The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-11 00:00:00

LONDON, SA rU it DAY EVENING, J ULY 11, 1857.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.-
EXCURSIONS TO TIM SEA-SIDE.

Family Tickets to WEYMOUTH are now issued at very Reduced
Fares ; the partivulars of which will be given on application at the
Padd'ugton Station, or at the Company's offices. •

AWIDOW LADY, 'agei 40, is desirous of
engaging herself as Companion to a Lady, or as House-
keeper to a Gentleman, or to superintend the bringing up of Tao or
Three Young Children. A comfortable home is the Advertiser's
primary object—Address 13.1%,-Messrs. Mann; 39, Cornhill, E.Q.

r THE RHINE : AND GERMANY.—The
Shortest and Cheapest Route, via, Rotterdam,. to the Rhine
and Germany, is by TILE DUTCH RiIENISH RAILWAY.
Through Trolly', in conjunction with those of the Cologne-Minden
Company, start three times a day.
Fifty pounds of Luggage allowed free for each passenger.
Further particulars f,rwardcd, post tree, -on application to the
company', London Agent, Mr. Joni C. JANSON, 61, Gracechurch-
street.

1
because the appeal was made a.amuchto Jewish sympathy
as to Christian, and the word was struck out. Would not
that happen in the Legisleture? The Jew would object to
the word Christian being used, and that he (the Earl of
Derby) would call unchristianieing the Legislature. It
was add that infidels could enter the Legislature. So they
could if they forswore themselves, but that the Legisla-
ture could not guard against, but it could declare that
a'l who entered the Legislature should do so on a Chris-
tian declaration. Her Majesty's. Government have
thought proper to take a course wnich . might embarrass
many of their lordships. He so far approved of the bill.
in so far as it amended the oath. Ho had been told that
-a Roman Catholic deputation hal waited upon the noble
lord at the head of the Government, requiring him to
alter the oath with regard to the Roman Catholics. The
answer of the noble herd was that he could not do that
—he could not amend the position of the Oath ilic, but
he did not mind making the Jews' position worse.
(Laughter.) .
The Duke of NORFOLK—Nothing of the sort.
The Earl of DERBY—At all events the noble lord
declined to accede to the request of the deputation. The
course which the Government had taken was to attempt
to force the House of Lords. His noble friend had hoped
that no declaration would be made with regard to maiii.
taining the independence of the House of Lords. Now be
(the Earl of Derby) hoped that their lordships would not
shrink from maintaining their independence on this occa.
sion. No doubt there were OCC"SiOOF when it was neces-
sary to act in opposition to that which they felt was ab.
stractedly right. That could only be justified when
there were formidable dangers to be apprehended, such
as in the case of the. Roman Catholic Relief Bill, or the
Reform Bill, and, he might, perhaps, add the repeal of
the corn laws. He believed that open this sulject their
lordships' minds were made up, and he trusted that they
would reject the comprhmise and contradictions which
were contained in this bill. It was on these grounds
that he ventured to move that the bib be read a second
time that day six months.
Lord LYNDHURST said that no one admired more
sincerely than himself the eloquence of the noble lord.
If splendid declamation could settle the question it
would hive no chance. But he lad been too long
familiar with that house to -expect that the question
would ebb settled on such grounds, The oenfidence
he felt in the . liberality and imdepsndence of their
lor4alsiassaAaedseisbeist tlatitapricciole of justice
on which the measure was founded, encouragecr
him to enter freely into the arguments which had been
urged against it. As to the facts on which the case de-
pended, they might be stated in a very few words. He
would go back to the revolution of 1688. That great
event caused at the very outset of the reign of King
'Willirm a change in the system of oaths. An oath o I
allegiance of a most cumbrous firm and an oath of su-
premacy had been enacted in the reign of James 11.
The oath.of allegiance, which contained for the first time
the words, "On the true faith of a Christian," wee
passed in the reign cf James ll.' and tvae in the begin-
ning of William's reign repealed, and the oath was put
in that simple form in which it was handed down to the
present time. He then came to the other oath—that of
supremacy. That oath hail two Farts, the one positive
and the other negative. The first asserted the supre-
macy of the Crown ; the other denied that any foreign
prince or potentate had any authority within these
realms. Durirg the latter part of the reign of William
111. the only oath necessary was the oath of allegiance.
