Star. — London, England, 1830-05-18 00:00:00

He sould give the hon. 1.. ~I ,r 1:e full benefit of those exceptions. ' One was a decrease In the tax on horse.dealets, and the other a de crease in the tax on hair-powder, owing to the disuse of that sr iele. (A laugh.) He would go no further in his argument then, 4fi ing desirous not to provoke a discussion, when there was a matter if much moment, which, no doubt, the house was anxious to enter pest. He thought he had said sufficient to satisfy the house that ht. bon. member had not disproved a single statement made by him ttailisLussion alluded to. (Cheers.) Nit. ROBINSON said he did not mean to impugn the statement r r , g lit hon. gent. but in order to place the matter fairly before Lear for inquiry, it was necessary to refer to the number of fa s .it each of the extreme periods resorting to the parish for re. f . In 1820, these amounted to 2,400 families ; while, In 1829, :h. 7 „mounted to 3,878. This was a fact worthy of consideration, it mint far to oppose the inference of prosperity which might etl;er '.e be drawn from the returns of the right hon. gentleman. (tr. DAVENPORT said, that the house would judge between Lieu and the right hon. gentleman, whether the statement of the right hon. gent. was correct, or whether the 25,000 persons who had signed Ihr petition before the house had put their names to • wilful and deliberate falsehood.—(Hear, hear, hear.) i't :Ilion read, and ordered to be printed. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Mr. ROBERT GRANT, before the house went into a consi deration of the bill, the second reading of which stood for that even. in v , took leave to present some petitions which he considered entitled to the attention of the house. The So ;licitor-General had, in the early part of the evening, presented a petition from a person tn.t d Levy, in which he stated the Jewish people in this coml. tiy to be indifferent to the result of the application now made to Pa'lament in their behalf, and to feel no desire for a relief from the ltsanilities under which they laboured. The petition he now l•ft vented was signed in a very short period of time by 592 of the .It W 4 resident in London. comprising among them all who were distinguished by their wealth, their respectability of character, or attachment to their religion; and they, in the strongest rnanner, implored the Howe to remove these disabilities which Mr. Levy took it on himself to declare, were with them an object of in difference. He thought that this testimony was a sufficient answer to all statements on that point. He had another Petition to pre sent from a Priest of the Jewish persuasion, living in Huntingdon shire. This gentleman placed the question on prophetical grounds; but whatever difference of opinion there might be on that question, he conceived that the petitioners' deductions would be found to be sounder than those of his opponents, inasmuch as he contended for humanity and good feeling in opposition to bigotry and exclusion. He had, also, a petition in favour of the Jews to present from Mr. Robert Owen, a highly respectable individual, well knows to many of the members of that house. sir J. WRO'ITESLEY, on the question that these petitions be brought up, said it was not to be supposed that an bumble indivi. dual such as he was could expect to obtain a hearing in the course of a debate so important as that about to take place ; he should lake that opportunity to express the reasons which induced him to support the bill, and to state the extent to which he was disposed to lipport it. He confessed, then, that he could riot see the slightest ohji ction to grant the Jews all that they required, except the per iiie.sion to sit in that house. If the representative system produced . fair expression of the opinions of the people, he might be inclined to allow the Jews an opportunity even of trying the influence of that opinion as candidates; but when it was notorious that seats in that lion,. were to be had to any extent for money, he could not consent to allow any to become members who were not also Christians. The petitions were then read and laid on the table. )Ir. R. GRANT, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, said that it was unnecessary for him to reply to tile objection of the hon. boronet at that time. Anfassent to the se cond reading of the bill for the Relief of the Jews did not pledge any member to the details of the measure. It merely declared that they thought the Jews should be relieved , and left all objections to the details to be taken in that subsequent stage, when they, with more propriety, came under consideration. The hon. member then moved that the bill be now read a second time. General GASCOYNE declared his determination to oppose the bill, if it proposed to confer on the Jews the same privileges al. ready granted to the Roman Catholics. The constitution was a Protestant constitution, and it was necessary for its support and protection that the institutions which made it so should be main. tained. If any man had a few years ago asserted that in the course of two sessions that house would repeal the test and corporation acts remove all the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics, and now entertain the question of relieving the