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

THE SCY LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 11, 1857,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTBRDAY.)
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the house re-
solved itself into aUommittee of the whole house—" To
consider the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abju-
ration ; and also to consider the disabilities affecting her
Majesty's Jewish subjects." In committee :
Lord J. RUSSELL—I am glad to say that it will not
be necessary I should long detaia the committee, as this
subject has eo frequently been under discussion, and as
the House of Commons, having heard the very able
statement of my noble friend at the head of the Govern-
ment, when he last year introduced a measure with a
view to the admission of the Jews into Parliament, is
already fully aware that the general principle of our
legislation is not to disqualify for legislative functions
or public office any class of her Majesty's subjects on
account of their religious opinions---a principle which of
late years has been established in the case of the Roman
Catholics and dissenters, although in those instances
political reasons had in former times operated in favour
of exclusion. The house is also well aware that there is
no positive disability affecting our Jewish fellow-subjects,
and that their exclusion from this house is owing to the
construction put on the oath of abjuration, and that that
oath was not originally intended for such a purpose.
(Hear.) So little is that the case that the persons re-
fusing the oath of abjuration, namely, 40,000 of our
Jewish fellow-subjects, are in the eye of the law 40,°00
popish recusants —an instance of the absurdity of con-
sidering them to have been originally contemplated in
the framing of the oath, I shall not now enter into the
theological question, and neither do I think it necessary
to go into the reasons that exist for altering the present
oath, wbich on the face of it is so exceedingly absurd as
to oblige members of this house to swear that they will
not support the claims to the crown of these realms of
a person or persons who really have no existence. I
shall merely state the nature of the bill I propose to in-
troduce. The bill of last year contained a simple form
of oath not similar to that which I intro-
duced in 1848, and which might be taken by
all members of the house, but one which could
not be taken by members of the Roman Catholic persua-
sion. The oath which I propose to introduce on the
present occasion will contain the words "on the true
faith of a Cbristian." I introduce them because they
have a prescriptive value in the eyes of many persons,
and likewise because one of the most eminent supporters
of the Jewish claims—l mean the right hon. member for
Bucks—has Expressed his opinion that they should be
retained ; but I propose that in administering the oath
to Jews these words should be omitted. (Hear, hear.)
It follows of course, and in a more logical way than in
the bill introduced by my noble friend last year, that
the Jews will be disabled from certain offices which at
present cannot be held by Roman Catholics, as I do not
propose to put them in a position superior to that of
the Roman Catholics, but to admit them to precisely the
same privileges. I may say further, that although I
do not propose by this bill to alter the oath for Roman
Catholics, because I consider that a separate question,
yet I do not think that if this bill pass there will be any
objection made to an alteration of the oath of 1829, so
as that it may be taken by Roman Catboros without
those feelings of repugnance which some of them now
entertain. But there is another question upon which I
cannot refrain from detaining the committee a few me-
ments, because I am sure it is a question which will
naturally arise. It so happens that in the short session
of 1847 which took place on the suspension of the Bao.k
Charter Act, on the 14th or 15th December I introduced
this very bill, or rather a precisely similar one, for the
admission of the Jewe into Parliament. That bill, and
.dl similar bills, have been rejected in the other House
of Parliament ; and it may be asked wbat prospect is
there now that the present bill will in another place
have a fate different from that of its predecessors
(Opposition cheers.) To that question I should answer
that I have framed the bill in the most conciliatory form
possible; that this house has at all times, with one ex-
ception, :armed. the principle of religious liberty in
favour of the Jews; and that last year themajerity wasfar
greater than it had ever been ; and in the whole course of
legislation I have found that repeated decisions of the
House of Commons,ratified by increasing majeritiesibave
always had in the end the greatest weight with the other
House of Parliament. But yet I do not wish to conceal
from the house my ultimate intentions on this subject.
