Star. — London, England, 1830-04-06 00:00:00

aim at the option of any one who chose to tender them the oath, e holier they could be allowed even to vote for a member of parlia ment; and, lastly, they were excluded from all offices in corporati ,,a. These were certain disabilities; but he would also mention that, after the long lapse which had taken place, a doubt existed whether the act of Richard I. with respect to laws did not also sub ; and even whether their worship was fully protected by the To leration act of William 111. In this, as in other cases, it was true that, besides the great injury inflicte d: by the law, a greater under. ~ :row di of local disability was not necessarily engendered. He would not go through all the instances where this took place, for he knew that there were some exceptions, such as Exeter, Liverpool, and Margate, where Jews were freely admitted to immunities ; but he multi not help expressing his regret that in this great metropolis they were subject to the most galling exclusion ; they could not be members of the corporation, and, in consequence, could not exercise any retail trade in the city—and this, upon the lower members of the body, operated as a dreadful hardship. While upon thin, head, he would say that, as to the disabilities they laboured under, they stood upon the same footing as the poor Catholics did until the last session of Parliament ; and whatever difference might exist was cyen in favour of the Catholics. The next point to which he would allude was, that of the grounds upon which they were entitled to repeal the laws against them. The Jews in London amounted to 18 or 20,000. As to the extent of their numbers in the country, a difference of opinion existed ; but the whole number did not exceed from 30,000 to 40,000. The house would take notice that, as a sect, and as a community, it was well known they were the most ancient in exist. ence. Their religion, their feelings, their political principles, were known; so were their habits; and it was as well known that they acre peaceful and useful subjects, and less stained with political of. fences than any other class of the community. It was a fact that the effect of the law was cruelly aggravated, instead of diminished, the great measure of toleration passed the year before last. He would allude merely to one instance in support of this statement, which was that of a gentleman perfectly qualified, in every r for admission to the Bar, but who was refused admission, an d es c e n t : tirely deprived of the opportunity of following the profession, by I he very Act which was intended to be one of complete tolera. tion—(hear, hear), and which, professing to remove disabilities, tell into the most absurd persecution. When he stated this, he exhausted all that he was able to say in support of the claims of a people coming thus humbly before the house.— This being the nature of the disabilities they laboured under, the emit point to which he would advert was the nature of the mea sure he was about to propose for their relief, and he begged to say that, as the Catholic Code presented a precedent of the grievances under which the Jews suffered, so did the act of last year afford a glorious precedent of what it now became the house to do. He conceived that the measure, which he hoped would pass, should be on the twang of the Catholic Emancipation Act, not only be cause it was the simplest form that could be adopted, but also because it was important and essential that the Jews should have the same benefit of judicial decision extended to them that was afforded to others. He hoped also that the same effect would result here as had happened with reference to the Catbo. lics—namely, ;that the Emancipation Act would be immediately followed by a removal of those injurious corporate restrictions which affected all, and especially the Jews, in this metropolis. He trusted that England, great and wealthy as she was, would no longer hesitate to follow the example set her by Imperial Rome, not only as a Pagan but a Christian state, for she had given the Jews the rights of citizens always. Not only in late but in past times, he regretted to say that the City of London had been re ruarkable for persecution. He mentioned this not as a reproach, but for the purpose of stating what he had reason to believe as an evidence of the present feeling of the Corporation of London, that he should now have the cordial support of all the representatives of the City—(hear, hear). A Jew might enjoy all such rights as would enable a man to buy and sell, and live in society; but he was to be denied all civil and political franchises, and was especially to he denied admission into the Houses of Parliament. One or two persons were disposed to qualify the subject. and to say, " We will admit them generally, but we will not admit them within the walls of the British Parliament." lie explicitly denied, when this pro. position was stated and brought forward on the ground of the esta blished law of the country and the wisdom of our forefathers, that in any period of our history any precedent could be found as to Jewish subjects separated from the Establishment—or any instance of any sect of Christians admitted to all common and ordinary civil rights, and excluded from Parliament and civil privileges. The heterodox Dissenter was admitted into Parliament, but not only not a dmi s . Bible to office, but denied the exercise of his worship under penal. ties.