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

THE SUN, LONEON, TUESDAY EVEN 1 NG, JUNE 16, 1857

finitesimal right to elect a Christian as a member of the
Legislature, and himself having a seat in that Legislature,
and being able to make the laws which had higher eanc-
thong than those he acknowledged. He did not know
whether that distinction was satisfactory to those why.
eemed 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 an al-
dertnan—(hear) —you have advanced thus far ; how can
you then exclude him from taking a part in 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
acd conduct being governed and regulated by that law
end allowing him to be one of those who should make the
laws that were to regulate a Christian community. Put-
ting the question upon the low ground 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 wbioh was
pronounced upon him so many years ago—" Lo, this
people shall dwell alone, and shall nothe reckoned among
the nations"--had 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.
,eparatefromthetn by custom and habit, and by the unsocia.
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 ; se they must inevitably 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 ? 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 commixture, they bold communication without
union, and may be traced as rivers within banks."
There was something in theircustoms, 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 of 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 posed to
be removed indicated the character of the Legislature.
They must therefore take up the other ground. Now,
who were the advocates of this measure ? The sup-
porters of civil and religious liberty, the Roman Catho-
lics, and those members of the Established Church who
were ar xioue to see a separation of Church and State—
all these were united together for the purpose of accom-
plishing a common end, the destruction 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 hel I that religion had nothing
to do with the councils and business of this house.
Many of them, no doubt, agreed in the opinion of
Burise, who said that religion, so far from being out of
the sphere of the duty and province of the Christian l--
gielator was and ought to be not only his care, but the
prncipal 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
Whetely, who was a sincere and consistent advocate of
the claims of the Jews,. found himself greatly perplexed
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
bad a right to a room in a house, but who had no right
to any otherpart 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 could be 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 control the various interests—ecclesiastical and se-
cular—of the country, religion ought to control and in-
fluence the decisions of the legislature. 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 nothing 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 best 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, how 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, nr 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 impossible to abandon that bulwark of the
constitution, the Christian character of the leeislature of
this country. It would be said that all this was the result
of intolerance and a spirit of persecution. (Bear.) 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 having the passport
they had a right to ask the Jews why they came there.
He asked the house to pause before it took the step de-
manded of thern—before they abandoned that which f.r
250 years had consecrated them to their duty, and be-
f re they proclaimed openly that they bad been mistaken
ia 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
doned. He earnestly implored hon. gentlemen to bold
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 guided. (Hear.)
Mr. STANHOPE seconded the amendment. He ob.
jested 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 Around of a common
Christianity. This made a great distinction between
the case of the admission of these bodies and the ad mis
sion of the Jaws, and on this ground he should oppose
their adsni-sion.
Mr. KINGLAKE craved that indulgence which was
always extended to a member who addressed the house
for the first time, and remarked that the observations
which he intended to make, with the exception of a few
comments on the speech of the hon. and learned
member for Stamford, would be applied, net to the
old-contested point involved in the Jew Bill, but to,
the new phasa of the question opened up by the
amendment before the house. He did not question
some of the positions laid down by the hon. and
learned member for Stamford. He did not think we
were bound to admit Jews to Parl ament because the
city of London had thought fit to.elect a Jew as one of
its representatives, and still less did be found himself
upon the argument that we were bound to admit Jews
because some of th .t people were already electors and
entitle, to vote for members of the Legislature. It was
competent to us to exclude from political power any class
r denomination of men—to du 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 riehte 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
S amford fir exclusion of the Jews ? He had told them
that Chri tiaeiry established a higher standard of mora-
lity than any other form of religion, and then, with a
fallacy which appeared strange in one so learned and in-
g. nious, he went on to assume that this test bad a tend-
ency to give us, not only persons who called 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 had eetabl.shed themselves. They-were to
all in ents 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-ed a faith shocking almost to all
who beard 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 fee 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 Cern.
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 ? (Hear, hear.) Approaching the
new question operhai up by the amendment before the
hou.e, he might venture to 81 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 oricinally framed, and had ever
since been used, as a prof, s-ion 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—not the Jews,
but the Roman Catholice. The words bad continued,
and we had them, as it were, adhering 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 ;
hut 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
—wemight or we might not apply a religious teat to
t'iose claiming to sit in Parliament. Those who agreed
with him *laid they would be content to continue the
oath with the words "so help me, God t" avoiding al-
together any religious test. Those who took the oppo-
,ite side of the questio • said there ought to be a re•
and yet, havingnhan established church, they
ligious test,
the religious test should beefruarmeehda.s
took no counsel from that church
Htootwhewwasayitipnowsshibiclhe
that a state of things so ng alarmiand so inconsistent
with the dignity of the establisbedchurch could co-exist
with the possession of the revenues which it enjoyed ?