In the course of last year I was informed by myboe. and
learned friend the Attorney-General that the act 5 and 6
William IV. entitled this house to frame a declaration
to be taken by members in place of the oath, should they
think fit, mid on hearing that opinion from so distinguished
an ornament to his profession as the Attorney-General 1
thought it right to have the question examined by a se-
lect committee of this house. The house agreed to the
nomination of a committee, and the question was therein
thoroughly debated. No witnesses were examined, but
the question was thoroughly sifted by gentlemen belong-
ing to the legal profession. The result was unfavourable
to the position taken up by the Attorney-General, but at
the same time the hostile majority was a very narrow
one, consisting of one original member of the committee
and two members of the legal profession, who had been
subsequently added. My right hon. friend the member
for Droitwich had prepared a motion which he wished to
propose, but which, owing to the course taken by the
committee, could not be introduced. His moiion was to
the effect that the two Houses of Parliament were in,
dnded in the act of Wm. IV., but that it was not exile.
dient to use the power then given unless no other con•
stitutional course should appear to be open for the
attainment of the object. Now it was not my duty, not
being chairman of the committee, to express any opinion
or to take any part in its discussions, but certainly had I
been called on to give an opinion, my opinion would have
exactly coincided with that of the right hon. gentleman.
Such being my opinion, it is unnecessary now to reopen
the argument. I will only say that the argument was
stated by the Attorney-General with all his usual
lucidity and more than his usual earnestness, and that
it met with the concarrenoe not only of the right hon.
member for Droitwich but of the right hon. member for
Bucks, and of the noble lord the member for Lynn,
together with the Lord Advocate and many other
distinguished members of this house. It was likewise
supported in a speech of great ability and acuteness by
the bon. and learned member for Boston. Fortified by
these opinions, and convinced by the argument of the
Attorney-General, I said I should not think it right to
let the question drop altogether without placing before
the house, whether or not they should adopt the pro-
posal of a declaration in place of an oath, in the case of
members who object to the words of the each of abju-
ration. It is not for mo to say how the house will de-
cide, but I must confess my own opinion to be that we
have been perhaps somewhat to blame in allowing the
seat of a member of this house to be discussed in courts
of law. My belief is that this is a question which by the
constitution of this country the courts below are hardly
competent to decide, and that as it would be impossible
for them to entertain the question of whether a mem-
ber had been duly elected, it is not competent for
them to decide whether our oaths have been properly
taken. Such was the spirit in which the House of Lords
acted in the case of the Wensleydale peerage. They may
have been right or they may have been wrong in their
decision, but nobody bas disputed that it was in the
competence of the House of Lords, that they were per-
fectly competent to decide, after her Msjesty had by
letters patent created a peer, whether that peer had a
right to be received. (Hear, hear.) In the same way I
believe that the Howe of Commons can decide whether
a member, having taken an oath or declaration is corn-
peteet to a seat in this house. That, however, not being
the question at present, I shall bring
in the bill, and
endeavour to obtain for it the consent of the whole Le-
gielatnre ; but for my pert I will not waive the rights of
the House of Commons stated by a high legal authority.
(dear, hear ) I beg now, Sir, to move that leave be
given to bring in a bill to euhetitute one oath for the
three now in use, and to relieve by its provisions persons
professing the Jewish religion from their present disa-
bilities.

Sir F. THESIGER believe the noble lord under-
stands that it has been arranged that no opposition shall
be offered to the introduction of this bill, the noble
lord having engaged not to ask for a second reading
until after Christmas,- and I must suggest to such hon.
friends an agree with me on this subject, that, considering
the various,former bills for the admission of the Jews,
it is much more desirable we should wait and see what
is the particular measure about to be introduced, in order
that we may be enabled the more satisfactorily to deal
eith it. I cannot help congratulating the noble lord
on his having resumed hie natural position on this ques-
tion. In 1847, when the noble lord was first returned
for the city of London with Baron Rothschild, and when
he gave that pledge from the hustings that he would in-
troduce a measure for the relief of the Jews, the ques-
tion seemed to belong of right to the noble lord ; but on
the lest two occasions on which the question was sub-
mitted to this house the noble lord has been rather
pieced in the background. In 1856, whether it was that
the young and zealous advocates for the admission of
the Jews were diesatiefied with the slowness of the
movements of the noble lord I cannot tell, but then Mr.