—(Hear, hear.) Then there were the Quakers—allowed the exercise of :heir worship, but not admissible into Parliament or into office, and, at the same time, denied ordinary civil privi leges, inasmuch as their evidence could not be taken in courts of justice. Lastly, there was the Catholic, excluded from every thing freedom, office, parliament. The next argument was the pre ced ent of past times, and the wisdom of our ancestors. The argument used in 1753 by Mr. Pelham, upon the question of naturalisation, was this,—that the Jews were Christians according to the under. standing of the Church of England. The words of Mr. Pelham were, " Would any gentleman say we ought not to allow persons to live amongst us who did not conform to the provisions and practice of the Church of England ? " Such were the liberal and can. dal sentiments of the then minister of the House of Corn. noes. At no period was the law to be found supporting ono tone of Christianity but the same law equally opposed ano. therfonn. If you had the law supporting the one and opposing the other, how could it be said that it opposed both ? In every ease the law supported what it called the truth of the Christian religion. There was no general support of Christianity, as such, till we carne the reign of King William, and then there was a nearer approach to that for which the hon. gentleman contended. No statute would he found which could support the assertion that the object was to s radii a general system of Christianity as such, because in sup one form the law opposed another. In one sense t hristianity was the law of the land, inasmuch as the law rained itself, to protect the Sacred Scriptures from every sort in invasion. It did so because the Scriptures had been re milted as the state religion ; it equally protected them, whatever 'its received them; but it protected a great part in favour of the very persons in whose favour he made this motion.— Thus far as to the preliminary objection ; we then come to the ether objection, that the habits of the Jews were not of that kind winch fitted them for full and unqualified rights of citizenship, is other members of the national establishment. It was said that tlmy were a sort of wandering sect, concerned in the opera tions of different countries, and belonging to no country. He portly admitted the charge, and begged to ask what had given them this character ? Could any thing be'worse than that state of law which forced men to commit crime, and then condemned them for eintunitting it ? (Hear, hear, hear) Supposing, it were con ceded that these persons were not entirely animated with semi. :wits of citizenship, yet the ground upon which be, their hum ble advocate, stood forward, was, that they were ready to adopt chase seniimetits—they avowed that they were ready to give full • Ilegiance if they were afforded protection. If you will find Man a ountry, :hey will find you a people. There was ano ther objection —that there was something so demoralising in the state of the community, that they were not fit for civil privileges. In answer it might be asserted that the whole metropolis produced no citizens more remarkable for inte grity and probity. He knew no wickeder way of corrupting Ad demoralising a people than laws enacting that they should be treated as it they were corrupt. The nest argu i,ent was, that if an y b o d y o f persons, not Christians, were admitted to the privileges of the State, there was no saying A abet extent the principle might be carried, and any per. .en would be admitted who was not a Christian. In the first :lace he denied the consequence. The most eminent writers a (air own Church, persons whose names had been ideuti -11,4 with theology, had all admitted that there was such a re. :sawn between the system of judaism and the system of christianity as could not possibly subsist between christianity and any other Ima m Our most eminent divines said that the very foun d mans of out religion were to be discovered in the religion of th e jewish people. They told us that from the religion of the irs , sh people we derived all our principles. That he might ism be supposed to exaggerate the argument, he begged leave to read an argument of the Rev. Alr. Home, which h e selected item nunicious others. He said, that so many and striking were the analogies between judaism and christiaaity, that it was widest they had originated bathe same source and saute sis '6l4, and were founded on evidence of the same species; they i. iete or the sam e nature and the same tesu/t—not distinct in re t.gton, but identified as one and the imme—Judaisin was infant lir . mianizy, and Christianity adult Judaism. lisplacad ionnbility 4.1 these persons upon higherind bialder grounds. ilk inserted tet th at t h ey were a sect distinctly repagnlocel,.and in ill two* it 1 to 44 :In active part in the co m m un i t y. Alle weapot aware many Ort . .eiple u p on which they could be . exc l u d e d. The &molar ailr mot her presumed to.Snd this principle in the eitostitutign :. .. t 11 . :beitt;.. Ile conceived. t 'tat when, by th e ordination of Petti ite`,"l : ) ite t. , tli.tent.petsons were collected together, they Were to top t:,et fora C. 4113111011 interest and • object. The very entuom o f t h e ir being funned into 4 Society supposed ; 4 4 1 4,01 iaaa 1 ar11,, 4 column interest to ti Ti h I ted their toil, the bums thtir vilpur, the rich cantt IL defied any one t o Otte t h at . it was thgir:ktereat to haulm Part I : y istinconan said exclusive pined lea. The vital herd : I le of is/I • o c i et y cou ld be nothiitg aloe than ibis rineAuttlitYs n I migh t h e said to be a great axis reglntiipon 'the haalsof Kg ! :•real right, upon which the whole form of milk a natant revolution. He knew nut aPiinflPle not .whiCh t,.ticoold be excluded from civil ptliileges by not hag Idea :id with 3w the majority of their