§ On the Order of the Day being read for the second reading of the Jews' Declaration Bill,
§ Mr. Law Hodgessaid, the hon. Member 85 for Exeter had requested him to move the second reading, although it would have been more agreeable to his feelings to have left the matter in the hands of the hon. Member for Lambeth, whose name was on the back of the bill. In performance of the promise he had made to the hon. Member for Exeter, he would now move the second reading of the bill. The House, he trusted, were already aware of the difficulties under which persons professing the Jewish religion laboured with respect to certain offices in the kingdom, and it did not require any lengthened statement from him to justify the motion that this bill be read a second time. When the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed, a declaration containing the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," was required from all persona taking office that they would not use any power which they might acquire to the prejudice of the Established Church, The 9th of George 4th required that all persons holding office under the Crown should take the declaration within six months after taking office, but in corporations it was required that persons holding office should make the declaration on entering on the duties of their office, or within one month afterwards. Now they all recollected a gentleman who had filled the high office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex, whom they had often seen at the bar of the House with petitions from the City of London, and who had discharged his duties with the highest credit to himself. He had afterwards been elected an Alderman of the City of London, but he had not been able to avail himself of the confidence placed in him by his fellow citizens on account of certain words introduced into the declaration required by the Act of Parliament. From that difficulty Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists had since been relieved and he sought by this bill to afford the same relief to persons professing the Jewish religion. The same gentleman had afterwards served the office of high sheriff of the county of Kent, and probably it was owing to that circumstance that his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter had requested him to move the second reading of the bill, as it would be satisfactory that some Gentleman connected with that county should hare an opportunity of bearing testimony to the manner in which he had discharged the duties of the sheriff of the county of Kent. He had known many high sheriffs, but he never knew one who discharged his duties with more credit to himself, or more 86 to the satisfaction of the county, than Mr. Salomons. There was not a charity brought under his notice, and for which his assistance was required, to which he did not most cheerfully and liberally contribute. There were even instances of that gentleman's contributing to the building of churches in the county of Kent. This instance has not been selected as affecting Mr. Salomons only, but every other man professing the Jewish religion, and as exemplifying the anomaly of the present law-affecting those persons. It is well known that by an Act of Parliament passed at the time of this Gentleman's election by the citizens of London to the office of sheriff, called "the Sheriffs' Declaration Bill," he was thereby enabled to serve that important office, but from every other corporate office all persons professing the Jewish religion are still excluded by being required to make the declaration previously to taking the oaths of office. The difficulties, therefore, under which these parties laboured, did not arise from the express provisions of any statute, but from conscientious motives which they had imposed upon themselves, from making the declaration required of them. He had been told that in the corporations of Southampton and Birmingham, persons of the Jewish persuasion were members of the council, and they had become so because those corporations did not require them to make the declaration; it showed, therefore, that it was in the power of corporations from caprice or from any other motive to exclude such persons from situations of honour and trust. That was a state of things that ought not to continue. It was an act of justice to place these persons upon the same footing of equality with the Quakers and Moravians. He was unwilling to take up the time of the House further, believing that they could not do better than to pass this bill, and thus enable the community at large to avail itself of the services of a body of men as much distinguished by their benevolence, their social virtues, and their general qualification for the discharge of all civil offices as any others of the Queen's subjects, and thereby unite in one common bond all classes and persuasions in supporting the authority of the laws. It was upon these grounds that he begged to propose the second reading of the bill.
