DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS— ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 17 December 1847 vol 95 cc1356-401

MR. LAW,

on resuming the adjourned debate, said, he trusted that he should stand excused to the House for his proposition to adjourn the debate, and for thus affording an opportunity to other Gentlemen, as well as himself, who wished to address the House. The subject was one that had excited considerable alarm throughout the country, and that alarm was increased by the announcement that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had taken charge of the measure, and had invested it with all that weight and authority which was due both to his character and his position. He felt that this measure was a vital one to the constitution of this country, and calculated to shake that constitution to its foundations. The noble Lord admitted that Christianity was part and parcel of the common law of the land; but he made that admission in the narrowest possible terms, as though he insisted upon it only as affording a foundation for criminal proceedings in case of any injurious attack upon the established religion of the country; or of any one having reviled the Saviour in whom we trust, or in any other way raising a scandal upon religion. But he must inform the noble Lord that Christianity was not only part and parcel of the common law, but that it was the foundation of all the laws of this country; that, as early as the time of Henry VI., it was laid down and established by the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of that day, and had ever since been acknowledged, that the Holy Scriptures was our common law, on which all manner of laws were founded. Now, with regard to the proposition of admitting Jews into the House, he must urge upon the noble Lord that at no period of our history were Jews ever admissible into Parliament; so that this was a new question altogether. He asked the noble Lord whether he could point out any period in our history—and few were so well acquainted with it—when the constitution of this country was otherwise than a Christian constitution. The Sovereign was of necessity a Christian—the title of the Sovereign to the Crown rested only upon a Christian foundation—nay, the matter was narrowed to this: that the Crown derived and founded its title on the being in connexion with the Church of England. It might be urged that the composition of the Legislature bad varied in several essential respects—at one time the national religion was exclusively Roman Catholic—at an earlier period, before the power of the Pope prevailed, it was the ancient English Church, independent of the See of Rome; and since the supremacy of the Pope had been denied, they had, if he might so speak, a more limited national establishment, founded on the Protestant religion. But none of these various constitutional changes had ever affected the constitution itself—it was extended, indeed, to all parties professing Christianity, but it still remained on a Christian basis; and this, therefore, was the first attempt to diminish the character of that House as a Christian Legislature. He did not mean to suggest that any Gentleman who was favourable to the change, had himself withdrawn from the pure doctrines of Christianity; but he meant that, 80 far as the nation was concerned, this measure would pro tanto impeach the Christian character of the Legislature. It was contended that religious liberty was a principle of the constitution, and a right of every British subject. That proposition might be admitted; but, like every other principle of the constitution, individual rights must always be limited by the common benefits of the whole. The noble Lord had referred to the inutility of an oath as a test of Christianity. Now, it might be true that an oath was an imperfect test; but all human institutions were imperfect, and they, as they were bound to take, took the best test they could get. But then, it was said, that justice demanded the admission of the Jews. If so, did not justice equally demand the admission of the millions of their fellow-subjects that were now excluded? And, be it remembered, that every Jew whom they might admit, displaced the existing right of every Christian. [Laughter.] This seemed to excite the risible emotions of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Molesworth), but he had merely stated a fact. He did not mean to say, if the hon. Baronet should succeed in carrying this Motion, that the Christians would not be considerably diminished, or that the number of infidels would not be greatly increased. The noble Lord had stated in the course of his able speech—though it was not so forcible in argument as some others he had heard from the noble Lord—that this question was one of principle, and not of political expediency; and then they were told that this was a debt of justice—that they had been frightened into making concessions to the Roman Catholics, but that here was a fine opportunity of displaying their extraordinary liberality of sentiment—a liberality of sentiment to a small class—which, he must say, might involve a great deal of il-liberality to a very large class. The noble Lord said the Jews had already been admitted to the office of sheriffs and magistrates. That the noble Lord well knew, for it was by the Government of which the noble Lord was a leading Member that a Jew was first admitted to the honour of being a sheriff. The answer to this argument, however, was obvious, and it had been frequently given in the course of the debate. It was one thing to place a man in a situation where he was responsible to the law; it was quite another thing to place him in a situation where he would make the laws which were to bind Christian people. Reference had been made to the case of Gibbon as a Member of that House, and to Voltaire and Rousseau, as men who were ready to have taken any oaths and become members of any assembly. He thanked the noble Lord for citing these instances, for Rousseau and Voltaire were the men who in great part laid the foundation of that horrible revolution by which all the institutions of Prance were overthrown; and their case distinctly proved the necessity of applying as stringent tests as possible, because they made it apparent that those who were not Christians would at all times be ready to sap the institutions of their country. The noble Lord had passed a high and, he had no doubt, a just eulogium on the personal merits of several gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion with whom he had come in contact. He had no doubt that the recent election for a certain city had afforded the noble Lord opportunities for coming in contact with many of those gentlemen. He knew not whether the noble Lord owed his splendid success at the late election to their efforts—but, if the noble Lord did, the House of Commons should not be called upon to pay the price of that election out of the privileges of the people, by bringing Mr. Rothschild into that House. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Baron Rothschild.] He meant no disrespect to that individual, and he presumed the noble Lord had ascertained that the Gentleman had received Her Majesty's permission to bear that foreign title. The noble Lord, in his peroration, had called upon them in the name of the constitution to concede this right to the Jews; and he went on to say, his glowing fancy warming as he proceeded, that by this measure they would take away the last remnant of persecution from the religion of peace. There was something chivalrous and animated in the style of the noble Lord when he described the admission of Hebrews into a Christian Legislature as taking away the last remnant of religious persecution. But he begged to say if this were persecution, there were many more persecutions still remaining. In fact, the world was beset with disqualifications, which nature herself had imposed. The principle of the noble Lord necessarily implied that any British-born subject—Hindoo or Mussulman—had an equal right of admission with Jews. He was glad that hon. Gentlemen admitted that consequence of their principle, and avowed that their object was to prostrate Christianity, so far as it was considered a qualification for a legislator. He must say, however, he never heard a sentiment in which he more cordially agreed than when the noble Lord, adverting to the opinion of the dispersion of the Jews being penal, said he trusted this House would not have the presumption—the noble Lord might have added the wickedness—to attempt to administer the judgments of the Almighty. He quite agreed with this, but at the same time he could not disguise from himself that the Jews were dispersed over all the nations of the earth; that members even of the same family owed allegiance to different sovereigns, and this must necessarily weaken their attachment to the particular nation in which for the time they happened to be. Before leaving the speech of the noble Lord, he must say that the noble Lord had undertaken a gigantic task; he had seen the fate of a Bill passed in 1752, and repealed in 1753, and the noble Lord might take warning by that event; for if they could find the power to pass this measure now, reaction might certainly be expected at the proper time, and with the reaction something more than the destruction of the particular measure which the noble Lord now proposed. He was sure that many had assented to the admission of Jews into corporations in the belief that that was the extreme limit to which a Christian Legislature could go. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had opposed that measure; but he now, in his new character of representative of Oxford, supported the present proposal. In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, he would only say, that no doubt the right hon. Gentleman gave full notice to his constituents, during the severe contest which he fought, that he intended to support the Catholic Relief Bill and the Jewish Disabilities Bill—that he intended to assert his independence and retract his former votes. Yet it was not done without a prick of conscience; for the right hon. Gentleman said that it was painful to part even with the title of exclusive Christianity over the portals of the constitution. There was an admission that the title of Christianity was written over the portals of the constitution. But it had occurred to his right hon. Friend, that there was a small difficulty about the prayers of the House; and his right hon. Friend had said that it would be hard upon the Jews to join in a Christian service, and still harder upon the Christians to be deprived of their prayers. was it, then, a question of principle? His right hon. Friend said, yes; but when it came to the pinch, his right hon. Friend then discovered that practically it would not operate as such, because so few Jews would ever obtain seats in that House; but the principle went to the ad- mission of Pagans and Hindoos, if not Mahommedans, as well as Jews. The right hon. Gentleman, however, soon reconciled himself to the little difficulty about the prayers; and then digressed into a very nice little episode about the Church, giving to the House all the tittle-tattle of Oxford, which had very little to do with the subject under discussion. His right hon. Friend succeeded in making it pretty clear that he had no very well-defined notions on the matter; and that, with his very great ability, his greatest ability seemed to be in showing that, as Talleyrand used to say, language was given to man to conceal his thoughts. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Romilly), had said, that as soon as he saw a British subject, he would admit him to Parliament; that it was his birth-right, though he was born under a law by which he was absolutely excluded. All he required was, that the individual should be a British subject; and though he was a decided enemy of the Christian faith, the hon. and learned Member would admit him—he would admit into an assembly which was to legislate for a Christian nation a man who had rejected the Saviour of mankind, and who, in 1847, had not changed one iota of the character of firm adhesion to the faith of his fathers. He did not mean to say, that in manner and demeanour the Jews were not persons very acceptable in society, well informed, and temperate in the expression of their opinions; but, though they were ever so gentlemanly, they were not bound by the religious ties which united a Christian people; they had rejected the Redeemer, and yet they applied to be admitted to legislate for a community who looked to the Redeemer as their salvation. His right hon. Colleague had said, that the admission of Jews into Parliament would tend to check the progress of Christianity abroad as well as at home. He entirely concurred in that sentiment, and was satisfied that they could not hope to propagate the Christian religion so long as they exhibited their own indifference to it by consenting to measures like the present. He could not help alluding briefly to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Buckingham. The ability and lively fancy with which he handled every subject, always obtained for him a willing audience; but upon what ground had the hon. Member put this question? He had said, that the Jews were anxious to uphold the eccle- siastical establishments of the countries in which they lived, and that they did so in China. If, therefore, in China they upheld the religion of China, it was argued that in England they would uphold Christianity. They would not be converted, nor let in others to be converted by them; they were wholly indifferent as to the religion which was held by the country in which they happened to live. Were they, then, the proper legislators for a Christian country? However, the question was much larger, for it was admitted the other night that Hindoos and Mahommedans, as well as Jews, were equally entitled to the privilege claimed. "Let them all in," it was said, "and demolish the institutions of this ancient Christian country." He thanked the House for the indulgence with which they had heard him. He did feel it due to the high and enlightened constituency whom he had the honour to represent, to state to the House what their opinion was on this subject; he should have shrunk from so doing if he had not been urged by an imperative sense of duty; for he did not hesitate to declare, that from the foundation of the monarchy to the present day, this question was, of all others, the most vital. To agree to it would be subversive of the interests of this Christian country; and he therefore implored the House to psuse before it gave its consent to a measure, the consequences of which had not been duly considered. The hour of victory had its pleasures; but the hour of retribution would finally come; and the people of this country would not submit to any measure which left the interests of the State to a Legislature which was not wholly or professedly Christian.