brethren. licensiht VW* " I°l4 b by which this exchmiciii . cop foibirkies. Every body l'etv the great principle which . bound man to man; laws o f - nein , were opp ve i l by every maxim which was cherished as the maxim of private conduct. A heavy responsibility was incurred by tik.r,vssing the consciences of our fellow-subjects by jealousies. ercati :g a conflict between their interest and their duty. were bound, upon every: ground, to conciliate the affection and attach ment of those with whom we lived, and not to pronounce a direct sentence of condemnation, or enact exclusive laws. He would refer, as a precedent, to the primitive times of that faith which he and his hon. friend professed. He would refer to the primitive times of Christianity, and ask his hon. friend to tell him whether, in thole times, the sincerest and most rigid Christians did not freely take offices, civil and military, under Pagan establishments ? The Mai rect effect was to support and credit tho e Pagan establishments._ Was it because they were indifferent to the value of the Pagan reli gion ? That was not the reason, but because they felt that the or dination of the'StrraENZ POWER had thrown then: into relations of society, beyond their views, with Pagan governments, and Pagan subjects, although what they did tended indirectly to support those governments. He would venture here to make an observation as to the representative system, because there were persons who would admit the Jews into every civil department, but not into the House of Representatives. He contended that the Jews showed by their conduct that they were worthy of civil rights. At present they admitted amongst them all classes of persons who took the oaths, and some day they would find that all sects of separatists would find their way into the house. It was possible that one day there may be a strong feeling that a measure like this was against the sense of the country; and the next day, when it was passed, the victory would appear so grand that it would be wondered why such a measure was put off so long. It was ridiculous to suppose that any of our great establishments would be made to suffer by a con cession like this. The tear of such results was the objection which many would make to his motion. Nothing was worse in his opi nion, than that valetudinarian legislation. (Hear, hear.) We sacrificed all hope and means of improvement to save our existing establishments ; as if, indeed, these were to be endangered by measures of improvement. But if a system was defective in itself, cranks and stays could not long uphold it. The best security was to be found in general justice. (Hear. hear.) One objection to his motion he would mention, not without reluctance, but being informed that a most respectable member of the house would oppose the question on that ground he should not pus it by. It was this, that the Jews having been ever labouring under disability in this country, they ought not to be classed with other subjects. The con. elusion in that case fell short of the premises. The premises were, that these persons were hunted to and fro in all times, and persecuted, therefore what was the conclusion to be ? He would giv.: them part of what they wanted. That part they already had ; and so far was the exclusion from office from being a long and unexampled persecution, he would say that it was no persecution at all. For those who came forward with the argument which he was now combatting it would be necessary to go back to the time of the Plantagenets, when those unhappy people were given up to the popular rage : if they did not go so far back, they should give up the argument. The hon. member here cited an eloquent passage from Bishop New. ton's prophecies, which it was impossible to collect in the gallery. He had now done. It was not his object to address himself to the feelings of the House. He could not go over centuries of oppres sion. The justice of this measure ought to be inducement enough of itself to adopt it. Such a measure, and the extensive effect of it, would secure the exter.sion of the renown of this country ; for the persons to be affected by the relief he was about to propose were spread over the world, and they spoke different languages. They hitherto knew Christianity only as the author of persecution. lie would not detain them long, but would exhort them to do justly, and have a love of mercy. The hon. member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to remove the disabilities affecting the Jews. Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the motion. He trusted the house would meet this question, and set it at rest for ever upon lb. present occasion. The hon. member (11r. R. Grant) had told them that the declaration inserted in the late Act for the admission of the Homan Catholics into parliament, had shut the door closer against the Jews than it was before. lie rejected this position of the hon. gentleman, and denied that from any portion of our his. tory he could produce a single instance of the admission to office of any but a Christian. The tests of admission had always been Christian. The measure, therefore, of last session, fatal and ill. omened as in his opinion it was, had not as the hon. gentleman af. firmed, given rights which never existed ; it had not gone further than to restore rights of which the parties claiming them had been deprived. The question then for the house to determine was, whether there was any thing in the condition of the Jews at present which could be fairly considered to make them more eligible than formerly ? He (Sir R. Inglis) contended that there was not. They were aliens in the eyes of the law, and