjoy political power. In France the Jew is in the
same position. And observe, I refer now to both Roman
Ca •holic and Protestant countries, Ir; France the Jew is
free to be elected to the Criarnher, and to hold po itical
power. In Belgium he is equally free—in Holland he is
qual'y free—in Prussia he possesses the same privileges.
I do not say the British Ilouie of Commons is bound to
take its rule from the practice of other countries, but it
is ii;tpossible on such a question net to feel that some
weight is due to the fact that the other rations of Europe
are dealing with it in a more liberal and generous spirit
than we do. I may appeal to very high authorities, not
on the other (the Ministerial) side of the house only, but
among the statesmen who have been connected with the
party to which I myself belong. This, in my opinion, is
not a party question, but one on which gentlemen sitting
on both sides and acting together may, as is now the
case, fairly entertain different sentiments. Among those,
however, t r whom I have been accustomed to look up
with respect in political affairs, I may appeal to the emi-
nent names of Lord Lyndhurst,. Sir R. Peel, Lord
George Bentinck, and many other distinguished
gentlemen now or formerly connected with the party
with which I generally act, all of whom have
uniformly advocated the admission of the Jews to seats
in this house. But I confess I think this a subject on
which a man's own conscience is a better guide than any
authority, however venerable. I can only say I have
studied this question to the best of my poor ability. I
have regarded it in relation to my duty in this house,
and in relation also to myduty as a Protestant Christian.
I have examined it as a political question and as a reli-
gious question, and the result has been that while as a
matter of feeling and sentiment I might, perhaps, myself
prefer that the Jews should not have seats in this assem-
bly, I do not think I should be justified in depriving by
any vote of mine a considerable, a loyal, and a respect.
able portion of my fellow-subjects of the enjoyment of
the full privileges of the constitution under which they
live. (Cheers )
Mr, NAPIER said the great object of all discussion
should he to arrive at the truth. The question then was,
not what was the origin of the words " on the true faith
of a Christian," but what were the reasons alleged for
their being struck out. (Hear.) The noble lord said
that one great reason was, that there were certain mem-
bers who could not agree upon the propriety of those
words being retained, but upon that ground all oaths
might be done away with. It had been said that the
argument that admitting Jews into Parliament would
urichri-tianiee that Parliament, was art absurdity. But
let them look further into it. Was the house content to
abolish its custom of commencing the business of the
house with prayer 1 (Hear, hear) But could the Jew
pray with the Christian ? Again, at Easter time, when
the house separated to celebrate the crucifixion of the
Holy Saviour, suppose a Jew got up and Said that he
regarded that as an insult to his feelings and religion—
could anything be said in answer to his objection ? Were
they content to break up all their ancient Christian cere-
monies ? He had heard the Yen. Archdeacon Hare and
also Mr, Holmes, who was father of the Irish bar,
say that no man but a professing Christian ought
to be a member of that house. The members of
shat house had to do with so many mat-
ters of purely a Christian character, that the
thing was perfectly inconsistent. Would they, while
refuting to admit a Republican who denied his earthly
sovereign, tolerate men who denied the supremacy of
Him who was Bing of kings ? Why bad the Jews been
scattered through every corner of the globe ? Was it not
because they denied the sovereignty of that Saviour who
was King of kings and Lord of lords ! Treat them with
respect and consideration in all other particulars, but let
them not abrogate any of those Christian principles to
which we owed our high position among nations, and
which under God's blessing he would defend to the last
moment of his life.

Mr, HORSMAN said the opposition on the other side support the amendment of the honourable and learned
had been conducted by four of the ablest lawyers in that gentleman. Those honourable members to whom I
house, who had treated the question simply as one of yrefer admit that the oath which we now propose
theology The plea of political consistency would afford to a great improvement on the existing oaths

, •

who accept the proposed change as a benefit, bat
vrho then-turn rlutd.anti_vratit_to wake -iiirect -
plicit an txciusion which wa- indirectly and ficcideptslly
made by the terms of the present oaths. (11,ar„) TllO
ath On the true faith of a Chri,tian" wa... not meant

to exclude the Jews, but tornake more emphatic the
words of the entire oath. Hon. members, by endeavour-
ing to iusei,t these wori's, endeavour to persuade the
house to make purposely an exclusion which it cannot be
contended was ever deliberately and pu'rposely made.
(Hear, hear.) Sir, we are told that this is a Christian

country and a Christian assembly, and therefore we
ought not to admit any Jews within the walls. Why,
sir, this is a Christian country, and this is a Christian
assembly, inasmuch only as that those who represent the,
nation are of the same opinion—(cries of " hear, hear,
from the Opposition)—of the same creed—(ranewed cries
of " Hear, hear"); but do hon. members maintain that
this is a religious assembly? (Laughter ) It is a poll'
heal assembly. This is an assembly for political pnr:

, -
poses ; and I say with my right bi.n.'friend the member
for Stroud you are not entitled to c 'chide gentlemen frig
this house by reason of their religious opinions. Yort
have nothing to do with their religious opinion, only

inasmuch aa—those opinions may sway their political eon'
duct. That is the only principle on which this test could
be impeeed; and that principle does not lie in the amend-
ment' which we are called upon _V) discuss. 'I eball not
tollow the hon. aed learned member fOr Enniskiilen in
that brilliant speech, parts of which, at least, we must
all have heard with great pleasure, on account of the
display of talent which they exhibited. (Cheers.)
ehall not follow him in the ancient examples, which .he
quoted ; but I must say that his argument went much
further than the amendment which we are now called
on to agree to. If the argument of the bon. and
learned gentleman should be worth anything we Ought
to go beck to the period to which he referred. (Hear.)
We ought to expel the Jews from the country— (bear,
hear)--or, if by exercise of great_ indulgence and'
liberality we admitted them within the realm, we
ought to exclude them from every municipal office--
every position in which it would be possible for them to
obtain influence. (Hear.) But, sir, it, is not consistent
to admit them to the exercise of municipal functions, and
then say, forsooth, that the existence of the. Christian
religion depends on our exeludirig half.aelozen Jews
from Parliament. . (Hear.) The argument of the bon•
and learned gentleman utterly fails limier these tests. It
is utterly preposterous, and I am sure the country evil
concur in thinking that it is perfectly preposterous to
imagine that the admission of a few Jews to Parliament
could alter the character of this country as a Christian
country. (Hear.) In my opinion the only effect the
maintenance of the present state of things can have is to
cast a slur on the practise of Christianity by making it
appear as if the Christians sought to uphold their creed
by the maintenance of intolerance and moral persecu-
two. (Hear, hear.) Sir, we have of. late years made
great pregress in the erincieles of civil and religious'
liberty. This matter F till remains in which these prin-
ciples may be and ought to be applied. (Cheers.) And
I cannot persuade myself that in this House of Com-
mons—where I see Catholic members who have within
the last few years been permitted to break through the
trarnmelevith which intolerance and bigotry bad formerly
surrounded them—l.caaiicit persuade myself that in this
Rouse of Commons where I see so many diseenters wbo
have been relieved by those principles of civil and Tell-
glow: liberty from the injustice that was so long done
them—l cannot persuade myself that this House of C
moos, which so fully represents the liberal feelings of the
country, can possibly support the amendment of the bon•
and learned gentleman, which attempts now, fi r the
first time, to make deliberate and exclusive that wbioll
is now only accidental. (Cheers.) I cannot believe
that this House of Commons will concur in the amend'

meat of the hon. and learned gentleman, and, therefore,
I go fearlessly to a division—(dieers)—leeling confident
that by a large majority we shall affirm chose principles
of civil and religious liberty on which, I contend, the
real spirit of the constitution of this country depends,
and which this house will never lose sight of. We make
a boast o our free institutions, but those institutions
would lose their animation and become deal if the prin•
•iples of civil and religious liberty ceased to inspire thew.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
The committee then divided—
For the amendment 2Ol
Against it 341
Majority
The numbers were received with loud cheers.