In the first year of William tie crown was settled
by act of Parliament, but it was rot thought requisite to
take any oath. But in the twelfth year of William, in
consequence of the death of Queen Mary and the Duke
of Gloucester. a new settlement became neoessary, and
the crown was settled in the House. of Hanover. No
oath however, was even then thcught necessary, except
ofativnpart of the oath
James 11.
of supremacy William, the oathofal.le g
Ini an a e
the andlas
last year
anre
died, and his son assumed the title of King of England.
Ho was supported by the French monarch. Steps were
taken to enforce the claim, and then it was that the pre-
sent oath of abjuration was established to prevent the
claims upon the Crown oft s e descendants of James 11.
That oath had come down to us, but the cause had
ceased, and the simplest plan would seem to be to repeal
the oath, and to leave the other two oaths as they etood
in the reign of King William. This was the natural
course of things, the cause of the oath having passed
passed away. By the bill before them, the oath of supre-
macy and allegiance, as in the reign of William 111. was
re-enacted, but an additional clause was introduced
confirming the succession to the Crown. Now, if that
was not necessary in the troublesome times of William
111., how could it be necessary in these tranquil times I
But, in defereuce to the opinions of certain persons, this
clause had been introduced into the bill. The three oaths
Were thus amalgamated into one. Wh-at possible objec-
tion could there be to such a course ? It was said that
they ough% to add to the oaths as they existed in
the time of King William. Why, it should be asked ?
What were the words they wished to add ? " Without
equivocation," and "on the tree faith of a Christian."
Those words were once introduced to meet a contingency
which had long passed away, as more binding en the
Roman Catholics. If they were to be inserted in the bill
for that object it had ceased.. The Roman Catholics
were not obliged to take the oath at all. The words had
been deliberately expunged in the reign of King William.
It was a folly to talk of inserting words- wh:ch had
now no applicatioh. But it came to this—that the
words were to be inserted for the purpose of excluding
the Jews from Parliament. What was the posi-
tion of the Jews ? His noble and learned friend said
they were aliens. They Vare not aliens, they never had-
been aliene. The Jews that came over le the reign of
Charles 11, were aliene, they were born abroad, but to
say that the Jewa of the present day, who.wera born in
England, were aliens, was contrary to the law At the
close of the seventeenth century, the opinion of the law
officers of the Crown, Lord Talbot among them, Was'
taken, and it was decided that they were not aliens ; that
they might hold lands like any other persons. If these
men were to be exela led from the natural right of citi-
zens, they should introduce a bill expressly for that
purpose. The Jews had a aight.to have their claims
examined by the Legislature and by the Crown.
This would be the constitutional course. Instead of
which it was sought to exclude them by a side-winda
and that too not of the entire legislature, but by that
.branch which was not the direct representatives
of the people. This was not a constitutional
•course. One of our most eminent legal authorities
bad said that if the Jews were to be excluded it
should not be by a side-wind but by
.a direct act of Pare
liament. He could not make up his mind as to the reasons
by which their lordships should put in these words.
They could not put them in to exclude the Catholics er
the natural born subjects of England. They should ex-
clude those by a direct art, and if they did otherwise it
would be an unconstitutional course of proceeding. It
was said that the Jews had always been excluded. Why,
they were never thought of. The argument came to
this, that if they had been thought aif they would have
been excluded. In this care the facts were all con-
clusive against-such a supposition. Then a noble friend
of his said that, without these Rods, they would
unchristianise the legislature. How unchristianise ?
Did the christianity of t',e Country depend upon an
oath I (Hear, hear.) He should be glad if his noble
friend could have put himself in communication with
those treat men by whom our Revolution had been
effected. What reception wo uld be have met with
from Somers, Halifax, et* the other great men of that
day if he had used such an argument I They would
have turned their backs upon the argumentas ridiculous.