§ Sir R. Inglissaid, that when he last addressed the House on the subject of this bill, he had called it a bill to enable David Salomons, Esq. to fill the office of alder- 87 man of the city of London; and the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Kent fully bore him out in so denominating it. The whole of the hon. Member's argument was made to rest on the personal merits and qualifications of that gentleman. Now the illustrations given of the liberality of Mr. David Salomons, would prove nothing more than this—that he was neither a Jew nor a Christian. If he were a consistent Jew, he would not subscribe his money to assist any set of men in raising a temple to one whom he must consider as an impostor; and if he were a Christian, he could not bear to assume the name and character of a Jew. He had heard of a similar instance of what is called liberality occurring in America. A Presbyterian chapel in New Orleans had fallen into difficulties. A Jew of the name of Tola bought the chapel, and then gave it back to the congregation. Now, was it possible that that man could believe in his own religion as a Jew, when he made that gift, or, if he considered himself justified in making that gift, was it possible that he could remain longer a member of his professed religion? He contended that they were deliberately unchristianizing England, when, for the sake of benefiting a few individuals, they proceeded lo expunge from the statute book the declaration "on the true faith of a Christian." [Laughter.] In spite of that sneer, he would repeat his assertion. He said that hitherto all offices in this country, whether legislatorial, judicial, or municipal, had been exercised by persons professing Christianity; and now for the sake of an individual who, though not specially named in the bill, was prominently intended by it, they were asked to expunge the declaration "on the true faith of a Christian." Caring little for the sneer with which his words had just been received, he would repeat once more that, as far as this act went, they were unchristianizing England by expunging from the statute-book that declaration, which had hitherto limited all offices in England to persons professing Christianity. He had stated on a former occasion, as a preliminary objection to bills of this kind, that the Jews were a nation which by a peculiar creed was irrevocably separated from the rest of the world. The time would come,—and all good and pious Christians must earnestly desire its arrival—the time, he repeated, would come, when every Jew would become a Christian: but, until that time did come, the Jew of Germany, of Portugal, 88 and of England, derived his character not from the accidental spot on which he happened to be born, but from his parents and from his creed. He was a member not of the great German or English community, but of a people dispersed over every country on the face of the globe. You could not find any paper emanating from the Jews themselves, in which allusion was not made to themselves as a distinct nation. A letter was addressed some years ago to his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, who was then Secretary of State, by a Jew residing at Montreal, of the name of Hart, which in its very first sentence contained these words:—" As a member of a nation of oppressed people, I appeal to you." There were numerous addresses presented to the late Sir Robert Grant—a right hon. and much lamented friend of his, from whom it was always a pain to him to differ, and with whom he delighted, whenever he could, to take counsel—by the Jews of Germany and of Portugal, who considered that his right hon, Friend was acting, not on behalf of the Jews of Great Britain alone, but of all the Jews in every quarter of the globe. He did not see his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets in his place; but a few years ago a phrase escaped from the lips of his right hon. and learned Friend, as judge of an ecclesiastical court, which showed the natural bias of his mind on this question. "If a Jew," said his right hon. and learned Friend, "contract marriage according to the rights and customs of his own nation," then it is so and so. He, therefore, defied the hon. Gentlemen who answered arguments by smiles and laughter, to separate the Jew from his nation. They were, therefore, naturalizing a foreign people and a creed, whilst they were only proposing to give them civil and religious liberty. This bill was short, but sufficiently comprehensive. He had never seen a bill of which the technicalities were simpler and more transparent. It did not contain more than seven or eight lines, and these to outward appearance were sufficiently innocent. Yet it could not be denied that the object of the bill was to break down the line of distinction which admitted Christians to, and excluded Jews from, office. It had been said that the bill would admit one Jew, David Salomons, esq., to the administration of municipal, and therefore to a certain extent of judicial functions. His noble Friend, who was now at the head of the Colonial Depart- 89 ment, had but a short time ago been at the head of the Home Department. Would the noble Lord feel the same security, or would the country feel the same confidence, in the proper administration of municipal functions, supposing a Jew were alderman of London, as it does now, when under the jurisdiction of Christian magistrates? A charge was brought against that unhappy man, Carlisle, for exhibiting blasphemous prints and publications in the windows of his shop in Fleet-street. Those prints and those publications were blasphemous in the opinion of the noble Lord—they were blasphemous in the opinion of the hon. Member for Leicester, and indeed, of all Members who were—he would not use the phrase which was in his mind when he commenced his sentence, but he would say at once, of all Members who were most liberal then in the Legislature. He called upon hon. Members to consider whether they were not placing the individual whom they now wished to qualify for municipal, and therefore for judicial functions, in an invidious position, when they placed him in an office in which he might be called to sit in judgment upon that which he would not consider blasphemy, but which all who then heard him would consider so. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would, perhaps, tell him that this would be a rare and even an extreme case. It might be so; but he recollected, that there were many persons then in the House, to whom he meant no disrespect by the allusion, who had been admitted into it drop by drop, but whose admission he had ever regarded, and ever should regard, as one of the greatest evils that had ever befallen this country. He considered this bill as a kindred step to the admission into the house of Parsees and of Brahmins, which had been hinted at more than once by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He put it to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, whether he seriously meant to admit the Parsees of Bombay into that House? If he understood the hon. Member rightly, he said he had no objection to the admission of either Parsees or Brahmins into that House, provided they discharged honestly their duties as citizens. Whatever might be the truth or falsehood of that doctrine—on which for the present he would not say a word—as applied to a new state, there could be no doubt that it could not be applied to an old state, as, for instance, to England and her colonies, where Christianity, as by law established, was an 90 integral part of the constitution. He therefore contended, that they were not at liberty to hold this as an extreme case. If they deliberately expunged from the statute-book the declaration, "I do this on the true faith of a Christian," for the sake of admitting a single individual to the exercise of municipal functions, they would deliberately pave the way to the admission of all Jews to all our civil privileges, according to the increasing liberality of hon. Members on both sides of the House. He looked upon the present as a case by which not more than two or three individuals could be benefited. But was the House aware that many Jews, some of the most conscientious among the Jews, objected to the boon that was now offered them? He was sure, that the hon. Member for Lambeth would remember, that about five years ago he presented a petition from Mr. Ebenezer Detmer, praying the House not to pass a bill for the emancipation of the Jews, which was then before it, because it was at variance with the prophecies of the Old Testament. He had himself received at the time a communication to the same effect from an individual of the Jewish creed residing at Cambridge, the Rabbi Crooll. That individual had addressed him privately by letter, and had afterwards addressed to the world the same sentiments in the shape of a pamphlet. The substance of both was the same. In the Rabbi's pamphlet, which was in answer to another advocating the emancipation of the Jews, he addressed his Jewish brethren to the following effect:—"You are mistaken greatly; you are no Englishmen, though born in England, you are no more than foreigners; you have no home in this land or in any other you are a Jew." In short, the Rabbi stated distinctly, that no Jew could be at once an Englishman and a Jew. He appealed to every Gentleman who heard him, and asked them whether the Jews were like any other foreigners who had sought shelter within the realm of England? For instance, they were not like the Protestant refugees of France, who, after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, flocked in numbers to our shores. In the course of two generations those refugees had merged into the great mass of the English community, but had that, or any thing like that, been the case with the Jews? Again, the Dutch families of Bentinck, Keppel, and Vansittart, who came over here with William 3rd, were now as much English families as those which came 91 over with William the Conqueror. He considered this bill as an attempt to introduce first into our corporations, and ultimately into the Legislature, men, who, of necessity, and beyond the reach of all human laws, were the citizens of a country with which we had, and could have no alliance. He asked how many persons would be introduced into our corporations by this bill? Not more than two or three at most. When the question of Roman Catholic emancipation was before the House, he distinctly said, that if the claim were a claim of justice, he would not deny it, whether it were advanced by the poor or by the rich; by the many, or by the few. In his mind a claim of justice was not affected by the numbers, be they great or small, of those who urged it. In this case the benefit was for the few, the injury for the many; because there being that record on the statute-book, that a declaration" on the true faith of a Christian" was a necessary preliminary to the admission into office, it was now proposed to expunge it for the benefit of a few wealthy individuals, and to the sacrifice of the exclusively-Christian character of our municipal institutions. He was not prepared to expunge that declaration, and he hoped that the House would not afford its sanction to any such change. He begged leave to remind hon. Gentlemen, that we did not invite the Jews into England. Two centuries ago there was not a single Jew in England. (Hear, from Mr. Hume.) Did the hon. Member suppose that be (Sir R. Inglis) forgot the Anglia Judaica, and the Jews of earlier centuries, their numbers and their sufferings But the present Jews were not their descendants. They had come in gradually since, knowing the law under which they would have to live. They had come into a Christian country, on condition of enjoying Christian hospitality and Christian protection, but not on a promise that we would alter for their advantage the character of the social condition under which we lived. They were entitled at present to all the rights of property, but not to those of power; and he nosy asked the House, whether it