The EARL of ARUNDEL

and SURREY was anxious to explain the motives which had induced him to support this Motion. He agreed with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that this question could not have been brought forward more gracefully and with more propriety than by the noble Lord the present Prime Minister, himself a firm and consistent member of the Church, the head of his party, and the advocate of the cause of religious toleration. He was not of age when the disabilities attaching to the Roman Catholics were removed from the Statute-book, and therefore he never himself suffered from those disabilities; but he could remember when his grandfather and father were forbidden to take their proper station in the Legislature. He remembered the strong feeling amongst the Catholic body at that time, and it was therefore not to be wondered at if he sympathised with the Jews now that they were labouring under similar grievances. But he should not give his vote on account of the sympathy which he felt for that people. He should give it from a higher and a holier motive; for he agreed with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that this was a religious question—that religion ought to enter into all the habits of life—into every act of human legislation. He agreed with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire upon this matter; but, agreeing with the principles he had expressed, and in the conclusion at which he had arrived, he differed from the hon. Gentleman in the mode of arriving at them. The hon. Gentleman advocated the cause of the Jews upon some peculiar claim which he said they had on the Christians; while he advocated it on the general principle of religious freedom. This might appear strange and inconsistent in him as a Roman Catholic, and he might be suspected of insincerity in saying so. It was true that in many nations the Roman Catholic church had been fenced round with legal restrictions and enactments; but he maintained that the will which was bestowed by God on man was not to be bound by such enactments, and limited by such restrictions. Different opinions had from time to time prevailed in the Catholic Church upon temporal questions—opinions not at all connected with the fate of that Church. For centuries it was a general opinion that the Pope had a right to bestow the kingdoms of the earth. That belief had died away. For many more centuries the belief was entertained that it was necessary to institute legal enactments for the protection of religion. He regarded with scorn the idea that there was ground for the slightest doubt of the security of the Christian faith. He did not do so from any reference to human theories, but simply because they were told, upon historical authority, that the gates of hell were never to prevail against the Church of God. But while he regarded with scorn the idea of danger to the spiritual interests of the Church, he knew that it had been ordained that the Church of Christ was to suffer. It had been prophesied that she was to suffer, as well as that the Jews were to be scattered over the face of the earth. He might instance a foreign country to prove the position he was prepared to maintain, namely, that the Church did, in fact, suffer from legal enactments. Take Spain, for example. He did not profess to speak of that country from personal observation, for he had scarcely touched upon her shores; but it was generally believed that the clergy of the Church of Spain were in a corrupt state, and that the laity were in no remarkable degree sensible of the obligations of their moral convictions. He had endeavoured to obtain accurate information on the point, and his own conviction was that the higher orders of the clergy in Spain were pure and exemplary, and that a sufficient number of good priests might at all times be procured without difficulty to recruit the ranks of the hierarchy; but he feared that so far as the lower portion of the clergy were concerned, there was but too much truth in the assertion. He attributed it to the fact that the Church of Spain had been fenced round by legal enactments. She had been habituated to luxury and pomp, and her priests had to some extent degenerated. If all legal restrictions were swept away, heresy, no doubt, would rush in and cover for a time large tracts of the country; but the priests would soon perceive that purity of conduct and good example were necessary on their part to induce the people to approach to them with reverence and affection for the doctrines and dogmas of the Church. Good men would flock around them, captivated by the sanctity of their lives, by their pure conduct and high demeanour, and they would listen freely to the enunciation of heavenly truths from their lips, and yield obedience to their divine authority. Extend the case throughout the world, and the same results would follow. The number of nominal Catholics would be less, but that of zealous Christians would be greater. Heretics, and the whole army of those who had strayed away from the one fold, would come back to the true Church, to yield obedience to her mandate, and to declare their allegiance to her authority. The song of jubilation would then resound throughout the universe, and the nations of the earth would join in the seraphic hymn— Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax, hominibus bonsæ voluntatis.

MR. A. J. HOPE

held that there were suspicions facts connected with Judaism. There was no such pre-eminence in the character of the Jews as to entitle them to a relaxation of the terms of the oath, or an abolition of what the noble] Lord was pleased to call the "fag-end of a declaration." Seeing, then, that the Jewish na- tion was in fact a religious order, which had outspread the bounds of England, which recruited itself in every country, and was more subject to self-interest than any-other order in the world, they would not be fulfilling their duty to their fellow-subjects, to the Jews themselves, or to the constitution, if they did not watch and ascertain, if possible, what were the objects of the Jewish society, before the House conceded to them those privileges which were claimed for them on the ground of religious toleration. If Judaism were so much better than Christianity, had they endeavoured to impart to their Christian fellow-subjects those more excellent things which they must believe they possessed? Their desire and hope were for territorial power and dominion in that eastern land which they still regarded as their birthright. Every Sabbath-day they prayed for their restoration to the land of their fathers; and the sentiment that formed the common bond of union between the Jews of England, America, and Sweden, was, that they were the rightful territorial possessors of the soil of Palestine. The seven words of the declaration which it was proposed to repeal, were something worth fighting for. They might not have, indeed, the strength of a shadow to save a lost soul; but they were at all events better than a negation of belief, and he should object to any concession to the Jews of our present vantage ground, small as it might be.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that a considerable number of his constituents had petitioned the House strongly against the proposed measure; and he considered that the circumstances of the debate had rendered it necessary for him to state his reasons for opposing the Ministerial proposition. This was the more necessary after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), with whom he generally agreed, and from whom he found it painful on the present occasion to differ. That hon. Gentleman, however, was not content with claiming for the Jewish people the privilege of an entrance into that House; but he turned on those who opposed the claim, and accused them of being actuated by a superstitious feeling—nay, by the darkest superstition of the middle ages. The hon. Member assumed that he was justified in preferring that charge, from what fell from the noble Lord the Member for Bath, in the very able speech which the noble Lord delivered in opposition to the Motion. He did not believe that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was present during the delivery of part of that speech; but he must say, that that hon. Gentleman entirely misstated the argument of the noble Lord. What the noble Lord said was this, that he would not be actuated, in considering the claims of the Jews, by the supposition that they were under the judgment of the Almighty for having been guilty of the crucifixion of our Saviour; and the noble Lord stated that many doubted as to whether the Jews of England were lineally descended from the identical Jews who committed that great crime, and entailed the consequences upon themselves and their children; but the noble Lord, after adverting to these doubts and differences of opinion among others, distinctly stated, that these doubts did not in his opinion operate in the least upon the consideration of the question. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire assumed that the Jewish people had not been dispersed by any Divine judgment; and then saddled this assumption upon the noble Member for Bath, who never entertained it. He (Mr. Newdegate) would not offer an opinion upon the point; he did not wish to pronounce judgment as to whether the Jewish people were the objects of the Divine wrath; but of this he was certain, that the Jews professed to believe in the prophecies—that they claimed those that were in their favour, but rejected those prophecies which testified to the judgments that were to overtake that people. Much had been said, and justly; said, about the ability, and intelligence, and learning of many of the Jewish people; and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had told the House that to that people we were indebted for much of the Divine revelation which we enjoyed. Still it required to be borne in mind that that was the very people who rejected most obstinately the truths which formed the foundation of the Christian belief, and upon which the British Parliament professed to found its legislation; and it was for this reason that he felt it to be his duty to vote against the proposition, because the argument for the admission of every infidel, ay, of every atheist, was irresistible, if admission was to be given to those who, like the Jews, openly—with the best means of information, with the fullest knowledge—most obstinately, and by profession, rejected the Christian religion. The noble Lord (Lord Arundel and Surrey) was prepared to abrogate the Christian character of the House, and to allow its religious or infidel character to rest on this—the majority of the nation is Christian, and the probability is that the majority of Members in the Legislature will continue to be Christian too. For this, however, the noble Lord could give no satisfactory security: this was leaving the Christian character of the House to rest upon an accident. The noble Lord seemed also to dispute the existence of the unity between the Church and the State. He seemed to think that the connexion between the two was only an accident, and that its continuance depended upon the religious opinion of the majority of the population; and so it did, and so did the rest of the constitution, and of the Crown, depend upon the loyalty of the people; but these were not left to the chapter of accidents. His own opinion was, that hitherto the unity of the Church and the State were complete; and a more sure foundation for it stood as a fundamental axiom of the constitution, and involved the title to the throne. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone), in a speech which would surprise many persons more than it surprised him, disputed the proposition of Dr. Arnold, that the Church and the State were in unity. He would give another authority in confirmation of Dr. Arnold's, which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute—that of Richard Hooker, author of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. He was born at Heavitree, near Exeter, in 1553, and died rector of Bishopsbourne, in Kent, in 1600, of whose writings Pope Clement VIII. said— This man indeed deserves the name of an author; his books will get reverence by age, for there is in them such seeds of eternity that they shall continue till the last fire shall devour all learning. Hooker, in book 8, c. 1, h. 5, upon this subject, namely, Church and State one Commonwealth, said— The Church and the Commonwealth are names which import things really different; but those things are accidents, and such accidents as may and should always dwell lovingly together in one subject." (B. 8, c. 3, h. 6): "In a free Christian state or kingdom, one and the selfsame people are the church and the commonwealth. Burke, too, no ecclesiastic like Hooker, but a statesman, wrote as follows, namely:— An alliance between Church and State in a commonwealth, is, in my opinion, an idle and fanciful speculation—an alliance between two things that are in their nature distinct and independent, such as between two sovereign states. But in a Christian commonwealth the Church and State are one and the same thing. The Church has always been divided into two parts—the clergy and the laity; of which the laity is as much an essential and integral part, and has as much its duties and privileges, as the clerical member, and in the rule, order, and government of the Church has its share. The noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to say, what did it matter that they claimed to be a Christian Parliament? and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport brought the question nearly to this—what's in a name? What! did not they profess to be Christians in that House? and, as such, did they not look for those blessings which, if they were Christians, they believed were the heritage only of those who through good report and evil report clave to the name of Christ as their Master and Redeemer? And yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) said it mattered not whether they maintained their Christian profession as a body politic or not; for they were just as likely to call down a judgment upon them for the exclusion of the Jews, as for maintaining what was called the Christian character of this House. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not wish to enter into the question of judgments; but he thought that if every man's salvation depended upon his Christianity and his profession of it, the profession of Christianity or its rejection by a nation could scarcely be a matter of indifference. Had it been known that the right hon. Gentleman entertained such sentiments as he had expressed on the subject of the Jews, when he offered himself as a candidate for the representation of Oxford University, he (Mr. Newdegate) was certain that he never would have been returned for that eminent seat of learning. He had entertained doubts as to the part which the right hon. Gentleman was likely to take on many points connected with the Church, and had warned his friends to expect that the two representatives for Oxford University would be found opposing each other on questions involving the vital interests of the Church, if the right hon. Gentleman was returned as the Colleague of the hon. Baronet who had so long and so honourably represented the University; but this he (Mr. Newdegate) had not expected, namely, that when a question arose such as this which involved the Christianity of the representative assembly of this hitherto Christian country, that the right hon. Gentleman would vote against its Christianity as a body politic. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he saw great difficulty and danger impending over the Church, and danger even to the perpetuation of the religious service in which the House engaged previous to commencing business; but he voted and spoke in favour of incurring this danger. True, the opponents of the measure had the right hon. Gentleman's hopes, nay, even his prayers; but not his advocacy or his vote. He expressed a hope that the House would remain a Christian assembly, and he prayed that Parliament and Ministers would pay due regard to the interests of the Church; and still he declared it to be his intention to vote for a measure that directly tended to bring about the calamities he pretended to deprecate. The House had heard from that right hon. Gentleman of a petition from a dignitary of the Church, praying that the first step in the course now proposed might be the separation of the Church from the State; and a desire of that kind was growing very strong among the clergy; and could it be a matter for surprise? When they saw the First Minister, for the sake of doing an act of liberality to a very small minority, cast off religion as the characteristic of the Legislature, would not many a man, who never before thought of so doing, seek to withdraw the Church from the immediate influence of the State, when the State set about repudiating religion? But what would be the consequence of that? Would the powers of the Church when separated from those of the State not stand in the independent, and very likely antagonistic, position of two separate nations or kingdoms, and yet within one community? Yet, for all this, the right hon. Gentleman would vote for this measure, and seemed to say, "You seek to retain the title of Christian for the State; I think you will be beaten upon it, and so I will vote against it at once." Why, good Heavens! if this was to be the conduct of those who professed to be leaders—if they were to proclaim themselves, like Falstaff, tired after fighting three hours by the clock—what measures might not pass that House? Hitherto the laws had been passed by a Legislature avowedly Christian, and under the authority of a Queen, who, thank God! must be a Christian, and a member of the Church of England. Christianity had hitherto been the foundation of the law's authority; but if we removed this character from the laws, we could not claim from the people the same reverence for them as before. Obedience to the law would come to be a question simply of might, not of right. In France the connexion with the Church was repudiated in 1830; and in 1831 Judaism was endowed, and the Jews were admitted to seats in the Legislature; but was there such security in that country for the existing order of things that the House desired to imitate the course adopted there? The Roman Catholic Church in France was deserting the Government that had cast it off, were abandoning the Gallican system, and adopting the Ultramontane system of entire dependence upon the See of Rome; and in this country, if there should be induced a desire for the separation of Church and State, the effect upon the Church would be that, shrinking from contact with the State, she would follow those of her members who had gone over to Rome—a prospect which, perhaps, made the Roman Catholic Gentlemen support this measure so anxiously. He did not blame them; they sought the advancement of their own creed. In the eyes of the Church of Rome, the Protestant was no better than the Jew: to her all heretics were alike. Why should Roman Catholics oppose the fusion of different classes of believers, whom they believed were all alike condemned? They, the Roman Catholics, were alone, of all Christians, in his opinion, consistent in voting for this measure; for they despised the Christianity which the State professed, and hoped by aiding in its destruction to give scope and opportunity for establishing their own creed upon its ruins. The time selected for producing this measure might be accidental; but it would have been far fairer to have brought it forward before the general election. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had an unhappy fancy about progress, and had gazed upon it until it had turned him giddy. Of all the bitter fruit sprung from the disastrous seed the noble Lord had sown, the effect of this measure was likely to be the bitterest. From the affirmation or the abnegation of great principles, deep and lasting feelings originated; and the feeling likely to originate from the adoption of this measure, would be fertile in discontent and future changes, and would prove salutary neither to the interests of Christianity nor the safety of the State.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