M. Gibson forestalled the noble lord, and such was the
( xuberance of his zeal, that he proceeded to the extremity
of deeiring entirely
to get rid of the oath of abjuration,
and the noble lord's duty was limited merely to c irrect-
ieg the zeal of his associate, by ietroducing in commit
tee an amend:tient by which the oath of abjuration wal
preserved. During the last year the noble lord fought
under the banner of the noble lord at the head of the
Government, but I believe that was mere from policy
than humility, for the noble lord was thus enabled to
move the whole machinery of Government, and t ) wield
all its weight and iefluence in support of his daring pro
jeck. The noble lord now appears again in front of the
battle on this question, and, I am happy to find is again
treading in constitutional paths—(hear, hear)—although
not without some Hly glances at those indirect and
crooked ways which have been occa3ionally attempted
for the purpose of forcing the Jews into this house.
The noble lord does not now threaten us with a
resolution that shall seat the Jew in defiance of the
Howe of Lord., but he has adverted to that which
was one of the most, extraordinary schemes that was ever
'submitted to Parliament. The noble lord supposee that
there is an act of Parliament which will enable this
house, not only in defiance of the House of Lord, but
in defiance of the courts of law, in case this bill ehoula
not pass, to admit the Jews to seats in the Commons
House of Parliament. Now, I must confess that any
thing
mare extraordinary, to my mind, than the disco-
very of al act of Parliament which had been overlooked
for many years, and which was euppoaed to make a ehort

one, an influence member of the Cabinet was allowed to
walk out without voting. He hoped that there would
be no repetition of that. There could, he maintained,
be no greater compliment to the reformations carried
some centuries aro than the fullest toleration.

cut to the object, could hardly be found in the whole of
our parliamentary annals. The noble lord has fully
adopted it, but it was to the Attorney-General that the
bright idea first occurred that an act ofParlianoent 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 when 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 hope 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 Perna- l
ment on a future occasion, in case he should not succeed
in a constitutional manner in obtaining the admission of
Jews into Parliament; but I think and hope that the
noble lord will pause before be adopts a course which
will be accompanied by so much danger, 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. The 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 lerd forgets
the important distinction that exists between the two
cases. The oaths required by this house and by the
House of Lords on ihe 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 words, "On the true faith of a Christian," are
essentially and substantially part 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 wo all PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.
know how those courts must decide the question. Tee Mr. COWPER then moved for leave to bring in a bill
noble lord has adverted to the gentlemen of the legal to amend the Public Health Act. It was the same bill
profession who were on the committee, and to the sup- as last session. He trusted it would not meet with the
port which they gave to his view of the case, but I have same fate, and that was why he had taken the earliest
carefully looked through the list, and I find in the mine- opportunity of introducing it. The bill would enable all
rity not one single name of any member who had not for towns, great and small, to acquire, at no considerable
a very considerable time been favourable to the admis- cost or difficulty representative government in this mat-
sion of Jews into Parliament, or who were not recently ter. The suburbs of London had enormously increased,
adopted converts, and we all know converts are prover- without any regularity with regard to building, and
bially not the most lukewarm supporters of a cause, with provisions with regard to underground drainage.
But I turn to the other Rid*, and lam not afraid of poll- The consequence was, that there were ditches in all
ing lawyer for lawyer. I find this remarkable distinction directions, which were made the receptacles of thh
that amongst the majority are to be found at least five refuse and filth of the houses, thereby creating nr xious
members of this house who have been in favour of the vapours to the great injury of the health of the
admission of the Jews, and who have yetbeen so satisfied neighbourhood. The bill would meet those evils
that the construction of the Attorney-General was not which produced typhus fever, erysipelas, and scrofu-
the correct one, that they would not allow their wishes lous diseases, including consumption and
to influence their opinions, or permit them to force us cholera. Cholera, especially was to be guarded against
into those perilous courses which the noble lord's speech by sanitary regulations, and no stronger instance could
has indirectly indicated. Let us now consider the posi- be cited than that of Newcastle and Tynemouth. In the
tion in which we stand. The noble lord speaks of religi- latter town precautions had been adopted, while in the
ous liberty, and has spoken of our placing the last stone. former they had not been, and the consequence was that
on the edifice of freedom of conscience and removing the in 1853 the deaths were 2,000 in Newcastle aeainst four
last remnant of religious intolerance. But ifl understand in Tynemouth. Another important subject with regard
the proposal of the noble lord, he does not propose to to health was the supply of water. The beneficial effects
place the last stone on the edifice of religious liberty. of a pure supply of water had been exhibited, in the
Other anti-Christians are excluded by statute, and why southern localities of London, where the public health
should not the gates off the temple of religious liberty be had wonderfully in proved since the improved supply of
opened to Mahometans and Hindoos as well as Jews ! water had been given. He trusted that the bill whioh
(Hear.) I hear a cheer which I understand to be a cheer he elm-about to introduce would receive the coneidera-
of approbation, but considering the circumstances that tion and sanction of the house, for great as were the
are daily occurring around as, and the hostile feeling to subjects that were coining on for consideration, none
Christianity exhibited by Mahometans and Hindoos, it count be more important than that of the public health.