would male the change proposed, in order to invest them with that which they had not hitherto possessed, political power. One of these two religions must be false? Was the House prepared by its legislation of that night to declare that its own religion was false? The Jews declared, that He, whom we 92 revered and adored, was an impostor—that He, in whose name we hoped for salvation, was a deceiver. When the Jew came to their Table, he must make that statement openly, publicly, solemnly. It was true, that a measure for opening the door of the Legislature to the Jews was not now proposed; but it was equally true, that it would not be long before that door would be opened to them, if this bill were passed. All his present arguments proceeded on the assumption (he might say, certainly) that this Bill, if passed, would be a beginning only He had advised the House, on a former occasion, to take for its device the old maxim, principiis obsta; and acting upon the advice, be now called upon it to oppose this bill, which, if carried, would compel them, before long to legislate on even higher matters connected with the Christianity of the empire. Under these circumstances his duty was a very simple one. He therefore moved, that this bill be read a second time this day sis months.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford has, by his speech this night, reduced the question to what I really conceive it to be—a question of religious liberality or of religious intolerance in England. My hon. Friend has stated in different parts of his speech, and particularly towards the conclusion of it, that we must consider our religion of be true, and the religion of the Jews to be false; and he therefore deduces, as a legitimate consequence from that proposition, that the Jews are incapable of filling municipal offices. Now I beg to state to the House, that I do not think that those who formerly opposed the admission of persons to corporate offices who did not belong to the Church of England, in the first place the Protestant Dissenters, and afterwards the Roman Catholics, have ever been willing to put the question on such a ground as this. They have always endeavoured when arguing questions affecting the religious opinions of men, to delay measures of legislation, and they did delay, first the admission of Protestant Dissenters, and then of Roman Catholics into the municipal corporations of the country; they were always anxious, and always endeavoured to place the question upon some issue in which the State was concerned. With regard to the Protestant Dissenters, the argument of Sherlock upon this question (which my hon. Friend would no doubt recognise), goes 93 upon this principle, that those who are dissenters from the Church have not that same attachment to the Constitution in general, which holds that the Church and State must be considered as being blended together, as those have who belong to the Church; and that those belonging to the Church must be supposed to have a more steadfast attachment to the State, and may, therefore, be better relied upon than those who differ from the Church. That was the argument by which it was endeavoured to persuade the chief authority of the State, that the civil duties belonging to municipal offices would not be well performed by Dissenters. This argument, however, was at length over-ruled by Parliament, and Dissenters were admitted to corporate offices. Then came the question respecting the admission of the Roman Catholics. Here again those who were opposed to municipal offices being held by Roman Catholics took every care to avoid saying, "the Roman Catholics differ from us in religion; theirs is a false religion, and they must not be admitted to hold corporate offices." On the contrary, they took especial care to argue, that the Roman Catholics held another allegiance; that they were attached to Rome, and to a government which had not only a spiritual, but in many respects a temporal power, and therefore the State could not rely upon their attachment, either as members of Parliament, or as members of corporations holding civil offices, as securely as they could upon other members of the community. But that ground of objection again was over-ruled, so that it can no longer be argued as a settled principle of Parliament, that either Protestant Dissenters or Roman Catholics had this peculiar disqualification. Then we come to the question with respect to the Jews; and what the House has to consider is this, that Parliament having decided that there is nothing in the case of Protestant Dissenters that ought to exclude them from being admitted to civil offices, nor anything in the case of Roman Catholics that should exclude them from holding similar offices, and both Dissenters and Catholics having accordingly being admitted by law to hold such offices, whether the House is prepared to declare the naked and intolerant principle, that because the Jews differ from the religion of the state, they are, therefore, inadmissible to civil privileges Now, upon principle, I should argue, with respect to civil and political offices, even 94 going the length which my hon. Friend has supposed this measure may be carried hereafter—that where you can prove the qualities of political and civil trustworthiness to exist, and that they can be performed truly and faithfully, there a difference in religious faith is no reason for exclusion. It is perfectly evident that holding offices in the church is a very distinct matter; because no one can be admitted to hold an office in the church, or any office connected with the church, unless he entertains those opinions which are maintained by the church. But, with respect to civil offices, we have no business to inquire, nor have we any need to inquire, into the religious opinions of the person who is a candidate for holding any such offices, provided such person is duly qualified; provided that, as respects the Sovereign, you can rely on his allegiance to the Crown; that as respects Parliament, you can rely on his obedience