I wish to say a few words—and they shall be a very few words—upon the question now before the House. I do not wish to enter upon the general and obvious grounds upon which that question is based, or upon its merits in a constitutional point of view. On that head I found the speech of my noble Friend, who opened this debate, who is at once the leader of the Government and the introducer of this Motion, quite sufficient, and to my judgment perfectly conclusive. And I my also add that I am quite content with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who academically represents me the newly elected right hon. Member for the University of Oxford; though he certainly did not serve me with that notice of his intention to vote for the Jews, which the hon. and learned Member for the other University (Mr. Law) thinks he ought to have served upon his constituents. With respect to the constitutional and political view of the question, it is sufficient for me, upon this head, to say that I adopt in the very fullest and widest sense the principle—that when the State requires from any class of its citizens the performance of the duties and the payment of the imposts which the fact of their being citizens entails and imposes, then no differences of religious creed or worship, which do not in themselves lead to practices either illegal or hurtful to the community at large, should operate as an exclusion from any civil rights, dignities, or enjoyments. The other Member for the University of Oxford talks, indeed, of Hindoos and of Parsees. The Motion and the proposed Bill, if the House should be pleased to accede to the Motion of my noble Friend, only contemplate the relief of Jewish disabilities; he, which I think is the part of a statesman, only deals with practical and tangible exigencies; but I must say, for myself individually, that I shrink from no length to which the principle of equality before the law carries us; and I will not be deterred from following that principle consistently by the fear of any such very probable and natural results as a large incursion of Parsee or Hindoo candidates, and their acceptance by British constituencies. But I wish, on this occasion, to offer one or two remarks upon what may be more especially considered the religious view of the question. I confess that it is a view which, on ordinary occasions, I should be very loth to introduce into public discussions and upon the arena of debate; but in this instance I do feel that the objections founded upon religious views, are those which constitute, and which constitute alone, the motives for the opposition which is offered both in this House and in the country to this measure. I did not want even the testimony of this debate to prove to me that there is no personal ill-will towards Gentlemen who profess the Jewish religion: every one has spoken of them with terms of deserved kindness and respect; and certainly those who oppose them do not relish the pleasure, though they may feel the duty, of the moderate persecution which they may think themselves still called upon to administer. I say, then, that I think the opposition that is offered partakes in no degree of a personal character, founded upon the conduct or the bearing of the Jews. I feel, moreover, disposed to offer one or two remarks upon the part of the subject which I have indicated; because I know that some of those who are induced by their convictions of what is required by liberal policy, by charitable and Christian feeling, by the principle of equality before the law, to support the emancipation of the Jews, may yet find in their quiet and earnest homes much doubt and misgiving upon this question of complete emancipation. Now, upon this part of the subject there is no one that I would sooner follow than my noble Friend the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley) because no one can be more convinced than I am both of the sincerity and the warmth of his religious opinions. Those who have followed him, I think, have amply vindicated my noble Friend who moved this resolution from a misrepresentation which I am sure the noble Lord unintentionally cast upon him—but still it pervaded a great part of his speech—when he represented my noble Friend as contending that religion had nothing to do with politics. Now, I understood my noble Friend distinctly to lay down that the province of religion was not apart from politics, but that it ought to influence, inform, and pervade all that we are about, and all that we do. My noble Friend did say that he did not think the essential Christianity of this House consists in, or is made secure by, the form of oath which we take at the table; and he did not think it will be impaired by the admission of a few Jewish gentlemen to Parliament. It would be strange, indeed, that if the first Christians did not think themselves contaminated by being members of Cæsar's household, we should think our religion endangered by a few Jewish gentlemen taking their seats amongst us. Then with respect to the Legislature of France, my noble Friend alluded to the circumstance of several Jews having been admitted to that Legislature; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire, who has just sat down, called the attention of the House to the condition of France, and asked whether the religious condition of France could be considered satisfactory? Now, I believe I am right in saying, and that I can be borne out in the assertion, that there is more vital religion at present in France, both in the Protestant and Catholic sections, than has before been known. I believe this to be the case. I do not of course only allude to the godless period of the Revolution, but also to the long previous period of the Most Christian kings. I do not think much blame can be imputed to the Church of France, which I believe enjoys increasing power over the people; but which Church my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire has reproached for having deserted the State, which he added had cast it off. But it is with the religious bearings of the question that we have to deal. I feel the force of that great Christian canon which has been more than once quoted in this debate. I mean, of course, the rule that we should do as we would be done by, and which embodies the spirit of the whole Christian religion. That canon would be conclusive, as it appears to me, as to the way in which this question should be decided, unless there were some counteracting circumstances or some positive precept that could be adduced on the other side. Now, as far as I see, the positive letter of the sacred writing points in the same direction; as the spirit, unless it is qualified or overruled by some such precept, unquestionably does. For it seems to me pointedly and expressly laid down in the sacred Scriptures, that kindness and respect towards the ancient and peculiar people are acceptable to our common Father; and that neglect and oppression of them are displeasing to him. "Blessing is for them that bless, and cursing is for them that curse." It may be said that this was at a time when they were a favoured and an accepted nation; but, so far from this being a necessary ingredient in the favour enjoined upon other communities and nations to be shown with respect to them, the prophet, when he denounces special curses against Jerusalem, and when he says, "We to the bloody city!" and goes on in magnificent strains to describe their utter guilt and abandonment, immediately turns round to the other surrounding nations and says, "Because thou spakest against the land of Israel when it was desolate, and the house of Judah when they went into captivity; therefore will I stretch out my hand upon thee." And then he goes on to utter the well-known and punctually fulfilled predictions against Moab, Ammon, and Edom. The hon. Member for Buckingham delivered many sentiments in his speech which came from him most gracefully and boldly; but, nevertheless, I could not concur in what he laid down as to the general identity between Jews and Christians, though I certainly feel that the more I considered that people as a monument of the special interposition and retributive dealings of Heaven, the more I should be led to treat them with kindness, respect, and tenderness, just in accordance with the classical principle, that when the tree is struck with lightning the bare old trunk is made sacred by the very stroke which rent it. I am glad that no credence was given in the debate to the notion that the proceedings, motions, or measures of Parliament could modify or contravene the preordained decrees of Providence; it being manifest that there would be no end to the evil and mischief that would occur if we took it upon ourselves to interpret the prophecy, instead of humbly obeying the precepts. Something has been said about the Jews being a separate nation; and the hon. Member for Maidstone has contended, that Jews were not fit persons to be admitted to Parliament, because they claimed to be the joint heirs of Palestine. Now I confess it seems to me, that the question whether a person would make a fit representative of a particular constituency—whether his time, or labour, or attention could be devoted to their affairs, is a question exclusively for the consideration of the constituency. No doubt there are many persons in the House far more disqualified fully and faithfully to represent a constituency than members of a race of men who are peculiarly conversant with public affairs, with all financial questions, and who reside for the most part in the very heart of the metropolis. I do not think that Mr. Rothschild would be an unfit representative for tie city of London, from his attention being too exclusively directed towards the land of Palestine and the Jewish Sanhedrim. I do not think I need sympathise with the condition of those 28,000,000 whom the hon. Member for Cambridge represented as being hardly used by having a Jewish Member elected to a seat in this House. Those 28,000,000 are quite enough in number to console themselves. I do not think that any particular Member need be much grieved at the prospect of being superseded by a Jewish representative. I will not touch on the fact that Jews are already jurors, sheriffs, aldermen, and magistrates. It is not because there is so little to add that I am ready to vote for this Motion. If the Jews had nothing, I should be prepared to give them everything. There is only one more point of view in which I wish to put the question. We frequently see better the effect of our own conduct and the bearing of our own policy by somewhat changing our position, and considering what we think others ought to do in circumstances somewhat similar. I do not mean what we should do if we were Jews, and Jews were Christians, because that s sufficiently obvious; but my mind has been directed to this turn of thought by what I have read in a late despatch of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and which I have no doubt may also be found in the despatches of Lord Aberdeen and his predecessors in office, namely, the earnest and deliberate advice tendered to the Sultan of Turkey, to put all classes of his subjects, Mussulmans, Christians, Turks, and Rayahs, upon the same footing with respect to all civil rights and privileges. I have no doubt that the same advice has been tendered to him by the King of the French, and by his Most Christian predecessors. I think it most admirable advice for the Christian Powers to tender to their Mahometan Ally, and that it can be tendered by the King of the French with perfect consistency. But I own that if we should persist in enforcing exclusion against the Jews, by refusing to adopt the Motion before the House, we should give the Sultan very legitimate grounds for turning round and saying, "I have large and powerful classes of men under my authority, of different races, and professing creeds different from the established religion of my empire; I have turbulent Albanians, who are frequently in revolt; Greeks, notorious for their traitorous correspondence with their co-religionists of other Countries; and Maronites, who are constantly disturbing the repose of Mount Lebanon; but I am given to understand that you who tender this advice have a race of men living in the midst of you, singularly remarkable for their peaceable and orderly conduct, distinguished by their loyalty, and no less distinguished by their charity; eminently conversant with the conduct of public business, and who have made large contributions to the national wealth; and yet these persons, so peaceable, so orderly, so loyal, so charitable, so rich, are those whom you continue systematically to exclude from all share in the national representation, and whom you debar from those incitements to and rewards of industry which are common to every other class of the community." I will only hope that if we do so address the Sultan he may not reproach us for having no right to offer him lessons on liberty and toleration. I trust that we may continue to promulgate the maxims of liberty and toleration to all the nations of the world, and that we may leave them no ground for turning round upon us and saying, "Go and do thou likewise."