Did William 111. or his Parliament unchristainise the
Lee islature I Was his Parliament less Christian than
the ;torPliament governed by Bolingbroke—a professed
Deist than the Parliament of Charles 11. I Was
the Parliament of James, when these words were in-
serted, more Christian than William I The words when
considered in this light became a m ockery. His noble
friend touched upon another point which bad been
urged against the till. He said that it was inconsistent
in a Cbristi n legislature to admit the Jews. Now, this
was one of the great arguments on the other side. A.
Legislature ought to represent the Gauntry. Were
there no Jews in the country ! Were there no eubjects
of her Majesty ? If this Christian' country contained
some Jews amongst its people, what inconsistency
was there in the Legislature including Jews in the
same proportion ? A representative body ought
to embody the constituent body, Were not the
courts of justice Christian I The municipal cor-
porations Christian I Were these less Christian now
that Jews were admitted among them 'I A Christian
court and a Christian corporation might be and had been
presided over by a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion.
If it was a principle that Jews were not to form part of
the Christian Legislature, let them see how that prin-
ciple had been acted upon. Above all things principles
should be consistent. What was the course they had
pursued ? They had persisted in framing a constitution
for Canada. Many of the right rev, prelates were pre
sent that had that constitution before them, and framed
it according to their own views. Yet it did not exclude
the Jews: Was nos the legislation of Canada as Chris-
tian as our own I (Rear, hear.) A people of the Jew-
ish persuasion sat in that legislature, and were among
the most distinguished members of its body. How
weriathey to reconcile them with the present argument ?
But it might be said this was an oversight. Let them
then go to Australia. -Was not Australia Christian? Were
they to value Christianity more in one part of the empire
than another; They had framed a constitution for Aus•
tralia—did they there exclude the Jews I He might al-
lude to Now Zealand and the Cape of Good Hope, and
elsewhere, where an attempt was made to exclude the
Jews. The house had a constant consciousness that they
ought not direc'ly to proclaim their principle, so they
endeavoured to EstAblish ieby a side wind. An argument
had been introduced elsewhere by an excellent friend of
his, in the House of Commons, and the proposition was
receiard with cheers. It was this, that the question was
one not of religious liberty, but a question of power. Let
them analtse this. What was, in this sense, religious
liberty ? It would mean nothing more than religious to-
leration. Would any ono here define religious liberty to
be religious toleration ? That doctrine had been long ex-
ploded. The doctrine of the present day was, that the
opinions of no wan, unless they involved dangerous do&
trines, ought to exclude him from civil office. A bill
introduced by the learned lord on the woolsack, pro-
claimed by the preamble the principle that no man should
be excluded by his creed from civil employment. The
bill was submitted to the law commission of the Crown,

which returned it with some of its provisions altered,
but with the preamble unaltered-. It was well known
that Christians were not allowed to hold offices in the
_Turkish dominions. His noble friend the ambassador
at Constantinople remonstrated with the Turks, and
told them that their exclusion was not in conformity
with justice, and the Turkish Government yielded.
Their oondect had received the full approbation of Par-
liament. And were they not to act upon the same
principle themselves ? If they w ere to suffer their pre-
judices and interests to interfere, they woull he charged
with gross lypocrisy. (Reale) No one pretended to
say that, in point of talent, information, or in other re-
spects, the gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion were not
equal to others. We had put them upon their trial.
They had aceiii.as magistrates, as members of muni-
cipal councib, and the result bad been satisfactory.
But he had heard it often argued, .both there and in
the other home, how could a Jew vote on questions of
religion ? Of course they could not interfere in ques-
tions of doctrine. But he would give a more satisfactory
answer. He ramemberee when the same argument was
raised against the admission of Roman Catholics to
offide—it was more plausible in that case. He himself
had taken part in the discussion, and he remem-
bered the impression this argument made on his own
mind., It was then said that the Roman Catholics were
proselytizers—that they endeavoured to subvert our re-
ligion—that they were subject to a foreign n dentate.