to the laws; and that as respects his fellow-subjects, he is as capable of performing the duties of the office as any other person in the realm. Is not that the case in the present instance? Does not this argument immediately apply to the persons affected by this bill? Is it not the case with respect to those gentlemen from whom I have lately presented a petition to this House-to Mr. Rothschild, Mr. Salomang, Sir Moses Montefiore, and others, whose families have long been established in this country, and who are well known to be deeply interested in the prosperity of the country, have a great stake in it, and whose respectability and character are equally well known to be above all reproach? Are you afraid to entrust to such men the municipal offices of aldermen and common-council-men? Can you state any ground why they are not fit to perform the duties of such offices? You cannot state any such thing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Univerity of Oxford made an objection against one individual because, with great liberalty he contributed to the erection of a presby terian chapel. I did not expect to hear such a circumstance urged as an objection against any person; nor do understand the principle upon which such as objection is founded. I could understand why it should be urged against a member of any one sect, where he was contributing to the support of the fabric of a contending sect in the same parish, that he ought to give his assistance to those belonging to his own communion in preference to any other. But the fact of a Jewish finally, residing in 95 a parish of this country in which, perhaps, no other Jews were living, displaying a spirit of liberality of this description, appears to me to be free from all possible objection. Why a Member of the Jewish persuasion should not be at liberty to say, "I behold around me many persons belonging to the Christian religion who have no means of obtaining the benefits of worship and instruction according to the peculiar creed of their communion; I will give the means of obtaining the opportunities of such worship and instructions, because I not only think it would be a benefit to them in a worldly point of view, but also because I think they should be made good Christians, rather than be heathens, without any religion at all." Is there any thing extraordinary in this? Is there any thing other than the display of great wisdom and prudence as well as personal liberality? The hon. Baronet has argued that it is the principle of the constitution of this country, and he added also of the colonies, that what he calls the Christian character should be preserved. With regard to the colonies, I must, at least, inform the hon. Baronet of one exception to his proposition. I know that in the colony of Jamaica the Jews are fully admitted to all civil offices there, by the assent of the House of Assembly, and of the Governor of the colony. Nor has any thing transpired to prove that measure an unwise one, or in the least injurious to the interest and welfare of the colony. On the contrary, I think it an example well worthy to be followed by the Legislature of the mother country. My hon. Friend next went on to say (and thereby making this still more a religious question) that by the prophecies the Jews are to be a separated nation, and that therefore, by incorporating them with ourselves, we are acting against the sense and interpretation of those prophecies. I do not consider that that is a point which this House has anything to do with. I consider the fulfilment of those prophecies is perfectly compatible with those belonging to the Jewish religion remaining a separate nation and still holding civil offices; that whatever has been prophesied by the Divine power to be the Divine intentions need no assistance from this House for its fulfilment. Neither does it become us to ask how those Divine intentions are to be carried into effect. Does not my hon. Friend see the absurdity he has involved himself in? Because, in the year 1835 Parliament made a law by which 96 a Jew might become sheriff of London and Middlesex; now, that was a municipal office, and if a Jew, being an alderman, was against the prophecies, most certainly his being a sheriff must he equally against them; therefore the consequences which my hon. Friend dreads has already taken place. You must take the argument entire, and either you must exclude the Jews from the office of sheriff, or, as far as the argument goes, you must admit them altogether. But there are other offices to which this municipal act does not in all cases apply. For instance, there are many offices of trust in towns which are not incorporated, and to which Jews are eligible. In the town of Devonport a Jew held the office of a trustee of the Water Company, and also of paving commissioner, and it was only from the circumstance of the Municipal Corporation Act containing this particular oath that that Jew was excluded from those offices. But in other towns not incorporated, Jews are still allowed to hold the office of commissioners of paving and of police, and are, in fact, engaged in the management of the affairs of the town as much as those bodies who call themselves corporations and town council. The real exclusion, therefore, which my hon. Friend would wish to prolong is, after all, of a very narrow and limited nature, however essential he may deem it to be, in order to carry out the intentions of the Supreme Being. But his object, as I have already shown, cannot be carried into effect, because the Jews do already hold many of those offices, the holding of which he considers must frustrate the Divine will. When the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was under the consideration of this House, a declaration was proposed by a right hon. Gentleman, whom I do not now see in his place, the right hon. Member for Tamworth, which did not contain the words, "On the true faith of a Christian." That right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the declaration without those