received any communication from the Commander-in-Chief on the subject?

they should be completed. No new principle had been introduced into the Bill, and delay would lead to a suspension of the works.

LORD MONTEAGLE said, that it was disgraceful to bring it forward without affording time for consideration. He should take on himself to show to-morrow the points on which the Bill was defective, but not with any view of impeding its progress.

Bill read 2a and committed to Committee of the whole House to-morrow; and the Standing Orders Nos. 26 and 155 to be considered in order to be dispensed with.

House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Thursday, December 16, 1847.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Soon after I entered office I received a letter from the Duke of Wellington upon the subject, and I have been frequently since that period in communication with him upon it.

BRAZIL.

MR. THORNELY wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and what steps had been been taken since the arrival of the lately appointed English Minister at the Court of Rio de Janerio, for the negotiation of a new treaty of commerce between this country and the empire of Brazil; whether it be true, as had been publicly stated, that the Government of Brazil had refused to enter on any such negotiation until the Slave Trade Act were repealed, which gives to British ships of war the power of seizing, and to British courts of Vice-Admiralty the power

MINUTES.] NEW MEMBER SWORN.-For Weymouth, the of condemning (without the sanction and

Hon. Frederick William Child Villiers.
PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Land Tax Commissioners' Names.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Gladstone, from Robert Isaac Wilberforce, Clerk, Archdeacon of the East Riding, Bankes, from Parishioners of Long Bredy and Little Bredy, in the County of Dorset, for Increasing Efficiency (Church of England).-By several hon. Members, from an immense number of places, for and against the Remo

for Alteration of Law relating to Bishops. By Mr.

val of Jewish Disabilities.-From Thomas O'Connor, Chairman, and Francis Loodey, Secretary of the Davis

Confederate Club, of London, for Abolition of Ministers' Money (Ireland).-By Mr. Plumptre, from Seend (Wilts), against Legalizing a Roman Ambassador.-By Viscount Morpeth, from Roman Catholic Clergymen and Laymen of Allerton Mauleverer, against the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts Bill.-By Lord Courtenay, and other

authority of any treaty with Brazil to that effect) Brazilian vessels engaged, or suspected to be engaged in the slave trade; and if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt any and what measures for removing the objection which exists on the part of Brazil to the opening of negotiations for the renewal of our commercial relations with that empire?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON stated that Lord Howden had received instructions from the British Government on the subject of a new treaty with the Government of Brazil; but the commencement of the tara.—By Mr. R. Palmer, from various places for a Su- negotiation for such treaty had not yet been perannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.-By Mr. Peto, made. If the Government of Brazil confrom Norwich, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Resented to the establishment of a treaty for

hon. Members, from various places, for Inquiry into the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland). From Lambeth, for Inquiry into the Case of the Rajah of Sat

moval Act.-By Mr. S. Crawford, from Parish of Kilbal

lyowen, for Alteration of Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland).—By Mr. Neeld, from Cricklade, and Mr. So theron, from Parish of Statton Saint (Wilts), and InhaMackinnon, from Inhabitants of Lymington (Hampshire), for the Adoption of a Treaty of Arbitration between the British Government and the other Governments of the

bitants of Swindon, respecting Turnpike Trusts.—By Mr.

world respectively, for putting a final period to the barbarous and unchristian practice of War.

the suppression of the slave trade, similar to that which had been entered into by Portugal with the British Government, there was no objection to placing the Brazilian Government in the same position which was occupied by Portugal as regards this country.