VISCOUNT DRUMLANRIG

said, the remarks he should make upon this question would be short. He should be sorry, standing there for the first time, to express an opinion that the union of Church and State was an utter absurdity; but he thought it must become something like it if the House assented to the proposition now before it. The admission of the Jews to Parliament was totally opposed to the Christianity of our country and of its Parliament. If that House should disregard the promise, "Whosoever confesseth me, him will I confess before my Father who is in heaven,"—if that House should decide that it was a matter of no importance whether they should accept or reject the name of Christ—if they should hold that such a fact as their being Jews or Christians, should have no influence on their thoughts or actions—then he should most decidedly state that this was no longer a question of conscience, but one of mere expediency; but that for the sake of consistency the word Christian should no longer be assumed by the nation, or by that House as its representative. He saw nothing trifling—nothing but what was to be deeply deplored in such a prospect; and, without knowing whether the House was disposed to accept the measure or to reject it, he declared that if his were the only dissent- ing voice in the whole country, it should be recorded against the Motion. He denied, in the most emphatic manner, that in saying this he was actuated by any feeling of hatred or intolerance towards the Jews as a people or as individuals. He was as ready to bow to the word toleration as any person; but he knew that the word toleration, like the fairest being of the creation, might be employed for the unworthiest purposes. He did not, therefore, oppose this Motion from intolerance towards Judaism, but from deep love to Christianity. The House was called upon to decide whether it should henceforth consist of those only who believed in the Saviour, or whether it should consist also of those who decreed him to be a liar and an impostor. He trusted that on such a question they would not long deliberate, but that they would long continue, as they had ever been, a Christian Parliament.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

repudiated the accusation, that Members voting for the proposed measure manifested thereby an indifference to Christianity. As regarded himself, and he believed many Gentlemen sitting near him, he desired earnestly that his conduct should be regulated by the dictates of the religion of Christ; and he must say, that after much consideration he had arrived at the undoubting conclusion that they demanded his assent to this measure. He maintained that such disabilities as those now affecting the Jews did amount to oppression, to be justified only by a necessity arising from the dangerous character of their tenets or conduct, and that in their case no such necessity existed. The Legislature ought to be the exponent of the nation, in consideration of which he could receive as a Member of Parliament a British Jew, or even a naturalised Hindoo, if such a man should come and reside in this country, and by his conduct and qualifications obtain the favour of a British constituency. He should view such a man, one of the 120 or 130 millions of our Indian fellow-subjects, as a witness to the wisdom and justice of our rule, informing us better than any Englishman could inform us, what were the wants and necessities of the natives of the most wonderful empire ever confided by Providence to the people of another nation. Such an individual would obtain an impression of the charitable and comprehensive spirit of our religion that must attract him towards it. The noble Member for the West Riding had pointed out that to such a length this principle would carry us; and he did not shrink from concurring with the noble Lord in adhering to it. The country was not less a Christian country because some 30,000 or 40,000 Jews lived amongst us, nor would the Legislature be less a Christian Legislature if two or three persons not professing Christianity were admitted to it. Members had been repeatedly warned during this debate that the constituencies were hostile to the measure, and would severely visit those who support it. Such threats ought not to be addressed to the House. He reminded them of the remark that fell from the right hon. Member for Oxford University that it was our duty to adopt the course which we believe to be right without being too much affected by opinions prevailing out of doors. He had a very great respect for public opinion, because he believed that in the long run it was generally right. He knew no less fallible human tribunal; and he believed that the time would soon arrive when the public, especially that portion of it the most guided by Christian principles, would concur in the opinion that the adoption of this measure was both just and right.

MR. HENRY DRUMMOND

hoped the House would excuse him if he ventured to offer a few observations upon this occasion, although he was not presumptuous enough to suppose he could place the question in a new point of view. Before proceeding further, however, he must take the liberty of denying the motive—as far as any one could deny a motive—attributed to the opponents of the proposition before the House by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, for he could sincerely disclaim being actuated by old prejudices or any unworthy prejudices towards the Jews. Many persons who heard him knew that he was not saying what was untrue, though private reasons induced him not to state more; but he might add, that few Members of that House had taken more pains than he had to become acquainted with the Jews, not only in this country, nor in one condition, but in every country of the world; and he could declare that so far from being actuated by hostility to them, he admired Sidonia almost as much as the eloquent Member for Buckinghamshire himself. But in considering this question, it was necessary to take heed of the spirit which was abroad. When he remembered the petition of Archdeacon Wilberforce—the petitions for the abolition of præmunire—when, too, he had heard a Cabinet Min- ister declare that he was prepared to go to the full length to which the principle involved in the proposed measure could be carried, he could not help thinking that the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Acland) who closed the debate last night hit the right nail on the head when he said that the intense interest which the discussion of this question excited did not regard the Jews, but the Established Church. "This question," it was said," must be carried." No matter what the division might be to-night; sooner or later the question must be carried. The hon. Member for Oldham said truly enough, that if they refused the Jews this measure, they should throw back Baron Rothschild on the constituency of London, who would return him again, and thus the contest which occurred in Wilkes's case would be revived. That was undoubtedly true. The unhappy electors of London could not a few months ago find one Christian to represent them. Doubtless they were in that unfortunate position still, unless a vast influx of Christianity had poured in upon them since that period, of which, however, he had not heard. The noble Lord told the House last night how very different was the treatment which the Jews now received from the citizens of London from that to which they were subjected many years back. Perhaps it was more in appearance than in reality. In former times they extracted gold from the Jews by means of the thumbscrew; now they extracted it in a more tender but not less efficacious manner—by means of a contested election. He agreed with the noble Lord that there was no law against the introduction of Jews into the Legislature; neither was there any law against the introduction of Turks or women. They heard of many lectures about the rights of women; and not a few persons maintained that they were equal to men in all capacities. Who knew but they might have a Mary Wolstonecraft to adorn the benches of that House? The reason why there was no law to prevent the admission of Jews or other unbelievers into Parliament was, because in ancient times the Church and State were one. Whenever any hostility was displayed towards the Church before the Reformation, the civil power crushed it at once. After the Reformation, King Henry VIII. knocked down Papists on one hand, and Nonconformists on the other; but still the Parliament was of the faith of the Established Church. After that the Nonconformists were let in, and. Parliament ceased to be a Church of England Legislature, but still it was Protestant. After that they admitted the Roman Catholics, and the Legislature was no longer Protestant, but still it was Christian. He asserted that this was not now a Church of England House of Commons. Hon. Members all had their own private opinions. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) had his private opinions, and other hon. Gentlemen had theirs; but in that House they all had one common mouth-piece and organ. As a private gentleman, the Speaker had, of course, his own opinions; but as Speaker he could not have any. Indeed it appeared to him (Mr. Drummond) that the Speaker was much in the same position as a lady who was asked by counsel what her age was, and who replied, "No particular age; the same age as other people." He conceived that if Her Majesty were to summon the Speaker to the House of Lords, and to ask what was his religious creed, the right hon. Gentleman must answer—not as a private individual, but as the mouth-piece of the House—"No particular creed, but the same creed as the rest." It had been said that the adoption by that House of the noble Lord's Motion would complete the triumph of Liberalism—that it would remove the last remnant of bigotry from the Statute-book. Yes, it would be the triumph of Liberalism; but what was Liberalism? The antagonist and the opponent of religion. Religion was the principle which taught man to reverence God; while Liberalism was that which set him free from all obligation to God. Liberalism left a man at liberty to make, from his imagination, his own God, and taught him to despise the dogmata of the Church. Liberalism taught a man to deny what the Church told him—that everything that was called God, but the God Incarnate, was a false god. Liberalism was just egotism; it led every man to seek his own interest, and that of no other person. That was the religion of France. This country had gone a long way in the same direction. It had been made a matter of boast that there were no longer parties in this country. So much the worse. There was much that was ennobling in a party; but they were now divided into little miserable factions, which could only pretend to a mockery of the noble party warfare of old. There was no man who dared take the lead, because no man knew where he was to lead to. The French Revolution was the triumph of Liberalism. The Liberals, because they had been tyrannized over by their King, rose up and destroyed him; and because they had been duped by priestcraft, they were not content till they had struck down the priesthood itself. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), that nothing was so contemptible as to pretend to take interpretations of prophecy as a guide in politics; but there was such a thing as national apostacy mentioned in Scripture, and every man ought to consider how far his opinions and his conduct were calculated to lead to such a result. He also agreed in opinion with the noble Lord, that the fag-end of an oath was not the means by which to secure religious principle. The only mode in which they could secure a really Christian Legislature was, to require certificates from the clergy that the candidates were partakers of the sacraments, and were in connexion with the Church. He maintained that the clergy were alone the competent judges of the Christianity of every member of their flocks. He might say, however, that this country was yet Christian; but if this measure passed, and Jews were admitted into Parliament, that could be said no longer. It would be gross hypocrisy on the part of a Jew to join in the prayers which were daily read in that House; and if this measure were adopted, he considered that, from that time forward, no man should ever dare, in the British Parliament, to pronounce the name of Christ.