words, and this House was also satisfied and passed the bill. The words, "On the true faith of a Christian," were inserted in the bill by the House of Lords, and it was only in consequence of my wish that such an important measure should not be delayed passing into a law, that those words were not objected to. But, I believe, if I had so objected to them, that this House would not have agreed with the House of Lords in making any new exclusion by that bill. I am persuaded that would have been the 97 opinion of the House; but it was wished that the bill should be carried, and the words were therefore allowed to remain. But what is the effect of those words? They do not altogether exclude Jews from corporations. Corporations may require the declaration to be made upon any person taking office; but if they do not think fit to enforce the declaration, Jews may hold office in those corporations, and they will afterwards be covered from liabilities by the Indemnity Act. In the city of London the declaration was put to a Jew who had been elected to an office in the corporation, and the judges decided that the Court of Aldermen had acted legally in so putting that declaration; but I do not believe that there is any compulsory power to enforce the Court of Aldermen or the town council to put the declaration before taking office. There have been, in fact, more instances than one of Jews holding office under corporations. In Southampton, a Jew has held office, and I have been informed that a similar instance has happened in the town of Birmingham; and I think it may be laid down as a general rule, that unless the town council or corporation enforce the declaration, a Jew may hold office. Therefore, what is now proposed, is not the introducing of a thoroughly new practice, but to declare that that which may be done in Southampton and in Birmingham, may be done in all towns having corporations. The last argument which my hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, urged against this bill was this, that if the present concession were made, it might lead to further concessions, and that hereafter the Jews would ask to be admitted to hold seats in Parliament, and to be allowed the enjoyment of every privilege possessed by British subjects. I know not what the Jews may hereafter think proper to ask for, or what further concessions they may seek, or whether they will or not require to be admitted to the enjoyment of the whole of the privileges belonging to every other British subject; but this I am sure of, that if they do ask for those privileges, I shall support them. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I thall carry the principle to its full extent; that, with regard to civil privileges, I will ask of the candidate that he possess civil qualifications, and no other; and, when I am satisfied that those civil qualifications are possessed, I will admit to office those persons who possess them. With respect to the religious establishment of the country, and 98 to religious offices connected with the Church Establishment, I have already stated what my opinion is, and I wish to guard myself against being misunderstood on that part of the subject; but with regard to all the other privileges of British subjects, I am prepared to say, that, whenever it shall be asked and proposed to carry out the principle to its full extent, I shall be prepared to give the same ready and hearty support that I now give this bill to every measure that shall be founded upon a similar principle.
§ Mr. Ewartdeprecated the introduction of theology into that House on discussing a question which might be grounded upon reasoning alone. The hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford had adverted to the amalgamation of the Dutch families that accompanied William 3rd, with the inhabitants of this country, but did the legislature draw the same persecuting line of demarcation between the Bentincks, the Keppels, and the Vansittarts, and the English people, as that which was drawn between the Christians of this country and the persecuted Jews? The argument of the hon. Baronet was not tenable. The House, he was glad to perceive, did not consider the hon. Baronet's arguments worth answering, and were alike impatient of his logic and his theology.
Mr. C. Hamiltonshould not have risen to take part in the debate had it not been for the speech they had heard from his (the Opposition) side of the House, and, above all, coming from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. He did not present himself to the notice of the House as a specimen of a Conservative Member, although the hoc. Baronet on a former evening had held him up in a tableau of respectability with the hon. Member for Finsbury and the hon. Member for Kilkenny; but he was determined that one Member on his side of the House, at all events, should be found to protest against the intolerant speech and spirit displayed by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet had not made a Jewish speech perhaps, but, in good truth, it was anything but a Christianlike speech. He regretted to say this much, bat he knew, in giving utterance to these sentiments, that he spoke the opinions likewise of a considerable majority of his own (the Conservative) side of the House. He should, most undoubtedly, oppose the amendment of the hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. Milnesalso had the misfortune to differ from his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, on this occasion. He thought, however, that the question had been entered into more largely than it required. A stranger might have supposed that it was intended, by the bill, to admit gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion to seats in Parliament, instead of merely to the offices of aldermen and common council. He wished to guard himself against the belief that he would at once confer on Jews a right of holding seats in that House, but, with that reservation, he could not feel any possible objection to the vote for the present bill.