not merely in a technical sense. They were justly viewed and treated as aliens, because they were interested in other countries besides that in which they resided. Not only were their interests different—they were hostile to the country in which they dwelled. it was unnecessary for him to refer to instances, of which history was prolific, in support of this propo sition. The history of Bohemia in the hat c entur y furnished one signal instance of the truth of what he stated. It was notorious that the Jews facilitated the retreat of the French from Russia, against the interests of those who gave them protection. Again, it was well known that Napoleon applied to aJew in London for a loan when this country was at war with France, and he obtained it. He adduced these instances in support cf his position that the Jews were not entitled to a de. parture from the principle by which all their legislation had been tiovenied throughout the whole course of their history as a Christian btate. So many different oaths would lead to the abandonment of all oaths. Disposed as he was to bow to the sovereign power of public opinion, lie was not quite so much prepared asaome Has. Gentlemen to surrender the privileges and the duties of legislatio• to such • tribunal Th e tra n s f er o f this privilege into the hands of these people in the present state of society would be injurious to all its. terests. Although i: was a delicate subject to refer to, Hon. Members dould not but be aware that there were commercial advantages connect. ed with the possession of seats in that House, of which the Jews would know how to avail themselves. Upon one occasion there were font partners in one commercial house sitting in the House of Commons, and their commercial interests were well served by it. Was it pee. 'able to suppose that the Jews would be insensible to this mab of serving themselves through the medium of parliament ? If the system of representation were more popular, he should not have the same objection ; but knowing, as he did, the mesas by which seats in that house might be obtained, and knowing 'the command of capital possessed by the Jews, he could not hesitate to believe that many would be introduced in a manna objectionable. In ordinary cases it was not for the house to inquire too strictly; they were bound to suppose every member the unbought representative of the people. But the presence of a single Jew in that house would be direct evidence of corrup tion. It was impossible that a Jew could be returned by any set of constituents but through corrupt means. Ile was satisfied that the admission of a single Jew into parliament would be the signal of re form, which would be carried within seven years from the event. (A laugh.) Notwithstanding the opinions expressed by the house, he was confident that such would be the result. What greater inconsistency could be imagined than to give in charge the interests of a Christian people to the enemies of the Christian faith ? He could not without a feeling of great repugnance anticipate the presence of a Jew at that table, treating with irreverence the seeded name by which every Member of that House was invoked, to the conscientious obstevance of his obligation. The Honourable Member (Mr. R. Grant) had referred to foreign countries for an example. It should however, be borne in mind, that the saoie body which admitted the Jews to the privileges of the Legislature unchristianised the country. But the lion. Gentleman would not find a single in. stance of a Jew being admitted into any high office of civil power in any Christian state. The only course for the House to pursue was, in his opinion, to make a determined stand against the attempted innovation at once. And this he called upon them to do. At the same time, he begged to assure his Hon. kriend that it was not out of any want of personal respect for hint that he called upon the House to refuse to grant him leave to bring in the Bill. Mr. AIACAULEY contended that all the friends of the late Ho. man Catholic Bill were bound to support this measure, because they had professed to support the other upon the general principle of religious toleration. In this case, all the special cithumstanees tended to place it upon that principle alone, while in that of the Catholics the special circumstances were those of exception. -~t Against the Catholics, too, it was urged that they had, at different periods, committed crimes of persecution and oppression, and nt. tacks upon the liberties of the country. And in the disputei of all Christion sects, whether Presbyterians, Protestants, or Catholics, it `was always a contested point which had been the most guilty of such dap& But history furnished no example in which the Jews- wereo to any such charges. They had always been the ay. and Dever the oppressors. It those who opposed thiamin. eipades el the Catholics upon such grounds now opposed the &Ni s "their oviduct woubishow that persec u tion never wanted an mime: His honourable friend, the member fee the 'University of Oxid e l had opposed the motion. because it woe calatlated tho toruce *pm i l in Parliament. But if his botiouraide friend t the system co l a of the represent& so bekthet the, odasipaien of e Jews would Lilac for it tke enct.of the fount", olgy did .be object .to se. 'knit ? On the o hod, if 1009 Vitan 1 4 / 5 good, the a' ' • ors Jew was not ely AO illigdatitS soth, areas u his ben. . .. I Ifsared fioni it. I his bon. friendsiould feel so much horror at ma 1/ hpg aj err take his seat In shit house, would lie pot feel equal i in seeing those who' were pin th ere by the Jews' money, ' who - do every thing against the interests of the Church or th e Chr is ' rtitglen islidt the Je,yr would do himself ? But it was bnpossib 'sr: Mahon friend, and those who acted w' at their , I to grant this acquiring and holding property, and that was power; he had the right of acquiring knowledge, and that was power. Would his hon. fri-,!io deny that property could not command political influence he this taut .