If
at,;444.1g1et well say ho was
learned gentleman
t;uoat;:po!,tsl.is of 2 tuL ec.

I 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 should be applied to those who
came to take seats in Parliament, and if the test were
determined without counsel of the church in the manner
proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman, an Uni-
tarian might say they bad deliberately setiled 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 he placed ? They would leave it in the enjoy-
ment of its revenues and decline to take its counsels.
The boo, 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
Par Lament, 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 perse-
cution he thought no man need be ashamed to find him-
self called a bigot in company with the late Dr. &rnold.
Mr. EVANS said that as a new member he had ex-
pected to bear 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. Thesiger) he
thought he had left the main question untniched. He
'hough; it was a very small argumnsnt 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 it there was any chance of Jewish
members becoming a majolty 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 had been forct,d
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-
duced 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 coclil be held to establish that the admission of
Jews to a scat in Parliament would be attended with
danger to the c netitution. In reply to that observation
he would say that the objection to such admission was
much mere a question of feeling-than of argument. Re-
ligion, after all, was a matter of faith rather than of
reason ; it concerned more intimately the heart than it
did the bead of mank ad. 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-
' p ,sition which did ouliage to the real sentiments of the
English people. (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
al ways entertained. A certain apathy upon the ques-
tion might appear, indeed, to exist out of doors,
oiling 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 fir 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 was absurd to suppose 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 op-ration they turned round
and maintained that the legislature had no Christine
character at all. (Rear.) 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
asktel by the noble lord to derange that mainspring of
our whale social system, without which it must crumble
into nothing. (Hear, hear.) If the tomtnittee 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 ?
The reult of such a step would be the creation of a
deadly feeling of indifference in religion—(hear)—and
the destruction of that confiience 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 ?" and the right boo. gentleman the
member for the University of Oxford, whom he (11r.
Warren), in common with others, regretted not to see
in his place, had, 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 highquarter 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, notwithstanding 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 ie 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 te, and they knew that He made the tenure of the
advantages which had 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
" Ichabod, the glory is departed." He could not sit '
down without saying that in this chamber of the Legisla-
ture, the centre of the operations of the civilised races of
mankind, if the veil were still upon the heart of T,rael,
the sceptre would fall from our hand, and we should see
with dismay the words, "Mena, Alene, God bath num-
bered thy kingdom and finished it." (A. laugh.) He
hoped that every Christian member of the house would
remember. in giving his vote, not only his individual
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 learned member in having
rever 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 Crave given a silent but not
unhesitating vote in support of the principle embodied
iu 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
bad 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 has been
brought before us. I deeply regret the manner 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 Ctiristiane" • - They give addi-
tional solemnity to an oath to which it most desirable to
impart as much solemnity as possible. Tam 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
Je..R, l•ke the Roman Catholics, might have been re-
stricted from holding those higher offices of the State, the
holder of which is brought into direct connexion with the
established church. If the Government had 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 admis
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 religious 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 displays on
all questions, has never taken this ground of argument.
If I remember aright, he has declared that it is absurd,
and worse than absurd, to suppose that we, the poor
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 hon. an,
!earned friend has always avoided this subject, I will not
advert to it, and there only remains the argument, o
which we have heard a good deal to-night, and which ha:
be.:4 ;4;.‘;:red to by tbO Lou, a4cl I;4rza9d 4:e Luber t
. .

Midhurst, that if we admit the Jews to seats in this
house we shall theref ire uncbristianise the Legislature.
(Hear.) In answer to that objection lam prepared t,
advance two distinct opinions, The first is that by ad-
mitting the Jews we shall not nechristianise the Legisla-
ture ; 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. (Cheers.) Taking
the first branch of this argument, I will not altogether
trust to a query put by a right rev. prelate who was argu-
ing in favour of the admission of the Jews. He 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 be unchristianised, and he asked,.
supposing that in the next Parliament he should lose his
seat and that no other Jew should enter the house, whe-
ther the Legislature, which had been unchristiani,eit
while he was in the house, would become a Christian Le-
gislature again when he was no longer a member of the
House of Commons. That seems to be the reductio ad
absurdum, and perhaps rather weakens the argument
Tne 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 Legisla-
ture is a body of representatives elected by Christian
constituencies. (Cheers.) If I remember rightly, the noble
lord the member for 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-
tian 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 bad 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 unchristienise toe Legis.
lature I think the Legislature is unchristianised already.