LORD G. BENTINCK

I must say, Sir, that I never rose to address the House under such a sense of difficulty as on this occasion. If I consulted my own feelings I should have contented myself, as I have done on all former occasions when Jewish disabilities have been the subject of discussion, with a silent vote; but I feel that I might be supposed to be slinking if I were to do no more than to register my vote upon this Motion. It is with the deepest regret that I feel myself obliged to differ from the majority of those with whom I generally act; and I assure those hon. Friends of mine that no displeasure with which they could visit me could cause me more pain than I now undergo in being compelled to act in opposition to them. I am told that, by the course which I feel it my duty to take on this question, I shall lose my influence and destroy the party with which I am connected. So far as I am myself concerned, the first of these considerations would not weigh with me; but I should indeed feel deep regret if any course which my sense of duty might oblige me to take should even weaken the Protectionist party. That party, however, possesses far too much ability and too much talent to be injuriously affected by any line of conduct which so humble a member of it may adopt; and I would submit to them whether, if on this occasion I could permit myself to become the slave of expediency, and my political principles the handmaidens to self-aggrandisement, I should not do much more to injure the party with which I am so proud of acting, than I could possibly do by adhering to the course I have always heretofore considered it my duty on this question to take.

It may not be within the knowledge of many of those who hear me, that in 1830, and again in 1883, it was my lot, in unison with the Whig party, and with all the surviving friends of Mr. Canning, to support a Motion for the admission of Jews into Parliament. I ask, then, whether anything has since arisen, either in the misconduct of the Jewish nation, or in the more rigid and exclusive principles of Parliament, which should lead me to reverse in 1847 the course which I took in 1830 and 1833?

If, Sir, I could for one moment believe that, by giving my support to the proposal of the noble Lord, I was "unchristianising the Parliament," if I could think that, by admitting the Jews to the last step of the ladder of political equality, from which they have hitherto been excluded, I was lessening the regard of the British people for Christianity, I should be one of the last to assent to the measure. But what is the question now before us? Is it a question altogether new? Are we now for the first time about to admit Jews to power and dignity? You have already admitted them to the rights of electors; you have given them a voice in the appointment of legislators; and it is notorious that the noble Lord opposite would not have been returned for the city of London in the last Parliament, and might not now have been the First Minister of the Crown, had not 600 Jews voted for him at the election of 1841. How, then, can it be said that we are now, for the first time, called upon to admit the Jews to political power, when the fact is, that the First Minister of the Crown virtually owed the majority by which he was returned to the last Parliament—a majority of six only—[An Hon. MEMBER: Nine]—well, a majority of nine only, to the votes in his favour of 600 Jews?

But have we not also raised the Jews to almost all the other offices of the State? In the year 1828 the Corporation and Test Acts were repealed. Well, the House of Commons of that day, and I was a Member of it, sent up that measure for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts to the House of Lords in a shape which would not have excluded the Jews from power. It was in the Lords that, in the form of oath which the Act for the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts contained, those words "on the true faith of a Christian" were inserted. The Bill came back to this House—and what was the feeling expressed here? Why, Sir, it was one of universal regret that the Bill had been altered and disfigured. Had it failed to strike Members of the House of Lords or Commons that the insertion of those words tended to the exclusion of the Jews? Far from it, for a Motion was made by Lord Holland at a later stage of the Bill, to strike out these words, which had been introduced in Committee. That Motion was negatived. I well recollect that on that occasion a Peer, whose high Protestantism and whose high virtues will not be disputed—I mean the Earl of Winchilsea—argued that there was not occasion to strike out those words, as they need not prevent a Jew from taking that oath. "What are the words?" asked the Earl of Winchilsea—" 'On the true faith of a Christian.' Why may not a Jew make a declaration in these terms? It is not necessary that he should be a Christian to make this declaration. If a Jew make such a declaration, it no more follows that he is a Christian, than it would follow that I should be a Jew if I were to declare anything in this House 'on the true faith of a Jew.'"

But it was soon felt that the exclusion of the Jews from various offices was a great hardship; and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth introduced a Bill, by means of which Jews can now hold all those corporate offices from which they were then excluded. And, Sir, what are those offices? My noble Friend the Member for Bath, in a speech so much distinguished for power, so much distinguished for energy, for earnestness, and for eloquence, but still more distinguished by the noble and the generous spirit which made it so remarkable—not condescending in any way to revile the Jews, but, On the contrary, speaking of the Jewish nation in terms which, if his eloquence be successful in excluding the Jews from seats in this House, must afford at least to the Jewish nation at large a balm which, in my opinion, will be more valuable to them as a nation scattered over the civilised world than all that has been said and all that has been written by any other party—my noble Friend drew a distinction between legislative power and executive power. My noble Friend said, that when a Jew was appointed to an office he was responsible to a Christian head; but, let me ask, when a Jew is returned as the representative of a Christian body, is he not responsible to the Christian constituency of which he is the representative? And if, when returned as the representative of a Christian community, he were to lend himself in this House to any attempt to make laws destructive of their interests as Christians, and to the good of the nation for the promotion of his own religion, what chance would there be that when that Jew returned his trust to a Christian constituency it would be restored to him? I beg leave to ask whether there are any proofs in the conduct of the Jews of any desire of proselytism; or whether there is anything in the spirit of the Jewish religion, and, above all, whether there is exhibited in the conduct of those Jews who live among ourselves, any spirit of antagonism to the Christian religion? I saw this evening under that gallery one of the wealthiest and most distinguished Jews in this country; and of him I remember that Sir Robert Wilson stated, in 1830, that he was the president of no less than twenty-eight Christian charities, many of which were charities for the advancement of the Christian religion. Well, then, when you can trust a wealthy Jew, and are glad to have him as the president of your Christian charities, will you refuse to him the right of sitting and legislating in this Parliament, for fear that he may bring destruction on the Christian religion? I am speaking of Sir Lionel Goldsmid; and I believe that at this moment there is not a Christian charity in the city of London to which Sir Lionel Goldsmid is not a subscriber.

