upon the abstract question so ably dealt | were persons in that House who could not with by the hon. Member for Buckingham- swallow the idea or reconcile to themselves shire, when that hon. Member entered into the notion that religion ought not to be metaphysical arguments. Yes, the me- made a disqualification to a man who taphysical arguments; he followed him sought civil rights. They had argued the through those powerful deductions which question on the general principle; but it the hon. Member so ably made. At first was an individual alone who was under he was disposed to dissent from the hon. their notice. The city of London, in the Member's views; but in the end he was so just and fair exercise of its rights, had, by convinced by the power of the hon. Mem- 7,000 votes, elected as their representative ber's arguments that he was compelled to M. de Rothschild. Would they refuse him subscribe to his deductions; and he would his seat in that House? Let them do so, not weaken the excellence of the hon. and if there were a particle of spirit in Member's argumentation, by touching on the English people, if there were one the topics handled in his excellent speech. scintilla of that feeling which animated He should, therefore, throw the hon. Mem- the Irish when they were under similar ber's speech aside. He would throw it circumstances, instead of 7,000 they would aside, because he should only weaken the have double and treble that number coming effect of the hon. Member's all-powerful to support him. And what was their danargumentation, which the hon. Member ger? The allegation was, that if they put forth with such overwhelming force. allowed the Papists to enter the House, the Every argument against the Bill he had constitution would be ruined; but the old heard advanced sixteen or seventeen years gentlewoman was as flourishing as ever. ago against the admission of himself into And would they exclude the Jew because that House. Every argument was then he had not the force of millions at his urged totidem verbis against the admission back? Let them remember what force of Roman Catholics to Parliament. Se- had extorted from them before, and let venteen years ago he had assisted in re- them profit by that experience. The Proturning for his own county a member of testant constitution was still clear and his own Church; and he demanded at the free; but if some twenty or thirty Papists bar of that House that the Member so could not unconstitutionalise their deliberaelected should take his seat. The Jews tive assembly-if his hon. Friend the Memwere following that example. It was de- ber for Oxford, whom he valued, and renied to him, and he was told to retire to garded, and loved so much for the friendthe bar and await the decision of the ship with which he had condescended to House. And what was that decision? The honour him for many years, and for the House recognised the right of the free-admirable consistency with which he had holders of Clare to choose their representa- always maintained his own honest and intive; but, because they had chosen one dependent principles, had not been unprowho at that time was inimical to the testantised by contact with him-if they House, on the ground not that he was had associated together so long, and as he not a loyal subject, or did not discharge trusted they would do for a long time to all the duties of a good citizen, or was un- come, without one symptom of Popery apfaithful in the relations of private life-pearing in his hon. Friend-why were hon. but that he professed a religion which was Gentlemen so distrustful of their own princinot then in favour with the majority of the ples and feelings as to believe that contact gentry of this country, they were sent with a Jew and an honest man who would back, and were told the representative not be guilty of equivocation at the table they had chosen could not be admitted. for that was the question-could injure 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 be-haps only two or three Jews would be retween that man who now demanded admission to the House, and the man whom he had brought there? Simply that there

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? Per

turned; 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 Com-it home to them. The hon. Member for mons, and a Pretestant nation, although West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had spoken some fifty-nine or sixty Catholics were ad- of Liberalism as being a negation and abmitted into Parliament. It was not less sence of all religion. He who was a Libea Christian nation because those men were ral would tell that hon. Member, that, intolerated. He said tolerated; and if they stead of being a negation of all religion, were faithful to that God whom they had Liberalism was the absence of all acriselected for themselves—he would reiterate mony, of all bigotry, of all sectarian bitterthe phrase, that they had adopted that God ness. Liberalism was a concession to for themselves; and let them recollect that every human being, under the influence of they were a very small portion of the hu- education, of a right to address to the man family who had not yet done the same Deity his orisons in whatever terms or -let the same spirit of toleration lead them shape he might believe to be most acceptto admit the Jew. But, he said again, able to that Being. The hon. Gentleman that this was still a Christian country; and had a right to address his God on one long might it be so, if such were their de- side. He (The O'Gorman Mahon) had an sire-if such were their desire, for he equal right to address him on the other. would say that if to-morrow the dictates of Would the House, then, deny to the Jew their conscience suggested to them a dif- the opportunity of making his attestation ferent course, he hoped they would take it. with the same object as every other MemAnd here he would address himself to the ber-that object being to discharge his hon. Member for West Surrey-if that hon. duty truly to God and his country, adoring Member thought that his orisons would be that one God common to them all? The more acceptable to the great common Au- Roman Catholics were attempted to be thor of their being, if offered in a different excluded because they were said to be idolstrain from that he now adopted, it would aters-because, according to the Protestant be his bounden duty to address Him in notion, they believed too much; they were that strain, and to avow that he did so; now seeking to exclude the Jew, because and then what became of his Christianity? he believed too little; but he called upon He now came to this-that every one in them to make at once a concession dethat House swore an oath that no foreign manded by justice, reason, and religion. 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