certainly does appear to me that the present is not the He therefore begged leave to move for leave to intro.
time for us to entertain a proposal of that kind. (Hear, duce the bill.
hear.) Of course, with regard to the Jews, I 'anew per- Mr. AYRTON said no opposition would be offered to
featly well that whatever meet be the animosity of the any measure of a sanitary character that was constitu-
Jews to Christianity, they are not likely to act so etre- tional. in its provision. - No opposition last session
cloudy as the Hindoos, or to he guilty of the savage to such measure was given on the ground of its objects,
ferocity of the Mahometan, but if his feelings of hos- but on account of the interference with the free action of
tility be equally deep is it desirable to give him power, the people. He hoped the present bill would be free
by means of a seat in the legislature, "to work in close from objections of this kind, and that no machinery of
design, by fraud and guile, what force cannot eflectu- the Privy Council would be introduced. In that case
ate?" (Cheers.) In conclusion, the hon. and learned the bill woul I easily pass.
gentleman implored the noble lord to pause, and con. Sir A. ELTON hoped that some power would be
eider what the consequences would be of the measure he established to reuse the torpor of the local authorities.
was then proposing. For his (Sir F. Thesiger's) part Leave was then given to bring in the bill,
he was resolved to maintain the position which he had SIR HENRY HAVELOCK.
always assumed, and on every stage of this bill to resist On the motion for the second reading of Sir H. Have-
it to the utmost of his ability. He would do so i ecause lock's Annuity Bill,
he believed that by seating the Jew in Parliament he Mr. WILLIAMS said he bad great pleasure in giving
should inflict a fatal blow on that Christianity which his sanction to this bill. He was sure the house would
was so intimately interwoven with every part of our in- share with him that pleasure.
stitutions. (Opposition cheers.) Mr. BOWYER said Sir 11. Havelock bad saved an
Mr. DILLWYN supported the introduction of the empire, and what were they going to do I Why, to give
measure. him a thousand a year for life. Why, he was being shot
Mr. BENTINCK thought the bill ought not to be at forty or fifty times a day ; what, then, was the value
introduced, and be was prepared to vote against the of such a penSion I There was a rumour that Sir Henry
motion. Havelock had been killed. He trusted that rumour was
Mr. COX agreed with the hon. gentleman who had nob true. It was usual in such cases to confer a pension
just sat down, that proceeding with this measure was a t) be continued ho the successor. As to the baronetcy,
farce, because there was no chance of its being success- it must be borne in mind that a similar honour was fre-
fut. He bad the honour of numbering amongst his cont quently conferred upon gentlemen holding a high muni-
stituents a large number of gentlemen belonging to the cipal office, and in one case it was conferred on a gentle-
Jewish pereuasion, and, in voting for the admission of man who gave a dinner to the Emperor of the French
that class of persons to Parliament, he did not think If no one else did it, he (Mr. Bowyer) would move in
he was taking a course which e ould tend to unchris- committee that the pension be continued to Sir Henry
tianiso the legislature. It had been said by ono gentle- Havelockht son.