I would not intentionally give offence to any gentleman,
but I think that the true construction and real meaning
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 not a notorious fact that there are gentlemen in thi,
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 bon. 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 Legislature
Again, let me remind the house that, although you debar
the Jew from a seat, there is no extravagance of religious
belief which, provided it be founded on a nominal Chris-
tianity, will exclude its professors from Parliament. The
hen. member for Bridgewater (Mr. Kiuglake), whom we
had the 'pl asure of hearing to-night for the first time,
has already alluded to the establishment of which we
have doubtless all read,—viz., the Agapemone ; and l
ask the house what is there to prevent the Mennonite
from taking his seat in this house ? If you look at the
creed of the Mennonite you will find that the very first
article in it is a professed belief in the Trinity and in the
Divinity of the Saviour. The 14Ionnonite would there
tore come to your table and take the oath as it non
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 Savieur,
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 me in regard to the
maintenance of the Christian character of Parliament,
they ought not to content themselves with retaining a
few words accidentally 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.. In
D.inimark 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 proscription managed ? Not in
the indirect and chaocework 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 he professes the Christian faith. Upon
these grounds, then, I cannot concur in the argument
which is founded on the fear of unchrietianising 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—he belongs to
a separate nation—in a word, he is not an Englishman,
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 thie argument than that presented by the
Rothschilds. When that celebrated brotherhood
Went forth from the gabled house in Frankfort, 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 from an isolated ease of
that kind, and to apply that reasoning to an entire sec-
tion of her Majesty's subjects, more especially as when
once that family become rooted in a country they remain
there and acquire property and all the varione interests
which a tech 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 ? Does he not pay taxes 1 D'es
he not hold property ? Do you not permit him to fill
eeery office in the State excepting those which confer
political power ? Is he not a magistrate and an alders
man ? Have we not lately seen one of the most respected
and most efficient Lord Mayors who ever presided over
the city of London in the person of a Jew ? (Hear.) Is
there anything, then, in the argument based on the na-
tionality 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 e 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
band, though there is nolegal right to the possession of
political power, I hold that every Englishman has a moral
right to all the privileges enjoyed by others who are simi-
larly 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
are bound to show that there is something in the nature
of his creed which renders the imposition of such a disa-
bility imperativeonba cannot, I think, be wholly ex-
cluded point which has been but little
adverted
from our consideration—l mean the state of the
law on this subject in the other Christian nations of Eu-
rope,this stormed which are lathe enjoyment of constitutional
government. What do wo find to be the political condi-
tion of the Jews in other parts of Europe? I have already
told 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 rejer now to both Roman
Catholic and Protestant countries. In France the Jew is
free to be elected to the Chamber, and to hold political
power. In Belgium he is equally free—in Holland he is
equally free—in Prussia he possesses the same privileges.
I do not say the British House of Commons is bound to
take its rule from the practice of other countries, but it
is impossible ou such a question not to feel that some
weight is due to the fact that the other nations 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 Mirsisterial) 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 actine together may, as is now the
case, fairly entertain different sentiments. Among those,
however, to 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 Re 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 my duty as a Protestant Christian.
I have examined it as a political question and as areli-
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 )
7.I..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 mein-
hers who could not agree upon the propriety of those
words being retained, but upon that ground all oaths
might be done away with. It bad been said that the
argument that admitting Jews into Parliament would
uuctiri-tianiee that Parliament, was an 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 ? (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
that house bad to do with so many mat-
ters of purely a Christian character, that the
thing was perfectly inconsistent. Would th?y, while
refusing to admit a Republican who denied his earthly
sovereign, tolerate men who denied the supremacy of
Him who was King of kings ? Why had the Jews been
scattered through every corner of the globe I 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 aiming nations, and
vhich under God's blessing he would defend to the last
uornent of his life.
