The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-05-30 00:00:00

The Earl of HARROWBY, in opposition to the bill, com-
bated the argument deduced from the admission of SoCi-
nians into Parliament. Socinians were admitted, not as
Socinians, but as Dissenters, who took the oath upon the
faith of a Christian. He concurred with the Bishop of
Oxford, that the admission of Jews into Parliament would
lower the religious tone and standard of that great as-
sembly. _ _

The Earl of YARBOROUGH advocated the measure, as
relieving the Jews from a species of persecution.
The Earl of DESARW took a different view of the mea-
sure, and supported the amendment. considering that the
bill was a violation of the constitution.

The Earl of ELLE:,'MhitE said, if he could believe that

this bill would create an indifference towards religion, still
more if it would unchristianize the Legislature, no induce-
ment should prevail upon him to support it ; but he could
not believe that such a consequence would result from
admitting a few Jews into Parliament.
Lord STANLEY began by paying a compliment to the
able and unanswerable speech of the Bishop of Oxford,
which was sufficient to justify their lordships in throwing
out this bill. He denied, with the right rev. prelate, that
the privilege of sitting in parliament was a right ; it was a
trust, the withholding of which was no punishment and
no persecution

The noble lord attacked with some se-
verity the argument which the Bishop of St. David's had
founded upon the analogy between the Unitarian creed
and Judaism, and he drew a distinction between those
civil functions which a Jew could exercise as well as a
Christian, and the office of making laws binding upon

Christians. The argument in favour of the bill,drilwn
from the fact of the election of a Jew by the city of Lon-
don told the other way : suppose the city had elected a
pauper, a minor, or a woman. He did not apprehend any

other house of parliament ; but, on the other hand, what
was the great object to be gained by the admission of that
number of rich Jews, for which their lordships were to

legislation of this country ? The question was, whether
their lordships would maintain that principle, or would
fly in the face of the deliberate judgment of the country,

repudiate the Christian character, and let an inference be
drawn that this house was indifferent to the profession or
non-profession of Christianity, which would produce a
deep effect upon the public mind, and especially on the
minds of the soundest and most religious portion of the
*rom the legislature of this

country, alienating their he

sptpch tb.
-*lon from the venerable Prelate

to the
L. au expla

er a reply from t
his lordship, wit:

Contents—

,s divid

of LANSDOWNE

hen the number
32 ; total, 128
38 ; total, 163

proxies,

Their lordships then adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMONS
Dr a variety of questions
ty's Government, of
to the conduct of Sir H. Bulwer in Spiin, and to

THURSDAY

been answered by her
Le most important re-

On the qu

Speaker do now leave the

by surp

X clauses

s, which be had pledged himself to
tions last year to retain in his bill of this

N' a t er w a

Mr.. MuNTz supported the amendment, as did Mr
EWDEGATE, Mr. W. PATTEN, Mr. HENLEY, Sir W
LAY, and Mr. P. Woon ; on the other hand +1

course

adopted by the Government was defended by Lord MoR-
Mr. S. CRAWFORD, and Mr. HUDSON, who re-

this recommendation Mr. SPOONER complied,
first received an assurance from the Attorney-
.l that the bill, after it had gone through commit-
should be reported immediately and then reprinted ;
Ind that it should be reserved for future consideration
nst I after it was reprinted.

. -
The house then resolved itself into committee, and was
engaged for some time in the discussion of the remaining
clauses of the bill.