man, that if they admitted Jews into the legislature they Sir C. NAPIER went further than the hon. gentle-
might as well admit Hindoos and Mahomedans, but it man. He thought the pension was too small. No more
must be remembered that they must be elected by some brilliant services had ever been performed than those of
constituency before they could take their seats. (Hear.) Generals Havelock and Wilson. He thought that the
He had read in " Pickwick "—(a laugh)—a remark by Government ought.to take the subject again into-their
Sam Weller that the game of battledore and shuttlecock consideration. General Havelock was surrounded by
was a very amusing and exciting game, but that when it 70,000 men and 300 guns. General Havelock had his
happened that you were the shuttlecock, and two law- son with bins serving under him, and this thousand
yers battledores, it became very unpleasant. So with a-year was not sufficient for such men. - He thought the
the Jew Bill between the two noble lords. He believed
services of the army were not sufficiently rewarded.
that whatever might be clone with the bill now, it would
His gallant relative had fought great battles in India,
never pass through the other house, and he protested and hiS reward was a rot ribbon. Lately, we had had
against the question being again dragged through the peers
Mr. NEWDEGATE was sure that if Baron Roths-
child were to take his seat by resolution, he would
himself too weak far the statute law of the country,
which would at once unseat and fine him. This introduc- made—one because he was father-in-law to a duke
mire,
another because he was son of a marquis, and another
because he had written a book, (Lateehter.) Sir Henry
Havelock ought to be made a peer, as Lord Gough aed
find
others had been. General Havelock had fought more
battles than were fought in the Peninsula. He (Sir C.
tine of the Jew was but a step to the total destruction Napier) would take that opportunity of reading a letter
of the Christian character of the Legislature. Toe time which he had received about the conveyance of troops.
then reed a letter, giving the time of certain vessels
at,
for introducing the bill was most ill chosen, and he was [
glad of it, as it would awaken the attention of the coun• arriving in India, from which it appeared that the steam-
try to the iniquity of the measure, ere had arrived leng, before the sailing ve eels.] Not',
Mr. PEASE held that the forms of Christianity were they were told in the surniaer by the First Lord of the
distinct from its principle. The principle of Christianity Admiralty, and by the Secretary of the Admiralty, that
had no occasion to fear the Jew ; it would be to suspect sailing ships would take troops to India quicker than
its power to believe'that the new dispensation would be steamers. He thought the Government were right in not
in danger if it met the old. sending troops by way of Suez, but he said they had
Mr. I. BUTT, though he had hitherto opposed the made a lamentable mistake in riot n-ine steamers. It
admission of the Jews into the house, now felt that such bad been said in the House of Lords that captains in
admission would do no damage to the Christianity of that navy objected to carry troops, but he was convinced
house. The Christian character of the nation rested on that no capta;n in the navy would have objected
u something better than a phrase in an act of Parliament, in such a case as this. The Duke of Wellington could
Mr. B. STANHOPE said that this question must be have taken 1,200 men, and the fault was riot will the
viewed in connection with our rule of India. If we navy, but.with the House of Commons. The cry of re•
admitted the Jew to our Legislature, how could we erenchwent had been the cause of the inefficiency of the
govern that country on Christian principles ? navy. The navy had been greatly reduced. Let them
Mr. D. GRIFFITHS denied that the House of contider what would have been the effect of twelve sail-
Commons was a religions assembly. He Should support of-the-line arriving in Calcutta with 12,000 men. He
the motion, did not mean to say that Cawnpore would have been
Mr. WALTER compared the dread of the admission saved, but Lucknow would have been, and now the next
of Jews to the dread of greased cartridges entertained by mail might bring the intelligence that the people shut up
the eepoys. The Christianity of the house would no more in that garrison had been sacrificed. He trusted, how-
be destroyed by the admission of the Jews than that of ever, that General Havelock would not allow the women
the country was by allowing the Jews to remain in it. and children to fall into the hands of the savages, but
Mr. ADAMS protested against attempting to threaten that he would rather send them all into the fort and blow
the house into the admission of the Jews. The period at them all into the air, and fire the train himself. It was
which the question was introduced was most inoppor- his duty to do so. Then, last accounts said that they
tune. He deprecated all conflicts between the house and were killing the bullocks, why he (Sir C. Napier) would
the judicial bench, which had always resulted hitherto to kill every Hindoo and eat them. He trusted and hoped,
the detriment of the house, however, that hatter notes were coming. He trusted
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that he was interfaing that the Alinighty,Providence who had already done a
reat deal more for us than we had done for ourselves,
with public business. If he bad interfered with the g
Indemnity Bill or with the committee on commercial would still protect the unfortunate creatures, and that
distress and issue he could have understood the General Havelock would be able to march out again
charge, but there was no other business for teat ninett, and destroy the whole of the savages by whom he was
and he did not see how he was to blame. (Hear.) It surrounded.