We are nevertheless told that it is only because the citizens of London have returned Baron de Rothschild as their representative that we are now called upon to pass this law; and we are told, also, that if we pass it we shall dissatisfy and disgust the country. What proof is there, I ask, of this deep feeling of prejudice in the minds of the people of England against the Jewish nation? I recollect that in 1830 the present Lord Ashburton presented a petition in this House from the city of London, and in presenting it he stated that, while the petition was subscribed altogether by 14,000 persons, these signatures comprised the names of eleven Bank of England Directors, of twenty-seven London bankers, of 500 practising attorneys, of 1,110 physicians and medical men, and of 2,600 of the first merchants in London. And are we to be told that we ought to disregard the opinion of a community so large and so enlightened as that of which I have been speaking, because now the citizens of London have dared to confirm the petition which they presented to the House in 1830 by electing the Baron Lionel de Rothschild to represent them in Parliament? Are we to be told that there will be something injurious and dangerous to the British constitution in conceding their prayer, because they have not exercised their right of election entirely in a legal manner? I well recollect that on the same day, when the present Lord Ashburton presented the petition to which I have referred, Lord Brougham also presented a petition, signed by 150 London barristers, among whom were the names of the present Lord Chief Justice of England and of Mr. Baron Alderson. I say, then, it is fair to assume, when this table certainly does not groan under the weight of petitions presented against the Jews, that there is no longer that deep feeling even of prejudice in the country against the Jews, which ought to prevent us from listening to their just demands, backed by the voice of the city of London. My noble Friend the Member for Bath said, "that the Jews of the present day, in proportion to their numbers, presented a much larger list of men of genius and talent than could be exhibited by any Gentile country. Music, poetry, medicine, and astronomy, occupied their attention; and in all those they were more than a match for their competitors." Well, then, what is there in the Jewish race that should prevent us from admitting them to seats in Parliament? You have already trusted them as magistrates and recorders and jurors with the liberty of Christians; the brother of Baron de Rothschild has been appointed to represent the Queen in Buckinghamshire; and last, but not least, by your admission of Jews to fill offices in the corporation of the city of London, you have paved the way for a Jew to be its first magistrate. Already Mr. Salomons has been elected alderman of the city of London, and in due and regular course he will fill the civic chair; and then, filling the civic chair, he becomes ex-officio a Privy Councillor. When, therefore, you admit him to the Privy Council, will you forbid him to enter this House, and to assist in its legislation? [Mr. LAW was understood to say that the Lord Mayor was not ex-officio a Privy Councillor.] It is great presumption in me to differ from the learned Recorder of the city of London; but I can appeal, I think, to the right hon. Member for Tamworth whether the Lord Mayor of London is not ex-officio a Privy Councillor? [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Hear!—Mr. LAW was again understood to express dissent.] I beg my hon. and learned Friend's pardon; I know it is great presumption in me to contradict the Recorder of the city of London; but I believe that in the event of the demise of the Crown, and in the interval between the death of one Sovereign and the proclamation of his successor, the Lord Mayor of London—(will my hon. and learned Friend now gainsay me?)—is for the time being virtually king of the city; he has the command of the troops, and exercises the whole authority of Government. Nothing, I believe, can be done without the assistance of the Lord Mayor; and in his character as Lord Mayor and Privy Councillor, he must first be summoned to the Council. In contradiction to the learned Recorder, I believe it is the privilege of the Lord Mayor to assume his place on the right of the President of the Council, and that no steps can be taken for the proclamation of the new Sovereign but with the sanction of the Lord Mayor of London. And where in the oath of a Privy Councillor are to be found the words "on the true faith of a Christian?" I beg pardon of the House and claim its indulgence, I promise not to detain it long. This is the oath taken by Privy Councillors: "You shall swear, to the uttermost part of your cunning, wit, will, and power: you shall be true and faithful to the Queen's Majesty our most dear and Sovereign Lady, and to Her Highnesses, heirs and successors, Kings and Queens of England, according to the limitation of the Statute," &c. ? and the concluding sentence is as follows:—"All which points being expressed, you shall faithfully observe, fulfil, and keep to the uttermost of your power, wit, and cunning. So God you help, and by the holy contents of this book." There is not one word about "the true faith of a Christian" in that oath, any more than in the oath of abjuration which I hold in my hand, administered at this table to Roman Catholics upon taking their seats in this House. Now, though there were certainly those who in other days maintained that we were assisting idolatry in admitting our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to the same rights as ourselves, yet it will surely not be pretended that by excluding the words, "the true faith of a Christian," from the oath of the Roman Catholics, "we rubbed out Christianity from where theretofore it had been written over the portals of the British constitution."

It has been alleged that if we admit, I believe, 18,000 Jews in London, and 7,000 in the rest of the country, making in all some 25,000, to the right of being elected as Members of Parliament, it will be hypocrisy if we any longer pretend to be a Christian Legislature, and continue to offer up our prayers to Almighty God, as is our daily custom; but do hon. Gentlemen not recollect that the prayers we put up are prayers in which the Roman Catholics cannot join, and in which the Unitarians and Socinians and other Dissenters cannot join? and yet has it ever been proposed that we, a Protestant assembly, should forego our worship of the Deity in our own way to suit the convenience either of Roman Catholics or Dissenters? I think this but a weak argument, and one which deserves but little attention at our hands, and I now dismiss it. I cannot but revert to the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), who maintained, that if we were now, under compulsion, and on account of Baron Rothschild, to alter our laws, it would be an encouragement to all large bodies in future to disobey the laws; and so far from being more favourably disposed to listen to the claims of the Jews because the city of London had returned a Jew, he was the more on that account resolved to resist their claims as being claims of a dangerous tendency. Is this the first time that such a state of circumstances has arisen? I, for one, am not much disposed to submit to any clamour or dictation, especially if it came from a body likely to be dangerous; but has the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) forgotten the Clare election? Has he forgotten that he was a Member of that Cabinet, which, awed by the Clare election, instead of adhering to long cherished sentiments like the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell), suddenly abandoned all their old opinions, and coming down to this House in their fright brought in a measure of Roman Catholic Emancipation? It was notorious that it was the 40s. freeholders of Clare, who by returning Daniel O'Connell carried Roman Catholic Emancipation. Does this argument fall with a good grace, then, from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, whilst attacking the Minister opposite to him? True, I may be told that there was an invidious and petty reservation in that measure of Roman Catholic Emancipation, by which the ceremony was gone through of personally depriving Mr. O'Connell of the fruits of his late victory in the county of Clare; but it was only to make him go through the form of an immediate and unanimous re-election; and I think that there will be no man found disposed to hold up the shameful parts of that measure for present imitation. Far more generous it would have been, as far more generous it will be now, not to look to personal considerations when bringing in a great measure; and I believe I may do the right hon. Gentleman on my right hand (Sir Robert Peel) the justice to say, that it was not through any wish of his that that personal exclusion of the late Mr. O'Connell was made in the Emancipation Act of 1829.

There was another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems, when the authority of office is gone, more disposed to be prudish and to attend to the feelings and prejudices of the University of Cambridge, than when invested with official power. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us "that we are possessed of immense wealth and extended empire; and upon us is conferred the high prerogative of transmitting the arts of civilisation and extending the blessings of Christianity to the most distant portions of the earth. That we are essentially a religious people; that our missionaries diffuse the light of the gospel to the furthest points of the globe; and that if we once give them reason to suppose that we ourselves are indifferent to religion, we should certainly oppose in a great measure their exertions in humanising and eivilising those to whom they preach." Surely if any Member of this House ought to be more reluctant than another to put forward that argument, it ought to be the right hon. Gentleman; for the right hon. Gentleman, combining at once the characters of a sugar planter in Jamaica, and of Secretary of State for the Colonies, was, if I mistake not, the very Minister who, in 1830, carried the Act of the Legislature of Jamaica for the removal of Jewish Disabilities to the foot of the Throne; and he is the Minister by whose advice the King in Council sanctioned that enactment. What has been the result of that measure since 1830? Has the light of the Gospel ceased to be shed in Jamaica, and have we lost our high privileges of extending the blessings of Christianity to the colonies? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this unchristianised Jew House of Assembly in Jamaica has shown itself indifferent to the true interests of religion? Has it opposed the exertions of the English missionaries in humanising and civilising the people? Why, Sir, what did the Jew Parliament of Jamaica do?—for no fewer than five Jews are members of it. Did it not, in 1840, burden itself with increased charges to the amount of not less than 83,000l. per annum, for the maintenance and building of Christian churches and schools in that island? Where, then, is the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remark, that the accession of the Jews to the privileges of the constitution, must be detrimental to the interests of the Christian religion? No, Sir, we never can injure Christianity, or outrage the religious feeling of this country, by admitting men who worship the same God with ourselves, and obey the same commandments, to share with us the duties of legislating for a country of which they form a very small, but not an undistinguished portion. I know that to a certain extent—though only to a limited extent—there does exist a prejudice unfavourable to the proposition now before us. That prejudice, as we all know, has been extensively expressed out of doors, though perhaps it has not been as freely expressed within the walls of this House. By those who endeavour to give effect to those prejudices, we have been asked who are these men whom you would admit to a share of legislative power and privileges? are they not the descendants of the Jews who crucified our Lord and Saviour, and who cried out, 'Away with him—crucify him; his blood be upon us and our children?" My noble Friend the Member for Bath has sought to exonerate the English Jews from all implication even by hereditary descent in the guilt of the crucifixion of our Saviour; it is therefore the less necessary for me that I should take up that ground, even had it not been already felicitously expressed in the writings of an eminent Protestant divine, that "Judaism is infant Christianity, and Christianity adult Judaism." Bishop Newton, descanting on the prophecies, bids us "recollect that according to the prophecies, the wicked nations only are to persecute the Jews, while the good nations are to show mercy to and protect them: "that" we should rather be the dispensers of Heaven's mercy, than the executioners of its justice." Not accepting the defence of my noble Friend the Member for Bath, I am ready to admit that the Jews of England may be the descendants of those who committed that great crime against Christianity and God; and yet, when I recollect that among the last words uttered by Him on earth, our blessed Redeemer exclaimed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do;" and when in eight days from this time we are to meet at His table, whose precepts we ought to obey, and whose example we ought to imitate, to implore his mediation, I cannot but feel that we should be ill obeying the precepts and ill imitating the example of our Saviour, if we were now, in defiance of his words, to interpose with our vengeance and say, "No, we will not forgive them, for they did know what they were doing." Sir, let us prefer to follow a maxim common to both religions—"Do justice and love mercy."