- try ? And if so, when persons of this persuasion had amassed we.eitl: which enabled them to supply the governments of the world, would any one undertake to say that they did rot possess political power ? He contended that to kocp up the existing disabilities was only to inflict an injury by a form which gave no advantages whatever to the state. He called this persecution. lie considered that every man had a right to that which afforded him pleasure, and injured no other parties ; and to deny him that was persecution. He trusted that the times were oast in which tatiacution could in any shape be maintained. The parliament in 1828 had passed one great measure of religious toleration, and in 1829 a still greater one was adopted. He trusted that in the year 1830 they would make perfect the work for which so many great and good men had so anxiously baked_ the work of complete religious toleration. (Hear.) Mr. H. BAT 'LEY rose to oppose the motion upon the gronnd that none but persons professing the Christian religion ought to be admitted to the seats in that House. lie was confident that if the Jews were admitted they would be carrying on as extensive specu lations In seats of Parliament as in the Three per Cent. Consols. Sir J. AIACKINTOSII said that ti, • present Parliament had done more for the advancement of religious liberty than any Parliament since the Revolution, excepting the first of King William, and he should only make that an exception because the Act of Toleration having been the first step, should always be considered the greatest. His Hon. Friend who introduced the question, and his Hon. Friend who had spoken so ably in sup port of it, had left no defective parts in the argument for him to supply. The hon. baronet, the member for the University of Ox ford, had opposed the motion upon the discovery of a very great secret, and which he was afraid to give the Jews an opportunity of discovering also, and of communicating it to the country, and thereby producing a Radical Reform. (A laugh) In vain hail Lord Chatham, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Pitt denounced the buying and selling of seats in that house, for it remained a profound secret both within those walls and out of those walls, and the hon. baronet was in the utmost alarm lest it should be found out and exposed by some interloping Jew. One set of the honourable baronet's facts entirely destroyed his argument, while the others in their turn were demolished by the inferences deduced from them. The hon. baronet had argued that if the Jews were let in their wealth would enable them, after they had made the discovery of the hon. baronet's secret, to purchase seats in such numbers as would swal low up all the other interests in the house. But then the hon. baronet came to his facts, and stated, that although the disabilities of the Jews bad been removed in France, and in the Low Countries,t and in America, yet there was no single instance of one having got! into any of the legislatures of those countries. It was contended by the opponents of the measure that the Jews were equally at tached to other countries, and that they were not Englishmen. Had they not been prevented from becoming such by these ex clusions ? They were first prevented from becoming Englishmen by proscriptive laws, and then reproached with not being as good subjects as the rest of the community. It had been said that the Jews aided Napoleon. M'as that surprising, when he was the only Prince in Europe who had then begun to do them any thing like justice ? If depravity was to be found among the lower orders of the Jews, it was a kind of hereditary depravity to which j each succeeding generation must be driven as long as their moral degradation was continued by the stigma of these laws. Exclusion could no longer be said to be the rule of the constitution, for since the Acts of 1828 and 1829, disability was only the petty exception, and to attempt to keep it up in the few instances where it remained was only like making noisaable reparations upon a mighty ruin. Those who professed to vote for the measure of 1829, upon the fearless principles of justice, were bound to support this measure if they would gain die credit of sincerity. The tearless principle of justice respected the rights of 40,000 Jews as much as those of seven millions of Catholics. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if he could persuade himself that in opposing this bill he should be de parting front those principles of justice and of charity to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, he should be one of the last men to stand up and advocate the opinion he was about to declare : but be could not view the subject in the same light as the right hon. gentleman. He felt bound to oppose the motion, but he did so with considerable pain, as no one knew better than lie did the cor rect and peaceful conduct of that class on whose hehalf it was made, and whom he certainly regarded personally with none of the feelings of aversion and scorn which had been imputed to some; but there were reasons which compelled him, however reluctant, to refuse the required concession. He thought the question was one which In volved most deeply the religious feelings of the country. He thought Parliament must take care that an