MR. BAILEY would ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the Government of Brazil had observed the last treaty; and if he were of opinion that it would observe the articles of a new treaty in case such a treaty was ratified?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that

DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY. VISCOUNT INGESTRE said, that a statement had appeared in the papers to the effect, that the Duke of Wellington had written a letter stating that he had ineffectually urged upon three different Go-fact was one thing, and opinion was another; vernments the necessity of paying a greater regard to our national defences; and he therefore, seeing the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, would ask, if he had

and the hon. Member was just as free to form an opinion as to the probable observance of a treaty by Brazil as he was. If, however, Brazil entered into the same

treaty with respect to the slave trade as | Peer, in which letter the following statePortugal had entered into with us, and al- ment was contained :— lowed the same right of search to British cruisers, the British Government did not anticipate any difficulty as to the fulfilment of the treaty.

lowed upon a former occasion. In bringing to concede any claims, however just, until forward this subject, I feel that I cannot avail it is compelled that Parliament has never myself of many of those topics which those practically adopted any just principles of who have proposed the removal of disabili-equity for all classes of Her Majesty's subties on account of religious opinions have jects; that only when vast bodies of men, been enabled to appeal to for the purpose of armed with wealth and the power of numinducing the House to agree to their propo-bers threaten it, does Parliament yield to sition. I cannot, as when I proposed the the just demands of these parties; but that repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, when there is no opposition to its proceedstate to the House that there are some three ings, when no danger menaces the counmillions of our fellow-subjects affected by try, and when no public inconvenience is it; men actively engaged in the industry likely to arise, Parliament adopts the prinand trade of those cities and towns from ciple of religious persecution, and proves the municipalities of which they are ex- that it was with unwillingness on its part cluded; men of the highest moral charac- that those large and liberal measures of civil ters; men unsurpassed in the discharge of and religious liberty formerly carried in the their duties to the State and in their loy- House, were on those occasions conceded. alty to the Crown. I cannot either, as a Such, Sir, I venture to say, will be the regreat man did who introduced the question sult-a result most injurious, I need not of Catholic disabilities to the attention of add, to the character of Parliament. There Parliament, refer to the state and condi- is, as I have said, no danger to be appretion of a neighbouring country as a potent hended, one way or the other, from the remotive to induce the House to endeavour jection or acceptance of this measure which to remove that continued and well-founded I now propose. One danger there wascause of discontent among that large class a danger pointed out by my hon. Friend of Her Majesty's subjects. I cannot, as the Member for the University of Oxford, he did, speak with indignation of a whole when a similar measure was brought forpeople kept in a state of degradation by ward in 1830. On that occasion my hon. those disabilities, and, like him, ask the Friend took upon himself the character of House, as it values the peace and welfare a prophet, and he told the House, "You of the country at large, to agree to this may depend upon it that if you admit the Motion. Sir, I feel this is a question which Jews to civil offices in the State, you will does not affect so large a portion of the get the affairs of this country into such population of this country, and the accept-confusion that you will have a reform in ance or rejection of which by this House does not involve such consequences. I am about, therefore, to address the House rather on the question of principle involved in it, than on the ground of political expediency a question certainly involving the political and religious liabilities of a portion of our countrymen, but involving them, I admit, only as for about 40,000 individuals involving the rights and liberties, political and religious, of a community not disposed, nor indeed able, if they were so disposed, to excite a clamour in the country in their behalf, to agitate the public mind in their favour, or to threaten the integrity of the empire with subversion if their demands are not complied with. But, Sir, feeling that I cannot use such a line of argument, I will, at the same time, take the liberty to advise this House that there may be a danger in refusing these demands, not affecting the welfare of the State, but the character of Parliament, involving as they do claims continually denied. It may be said, in such a case, that Parliament is unwilling

Parliament within seven years." But, Sir, without any admission of the Jews to civil offices in the State-without any precursor in the shape of confusion predicted by my hon. Friend-that dreaded event happened, and within two years Reform was adopted. That danger is, therefore, at an end. I now, Sir, proceed to state to the House that I place this question on the simple, and as I think, solid ground, that every Englishman, born in the country, is entitled to all the honours and advantages of the British constitution. I state further, that religious opinions of themselves ought not to be any disqualification or bar to the enjoyment of those advantages. I found my Motion upon the declaration that the laws of England are the birthright of the people of England. I found it on a declaration made in the House of Lords during the discussions on the Conformity Bill:-

be reduced to a more unhappy condition than to be put by law under an incapacity of serving his prince and country; and therefore nothing but a