must be recollected that the city of London from 1847 Mr. P. O'BRIEN feared that the discussion had
to the present time had elected as their member a gen_ diverged from the legitimate subject before the house.
tleman of the Jewish persuasion, and that that question (Hear, hear.) He rose to express the gratitude of
had never been finally decided by the house. He his countrymen for the gallant conduct of the troops
thought the citizens of London were entitled to have in 'lndia. (Hear, hear.) It was not in money velue
their bill introduced at the very earliest period, but be that the services of such a man es General Havelock
had no intention to press it with undue haste, and be could be estimated ; but, notwithstanding the eminent
readily as:ented to the postponement of the second read- services of that gallant officer, there were other officer,
ing until after the recess. The hon. gentleman had in India who had claims upon the gratitude of the coun-
made a personal observation which was boys unnecessary try. General Nicholson—(cheers)—had been a coun•
and uncivil. He stated that he (Lord.* John Russell) tryman and companion of his own, and it was a source
was acting under the influence of a great capitalist, of pride to feel that that gallant general by his admirable
evidently pointing at Baron Rothschild. The hon. gen. conduct had won for us the fealty of the Sikh nation,
tleman not knowing the history of this question had and had aided Sir John Lawrence in the acquisition of
not observed that long before 1847, whenever the ques- the Punjanb. (Hear.) Acquiescing in the justice of the
tion was introduced into that house by Sir Robert amendment, be nevertheless regretted that the forms of.l
Grant, he (Lord John Russell) always supported the the house would not permit of its being carried into
claim of the Jews, and always gave his vote in their execution. (Hear, hear.)
favour. The hon, gentleman had omitted likewise to Sir H. VERNEY said that this short debate could
notice that so far from his (Lord J. Russell's) election not be without its advantage., if it conveyed to the Go-
having been favoured by Baron Rothschild, Baron vernrnent the feeling of the Parliament, that the grant
Rothschild joined with three other gentlemen at the to Sir H. Havelock should be increased. He suggested
last election, and if that coalition had been successful, that the case of Sir H. Havelock was a special one for
he (Lord J. Russell) would have been no longer member consideration—(hear, hear) —ae there could not be a
for the City of London. The people, however, stood by doubt that the services of officers who moved large
him ; and he was grateful to them. He was under obli. bodies of men in the field deserved a innr e signal recog-
gations on that occasion neither to Baron Rothschild nor nition than those of other officers,.
.(Hear, hear.) He
the princely merchants, but to the people, who stood by
reconsider
ns
iGovernmentdehrth eiorf isin, e
coirsdi
oe
nr that.
Thetle
him when he was attacked. The hon. gentleman's his- throw ttlilliesnhtinienoiguhttto
Govern
tory was also very inaccurate. The honourable gentle-
epaargteof the' H.
Governmentiiayel°ci
alamrga:nn,otafhnted although he approved man the member for North Warwickshire said that he proposed ot sheed pensionreverse
(Lord J. Russell) intended that Christianity should be caution in such matters
generally expressed
no longer acknowledged in that house as thebasis of the as a general rule, he hoped her Majesty's Ministers
constitution, and that he wished to destroy the Chris-
resent distinction was
(Hear, h r
thea .
tianinity of the Legelature. He (Lord J. Russell) ter- wwishoul do
f takethe into consideration
)
eie arch. (Hear, hoar.)
tainly said, with regard to the form of this bill, quoting
beers
hgearirta
greater rp
the words of Mr. Canning, he was not bound to that secu-
rity ; but, with regard to the general principle, he had An observation had . e
.made t, an hon, and gallant
only an tei LinlsYtallitnoenetdo
always maintained that our Christianity would' not be could not allow to
rin,a"snsibuenrn°o'tiriceod.h.lN4Tl:leileeci:ihtwolil:.ichh:,,indhegallaiit wencher sail
book,"
~eorif, reed on a man
destroyed, but that it would give a more strik ng
proof of our oliristiarity by knockin down these bar- - that a peerage
l a; trail recently
aY
riers which intercepted the passage of the Jew to that " because he 1
1 that a * (a'"r.) He (la r.