All these were weighty arguments, but they declared
that the great principles of reason and. justice should
triumph. Thes did triumph ; the bill passed ; and all
the fears turned out groundless. For the Jaws, did they,
wish t o make converts ? Did they not respect our reli-
gion ? Were they subjects of a foreign sovereign ? In all
these cases it was quite -the reverse. It was twenty-five
years since a similar measure was introduced, in a
speech of great tdent, by a learned friend of hie, of
whom he might say, that there never was a more
sincere friend of civil and religious liberty.
Since that time, in successive Parliaments, the
motion had been carried by increasing majorities. He
found in those majorities men of high talent, great learn-
ing, great philosophers. On the last occasion—at the
dissolution—the subject was presented to the different
constituencies of the country, and in the metropolis a
member of the Jewish faith was returned by a majority
above that of the noble lord who had fought their battle.
Toe noble lord would consider this a mark of the strength
of its cause. Ceethe recent division Oh- majority nearly_
doubled that ofany-fOriner'occasion. These things were
not to be lightly considered. The relative duties of the
two houses were the!e—the one representing directly,
the other circuitously, the people ; it was the duty of
that house to serve. as a check against the rash, unwise,
and hasty decisions of the other house, and to give time
for consideration, but he had never considered that house
should be the continuous barrier against advancing legis-
lation that must lead to a conflict, and in that conflict
unless they were backed by a great majority of the peo-
ple they must once more succumb. Ile had been for
more than 30 years a member of their lordship's house,
and had taken an active part in all the measures for the
extension of religious freedom, of some of which he had
been the originator. He was, therefore, justified in the
course be was pursuing. Let them not lag behind the
other parties in the State, but assert their former posi-
tion, and stand forward, as they had ever done, the bul-
warks of civil and religious liberty.
The Earl WINCHELSEA. gave his most cordial sup
port to the amendment.
The Duke of SOMERSET said-that all the alarms
which had been. raised on questions affecting civil and
religious liberty had tended to the material prosperity of
the country. When the Catholics were emancipated,
there was an outcry of this nature, but subsequent events
had shown how fallacious it' was. He believed there
was as little apprehension with replied to' the results of
the present bill, the objects of which' had been before
Parliament for 25 years.
The Duke of NORFOLK said that, however the bill
might be framed, he considered that it embodied the
principle of the admission of Jews into Parliament. Of
that principle he entirely approved, as one of justice and
expediency. It was in accordance with the establish-
ment of -that principle that he owed the privilege he
possessed of now addressing their lordships. At the
same time there were many objections to the bill, which
he should seek to remove in committee.
Lord DUNGANNON said that if a measure of this
sort ever passed, be should suspect that the foundations
of the Christian faith would be destroyed.
Lord CAMOYS, as a Roman Catholic peer, gave his
cordial assent to the bill. is
Lord DE VESCI thought that the :measure could
never be productive of any political evil either to the
Church or community in general, and he should there-
fore support it. He thought that the Christian character
of the Legislature must depend not upon any particular
form ql oath, but upon the Christian profession of tba
Sovereign, and the other two branches of the Legis-
lature.. The attempt to make the 1-gislative assem-
blies cf this country Christian by any particular
form of oath, appeared to him to be quite a superfluous
precaution.' (Hear, hear.) He should feel bound to
vote fur the second reading of the bill.
Lord St. VlNCENT.opposed the bill.
Lord DUFFFERIN suoported it.
The Bishop of-LONDON could. not consent to give a
silent vote on this question. There was a strong feel-
ing that the religion of the legislature was involved in
this proposal to remove the disabilities of the Jews. For
many years past be had paid considerable attention to
the subject, but he was not able to convince himself of
the force of any argument founded upon that opinipn.
(Hear.) . It had been said that the prayers at the com-
mencement of the legislative business could not be con-
tinued if the Jews were to-be admitted into Parliament ;
but ho bad not h.ar'd that any objections had-ever been
made by Roman Catholic members to the use of tbel-e-
-prayers by those whom they considered to be heretics ;
and if.tbat large body, of persons did not object to
the use of such prayers, what ground was there for
supposing that it would be necessary to abandon
them of the appearance of one or two Jews in Parlia-
ment. He had seen no reason whatever to suppose that
this measure would lead to the unchristianising the Le-
gislature, but it was impossible to contend that this coun-
try was now less religious than it was 25 years since,
when we commenced to remove the most grievous of the
disabilities from the members of the Jewish profession.
