observations beyond declaring that he should certainly record his vote against the second reading of the Bill. For Archbishop of Philadelphia because he would not give up his lodgings to him. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford said that although he felt MR. HORSMAN said, no one who had the incongruity of Jews legislating for a heard, either on this or on previous ocChristian Church, yet he thought no evil casions, the speeches of the hon. Gentlewas likely to arise from it, and that ques- man who had just sat down, would think tions of Church legislation would be treated it necessary that he should disclaim the in that House with tenderness; and he charge of bigotry. Much as the House fancied that he had already seen symptoms must be struck by the ability which charof that feeling amongst those who differed acterised the hon. Gentleman's speeches, from the Church. His right hon. Friend he must say they were still more charachad had more experience in that House terised by that candour, moderation, and than he; but during the short time that he justice which added weight to everything had had a seat there, he could not say that fell from him in the House. that he had seen much of that sympathy. himself he regretted deeply to find that he He could not forget the manner in which differed from many hon. Gentlemen whose the Bill for the preservation of a Welsh sincerity and zeal he admired, and in whose bishopric-one not intended to throw any general objects he cordially sympathised. new burden on the people was received But his comfort was that they differed only by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. They in the mode and the means of actingheard the cry of "No more bishops "there was no difference between them in from the hon. Member for Montrose; nor could he forget the manner in which that cry was received by other hon. Members opposite; and in the present Session they had heard terms applied to a colonial bishop for having done that which, if it had been done by a layman, would have been called standing up for a treaty and the rights of man. If the battle of the Church of England was fought in that House, he knew that his right hon. Friend would be foremost in the fight; but he would find it to his disadvantage that he had abandoned the principle of a Christian Legislature. Having abandoned that, he would find it more difficult to maintain the principle of a Christian Church. It had been said that when the Church was fenced round by disabilities, her position was not so secure as when some of them were re-ceive how any man could disconnect relimoved, and he would not altogether deny its truth; but that was no reason why they should run into an opposite extreme. Let the Church do her duty, but at the same time assert her privileges. Otherwise what would they have? No doubt they would have a pure Church—a Church doing its duty as a Christian community, like the Episcopal Church in America and in Scotland; but they would cease to have an Established Church. That was a point upon which he held a very strong opinion, and differed from many persons who thought it of little importance. This was the last night of the debate; and as he knew many hon. Gentlemen were anxious to address the House, he would adhere to his original intention, and not extend his their great ends. He agreed with them in repudiating the doctrine that religion had nothing to do with politics. It had been said by a high authority-already alluded to by a noble Lord on the other side— that religion had no more to do with making laws than with making shoes. From his heart he repudiated such a sentiment, which was equally opposed to all our notions of human accountability and of common sense. The one was a mere mechanical occupation, carrying with it no moral consequences, and so might be altogether disconnected from any moral code; but the functions of a legislator were of a different character; his acts affected not merely the social but the moral condition of society; he discharged a solemn trust under a solemn responsibility; and he could not con gion from public affairs without proclaiming its worthlessness in private life. He was glad to see that this was the view of the subject which was generally taken by the House; and notwithstanding one or two remarks to the contrary which fell from his hon. Friend who had just sat down, he was sure that he and the hon. Gentleman who had so ably begun the debate, must take comfort at seeing that the importance of religion had not been at all denied in its course, but on the contrary, the House had indicated a profound conviction that religion should be the centre of a man's public as well as of his private character; and whatever might be the differences of opinion with regard to the relations of Church and State amongst them, it must be admitted that during this debate the | The question now was, whether Parliagreat and essential truth, that legislators ment having repealed every direct measure should own the obligations of Christianity, against the Jew, he was now to be dehad been on the whole more fully ac- barred from entering the House by part of knowledged and established than it had the provisions of another statute passed been before. The question before them for another purpose, and having no referwas partly political and partly religious: ence whatever to him or to the mainfirst, it was a constitutional question, tenance of Christianity in this country? touching the rights and liberties of a por- Every disability imposed upon the Jew by tion of their fellow-subjects, and on that the Legislature had been removed, and ground to be decided on constitutional consequently he was now in this position maxims, guarding themselves against pri- in his character of a citizen he had to vate prejudices and predilections. It ap- bear his full