house, than by maintaining thorn as they stood. lie had Clay) thoughti very illiberal sentiment. (Bear,)
it The House of Commons had often been el •
always put this question, and he could not see how enlightened by
and delighted with
the talents
could be answered—do you acknowledge this to be a 01:1U81:18a of Baron
Christian nation ? There are 40,000 Jews in it, and if Macaulay—(cheers)—and t
he believed her Majesty had
those 40,000 Jews prevent this being a Christian nation, never acted more its uisieon with the feelings of her
you are not a Christian nation. I ask you, then, if those people than when she raised that distinguished man to
40,000 do not unchristianize the nation, how can one or the peerage.
two Jews in Parliament make it an unchristian parea. Captain SCOTT bore warm testimony to the services
ment ? To that argument lie had never heent an answer lof General llaveleck, and e xprested clhsgemintreent at'
• •
did he think an answer could be given. What the iiieileo (tatty of the re wirli '
given, nor Isotowed !loon him—
lo oath which Leal , Mean) The i• 1 'le of her Horsy ' ' ' ' .'
he bail always raid was, that I„ 1 . al ii i ha- Heery Havelock aas not
Belingbrolte or Mr. Gibbon took at that table could i rich—(hem-)—hi., son was ileeendant for support on his
make them a Christian legislature, but it depended Papay,and on hie ace esion to the tit'e ho would most
on the sentiments of the member e, They c'nld not likely fled hialteli hall ,
p re I with it for the want of
enforce Christian principles by acts of Parliament. sufficient menes. gear,(
).
He had only further to say, that in case there were Sir F. SMITH said that
nothing could exceed the
no other constitutional mode left. he should think it conduct of the gahantgeneral in question, who was an
right to bring the subject under the consideration of the honour to the Briti-h nation and he earnestly hoped
house on that question on deuce the Attorney-General that the Government
consist the clearly expressed
had formed a decided opinme, as he thought it was a feelings
ofathhouse
would ..
dealing with his
oute and the nation in
matter of such grave ituportanee that Some decision I 1 • in •
c mine a liberal spirit, (EL,ar.)
should be come to upon it.
Mi RIC/3.ARDetON also thought the proposed pen.
Mr. CONINGHA. el alarge said he represented • *
con- Simon inadequate, as a recognition for such brilliant
stituericy, and their opinions were most decided! with services as thosewhich had been performed by the
tile noble ln.d. He begged leave to tell the Go r- Y II '
sernment ,ga nut general. • to be •
that their conduct, in this cint,,tion weult be 3 narrowly 1 Tee bill was then read a second time, committed
watched by the public, ceptchilly when it •
was remeirs this day.
bored that last session the reueetiu a, not b •
edi
g a Cabinet The house then adjourned at eight o'clock,

NEWDEGATE explained that he had never dis•
putod that the majority in that how would be Chris
tian, but he did not maintain that the introduction of
Baron Rothschild or any other Jew would violate the
Christian.character of the house.

Mr. BhNTINCK explained. The noble lord had
said that he (Mr. Bentinch) had accused him of acting
from a pressure from without, which could not be the
case, as he had brought a similar measure forward on a
former occasion. What he had said was, that the mea-
sure was brought forward at a time and under circum-
stances which made it irregular, and therefore it looked
as though it was in consequence of a pressure from with-
out.

Mr. STEWART said the argument about the Jews
having been the depositories of the sacred writing might
with equal force be applied to the monks, in favour of
admitting the bishops of Rome into that house. Giving
a Jew political rights did not make him an Englishman.
Ile had a distinctive character, and, as had been said
elsewhere, he looked to the future as a consolation for
the present—to a greater exodus than that out of E;ypt.
The hoax. member for Brighton had said that the Go-
vernment would 133 narrowly watched upon this subject.
Now no question at the last election excited so little
attention as this.

The motion was then agreed to, the house resumed,
the Chairman reported the resolation, and the bill was
ordered to be brought in.