MR. O'GORMAN MAHON

rose for the purpose of stating, in explanation of the interruption which he had offered to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond), that if he assented in silence to the definition which that hon. Member had given of Liberalism, he would be afterwards subject to the imputation of having acquiesced in that definition, which he was very far from doing. Touching the matter before the House, he was happy to have an opportunity of fully and unequivocally coinciding in the justice and propriety of the proposition made by Her Majesty's Ministers. He was glad to find that the degrading stigma was to be removed, and that the removal of every disqualification against conscientious belief was to be secured. There were not called upon to enter upon the abstract question so ably dealt with by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, when that hon. Member entered into metaphysical arguments. Yes, the metaphysical arguments; he followed him through those powerful deductions which the hon. Member so ably made. At first he was disposed to dissent from the hon. Member's views; but in the end he was so convinced by the power of the hon. Member's arguments that he was compelled to subscribe to his deductions; and he would not weaken the excellence of the hon. Member's argumentation, by touching on the topics handled in his excellent speech. He should, therefore, throw the hon. Member's speech aside. He would throw it aside, because he should only weaken the effect of the hon. Member's all-powerful argumentation, which the hon. Member put forth with such overwhelming force. Every argument against the Bill he had heard advanced sixteen or seventeen years ago against the admission of himself into that House. Every argument was then urged totidem verbis against the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament. Seventeen years ago he had assisted in returning for his own county a member of his own Church; and he demanded at the bar of that House that the Member so elected should take his seat. The Jews were following that example. It was denied to him, and he was told to retire to the bar and await the decision of the House. And what was that decision? The House recognised the right of the freeholders of Clare to choose their representative; but, because they had chosen one who at that time was inimical to the House, on the ground not that he was not a loyal subject, or did not discharge all the duties of a good citizen, or was unfaithful in the relations of private life—but that he professed a religion which was not then in favour with the majority of the gentry of this country, they were sent back, and were told the representative they had chosen could not be admitted. What was his answer? "Refuse him now, but I will bring him back to this bar;" and he did bring him back, and the House received him. And how did they receive him? Under the influence of that fear which the hundreds, thousands, ay, millions at his back, had brought to bear upon them. What was the distinction between that man who now demanded admission to the House, and the man whom he had brought there? Simply that there were persons in that House who could not swallow the idea or reconcile to themselves the notion that religion ought not to be made a disqualification to a man who sought civil rights. They had argued the question on the general principle; but it was an individual alone who was under their notice. The city of London, in the just and fair exercise of its rights, had, by 7,000 votes, elected as their representative M. de Rothschild. Would they refuse him his seat in that House? Let them do so, and if there were a particle of spirit in the English people, if there were one scintilla of that feeling which animated the Irish when they were under similar circumstances, instead of 7,000 they would have double and treble that number coming to support him. And what was their danger? The allegation was, that if they allowed the Papists to enter the House, the constitution would be ruined; but the old gentlewoman was as flourishing as ever. And would they exclude the Jew because he had not the force of millions at his back? Let them remember what force had extorted from them before, and let them profit by that experience. The Protestant constitution was still clear and free; but if some twenty or thirty Papists could not unconstitutionalise their deliberative assembly—if his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, whom he valued, and regarded, and loved so much for the friendship with which he had condescended to honour him for many years, and for the admirable consistency with which he had always maintained his own honest and independent principles, had not been unprotestantised by contact with him—if they had associated together so long, and as he trusted they would do for a long time to come, without one symptom of Popery appearing in his hon. Friend—why were hon. Gentlemen so distrustful of their own principles and feelings as to believe that contact with a Jew and an honest man who would not be guilty of equivocation at the table—for that was the question—could injure them? His hon. Friend, at the end of sixteen or seventeen years, remained true to his Protestant faith; and he (Mr. O'Gorman Mahon) remained true to his Popish faith; and both were ready to do their duty to their Queen and country. Why, then, should they tremble to admit a Jew? Perhaps only two or three Jews would be returned; and were they, some 500 or 600 Gentlemen, to be apprehensive, on that ground, of their Christian constitution? It was still a Protestant House of Commons, and a Pretestant nation, although some fifty-nine or sixty Catholics were admitted into Parliament. It was not less a Christian nation because those men were tolerated. He said tolerated; and if they were faithful to that God whom they had selected for themselves—he would reiterate the phrase, that they had adopted that God for themselves; and let them recollect that they were a very small portion of the human family who had not yet done the same—let the same spirit of toleration lead them to admit the Jew. But, he said again, that this was still a Christian country; and long might it be so, if such were their desire—if such were their desire, for he would say that if to-morrow the dictates of their conscience suggested to them a different course, he hoped they would take it. And here he would address himself to the hon. Member for West Surrey—if that hon. Member thought that his orisons would be more acceptable to the great common Author of their being, if offered in a different strain from that he now adopted, it would be his bounden duty to address Him in that strain, and to avow that he did so; and then what became of his Christianity? He now came to this—that every one in that House swore an oath that no foreign prince, power, state, or potentate had any power, jurisdiction, superiority, or preeminence, ecclesiastical or spiritual, in these realms. The hon. Member for West Surrey had so sworn; and yet did he not know that there was a foreign potentate who possessed power spiritual, and exercised jurisdiction, superiority, and preeminence in this country? And if such circumstances were within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, what became of the sacred obligation of his oath? If, knowing that he had sworn that oath—and he maintained that the hon. Gentleman had precisely in the terms he had stated—["No!"] The noble Lord seemed to intimate that he had not. [Lord ASHLEY had not given any such intimation.] What were the words of the oath? That— All this I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the express words I am speaking, and according to the plain sense and understanding of the same words, without equivocation, mental reservation, evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever. He had anticipated that this would prove a disagreeable topic; but he was not the less prepared to apply it and to bring it home to them. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had spoken of Liberalism as being a negation and absence of all religion. He who was a Liberal would tell that hon. Member, that, instead of being a negation of all religion, Liberalism was the absence of all acrimony, of all bigotry, of all sectarian bitterness. Liberalism was a concession to every human being, under the influence of education, of a right to address to the Deity his orisons in whatever terms or shape he might believe to be most acceptable to that Being. The hon. Gentleman had a right to address his God on one side. He (The O'Gorman Mahon) had an equal right to address him on the other. Would the House, then, deny to the Jew the opportunity of making his attestation with the same object as every other Member—that object being to discharge his duty truly to God and his country, adoring that one God common to them all? The Roman Catholics were attempted to be excluded because they were said to be idolaters—because, according to the Protestant notion, they believed too much; they were now seeking to exclude the Jew, because he believed too little; but he called upon them to make at once a concession demanded by justice, reason, and religion.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said: I wish, before the debate closes, to say a few words as to the precise Motion I am about to make, and the resolution that I should propose in Committee, if the House go into Committee of the whole House. The right hon. Gentleman who opposed with such great ability last night the Motion I intended to make, asked me what was the precise measure that I meant to propose? The right hon. Gentleman stated, at the same time, that he conceived it went only to the admission of Jews, and to relieving them from the obligation of swearing "on the true faith of a Christian;" while it would not exempt other and Christian Members from the declaration they now make. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn has mentioned to-night that the Roman Catholic makes a declaration in which the words "on the true faith of a Christian" do not occur. What I should myself propose is to leave the Protestants to take the declaration they now take, ending with the words, "on the true faith of a Christian;" to leave also the Roman Catholic oath in the shape in which it at present stands; and to propose for the Jews as nearly as possible the words of the oath subscribed to by the Roman Catholic. To that they do not, I understand, object; if the Roman Catholic oath be proposed, a Jew would be ready at once to take it. This would be the general oath I would propose, leaving out some of the declarations with regard to the power of the Pope, to which, certainly, it is not necessary to ask their consent. The resolution that I should propose would be, when in Committee, that— It is expedient to remove all civil disabilities at present existing, affecting Her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish religion, with the like exceptions as are provided for Her Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion. The Bill would be founded on that resolution. The resolution is in the same words as that resolution proposed by Sir R. Grant in 1833, and which was agreed to by the House without a division. I think it necessary to say a few words in reference to some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. I am quite ready to retain the words of the present oath and declaration so far as they are a sanction. The objection offered to these words, as not conveying an obligation, arises entirely from the distinction made between using an oath as a sanction, and using an oath as a test. In the courts of justice, we ask a Christian to swear on the New Testament, and a Jew to swear on the Old Testament. We make such a man take that oath which is most obligatory on his conscience, and we then use the oath as a sanction by which he will be bound. But it is quite different when you use an oath as a test by which you intend to exclude persons from the House of Commons. I would not trouble the House longer if I were not called upon to correct a misconception of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder for London (Mr. Law). The hon. and learned Gentleman might be supposed to speak with some knowledge on the subject; and, in professing to answer my speech—a course to which I do not object, for each portion of it was open to his criticism—he took the opportunity of making a statement in relation to the late election for the city of London, in which he was most grievously in error. He supposes that my election was carried in consequence of my association with Baron Rothschild on that occasion; and again, that in consequence of the honour which was done me by that election, I was induced to bring in a Bill for the emancipation of the Jews. The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in both these inferences. The fact was, as he might have seen by the public advertisements, that those Gentlemen who were my opponents in 1841, declared they were not inclined to oppose my re-election—that they would be satisfied if the Gentleman who was my Colleague in the last Parliament, and who is my Colleague now, were proposed—if they on the opposite side were allowed to name two other gentlemen adopting their own views. To my election, therefore, they had no objection whatever; and so on my part, I must confess, knowing the trouble, the difficulty, and the risk of a contest—knowing likewise that with my official position it is very inconvenient to be exposed to the enmity of a political party whom I might afterwards have to represent—I would have been very well satisfied if there had been no such severe contest as that which I had to undergo. That party, however, which brought me forward in 1841, and which asked me to stand again, said, as a political party is apt to say in the case of an election, "We are much stronger than our opponents; we will not be content with having two of our own and two of the other side returned; we will have no less than four candidates, and you shall be one of the four." I had then to choose between relinquishing the high honour of representing the city of London, which I was not willing to do, or entering upon a severe contest. I though I was bound to accept the latter alternative, having been carried before, and entertaining a wish again to represent the city. But so far from Baron Rothschild's coming forward being an advantage to me in that election, the circumstance was on the contrary a disadvantage. It was an honour to which he might justly aspire. But when he asked me for my opinion, I told him to pursue his own course, and to do exactly what he thought best; and if he decided upon appearing as a candidate, I said I would be ready to stand with him. Now, as to the other statement, that in consequence of that election I have undertaken to bring forward this measure, the hon. and learned Gentleman is likewise in error, It so happens that for a long series of years, whenever there has been a question of removing religious disabilities before Parliament, I have always given my vote, and several times have spoken in favour of the proposition. As soon as I came into office in the year 1846, a deputation of Jews waited on me to ask me if I was prepared to bring in a measure relieving them from their remaining disabilities. I said I would not pledge myself as to the terms of the measure I would introduce, nor as to the particular time; but I assured them, if they would be content with my choosing the terms I thought best, and the time I thought most expedient, I would be ready to declare at once that I would undertake such a measure. It was, therefore, not in consequence of anything that happened at the late election that I bring forward this measure. The high authority of the Recorder of London might have misled some persons as to the actual facts of the case; and it is only to prevent misconception that I have ventured at this length to trespass upon the patience of the House.