share of the national burdens peared to him that there was one great-he might be compelled to carry arms in fallacy pervading the speeches on the other the State's defence; when they wanted side. It was generally assumed by Gen- his money or his services they treated him tlemen on the opposite side, and stated by as a British subject, but when he asked for the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst, his privileges they reminded him that he that Christianity was part and parcel of was a Jew. As the law now stood, a Jew the law of England, and that the object was might be an clector; he might be in the to repeal that law. He thought that was army; he might be a juryman; he might the argument which was put forward by be an alderman, sheriff, or landed propriethe hon. and learned Member for Midhurst. tor; in the colonies he might be a legisNow, that statement, translated into plain | lator; and he might enjoy the power enEnglish, would mean this, that in order to trusted to him by the confidence of the secure Christianity, they had by an express people or the dignities conferred on him enactment excluded the Jews from Parlia- by the favour of the Crown. This was ment, and now that there was a proposal exemplified only in the course of the last to repeal that statute. That was not year in the case of one family in this stated certainly in so many words, because country. There were three brothers of that statement would be incorrect. There the Rothschild family residing in this counwas no statute or law of that kind; and, try. In the beginning of 1847 one of therefore, the repeal of such a law was not those brothers, by the favour of the Sothe question before them. It was true that in vereign, was created a baronet; another former times there were laws specially ex-brother was afterwards sheriff of Buckingcluding the Jews from the privileges en-hamshire; the other brother was at the last joyed by Christians; and the laws went even further. The Jews were not merely subject to disabilities but to great degradation; and so long as those laws existed, it might be said that those laws were pointed against the Jews for the purpose of guarding Christianity. But every one of those laws had been repealed. The Legislature had admitted that those laws were unnecessary, impolitic, and unwise; and by degrees the Jews had been rescued, first from indignity, and then they had been relieved from every single disability placed upon them by statute. But when one law after another had been repealed, and the Jews had been rescued from every disability that was directed against them, there rose up an obstacle against their taking their seats in the House. A part of a statute which was passed for another purpose, and which had no reference to the Jews, rose up accidentally and unexpectedly to exclude them, and prevent them from taking their seats in that House. It election chosen one of the representatives power in the Christian Church, they felt their Christianity was not polluted or trenched upon, and they were still a purely Christian community. Again, through some of the offices to which they had elected Jews, they might be officially present in Christian churches during the ceremonies that took place. The presence of a Jew on a recent occasion in the church of Bow had been alluded to during a most edifying spectacle, when the public were invited to come forward and raise their voices only to be stifled, and to get up to make objections only to be refused a hearing. On that occasion a Jew alderman was present during the confirmation, and he was told, was seen kneeling side by side with Dean Merewether in the corporation pew; and an eye-witness informed him that so little visible were the distinctive marks of creed and race, that even his hon. Friend (Sir R. H. Inglis), if he had seen Alderman Salomons and the Dean of Hereford sitting together on that occasion, might not have been able to say, "which the Christian was and which the Jew." The citizens of London had placed their representation in the hands of Baron de Rothschild, and had called upon the House to receive him as their representative. The question was, what answer they were to return. Remembering their previous legislation, were they now to say it was all a mistake? Were they to retrace their steps, or were they to say they concurred in the justice of their previous course, and were resolved to persevere in it? Or were they to take an intermediate course-too true to their former principle to retreat, and too timid to advance? Were they to perpetuate an absurd anomaly, and inflict by their capricious legislation a cruel injustice? or a legislator in their colonies, it must be shown why he was not also fit to be a legislator in this country. He should now refer again to the religious part of the question. If they imposed disqualifications on religious grounds, they must show the necessity and the danger against which they were providing. After listening to the speeches that had been made on the other side of the question, he was not able to gather from them what were the dangers they pointed at, and what was the necessity on which they insisted. If upon political and constitutional grounds no practical evil could be shown to arise from the passing of this measure, what, he asked, was the real practical danger that could arise on religious grounds? He admitted that was the most important part of the subject; and he hoped on that point to receive a definite answer. It was said when Roman Catholic Emancipation was opposed, that the members of that creed might use the powers they might acquire to the prejudice of the Established Church. But no such practical danger could be said to arise on the present occasion; and even with respect to the admission of Dissenters and Catholics to seats in that House, the Church, so far from being