impression was not created in the minds of the people that they were becoming in. different to the cause of religion. The Christian religion was by the Constitution of the country hound up with our political institutions, and this it was above all which recommended them to the affections of an eminently sober and religious people. It was incumbent on them to beware lest their acts might shock the feelings by which those institutions were rendered sacred; and lie was pne of those who believed that If to entertain the motion was calculated to create any impreuiou of that kind, they should be acting a part more becoming to a Chrietiaa Parliament if they rejected it at once. If the arguments used la its favour were just, then they were bound not to atop with this measure, but must be prepared to expect that each succeeding year would bring new proposals for altering the forms of the oaths or tests by which persons were admitted to bold offices in the state or seats in that house, Nothing, he thought, could be more • venient and objectionable than that parliament should annually be altering the law by which such religious obligations were regulated. The mea,ure of last year he was prepared to admit ran counter to the opinions of a great portion of the country. But then they had a great national object in view, and he felt himself justified in in curring the risk of opposing the feelings of the country, when he was convinced that the great advantage to arise from the measure would gradually satisfy all minds that it was a good one. There were no such considerations in the present case, neither were there any of necessity or of danger. He therefore could not feel the ex pediency of eying his vote in favour of such a proposition. Dr. LUSHINGTO asserted that the people of this country were not opposed to the emancipation of the Jews, and contended that their Indifference to the subject was proved by the fact that not one petition had been presented against it. The hon. and learned Member said the Jews were as ready to qualify themselves for seats in that house as the right lion. gentleman ; the only difference was the form of swearing ; the Jew swore by the Old 1 estament, which his conscience pointed out as the most correct teat. Could the house say his refusal to swear by the New Testament should deprive him , of those rights they had a common right to claim 1 The honoura ble baronet , the member for the University of Oxford had cited the diciumof a great legal authority, but it should be remembered that on one occasion, when Counsel quoted that authority, he was addressed by the learned judge, who said, For the honour of the Court, and respect for that learned man, quote not the pas sage which should of all others be expunged from his dicta." They had been told the great policy of the constitution was to ex clude all but Christiana from Parliament. In old Papal times is was so. The doctrine was then burn and destroy. All previ ous to the reign of William the Third was intolerance. The changes of religion were so frequent that men could have no -Axed faith. Old Jenkins was obliged to change his religion no log than eight times. He lived to the age of one hundred mai sixty, and was compelled, during the several reigns which algutred in his time, to profess eight different cr e eds. When he examined the wisdom of our ancestors, as applied to the Jews, he thought they ought to go by modern doctrines. The Established Church was fixed in the affection of the people, anti it did not require the exclusion of individuals from civil rights nod privi.eges. It was said no necessity existed for the change, and that the number of Jews did not exceed 27,000. It was also urged that the Jews had no claim arising from services in defence of the coun. Ca. The hon. and learned civilian had never understood that the tholic emancipation was allowed upon a claim of military services; but however that might be, there could be no justice in keeping 27,000 men in a state of 'political degradation. The Jews must feel severely that a state of degradation was a bar to their prosperity and honour. He should contend that they ought to grant Emancipation to the Jewish nation. He was at a has to tell why the Right Hon. Gentleman could meet members of the Jewish na tion upon matters of importance to the Government, and refuse to meet them upon the affairs of the nation in that House.—(A . laigh.)—lt was the duty of Parliament to be consistent in their Botha, and if they acted upon the principle which led to Catholic Winancipation, they must concede the rights of the Constitution to hismajesty's Jewish subjects. Mr. PERCEVAL opposed the motion. Ile alsirms con sidered this a Christian people, governed by the haws Arid ipOociples of Christianity, and on that ground alone he, could not conarnt td the proposed Innovat ion. Lord :11ORPETH thought the Introduction of the measereige his right hon. friend had done much for the question. 'they hidf been led to believe opposition would be offered on religioes gretlolitr He had found that to be the case by the speeches of that Oglea !lie bad always. thought that all his majesty's subjectsspiyht wards the exigencies of the state, were enthral to the advantages if the constitution. The hon. baronet, the tingober for thoUnivoriter ,pf Oxford, where .he alas bad been educated, opposed shaky.