The House divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 186: Majority 67.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N.	Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Adair, H. E.	Collins, W.
Aglionby, H. A.	Conyngham, Lord A.
Alcock, T.	Cowper, hon. W. F.
Anson, hon. Col.	Craig, W. G.
Anson, Visct.	Crawford, W. S.
Arundel and Surrey,	Cubitt, W.
Earl of	Currie, R.
Bagshaw, J.	Dashwood, G. H.
Baines, M. T.	Dawson, hon. T. V.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Devereux, J. T.
Baring, T.	D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Barnard, E. G.	Disraeli, B.
Bellew, R. M.	Divett, E.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Duff, J.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Duke, Sir J.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Duncan, Visct.
Berkeley, H. G. F.	Duncan, G.
Bernal, E.	Dundas, Adm.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Dundas, Sir D.
Blackall, S. W.	Dunne, F. P.
Blewitt, R. J.	Ebrington, Visct.
Bouverie, E. P.	Ellice, right hon. E.
Bowring, Dr.	Elliott, hon. J. E.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Enfield, Visct.
Brand, T.	Evans, Sir De L.
Bright, J.	Evans, J.
Brocklehurst, J.	Evans, W.
Brockman, E. D.	Ewart, W.
Brotherton, J.	Fagan, W.
Browne, R. D.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Bunbury, E. H.	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Busfeild, W.	Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.
Callaghan, D.	Fordyce, A. D.
Campbell hon. W. F.	Forster, M.
Cardwell, E.	Fortescue, C.
Carter, J. B.	Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Fox, R. M.
Cavendish, W. G.	Fox, W. J.
Cayley, E. S.	Freestun, Col.
Clay, J.	Gardner, R.
Clay, Sir W.	Gaskell, J. M.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Cobden, R.	Glyn, G. C.
Cockburn, A. J. E.	Gower, hon. F. L.

Grace, O. D. J.	O'Connell, J.
Granger, T. C.	O'Connell, M. J.
Grattan, H.	O'Connor, F.
Greene, J.	O'Flaherty, A.
Gregson, S.	Ord, W.
Grenfell, C. W.	Osborne, R.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Paget, Lord A.
Grey, R. W.	Paget, Lord C.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Palmer, R.
Hall, Sir B.	Palmerston, Visct.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Parker, J.
Hastie, A.	Pattison, J.
Hastie, A.	Pearson, C.
Hay, Lord J.	Pechell, Capt.
Hayter, W. G.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Headlam, T. E.	Peto, S. M.
Heathcoat, J.	Philips, Sir G. R.
Heneage, E.	Pigott, F.
Heywood, J.	Pilkington, J.
Hindley, C.	Pinney, W.
Hodges, T. L.	Price, Sir R.
Hodges, T. T.	Reynolds, J.
Hogg, Sir J. W.	Ricardo, J. L.
Hollond, R.	Ricardo, O.
Horsman, E.	Rice, E. R.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Rich, H.
Howard, hon. J. K.	Robartes, T. J. A.
Humphery, Ald.	Robinson, G. R.
Hutt, W.	Romilly, J.
Jackson, W.	Russell, Lord J.
Jervis, Sir J.	Russell, hon. E. S.
Jervis, J.	Sadleir, J.
Keating, R.	Salwey, Col.
Keogh, W.	Sandars, G.
Keppel, hon. G. T.	Scholefield, W.
King, hon. P. J. L.	Scrope, G. P.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Scully, F.
Langston, J. H.	Seely, C.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Lemon, Sir C.	Shelburne, Earl of
Lennard, T. B.	Sidney, T.
Lewis, G. C.	Smith, J. A.
Lincoln, Earl of	Smith, M. T.
Lushington, C.	Smith, J. B.
Macnamara, Maj.	Smythe, hon. G.
M'Gregor, J.	Somers, J. P.
M'Taggart, Sir J.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
M'Tavish, C. C.	Spearman, H. J.
Mahon, The O'Gorman	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Maitland, T.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Mangles, R. D.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Marshall, J. G.	Strickland, Sir G.
Marshall, W.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Martin, J.	Stuart, Lord D.
Martin, S.	Stuart, Lord J.
Matheson, A.	Talfourd, Serj.
Matheson, Col.	Tancred, H. W.
Melgund, Visct.	Tenison, E. K.
Milnes, R. M.	Tennent, R. J.
Mitchell, T. A.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Moffatt, G.	Thompson, Col.
Molesworth, Sir W.	Thompson, G.
Monsell, W.	Thornely, T.
Morpeth, Visct.	Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Morison, Gen.	Towneley, J.
Mowatt, F.	Townley, R. G.
Mulgrave, Earl of	Turner, E.
Muntz, G. F.	Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Vane, Lord H.
Nugent, Lord	Verney, Sir H.
Nugent, Sir P.	Villiers, hon. C.
O'Brien, J.	Vivian, J. H.
O'Brien, Sir L.	Wakley, T.

Wall, C. B.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Walmsley, Sir J.	Wood, W. P.
Ward, H. G.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Watkins, Col. L.	Wrightson, W. B.
Wawn, J. T.	Wyld, J.
Westhead, J. P.	Wyvill, M.
Willcox, B. M.
Williams, J.	TELLERS.
Wilson, J.	Hill, Lord M.
Wilson, M.	Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	East, Sir J. B.
Adair, R. A. S.	Edwards, H.
Adderley, C. B.	Egerton, W. T.
Alexander, N.	Euston, Earl of
Alford, Visct.	Farnham, E. B.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Farrer, J.
Arkwright, G.	Filmer, Sir E.
Ashley, Lord	Floyer, J.
Attwood, J.	Forbes, W.
Bagot, hon. W.	Forester, hon. G. C. W
Baldock, E. H.	Fox, S. W. L.
Baldwin, C. B.	Fuller, A. E.
Bankes, G.	Godson, R.
Barrington, Visct.	Gooch, E. S.
Bateson, T.	Gordon, Adm.
Benbow, J.	Gore, W. R. O.
Beresford, W.	Goring, C.
Blackstone, W. S.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Blakemore, R.	Granby, Marq. of
Boldero, H. G.	Greene, T.
Boiling, W.	Grogan, E.
Boyd, J.	Gwyn, H.
Brackley, Visct.	Haggitt, F. R.
Bramston, T. W.	Hale, R. B.
Bremridge, R.	Halford, Sir H.
Broadley, H.	Hall, Col.
Brooke, Lord	Halsey, T. P.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Hamilton, G. A.
Brown, H.	Hamilton, J. H.
Bruce, Lord E.	Harris, hon. Capt.
Buck, L. W.	Heald, J.
Burghley, Lord	Heathcote, Sir W.
Burroughes, H.N.	Heneage, G. H. W.
Cabbell, B. B.	Henley, J. W.
Carew, W. H. P.	Hervey, Lord A.
Chichester, Lord J. L.	Hildyard, R. C.
Clive, Visct.	Hill, Lord E.
Clive, H. B.	Hodgson, W.N.
Cobbold, J. C.	Hood, Sir A.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W.B.	Hope, A.
Cocks, T. S.	Hornby, J.
Codrington, Sir W.	Hughes, W. B.
Cole, hon. H. A.	Ingestre, Visct.
Coles, H. B.	Ireland, T. J.
Colville, C. R.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Compton, H. C.	Jones, Sir W.
Coope, O. E.	Knightley, Sir C.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L.	Knox, Col.
Cotton, hon. W. H. S.	Lennox, Lord A.
Courtenay, Lord	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Cripps, W.	Leslie, C. P.
Currie, H.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Deedes, W.	Littleton, hon. E. R.
Deering, J.	Lockhart, A. E.
Douro, Marq. of	Lockhart, W.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Drummond, H.	Lowther, H.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Duncombe, hon..	M'Naghten, Sir E.
Duncuft, J.	Mahon, Visct.
Du Pre, C. G.	Manners, Lord C. S.

Manners, Lord G.	Shirley, E. J.
March, Earl of	Sibthorp, Col.
Masterman, J.	Smyth, Sir H.
Maunsell, T. P.	Somerset, Lord G.
Meux, Sir H.	Somerton, Visct.
Moody, C. A.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Moore, G. H.	Spooner, R.
Morgan, O.	Stafford, A.
Mundy, E. M.	Stuart, H.
Mure, Col.	Sturt, H. G.
Neeld, J.	Taylor, T. E
Neeld, J.	Thesiger, Sir F,
Newdegate, C. G.	Thompson, Ald.
Noel, hon. G. J.	Thornhill, G.
Ossulston, Lord	Tollemache, J.
Packe, C. W.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Pakington, Sir J.	Trollope, Sir J.
Palmer, R.	Turner, G. J.
Patten, J. W.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Peel, Col.	Villiers, Visct.
Pennant, hon. Col.	Villiers, hon. F. W. C.
Plumptre, J. P.	Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Plowden, W. H. C.	Waddington, D.
Prime, R.	Waddington, H. S.
Raphael, A.	Walpole, S. H.
Reid, Col.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Rendlesham, Lord	West, F. R.
Renton, J. C.	Whitmore, T. C.
Repton, G. W. J.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Richards, R.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Rufford, F.	TELLERS.
Scott, hon. F.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Seymer, H. K.	Law, hon. C. E.

House in Committee. Resolution— That it is expedient to remove all civil disabilities at present existing affecting Her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish religion, with the like exceptions as are provided with reference to Her Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion.

Resolution reported and agreed to.

On the question that the Bill be brought in,

SIR R. H. INGLIS

said, he apprehended what the House had done in Committee had been to give his noble Friend leave to bring in a Bill to carry into practical effect the resolution he had moved. From the general feeling which pervaded the discussion for two nights, he presumed the House would not desire to come to a division on the first reading. For his own part, after the declaration he had made the other evening, he should be very unwilling to be party to such a proceeding. He hoped, however, that his noble Friend would give ample time for the consideration of the measure when it came to a second reading, and would fix a day at such an interval as would give opportunity for a Christian country to express its sense of the violence and outrage which he contended the Bill, if introduced, would perpetrate upon the people. He felt very strongly upon this subject; and, sharing as he did those feelings with a very large body who formed at least an important minority, he trusted his noble Friend would afford ample time for the discussion.

LORD J. RUSSELL

I propose, if the House allow me to introduce a Bill, to bring in that Bill on Monday, and it having been read a first time, I shall not propose the second reading of course till after the recess. That will give six weeks for the country to consider the measure; but, after the recess, I propose to name an early day, Monday, the 7th of February, for the second reading. My hon. Friend observed that this Christian country ought to express its opinion upon this measure. The country contains many millions of Protestants and Roman Catholics, and some 20,000, 30,000, or 40,000 Jews. I imagine if this Bill receive the assent of Parliament, the country will be still as much—neither more nor less—a Christian country with its millions of Christians and its 30,000 Jews, unless, indeed, my hon. Friend were to propose to expel the Jews, like the Moriscoes from Spain.

Bill to be brought in.