weakened thereby, was now much stronger in the affections of the people. But the old cry of the Church in danger had been given up, and the new cry of Christianity in danger was substituted in its place. He would ask what the danger to Christianity was? There was a vague, mysterious, unmentionable alarm pervading all the speeches that had been made on this question; but anything tangible, anything they could lay hold of in the shape of dangers, he had not been able to detect. Would it make one The noble Lord the Member for Christian less in the country? Would it Bath had raised a distinction, the impor- make one Jew more? Would the Christance of which it was impossible to deny, if tians, on this measure obtaining the Royal it could be fully established and carried assent, be less firm in their faith? Would out. He said on a previous occasion that the Jews be more established in theirs? hitherto they had been merely giving pri- It must be remembered that this Bill did vileges to the Jews, but now for the first not give the Jews the right to sit in Partime they were conferring upon them di- liament; it only gave to Christians the rect powers. The noble Lord (Lord Ash-right to elect them. It seemed to him that ley), stated that the fact of a man being qualified to administer the laws, was no proof that he was qualified to make the laws; but, at the same time, according to the constitution and the practice, it was a strong presumption that he was so qualified, and the onus of proving the disqualification rested upon his opponents. If a man were fit to be a magistrate, a sheriff, the opponents of this Bill placed their objections not upon policy, but upon fear; and that fear on the part of Christians was more degrading and insulting to Christianity than would be the invasion of a whole tribe of Hebrews. When it was said that Christianity was in danger, he asked why was the Church more in danger than the Synagogue? They had endeavoured, sometimes with success, to wean the Jews and by those who considered themselves from their faith; but did they find any in- the best friends of the Church. When stance of Jews making proselytes of Chris- the Test and Corporation Acts were retians? It was not thus the Founder of pealed, according to the apprehensions of Christianity estimated its value. Such was the party of whom the hon. Baronet was not the faith of those men who, going forth the distinguished leader, the Established into a hostile land, encountered persecu- Church had received its death blow. When tion, braved the gibbet and the rack, and the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was passed, were willing to suffer death itself in token the sun of Protestantism had set for ever. of that faith which they knew must one And now, if they allowed one Jew to enter day overspread the world. And if the the House of Commons, the faith of 655 faith which sustained the small band of Christians would make to itself wings and unprotected missionaries of the truth shook fly off to Jerusalem or Jericho. He was thrones and empires to their centre--if one speaking politically; and if men were to poor persecuted preacher-familiar with be judged rather by their language than stripes and dungeons, led forth, a solitary their lives, he should say that the hon. Bacaptive, amidst an execrating multitude-ronet and his followers girded themselves caused an Imperial Viceroy to tremble on for each succeeding conflict, not in faith, his throne-if Christianity, in its infancy, but in fear. According to them the Church thus insulted, persecuted, and afflicted, could meet no enemy which would not were able to prevail over principalities and be too strong for her-she could enter into powers, how came it now, when she had no conflict in which she would not be certhem all on her side-when her enemies tain to be overcome. Was there any wiswere prostrate and herself triumphant- dom-any truth-any religion in that cry? how was it that now she felt fear, and cried Had the cry proceeded from the professed out for weakness? In the hour of her ob- enemies of the Church-were it the taunt scurity a fearless and advancing martyr- of the infidel, or jest of the scoffer the why did they point to her now, in the day of country would have rightly estimated the her exaltation, as a tottering and trembling value of it; but issuing from the bosom tyrant? Why did her champions now of the Church herself, and proclaimed by never enter into a contest without antici- her favourite sons, it might be pregnant pating defeat? He asked that question of with mischief. Christianity in danger from his hon. Friend who had spoken last. Ile Judaism! Whence had that new light would ask it of the hon. Baronet the Mem- sprung? If they looked to the past, did ber for the University of Oxford. That hon. they read it in history? If they looked to Baronet filled no mean place in the estima- the future, did they read it in prophecy? tion of the Christian world. Thousands to And see what advantage they gave by such whom he was personally unknown had a course to their common enemies! How been taught to revere his name; and those easy for their common enemies to place who differed most from the hon. Baronet them in a great dilemma ! It enabled in that House, paid a ready tribute of ad- them to say that the friends of the Estabmiration to a character in which they saw lishment had either exaggerated a danger united such intense political ardour with which did not exist, and they had feigned a so much Christian mildness-a spirit which distrust which they could not feel---or that knew no fear, and a heart in which was no in their hearts they believed Christianity gall. If the days of religious persecution to be an unreal thing-frail, perishable, were revived, the hon. Baronet would be and unsound-too delicate to be handledthe foremost to attest, by the