On the motion that the clause be agreed to.
Mr. WALPOLE wished to know if the bill was•rA
remain in its present form, because, if so, the Jew to"
the Roman Catholic would be placed on a different foot'
ing. To a deputation which had waited upon the noble
lord, he bad stated that this bill was but a step in ad:
vance. Lle wished to know whether the Government
intended to make any alteration in the biiL
Lord PALMERSTON said the Government did not
intend to make any alteration in the bill.
Mr. MAIN WARING • hoped the noble lord at the
bead of the Government, now that it had been decided
to admit Jews to Parliament, would give greater freedom
of action to the Protestant, Church.
Lord ROBERT CECIL thought more time ought to
be given for the consideration of the dense, because
under this bill Jew,. might appoint bishops, and be
eligible for the office of Prime Minister ; and, therefotes
he moved that the chair Man do report progress. ,
Lord PALMERSTON said the motion could be only
to cre,te deLty.
Mr. DRUMMOND asked if it really was the inten•
tin of the Government, under pretence of admitting
Jews to Parlfament, to give thew the nomination to
bishoprics ?
The committee then divided—
I'or the adjournment
Against it
Majority against the adjournment -:-186
Mr. BEN riNca .aid the minority were determined
to have an answer to the question whether it was the
intention of the-noble lord, if this bill passed, that Jew!
should be eligible to the offices of Prime Minister, Lora
Obancellor and other high offices.
Lord PALMERSTON said that ibis bill was not,:
bill of this qualification. The bill, as it stood, watu‘
not prevent any of thwe appointments ; but the Pao:
Minister, and appointments of that character, did a°
depend simply on the will of the Crown, but on the n36'
jori,y in than. house. If any hon. member wished t°
offer any further amendment, be would not resist the
adjournment after the 6rst clause bad been passed. id
Mr. WALPOLE said after that intimation he WOO
advise his frien.t to desist from further opposition.
Mr. MOW r,RAY thought the adjournment ought to
be Ares-ed to a .'ivision again.
Mr. MALINS thought no good object could be at.
tained by orotric ing the discussion. •
Mr. MILES thought so too, but he believed that the
House of Lords would throw out the bill.
After some further discussion,
Lord PALMERSTON said it was clearly against tb6
feeling of to.- house that the Chairman should reP°l
progress, especially as any hon. member might move a°
amendment (tn the. report.
The motion for reporting progress was negatived with'
out a division, and the remaining clauses were agreed t°'
The CHAIRMAN then reported the bill to the hoe,
The Sound Dues 8.1 was read a third time and passeu'
The County Cess (Ireland) Bill was 'read a third tio3o
and passed.
The Mditia (Ireland) Act (1854) Amendment Bill W 0
read a third time and passed.
The Fraudulent Trustees Bill was committed
forma, for the purpose of introducing amendments.
The Turnpike Trusts Arrangement Bill was read •
second time.
The Savings Banks (No. 4) Bill was committed, P'
forma, and ordered to be recommitted on Monday neatts
Mr. WILSON obtained leave to bring in a bill t 0 •
continue the act for extending for a limited time the
provision for abatement of -income tax in respect of /o*.
surance on lives.
Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to bring in a bill,
to amend the act of 1856 to facilitate leases and Wee (1'
settled estates.
Mr. ADDERLEY obtained leave to bring in a bill for
regulating the presentation and withdrawal of election
petitions.
The house then adjourned to this day, at 12 o'oloelG

[ADVERTISEMENT].--Holloway's Ointment and al
surpsss every Remedy for the Cure of Wounds.--
'
tract of a letter from Mr. Hubbard, of Walsal :--``
Professor r,—A most remarkable instance
of the virtue of your medicines has recently come under
my notice. A young man a needle maker, at Studley',
wa'i suffering from several ulcers upon his legs and °tilt
p-,rts of his body, so much that he could not ico'l
without crutches. He had the benefits of medics
treatment for a long time, but gradually got worseci
He was then advised to try y
toour valuable medicine, on,,
by them he is perfectly cured."—Sold by all an':
eine vendors throughout the world ;at Professor t.
1 i,sav's Establishments, 244, Strand, London ; and 11
80, Maiden-lane, New Y,,rk ; by A. S-Ampa, Consttor
tinople ; A. Guidicy, Smyrna ; and E. Muir Malta.

BIRTHS.

OF A SON.

On the 13th inst., at Talacre, Flintshire, the Hon. 14011
Moszyn.
On the 14th inst., at 60, Eaton-ER:two, the Wife of II"
Crossley, Esq., hi. P.
On the 13th inst., the wife of Sir Godfrey J. Thoraoo
Bart.

OF A DAIIGIFFga.
°lithe 15th inst , at 5, Southwick-place, Hyde-Par"'
square, the wife of Walker Skizrow, jun., Esq. g
On the 14th inst., at Englefield.-green, the wife of Chap'
Barnett, Esq.