"The Lords think that an Englishman cannot

crime of the most detestable nature ought to put | from the Legislature its Christian character, him under such a disability." and to admit, consequently, not only Jews, I say that unless something can be proved but infidels of every kind, to the highest to disqualify the Jews, that they stand in offices of the State. My hon. Friend seems the position of persons born in this coun- to admit that I have fairly stated this obtry, bearing all the burdens imposed by its jection. Now, Sir, far be it from me to laws, ready to serve their prince or their say for a single moment that the religion country in any capacity in which their ser- of a man should be a thing apart from his vices may be required, and therefore en- public or private life. I wish to state my titled to all the privileges which their fel- opinion to be otherwise. And I think that low-subjects enjoy. Sir, I state this with in all the affairs of private life-in the daily confidence, and I will not attempt to ask occupations of men, in the pursuits of the your favour, by urging their peculiar me- several trades and business which they exrits, which I might do; but I think that it ercise-religion has influence, and ought is not a matter of favour to them, and un- to have influence. I shall say still more, less some strong ground of disqualification when speaking of the Legislature, which can be proved, I consider that it is a matter of has to dispose of and control the variright. I will not say-I will not urge on their ous interests, ecclesiastical and secular, behalf that even those who are the most of the country, that religion ought to infludecidedly opposed to the claim of the Jews, ence and control the decisions of its memadmit them to be persons of a peaceable bers. I do not put the question on the and moral character. I will not urge that ground of civil employment being totally they are governed by the same moral laws apart from religion; but what I do contend which we ourselves have adopted for our for is, that it is an entire mistake to supown guidance. I will not point out that pose that the words of an Act of Parliavery many of them have been distinguished ment-to suppose that the postscript of an for great talent and intellectual capacity. oath-to suppose that the fag end of a deI will not show that in those offices to claration, can ensure religious motives in which they have already been admitted, legislators, or religious legislation in Parthey have proved themselves efficient and liament. By these declarations I maintain capable as civic officers and as magistrates. that you do not take that security which I will not observe that in the pursuits of you pretend; on the contrary, you shut out literature and science they have justified by their agency men who are conscientious by their sagacity and their intelligence in their motives, and deserving in their their equality for any office which Her Ma- conduct-men who would execute their jesty's subjects may aspire to. I say I duties honestly and truthfully, and exercise will not urge any of these topics upon your their functions as legislators with all due consideration, because by so doing I might regard for the country, while you admit appear to make this which I claim on their those who throw off the obligations of relibehalf a matter of favour on the part of gion altogether, and who, though they the House; and that it might seem rather make the declaration you require at their an indulgence-the concession of that hands, do not consider themselves in any claim on account of the peculiar merits of sense bound to discharge the duties it imthe Jewish subjects of Her Majesty, rather poses on them. I say, Sir, as opposed to than a matter of right, when, as I say, that doctrine, that it must depend upon being born in the country, being subject to the general opinion of the country-upon and bearing their due proportion of all the the state of things that prevails in that burdens of the State, and being ready to country-upon the various religions existsubmit to all its duties, they have a claiming in it, whether or not you are to have a in justice and in right to all its honours. I come, then, at once, without urging any peculiar merits on the part of the Jewish subjects of Her Majesty, to consider those objections which are urged in bar of their admission to the rights which I claim for them at the hands of the House. It is said in the very front of these objections, that by proposing to admit the Jews to seats in the Legislature, we propose to unchristianise this country-to take away

