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

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second read-
ing of the Jewish Disabilities Bill. He admitted, at the
outset, that this measure, though it affected the interests
of some of her Majesty's most loyal subjects, was not of a
nature to excite the s me interest as other measures for
removing civil disabilities. It was but a small voice
which endeavoured to make itself heard ; but the ques-
tion was, whether that voice uttered a claim for justice.
The noble marquis then took a view of our legislation
upon the subject from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, ob-
serving that the bill made no change in the constitutional
law of this country, which recognized no such disabilities,
and those who objected to the measure were bound to
make good their grounds of opposition. His lordship
showed that the policy of the test the effect of which
excluded the Jews from parliament was directed not
against the Jews, but against the Roman Catholics. The
justice of removing the practical disabilities of the Jews
had :seen advocated by statesmen of great authority, and
this bill came to their lordships recommended by the
House of Commons, whose opinion had been expressed
by three successive majorities. He denied that this was
a religious question ; no precept of religion, no part of
the revealed will of God, precluded their lordships from
entertaining this measure of relief in favour of a people
who, although not Christians, were a people between
whom and Christians there existed direct, important,
and unquestionable relations ; and whose character for
benevolence, charity, and humanity, gave them the
strongest title to such relief. His lordship showed the
inconsistency of permitting a Jew to act singly, as a
magistrate, and excluding him from a popular assembly,
where he would be but a unit, and that the policy of
England in respect to the Jews was at variance with the
practice of other nations.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH moved that the second
reading of the bill be deferred for six months, contending
-that the small amount of good which the measure would
confer was utterly disproportioned to the enormous mag-
-nitude of the sacrifice. The principle which this measure
would proclaim, namely, that whatever be the religion of
a man he would be entitled to be a member of parliament,
was destructive of one of the most important principles
of the constitution. Christianity was parcel of the com-
mon law of the land, and he foresaw political dangers in
this measure, arising from the national and social charac-
ter of the Jews, who were citizens of the world, and could
never identify themselves with our institutions. We were
in a great crisis of the fate of this country; warnings of
various kinds had been given by the direct interposition
of Providence, and the political evils which had visited
other countries were not likely to be averted from this
nation by a legislation for private purposes which would
desecrate and unchristianize the British parliament.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE briefly expressed the high
respect he entertained for the Jews, whom he had known
in Hanover, as well as in England ; but as long as this
remained a Christian government, he could not consent
to the admission of Jews into parliament.
After a speech from Lord CANNING in favour of it,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY opposed the bill,
founding his objection upon the inherent and peculiar cha-
racter of the Jews in relation to Christianity, and upon
the suspicion with which this measure was viewed by a
large portion of the most valuable members of the com-
munity.
The Earl of WINCHELSEA followed on tho same side.
after whom the Duke of ARGYLE, in a maiden speech of
considerable ability, supported the bill, whilst he admitted
the remarks of the Earl of Ellenborough, that this was a
religious question, and dissented altogether from the doc-
trine that Christianity had nothing to do with legislation
in this country.
The Bishop of ST. DAVIDS supported the bill, after
whom
The Bishop of OXFORD said it was painful to the feel-
ings to seem to stand in the way of granting a right to any
class of people in this country ; and if what was asked was
a right he should be prepared to give it in spite of ulterior
consequences. But he contended that this was no right
withheld from Jews. What was called the right of sitting
in parliament was no right at all ; it was a trust given to
a representative to be exercised in favour of the repre-
sented. The right rev. prelate quoted extracts from writ-
ings of modern German Rabbis, to show that the Jews
had no identity of political feeling with the people with
whom they were domiciled, but were a nation within a
nation. This was no theoretical doctrine; it had been
prectically adopted by the Jews in Russia, who assisted
the shattered army of Napoleon, and, in the war between
France and England, an English Jew was found ready to
contract a loan with the French Government. He con-
-tended that the Jews of England had come to sojourn
amongst us upon an express understanding that they
should not be admitted to political privileges here, and he
ascribed this bill to a private motive, to the position in
which the Prime Minister had found himself at the last
election. That it would unchristianize the legislature of
this country, in the very truest sense of the word he fully
believed. It would admit into parliament not merely dis-
believers, but enemies and haters of Christianity. The
principle upon which this country made laws to govern
half the globe was, that the law of England, as all our
jurisconsults declaie,l, rested on the New Testament, and
this bill would overthrow the basis of the law, and impair
the strength of every one of our institutions. A small
band of sturdy Jewish members might decide the fate of
a ministry, and he warned their lordships, if they passed
this bill, that it would lead, sooner or later, to the separ-
ation of church and state; that it would wound the reli-
gious sympathies of the people of this country ; would in-
jure all and strengthen none.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS, in supporting the bill, re-
plied to some of the arguments of the Bishop of Oxford,
and denied that the Jews were incapable of feeling an in-
terest in the affairs of the country in which they resided.
The Earl of EGLINTOVN supported the amendment, and
Lord larrut.Tori the kill, without mooting any new point.

The Earl of HARROW BY, 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 YARBOROOGH advocated the measure, as
relieving the Jews from a species of persecution.
The Earl of DESART 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 ELLESMERE 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, drawn
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
immediate danger by admitting four or five Jews into the
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
set aside what had been for centuries the principle of the
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
country, alienating their hearts from the legislature of this
country. _ _ _

Lord BROUGHAM, in supporting the bill, addressed his
remarks to the speech of the Bishop of Oxford, which
called forth an explanation from the venerable Prelate;
and after a reply from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in
which his lordship, with much energy, defended Lord
John Russell, their lordships divided, when the numbers
were :—Contents—Present, 96 ; proxies, 32 ; total, 128.
Non-contents—Present, 125; proxies, 38; total, 163.
Majority against the bill, 35.
Thejr lordships then adjourned.