intrepidity of too ricketty to be roughly shaken-imhis martyrdom, the immortality of his posing when unassailed, but liable to be Christian faith. Yet, strange to say, a shaken to pieces by every ill wind that great part of the hon. Baronet's life had blew upon it. He was speaking only pobeen occupied in proclaiming the weak- litically. He could have no sympathy with ness of his own religion, and its possible those who thus impugned the divinity of the if not probable downfall. He hoped he religion they professed. He would not take should be considered incapable of speaking Christianity on their misrepresentations. irreverently of the character of a Gentle- She required not the aid of enactments to man whom he held in the greatest venera- support her. He thought, with Locke, that tion; but he (Mr. Horsman) must repeat that on every political occasion a panic cry had been raised by the hon. Baronet, 66 things in religion which were the invention of men, required the invention of men to support them; but the things in re 66 own inability. Had he followed the bent of his own inclination, he should have given a silent vote on the present occasion; but he felt that he should not be discharging his duty to that numerous and respectable constituency whom he had the honour to represent, if he did not endeavour to the best of his power to state the reasons which had induced him to come to the con ligion which were of God, required not the aid of human authority to support them." In league with intolerance, religion presented the spectacle of a house divided against itself. It was her function to interfere in politics, but to interfere in a just, generous, and peaceful spirit. He agreed with an hon. Gentleman who had already addressed the House on this question, that perfect Christianity is perfect liber-clusion that the Bill ought not to pass. ality." They sometimes heard of the errors of Popery; but there was no error in Popery so great as that which Protestants committed when they allowed Popery to monopolise all the charity, good-will, and persuasion, reserving to themselves only those external appliances which, instead of producing peace and concord, generated the worst of feelings. He had heard something approaching to it from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford; and more distinctly from the noble Lord the Member for Arundel, to whose speech he had listened with great pleasure. It was upon Christian principle that he supported this measure because he had faith in the eternal essence of Christianity--its imperishable attributes and assured triumphs, that he would not suffer it to be degraded by these unworthy contests which could only be carried on by disparaging the influences of divine truth, and exaggerating the efficacy of carnal weapons. They who supported that measure had no apology to make the apology, if any, was due from those who exhibited to the world the melancholy spectacle of Christianity deserted by her own children-who mistrusted the principles for which they ought to fight-and soiled the banner under which Christians should feel sure of victory. Those who gave their assent to this measure needed no apology; for they felt that their faith was secure. But, if excuses were required from any, they were required from those who placed their opposition to the measure on the inherent weakness of their own religion; who, to those who wish to misinterpret their meaning, exhibited the spectacle of Christianity distrusted by her own children; and who, by their fears and misgivings, dishonoured their cause, and soiled the banner under which Christians should rejoice to fight. MR. SPOONER approached the discussion of the question with a full appreciation of the difficulties by which it was surrounded, and with a deep feeling of his Did The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Horsman) had delivered a speech which, in all its essential parts, completely contradicted itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman set out by admitting broadly that religion ought to enter into all the concerns of this lifethat it should be the guide of men in their private station, and in the performance of their public duties; and yet he came to the conclusion that it would be right and proper to call a Jew into that House to act upon his religion and his principles; and the hon. Gentleman maintained that the Jew would be a proper person to legislate for a Christian community-that he could do his duty to a Christian people. He (Mr. Spooner) differed most entirely from the hon. Gentleman. At the close of his speech the hon. Gentleman had made so complete a misrepresentation of the views of those who opposed the measure-so palpable a misrepresentation-that he felt it would almost be a waste of time to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. they fear for the safety of their Church? They had no such fear. Christianity was founded on the basis of eternal truth; and the Christian Church would stand and flourish for ever, despite the opposition that might be directed against it. There was, however, one fear that he did entertain-that, blessed with Christianity as they had been, and with all its attendant advantages, they should prove themselves unworthy of the privileges they had enjoyed by permitting persons to come into that House, and to approach that table, who disavowed, who repudiated Christianity. Would the nation prove itself so unmindful of Christian principles, would the House so reject those principles, as to suffer their table to be approached by a Jew? Was the House prepared to admit men to legislate for a Christian nation, who denied the divinity of the Saviour, and dealt with the Gospel as a fable-men who treated our Lord the Saviour as a crucified impostor, and his Gospel as an imposture? The Jews believed in the truths of the Old |