Christian Legislature. Now, let me take, in illustration of this proposition, cases drawn from two very different times. In the reign of James I. and Charles I. there existed a very strong religious feeling in this country. Men were divided into different sects; but nothing was more remarkable than the strong religious fervour which pervaded them all. Sometimes that fervour was in favour of one, sometimes in favour of another; but they were, one and

all, fervent believers. Suppose a legisla- | faith of a Christian, and that would not tive assembly composed from such men have prevented his admission to Parlia-Lord Falkland and Hollis Vane and ment. I hold, Sir, that it is not by declaothers, all sincerely religious, but profes- rations such as I have referred to, that you sing different forms of Christianity, would can obtain security. But you say, that it be a test of greater security for that the Legislature ought to be a Christian Legislature being a Christian Parliament, Legislature, and that this Parliament ought if those men came here and declared to be a Christian Parliament. But we do not upon the faith of a Christian would say that the nation is a Christian nation, it have added to the security of Par- and that the people are a Christian people, liament, and have strengthened the be- though we have 30,000 Jews in London; lief in their Christianity, had they stated and in the same sense you will say, Parliatheir faith at the end of a declaration ? ment is a Christian Parliament, though six I take another period and another country or eight of the Members out of 658 profess -a period similar in some respects, not in the Jewish religion. It appears to me, others. Let us suppose, that towards the that no danger will arise from taking away end of the last century, there were a Le- those obstacles which have prevented Jews gislature in France, containing disciples of hitherto from entering Parliament. ParliaVoltaire, and of J. J. Rousseau, many of ment must not depend on such matters for whom were found amongst the aristocracy, its security; it must depend, as in former and amongst the democracy; and let us times, on the people at large, and on those suppose, that Mirabeau, Condorcet, Robes- who represent the people. Parliament must pierre, and men of that stamp, were also depend on the sentiment of the people, part of the assembly. Every one who rather than on the continuance of seven knew the opinions of these men would say words in an Act of Parliament for its at once that that assembly was not bound Christian character. But, Sir, I have by any obligation on the subject of reli- heard it said, although there might be such gious opinions. Do you suppose that there instances as that of Mr. Gibbon sitting in would be any security if these men had de- this House, and submitting himself to the clared they took the oath "on the faith of requite declarations, that this Parliament a Christian?" Would it be of the smallest has constantly been recorded as a Christian advantage if they had done so? Would it Parliament; that Christianity is acknowhave imposed on them any additional obli- ledged to be part and parcel of the law of gation? No, it would not. I will take the land; and that it would be a portentous another instance. It is said, that the Jews innovation if we vacated this secure and are revilers of Christianity that they safe ground. On that subject it appears to mock at the Christian religion-that they me that great mistakes are made by those hold up its tenets to contempt; yet, Sir, I who thus refer to the history of the counask you, was there ever a man who sneered try. In the early history of the country, more thoroughly at Christianity than Mr. the Jews were persecuted in every mode, Gibbon? But Mr. Gibbon took this de- and were subjected to every species of claration on the true faith of a Chris- cruelty. At one time it will be found they tian," and not alone sat in this House, but were deprived of all their property; at anheld an office under George III. He sat other, thrown into prison, tortured, and in this House, too, on the Treasury banished the realm by a general Act of benches, under what may be considered the Legislature. Such was formerly the more of a High Church Government than treatment of the Jews. But, with respect to any that existed from the time of George I. the theory under which this law was adoptin this country. Take also the case of ed, that theory was, not that the Legislature Mr. Hume. Mr. Hume had not a seat in should be open to all classes of Christians, this House, but he held an office under but that every member of it should belong Government, and represented for some to the Church which was then universaltime George III. at the Court of France. the Roman Catholic Church. It is stated Can the hon. Member for the University by Bracton, that the statute De Hæretico of Oxford name any Jew in the last cen- Comburendo was supposed to be as ancient tury who has written essays more calcu- as the common law itself. Every heretic lated to undermine the belief in Christianity was committed to the flames at once; and than Mr. Hume? And yet if he had been I will read to you the words of an ancient returned to Parliament, he would, no doubt, author (Lyndewode) to show what sort of a have subscribed the declaration on the true person a heretic was :

66

-