§ The House divided—Ayes 137; Noes 24: Majority 113.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Attwood, W. | Ferguson, Colonel |
| Attwood, M. | Fitzroy, Lord C. |
| Baines, E. | Fleming, J. |
| Baldwin, C. B. | Gordon, R. |
| Baring, rt. hon. F. T. | Greg, R. H. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Beamish, F. B. | Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. |
| Berkeley, hon. C. | Hall, Sir B. |
| Bernal, R. | Hamilton, C. J. B. |
| Bewes, T. | Hamilton, Lord C. |
| Blake, W. J. | Harland, W. C. |
| Bodkin, J. J. | Hawkins, J. H. |
| Busfield, B. | Heathcoat, J. |
| Bowes, J. | Hobhouse, T. B. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Howard, hon. E. G. G. |
| Brotherton, J. | Howard, hn. C. W. G. |
| Bulwer, Sir L. | Howard, F. J. |
| Busfeild, W. | Howard, P. H. |
| Byng, G. | Hume, J. |
| Campbell, Sir J. | Humphery, J. |
| Cantilupe, Viscount | Hutt, W. |
| Carew, hon. R. S. | Hutton, R. |
| Chalmers, P. | James, W. |
| Chichester, Sir B. | Jermyn, Earl |
| Childers, J. W. | Jones, J. |
| Clive, E. B; | Kelly, F. |
| Collier, J. | Lascelles, hon. W. S. |
| Coote, Sir C. H. | Lemon, Sir C. |
| Cowper, hon. W. F, | Listowel, Earl of |
| Craig, W. G. | Lowther, J. H. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Lushington, rt. hn. S. |
| Douglas, Sir C. E. | McTaggart, J. |
| Duff, J. | Marsland, H. |
| Duke, Sir J. | Martin, J. |
| Duncan, Viscount | Maule, hon. F. |
| Duncombe, T. | Mildmay, P. St. John |
| Easthope, J. | Mines, R. M. |
| Easton, R. J. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Eliot, Lord | Morris, D. |
| Elliot, hon. J. E. | Murray, A. |
| Evans, W. | Muskett, G. A. |
| Ewart, W. | O'Connell, J. |
| Farnham, E. B. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Pattison, J. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Pechell, Captain | Teignmouth, Lord |
| Pendarves, E. W. W. | Thompson, Alderman |
| Philips, M. | Thornely, T. |
| Philips, G. R. | Tufnell, H. |
| Polhill, F. | Turner, E. |
| Pryme, G. | Villiers, hon. C. P. |
| Rawdon, Col. J. D. | Vivian, Major C. |
| Reid, Sir J. R. | Vivian, J. H |
| Roche, W. | Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H |
| Rundle, J. | Wakley, T. |
| Russell Lord J. | Wall, C. B. |
| Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A. | Warburton, H. |
| Sandon, Viscount | White, A. |
| Seymour, Lord | Wilbraham, G. |
| Smith, J. A. | Williams, W. |
| Smith, B. | Wilshere, W. |
| Smith, G. R. | Wood, C. |
| Smith, R. V. | Wood, Sir M. |
| Smythe, hon. G. | Wood, G. W. |
| Stanley, hn. E. J. | Worsley, Lord |
| Stansfield, W. R. C. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Staunton, Sir G. T. | Wyse, T. |
| Stewart, J. | Yates, J. A. |
| Stuart, W. V. | TELLERS. |
| Strutt, E. | Hodges, T. L. |
| Style, Sir C. | Hawes, B. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Antrobus, E. | Ossulston, Lord |
| Bagge, W. | Pakington, J. S. |
| Darby, G. | Parker, R. T. |
| Duncombe, hon. A. | Pringle, A. |
| Estcourt, T. | Richards, R. |
| Gladstone, W. E. | Rickford, W. |
| Gore, O. J. R. | Rushbrooke, Colonel |
| Hepburn, Sir T. B. | Sheppard, T. |
| Hodgson, R. | Trotter, J. |
| Hope, hon. C. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Houstoun, G. | |
| Mackenzie, T. | TELLERS. |
| Mackenzie, W. F. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Neeld, J. | Bruce, Sir C |
§ Bill read a second time.