- metwort • on omelette prejudices. He e sition honourable baronet had that position would daelare the constitutional policy of the country not t► be Cbristir.n. He could not see how the admission of Jews to that house could retard the principle or growth of christianity. How would England have less elitist/tinny than America. Holland, and many other states were there was general toleration ? tianity could never suffer for giving to men who contributed to the wants of the state their equal rights. The noble lout could not see any danger in the admission of Jews to parliament. Clitistianity, including Protestants. Catholics, and Greeks, would stand upOie a rock which could not be shaken, whilst the foundation was publi: liberty. The SOLICITOR GENERAL bad heard with surprise ti is question put upon a parallel with the Catholic Question. No ques tion could stand on more different grounds. The Roman Cathuhis were once in possession of rights, and they had a just claim (what those rights restored. There ttould not be a blacker cede than that which once applied to the Roman Catholics. According to the l a w of England from the earliest times, the Jews had no civil rights in the country. An honourable baronet hail truly stated that one o: the greatest authorities in law had described the Jews to be porpt:uat aliens. He admitted that the expression was harsh, but the tact was, the Jews had no rights. IV hen they came back at the Res,. lotion they had no rights, yet they had not been badly treated modern times. Now they could purchase estates. Their chilil•en were legitimate, and could take by descent. Why did they not bt.y estates, and, it' they wanted to get into Parliament, turn country gentkmcn ?—(A laugh.).—Christianity alone was the religion tit this country, n:.O. when the Constitution was Christian, his hope was it might remain so. The lion. and learned gent. was happy to flnd some good had been derived in Ireland from emancipation, bet the time had not come fur seeing the full effect of that meatitare.— The Catholic. had not been fully ;Omitted to Parliament. lie could not consent to admit the Jews, because he never could think it was the intention of parliament to open the doors of that house to all religions. (hear, hear.) The lion. member adverted to th. individuality anteing the jews. Their lass and prejudices pre. vented them frott: mixing with Christians. They ought to a..!. themselves whether they were prepared to admit Jews into that house ? He sl.oulti contend that they could not be admitted with. out danger to the constitution. Mr. WILLIAM SMITH said etete was one point he could not avoid alluding to. The hon. and learned gentleman had said why did they not become owners of estates anti couutty gentlemen Why, how could :hey become such, whilst the laws kept them de graded ? lie could not but think those gentlemen who met - the ques tion with a religious argument, had forgotten the great precept of the Founder of the Christian heligion. They were to " render unto Caesar the things that are Caviar's, and unto GOD the things thtit arc lion's." Independent of religion, which was a private virtue, they ought to act upon principles of justice. They had been talk. ing of Jewish pinciples, but his opinion was that religious opinions hail nothing to do with political rights and privileges. The bun. member sat down amidst a loud cry for the question. Mr. ROBERT GRANT, in reply, said he had experienced de, p disappointment at the objection taken by his right hun. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only had the right lion. gent. tip. posed the measure, but the deepest wounds had been inflicted on the Jewish community. The only argument he heard ass that the (pee. Lion could not he conceded, because the parties were Jews. That was not a sufficient ground for opposition. He really thought his right honourable friend last year would have been a martyr to principles, the reverse of those lie hail adopted in the present instance. It alms said they wire to attend t.O the prejudices of tit* people. That argument might have applied at the time the Jews were tortured, plundered, and murdered, and driven out of the country with their wives and children. 'I hose prejudices no longer existed ' and he might ask what tight any man had to appeal at this day to the prejudices of the people ?—( Hear hear. )—lle called upon Parliament not to fix on theenselt es the disgrace of having opposed a question which they had supported in the form el Catholic Emancipation. The House then divided— For the Motion .. Against it ... 87 Majority -18 The gallery was occupied by many persons of the Jewish permis sion, who expressed much satisfaction when the result of tile divi sion was known. Mr. R. GRANT then brought in a Bill for the relief of his Majesty's Jewish subjects, which was mid the first time. Mr. TRAM' declared his intention to oppose it in every stage. Colonel SIBTHORP expressed a similar intention. The second reading of the Bill Was then fixed for the 26th of April. The Four per Cents. Bill went through a Committee. Report to.monow. The other Orders of the Day were 'then disposed of, and the Houk adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. VICILCIIANCELLOR'S COURT, Aram 5. EX PARTE 5T1103111031 lit RE STROMBON. This was a Petition praying that a bankrupt, whose estate bad paid, previous to the passing of the present Bankrupt Act, a die i. eland of 10s. in the pound, should be paid the suns of lOW. in re. spat of his allowance for the payment of that dividend. Mr. Rosa contended that although it had been decided that the present Act, granting an increased allowance to bankrupts, was re trospective, yet it was only retrospective as to the Commission, but to nothing else, and that it never could have been intended to pass an es posyiscto law to give a bounty to bankrupts in respect to di vidend* paid before the passing of this law. His Honour the Vtex-CHANCELLOR said that, as he understood that the Lord Chancellor intended to consult him on a point in the name of Howard and Gibbs, argued on Saturday, whether two bank rupt partners, whose estates had paid dividends, entitling them to the full allowance, were entitled to the full allowance each, or to only one allowance between them, be should not give his decision till he had mentioned this case to his Lordship ; but if it depended es him, he should say, that the words of time act, " whose estates shall pay," were future, and could not applT to past dividends. CORK ASS I ZES.