The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-11 00:00:00

mat to the object, could hardly be found in the whole of
our parliamentary annals. Tne noble lord has fully
adopted it, but it was to the Attorney-General that the
bright idea first occurred that an act otParliament which
had hitherto escaped the vigilance of everyone might, in
default of legislation, serve the purpose of the noble lord.
I can imagine the pleasure of the hon. and learned gen-
tleman trhe.n this new light flashed across his eye. I can
imagine the haste with which he hurried off to the
noble lord, crying "Eureka!" but I hops not exactly in
the condition of the person who first used the exclama-
tion. (A laugh.) The noble lord has intimated that he
may find it necessary to use the discovery of his hon.
and learned friend, and to revert to that act of Parlia-
ment on a future occasion, in case he should not succeed
in a constitutional manner in obtaining the edmisaion of
Jews into Parliament; but I think and hope that the
noble lord will pause before he adopts a course which
will be accompanied by so much banger, and by the cer-
tainty of a collision with the courts of justice, in which
it is undoubtedly not very likely that this house will
come out of the contest with any great credit. Tho noble
lord fancies he finds a precedent for this course in the
proceedings of the House of Lords with respect to the
Wensleydale peerage, but surely the noble h.rd forgets
the important distinction that exists between the two
cases. The oaths required by this house and by the
House of Lords on the admission of a member are im-
posed by act of Parliament, and there are penalties
attached to persons who should attempt to vote with-
out having previously taken these oaths. Now, if
the word, "On the tree faith of a Christian," are
essentially and substantially pat t of the oath, as has been
frequently decided, not merely by courts of law, but by
the determination of the noble lord himself, then the
question must come before the courts, and then we all
know how those courts must decide the question. The
noble lord has adverted to the gentlemen of the legal
profession who were on the committee, and to the sup-
port which they gave to his view of the case, but I have
caXfully looked through the list, and I find in the mino•
rity not one single name of any member who had not for
a very considerable time been favourable to the admis-
sion of Jews into Parliament, or who were not recently
adopted converts, and we all know converts are prover-
bially not the most lukewarm supporters of a cause.
But I turn to the other side, and I am not afraid of poll-
ing lawyer for lawyer. I find this remarkable distinction
that amongst the majority are to be found at least five
members of this house who have been in favour of the
admission of the Jews, and who have yet been so satisfied
that the construction of the kttorney-General was not
the correct one, that they would not allow their wishes
to influence their opinions, cr permit them to force U 9
into those perilous courses which the nohie lord's speech
has indirectly indicated. Let us now consider the posi-
tion in which we stand. Thenoble lord speaks of religi-
ous liberty, and has spoken of our ',lacing the last stone
on the edifice of freedom of conscience and removing the
last remnant of religious intolerance. But ifl understand
the proposal of the noble lord, he does not propose to
place the last stone on they edifice of religious liberty.
Other anti-Christians are excluded by statute, and wby
should not the gates of the temple of religious liberty be
opened to Mahometans and Hindoos as well as Jews !
(Hear.) I hear a cheer which I understand to be a cheer
of approbation, but considering the circumstances that
are daily occurring around us, and the hostile feeling to
Christianity exhibited by Mahometans and Hindoos, it
certainly does appear to me that the present is not the
time for us to entertain a proposal of that kind. (Hear,
hear.) Of course, with regard to the Jews, I know per-
fectly well that whatever may be the animosity of the
Jews to Christianity, they are not likely to act so atro-
ciously as the Hindoos, or to he guilty of the savage
ferocity of the Mahometan, but if his feelings of hos-
tility be equally deep is it desirable to give him power,
by means of a seat in the legislature, " to work in close
design, by fraud and guile, what force cannot effectu-
ate?" (Cheers.) In conclusion, the hon. and learned
gentleman implored the noble lord to pause, and cone
Rider what the consequences would be of the mea,ure he
was then proposing. For his (Sir F. Thesiger's) part
he was resolved to maintain the position which he had
always assumed, and on every stage of this bill to resist
it to the utmost of his ability. He would do so i ecause
he believed that by seating the Jew in Parliament hs,
should inflict a fatal blow on that Christianity which

was so intimately interwoven with every part of our in-
stitutions. (Opposition cheers.)
Mr. DILLWYN supported the introduction of the
measure.
Mr. BENTINCK thought the bill ought not to be
introduced, and he was prepared to vote against the
motion.

Mr. COX agreed with the hon. gentleman who had
just sat down, that proceeding with this measure was a
farce, because there was no chance of its being success-
ful. He had the honour of numbering amongst his con:
stituents a large number of gentlemen belonging to the
Jewish persuasion, and, in voting for the admission of
that class of persons to Parliament, he did not think
he was taking a course which k,ould tend to unchris-
tianise the legislature. It had been said by one gentle-
man, that if they admitted Jews into the legislature they
might as well admit Hindoos and Mahomedans, but it
must be remembered that they must be elected by some
constituency befbre they could take their seats. (Hear.)
He had read in " Pickwick "--(a laugh)—a remark by
Sam Weller that the game of battledore and shuttlecock
was a very amusing and exciting game, but that when it
happened that you were the shuttlecock, and two law-
yers battledores, it became very unpleasant. So with
the Jew Bill between the two noble lords. He believed
that whatever might be done with the bill now, it would
never pass through the other house, and he protested
against the question being again dragged through the
, mire. _ _