The simple ground on which he should give his vote in
favour of the bill was that of justice, and believing that
the presence of Jews could not prevent their lordships
from expressing their opinion without restraint on Chris-
tian subjects, he looked upon their admission to one or
other of the branches of the Legislature as an act of jus-
tice. He should vote in favour of the second reading of
the bill.'
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY regretted that he
felt compelled to come to an opinion directly opposite
to that at whiCh his right rev. brother had arrived with
respect to the admission of Jews into the Legislature.
There was no vote which he gave with greater reluctance
or pain than that which it bad been his duty on several
occasions to record against the bill for enabling them to
take part in the legislation of the country. In coming
to this conclusion he was actuated by nothing like a
spirit of persecution, but was influenced only by a strong
conviction that a Christian country ought to be governed
by a Christian legislature. (Hear.) Entertaining this
conscientious opinion, he should feel it his duty again to
resort his vote in opposition to the further progress of
the measure. (Hear.)
The Eael of ALBERMARLE supported the bill, and
instanced the good effect which bad resulted in America
from its tolerant policy respecting the Jews ; and, among
other things, he stated that half of the Jewish popula-
tion of Bavaria had left that country, and had thus en.
ricked America, and beggared bigotted Bavaria. It
would be well for this country that it should not be found
in company with such a miserable and petty State as
Bavaria in our treatment of the Jews. (Hear.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY had always been op-
posed to the admission of Jews into Parliament, and
was still of the same opinion ; but could notgive her vote
against the second reading of a bill which proposed to
get rid of such absurd and almost blasphemous oaths as
those now required to be eaken by members of Parlia
ment. Feeling, as he did, so strong an opinion on this
subject, he would, at all hazards and all risks, vote in
favour of the bill, for the purpose of effecting a change
in the absurd oaths now required by law to be taken,
reserving to himself the right of moving or supporting
such amendments in committee as he might think fit,
respecting the words which precluded the Jews from
holding a seat in Parliament.
Lord BROUGHAM contrasted the conduct of the
noble lord who had last spoken, in deciding to sup-
port the second reading of the bill, with that of the noble
lord who bad moved the amendment, who, holdingstrong
opinions as to the absurdity and outrage on common
sense and decorum perpetrated by the cw;sting oath,
had still thought fit to give a negative to the whohe
bill, rather than seek to effect amendments of de-
tails in committee. What was complained of by those
who supported the bill was not that the Jews had not the
right to take part in the Government of the country, but
that these persons, being eligible in other respects, were
declared upon religious grounds to be ineligible for the
offices which they would otherwise have a right to hold.
He entertained very strong opinions in favour of this
proposal, and he trusted that their lordships would sanc-
tion the second reading of the bill. It had been said
that if the bill were to pais it would un-Christianise the
Legislature. If their lordships were to reject this bill,
their position would no doubt be a most gracious one ;
but what would become of their colleagues in legis-
lation—the House of Commons—if this theory were
true. They had by a very large majority nn-Christianised
themselves, and they must be, he did not like to say, on
the high road to perdition. God forbid that he should
send
dshainpys bwodoyulodn
the
stillsti c such
be ai
nc course--(a
mostr s e (a
comfortablel laugh)—but u gb)baunt d their
ga
Mous state if they passed the bill. What became, to
k
of the great importance attached to the words, " t
true faith of a Christian," as a bulwark to the On
Christia-
nity of the country, when it was a fact that Roman C-
atholic peers and members of Parliament we not called
u
i
of the oath, furnished strong evidence that there was no
pcoononi
ttcho
hear tit asr
Christian.
tt(h,t heirolaf
laugh
age thch.
)sh
rtihTs
tahitae
nt
oh,
ne,
an sete
oeeri
at
rthlheyer
hCwiasottrobdrosy:
fai
intention to exclude the Jew, and this point the noble
earl who seconded the amendment had entirely omitted
to notice in one of the most judicious—(a laugh)—and
skilful speeches whioh he (Lord Brougham) had ever