— DON ERA ILL CONSPIRACY. On Tuesday morning, Baron PENNEPATRER entered the Court, sod, at had been arranged pn the previous day, desired that the trial 'Me persons in custody for the conspiracy to murder certain Magis. testes, might be immediately called, whereupon the long panel was dlcd over, which occupied the Court more than an hour. Patrick Lynch, Edasead Coasters, and James Wallis. were then placed at the bar—(a fourth man, Daniel Keefe, it having ,been arranged abould not now be tried, in conseqnence of his not being one of those given in charge at the late Special Commis ' oksa).—ehatged in several counts with conspiracy to murder Ilestsi Bond Lowe, Michael Creagh, and henry Evan.. Esqrs-2dly, for conspiring with others unknown, and for the cconspiracy, and instigating to murder each, individually, and in other counts for a general conspiracy against those Gentlemen. 3lr. Serpent Gooi.o (with whom were Mr. G. BEristurv, Mr. Recorder WAGGETT. Mr. PLTINILT, and Mr. WOULPZ) so , e. and stated the case on behalf of the crown. After the learned Ser. geant had concluded his address witnesses were called. The jury retired, after one of the most luminous charges from Barop FXRNEIATHER, that was ever delivered in a court of pas tice, in which he reviewed the entire evidence, and at the coneitivlun of which be acknowledged the jury bad an extremely ethical inves tigation to go through. At the suggestion of Mr. Fergeant GOOLD refreshments were or. dered for the Gentlemen of the Jury, to be partaken of before {hey should enter upon their consultation ; so that it is probshlc awe hours will elapse before a verdict will be had. &tort PERIM PATHEICS charge commenced at half-past six, and concluded at twenty minutes to nine o'clock. The Court Continued crowded to excess. ' QUARTER. PMIT Taw o'CLocx.—At We moment the Jury bare returned, with a verdict of Guilty against Lynch, and'acquit. ting both the other prisoners. Sentence of death war pissed, but no day named, the Jury having recommended him to uurey. YORK ASSIZES, Aram 2. AlunDZlL—Wiliam *haw was indicted for the wilful murder of RaehealOwashy. Itse htiell - was the deughter of a poor coal miner. About heer years sob she gene birth to a child, ar,d she was attain pregnant by him. He 'had been several times • urged by the parents to many be, WO as repeatedly peer/teal carrying the promise he made into affect . Abont nine o clotk on the nlYht of *l.e 9th 'Starch, the deceased left' howl, and. on the following morning her body was found et die Aeolian. s of a coal.pit. Her clothes were pinned and fastened round hsr in a met4peculiar manner. Some of her limb.* were broken,' and her ~ 7 sad bowl were beet and iiredsql in. • .slteatiful W 313130. - injuties . could not have been orcasionli'bf ?we falling accidently into the 'pit. li wit Pored that the ptisoret was r oein• with the deceased tiecr .the pie tikeiii, idler the left her tiditer's house ;,foot marks wera seen near the pit willth cur. .. ;nsponded ' with the pAioner's sb es, And 'it *is also proved • thin* prisener made seas mug* relative to, the dreeand, which r soppled with the other eireuitistances, led to the suysioeltion that ,ice codtemplated the Mattel.: When die inquest was •sitting.fm:lhs btely. a pan ton et priamterisaitill,to ,him, I. Qh, Hill, pill ! I eth atmul thee know 'et sumo)* about - it." The - priirmti itilill et, ' tild Wad, "Veil,' I know as inieliallefut it as any hotly." • , ' O e riigSs' ottlie llw Alaibutie. Prileittryienukel hen guilty. and iudge Seed him iibe executed On illoitday, syn,ydayyand • • •be to be 111411 tithe sti9nitihtlbs dbiektacm. ate lead to leinflilia Petienty-right &bewares of -: Estelisit.Open tiouse;osat of the preNNIII- 1 1 0 10/0:a".. • I. l kteet l thr• . / It we.beheee. was tlibtreeo : o great ail it iii at tit IR 1 4 the hwethis' sif Vairryiliri and -rtalfestilsirei s ,Palasavals, , . distraint.' fee re: t, and emigeetiou to Agin, are without recident. • -Sheffield CoureeL no every thing against the interests of the Mr& orthe Christimi "meserge ups ascleut prejudices. He mad. liy that:* - thitTi . d a ft; religion Aid' the kw would do himself ? But it was impsseß& *ion of the honourable baronet had not been acquired is bot to ortori A feritiabon. friend, and those who sated with him, to seep et th eir the !alb. of that university. He believed the APPINIBAIMI . refusal to grant this relief to the Jews. To be einekeest therm* AO balig OA" otilbt to be delis* few Obe $1141004 %Ve ate f#UbwEd l iat Mimi by thug from the Jew,as *demi %Ord , ii, wMO I 3 le t•Wiff wed Jle .gorimeedleu t sad - -. 4 alew 21 4 = is r ii us4isie sp iebb fwic tilele te. l4 licfmeri,ll aa r:i 4”49: 4 4d 1 Pa l L l 2l . : ( ti) A l ti l roteel l e or •Te e r t . . 41 . 1 v t e l e pt. re be ellithVooftet . alltUattomA rtils 4lLlM?:itaAßSSlM tgi .A ; NO* 4114 Igo.. _lroltidt '! en e l l., e Jew had then no right to his own proper ty;asa oro yeses ego be av init. at SIM tune,. moons repression of sent to ' • eII BM had no right to the teeth in his bead. But he had now the right of the question. The bon. baronet bad said the adoption of the pro. twocedoot.. _. 1 ..l i r r I I