W--•
Mr. NEWDEGATE was sure that if Baron Roths-
child were to take his seat by resolution, ho would
find himself too weak for the statute law of the country,
which would at once unseat and fine him. This introduc-
tion of the Jew was but a step to the total destruction
of the Christian character of the Legislature. The time
fur introducing the bill was most ill chosen, and he was
glad of it, as it would awaken the attention of the coon-
try to the iniquity of the measure.
Mr. PEASE held that the forms of Christianity were
distinct from its principle. The principle of Christianity
had no occasion to fear the Jew ; it would bo to suspect
its power to believe that the new dispensation would be
in danger if it met the old.
Mr. I. BUTT, though he had hitherto opposed the
admission of the Jews into the house, now felt that such
admission would do no damage to the Christianity of that
house. The Christian character of the nation rested on
something better than a phrase in au aot of Parliament.
Mr. B. STANHOPE said that this question must be
viewed in connection with our rule of India. If we
admitted the Jew to our Legislature, how could we
govern that country on Christian principles?
Mr. D. GRIFFITHS denied that the House of
Commons was a religious assembly. He should support
the motion.
Mr. WALTER, compared the dread of the admission
of Jews to the dread of greased cartridges entertained by
the sepoys. The Christianity of the house would no more
be destroyed by the admission of the Jews than that of
the country was by allowing the Jews to remain in it.
Mr. ADAMS protested against attempting to threaten
the house into the admission of the Jews. The period at
which the question was introduced was most inoppor-
tune. He deprecated all conflicts between the house and
ricl-esuwlteads hinittherefi,trointo
thetiie judicialdetriment
ha
with r) Lord
publicJ .RbUuSs
iSnEe.,Ls
.L diefndihed al-rays
-11,3hydastinterfered with the
Indemnity Bill or with the ce inmitteo on commercial
distress and issue he could have understood the
charge, but there was no other business for that night,
and he did not see how he was to blame. (Hear.) It
must be recoPected that the city of London from 1847
to the present time had elected as their member a gen-
tleman of the Jewish persuasion, and that that question
had never been finally decided by the house. He
thought the citizens of London were entitled to have
their bill introduced at the very earliest period, but he
had no intention to press it with undue haste, and he
readily assented to the postponement of the second read-
ing until after the recess. The hon.' gentleman had
made)
w a s
acting
personalt
n g
under o b s
wo)gearote:
nrtei
wgdtnhevgutni
.hldanotaettl
übrhetitelyoßoihhmeafi.nn,caruhiehrßthrflenße:aiauhphesvorsolthieieeotiocnBt)oahnhhreb4dps(
yae,e7eLl wrleeh,ooowo,
naßi
omitted
fsgi
d, bothttoh whenever
rtelsrseslTdoeco,gentlemen
questionnviahnh,i upegtliinerli
supported
:ken:or ta:reohnmpw tenaeei
Bueei
.ttdssasmaessslhratteiebsoahhri
to
ncyoee,
andeontmad
neuaotnnnb:csl
heyi vnreivpoltod(i
nrna (Lord
ques-
tion was introduced into that house by Sir Robert
claim of the Jews, and always gave his vote in their
ir
flhnh'Roalaovrsovt:(titi
jcunhieeshlec.erictcdi
tihbliiTjadetoyeth.nnej, so far from his (Lord J. Russell's) election
Rooaffi:annLosvdesorodelif that coalition had been successful,
he
him ; and he was grateful to them. Ho was under obli-
gations on that occasion neither to Baron Rothschild nor
the princely merchants, but to the people, who stood by
him when he was attacked. The hon. gentleman's his-
tory was also very inaccurate. The honourable gentle-
man the member for North Warwickshire said that he
(Lord J. Russell) intended that Christianity should be
no longer acknowledged in that house as the basis of the
constitution, and that he wished to destroy the Chris-
tianinity of the Legislature. He (Lord J. Russell) cer-
tainly said, with regard to the form of this bill, quoting
the words of Mr. Canning, he was not bound to that secu-
rity ; but, with regard to the general principle, he had
always maintained that our Christianity would not be
destroyed, but that it would give a more strik ng
proof of our ohristiao,ity by knocking down these bar-
riers which intercepted the passage of the Jew to that
house, than by maintaining them as they stood. Ile had
always put this question, and he could not see how it
could be answered—do you acknowledge this to he a
Christian !asthma ? There are 40,000 Jews is it, and if
those 40,000 Jews prevent this being a Christian nation,
you are nut a Christian nation. I ask you, then, if those
40,000 do not unchristianize the nation, how can one or
two Jews in Parliament make it an unchristian Parlia-
ment ? To that argument he had never heard an answer
given,nordid
said thinkhe
was, answertatno
o
could
at beh which given. NV
Lordhat
he had always
Bolingbroke or Mr. Gibbon took at that table could
,mk
)nate them a
the
asentim sentiments
Christian
tmofthelen;slat
iiembuerre,. butT depen
d
not
enforce Christian principles by acts of Parliament.
He had only further to say, that in case there were
no other constitutional mode left. he should think it
right to bring the subject under the consideration of the
house on that question on which the Attorney-General
had formed a decided opinion, as he thought it was a
mato,' of such grave importance that come decision
should he come to unfit it.
Mr. CON INGIIA raid i,e repro e,fAel a large con-
siOieeney, and their were I et decidedly with
tie noble herd. He begged leave to tell the Government
tlat their conduct in this question w.,u1,1 be narrowly
watched by the public, especially when it was remen;
tiered that last session the question, not being a•Cabinet