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

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 oppo

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 convey-nents; we will not be content with having ing 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 speechcourse 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 griev-ed Gentleman is likewise in error. ously 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

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 disad vantage. 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 apapearing 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 learnIt 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

Granger, T. C.
Grattan, H.
Greene, J.

to bring in a measure relieving them from | Grace, O. D. J.
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
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
The high authority of the Re-
corder 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 tres-
pass upon the patience of the House.
The House divided :-Ayes 253; Noes
186: Majority 67.

measure.

Gregson, S.
Grenfell, C. W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Grey, R. W.
Grosvenor, Lord R.
Hall, Sir B.
Hardcastle, J. A.
Hastie, A.
Hastie, A.
Hay, Lord J.
Hayter, W. G.
Headlam, T. E.
Heathcoat, J.
Heneage, É.
Heywood, J.
Hindley, C.
Hodges, T. L.
Hodges, T. T.
Hogg, Sir J. W.
Hollond, R.
Horsman, E.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Humphery, Ald.

Hutt, W.

Jackson, W.

Jervis, Sir J.

Lewis, G. C.

Smith, J. A.

Lincoln, Earl of

Smith, M. T.

Lushington, C.

Smith, J. B.

Macnamara, Maj.

McGregor, J.

Smythe, hon. G.
Somers, J. P.

M'Taggart, Sir J.
McTavish, C. C.

Mahon, The O'Gorman
Maitland, T.
Mangles, R. D.
Marshall, J. G.
Marshall, W.

Somerville, rt.hn. SirW.
Spearman, H. J.
Stanley, hon. E. J.
Stansfield, W. R. C.
Staunton, Sir G. T.
Strickland, Sir G.
Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Stuart, Lord D.
Stuart, Lord J.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Brand, T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Bright, J.

Evans, J,

Martin, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Evans, W.

Martin, S.

Brockman, E. D.

Ewart, W.

Matheson, A.

Brotherton, J.

Talfourd, Serj.

Fagan, W.

Matheson, Col.

Tancred, H. W.

Browne, R. D.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Melgund, Visct.

Tenison, E. K.

Bunbury, E. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Tennent, R. J.

Busfeild, W.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Callaghan, D.

Fordyce, A. D.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Forster, M.

Cardwell, E.

Carter, J. B.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Cavendish, W. G.

Cayley, E. S.

Clay, J.

Gardner, R.

Clay, Sir W.

Clements, hon. C. S.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cobden, R.
Cockburn, A. J. E.

Fortescue, C.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Fox, R. M.

Fox, W. J.
Freestun, Col.

Gaskell, J. M.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Glyn, G. C.
Gower, hon. F. L.

Monsell, W.
Morpeth, Visct.
Morison, Gen.
Mowatt, F.

Mulgrave, Earl of
Muntz, G. F.
Norreys, Sir D. J.
Nugent, Lord
Nugent, Sir P.
O'Brien, J.
O'Brien, Sir L.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Thompson, Col.
Thompson, G.

Thornely, T.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Towneley, J.

Townley, R. G.

Turner, E.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Vane, Lord H.

Verney, Sir H.
Villiers, hon. C.
Vivian, J. H.
Wakley, T.

Mitchell, T. A.
Moffatt, G.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Hall, Col.
Halsey, T. P.
Hamilton, G. A.
Hamilton, J. H.
Harris, hon. Capt.
Heald, J.
Heathcote, Sir W.
Heneage, G. H. W.
Henley, J. W.
Hervey, Lord A.
Hildyard, R. C.
Hill, Lord E.
Hodgson, W. N.
Hood, Sir A.
Hope, A.
Hornby, J.

Hughes, W. B.
Ingestre, Visct.
Ireland, T. J.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Jones, Sir W.
Knightley, Sir C.
Knox, Col.
Lennox, Lord A.
Lennox, Lord H. G.
Leslie, C. P.
Lindsay, hon. Col.
Littleton, hon. E. R.
Lockhart, A. E.
Lockhart, W.
Lowther, hon. Col.
Lowther, H.
Mackenzie, W. F.
M'Naghten, Sir E.
Mahon, Visct.
Manners, Lord C. S.