Mr. HORSNIA.N said the opposition on the other side
lad been conducted by four of the molest lawyers in that
Inn3s, who had treated the question simply as one of
110 ple4 of politioal 04sistolpy would agog

some justification for the con tinuance_of the present oath,
the operation of which did not fall in the direction which
was first intended. But the hon, and learned gentleman
•he member for Stamford had given up that oath, and
proposed another more suited to the present time, in
vhich the words were in.erted for a special purpe,,e—
or doing that which no legislature, at any previous
eeriorl of hi,tory had ever ventured to do, viz., open ly
to make religion—without any reference to the conduct
of the individual holding that religion—a sufficient justi-
fication for deprivation of civil office. That made the
question more serious than in any shape 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
eras a rule of cenduct, and not as a rule of faith. In the
.me 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
oust be left. When proscription on account of opinion
could not be justified on account of the danger of the
opinion, it became perseculion. The hoe. gentleman
opposite had been repeatedly invited to show any plea
sf political necessity for excluding 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 bad taken last year ; but . to-night the hon.
.nember for Stamford came forward in the character of
a reformer and demolished the oath which bad the jus•i-
tication of political necessity, substituting words which,
without re-affirming the necessity for the first time gave
,0 legislation not a political, but a religious basis. It
was admitted that there was no political danger to beep
prebended 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
orinciples of action, and with oar religious professions,
'hat 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 the course taken by his hon. anti
;earned friend was wise and discreet. He insisted on main-
raining 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
raking part in questions relating to the Church of Eng-
land, and referred to what he termed a similar discussion
to this that gook place 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 sael—Sir, had it not been fe. the
speech of the bore and lea-tied gentleman, I shoo' f not
gave 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 dime
!-,o a decision without answering those arguments. But
the hon. and learned gentleman who has just eat down,
confounding things that are totaly dissimilar, speaking
apparently on behalf of principles which we all ackti ow-
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 anxious for the suc-
cess of the bill, I cannot refrain from offering some re
marks in reply to him, (Hear, hear.) Before Ido so,
however, let 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 go
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 conditions upon which
power shall be held or refused by any subject. But, con-
ceding to him that proposition, he is far indeed 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 be deemed necessary for the fu'filrnen• 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
en 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 p ace,
that this exclusion by the words, "on the true faith of a
Christian," cannot he shown historically to have been
intended. For what is the object of the oath ?
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 ascertain the senti-
ments, the religious faith of the person taking the oath ;
if you are to do that you re ust resort to different means ;
you must have some-such means as are required for the
ordination of a clergyman. (Hear.) The mere words,
" on the true faith of a Christian," wiil not exclude the
Nlormonite nor even Deists, for they „ill come to the
table and use the words with as much heartiness and
readiness as anybody. Therefore, supposing that were
your object, your means are insufficient. But besides
that. what is your wish ? You ought to wish that the
great reajority 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 a' tain by an oath, and I confess I would rather
see a Jew seated who was animated by his religious prin-
ciples and their moral precepts than the Christian who,
while taking the oath, does not hesitate to abandon
every respect for the Christianity he swears to profess.
It is not therefore not by any declaration to be made at
the table, but it is upon the influence which religion has
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 concealed
the object of it, showed the influence which lead to the
establiehneent of the oath, or else why make reference to
the time when persons were punished for not holding the
opinions of the established church of the period, no mat-
ter whether Roman Catholic or Church cif England ?
Well, then, he was not satisfied with that, but he must
go back to the time when the senate of Rome declared
in favour of Christianity. • (Hear, hear.) But what
happened then ? 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 Christianity
was declared for a spirit of persecution became ram-
pant against those who were not Christians, and persons
were imprisoned, or bad 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 follow. 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 who 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 it will 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
intolerance—it is 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
wool i otherwise have the whole property of the coun-
try in their possession—it 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 ridicule—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 follow, and better precepts to
obey. (Cheers )
Mr. NEWDEGATE, 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 fur Enniskillen was admitted by the uti-er-
able pleas the noble lord had 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 tha' house.
Lord PALM.ERSTQN rose amid loud 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—
(ironical cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition
benches)—the member for Draitwich for the honourable
course a Bich be has pus sued on the present occasion.
(Cheers and counter-cheers.) It is honourable to any
am 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 the 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
hon. 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 understat' is the
conduct of some of those honourable members who
support the amendment of the honourable' and learned
gentleman. Tuose honourable members to whom I
refer admit that the oath which we -now propose
is a great -iLpyrovelpnt on tie ezistipt oaths