Jews—he appre hended that his friends would have thought him a person it was necessary to keep a tight look after. (Laughter.) For his part he entertained no very favourable opinion of religious liberty. He thought it was little better than a mere union of sects--a union of sects—(continued laughter.) He could not for his life understand how any man who opposed the admission of the Catholics could vote for the relief of the Jews. The Catholics indeed, had some claims to that which was conceded them. They Possessed considerable pro perty, an immense population, and they professed the religion once upheld by our ancestors—(Hear and a laugh.) It was true, the palings of the constitution had been broken down, but he entreated them not to make it altogether a waste spot. It was said that the opinions of the Jews were not represented in parliament He be. lieved they amounted to some 40,000 or 00,000, and in the present state of the representation, he conceived the smallest unit to be sufficient for their share of that representation. He agreed with those who conceived the state of the representation to present an objection to the admission of the Jews to that house. Them de formities of the Constitution were not to be overlooked in consider ing the propriety of making concessions. There was a spirit of innovation abroad in religious matters as well as in commercial, and the friends of the one were the supporters of the other. The hon. and learned gentleman (the Member for Knaresborough) had de clared on a former occasion, on the debate on this subject, that " you ought to do unto others as you would that others should do unto you." Now, he would ask, if the Jews had the power to grant the Protestants what they now asked from them what would they have obtained ? The history of the Jews at a ll times showed that they were not very tolerant to those opposed to them in religious opinions. In conclusion, he called upon the house to unite with him in opposing the measure. Lord BELGRAVE expressed his sorrow at being obliged on this occasion to differ with many he was accustomed to agree with in public and private. He felt it his bounden duty to oppose the mea sure, and in doing so, he did not think he was departing from the principles he had professed upon a former occasion, becausehe con sidered a man might hold the most liberal sentiments in general, and support the claims of the Roman Catholics, and yet adopt a different course in respect of the bill now before the house. For he believed that these .aims were founded on justice, reason, and truth—he considered that the Roman Catholics had clearly shown that the privileges they demanded would not be abused ; and he felt that it was but fair to concede advantage to those who had never flinched from the support of the state. Now ' there were two points on which he objected to the measure in favour of the Jews. First, they were a distinct nation ; secondly, they were, he would not say by reason, but through the medium of their religion, disqualified for political privileges. Jews were scattered over almost all the countries of Europe and of the East, but they were amalgamated with the people of none. It was impossible then, he contended, that a Jew could ever be considered an Englishman, or love our native laud as, he thanked GOD, an Englishman was wont to do. Was the Jew, he asked, to be considered an Englishman because he bought a coat in Monmouth -street, or negotiated a loan upon the Stock Exchange for the benefit of this country, or that country, cc any other country, provided it only squared with his own interest? Or was there the slightest reason for presuming that in his specula. Lions he would give any decided preference to the interests of Eng. land ? No; the fact was, no lean could be an Englishman so long as he remained a Jew. (Hear, hear.) In answer to the argument founded upon the wealth of these people conferring a degree of power upon them which might be dangerous if not secured in fa. your of the State, he contended, that by advancing them to a higher degree of power the evil would only be increased, since the tie could not be made binding, and the epee irritarnennon malornes could only be used with additional effect. Besides, the Jew, so long as he continued truly such, could never feel himself bound up in the fortunes of a country in which he only considered himself a so. journer. He always comforted himself, under all circumstances of degradation, with the lively hope, that though despised on earth, they will not be outcasts on high, and one day they will return to the land where their fathers have dwelt, and where their chil. drat shall dwell for ever. And feeling and believing as they did, he asked if it were possible that Jews could love this land, in which they were permitted to dwell, as Englishmen did, to whom it was endeared by the ties of blood and old associa. doom, and the memory of so many proud historic deeds ? Could the bosom of the Jew thrill with interest at the men tion of those glorious names, " familiar in our mouths as household words?" or could he dwell with delight upon the recollection of the achievements of our forefathers ? No ; he looked with an incessant and undivided regard to the history of another land;—all his hopes and wishes turned towards it ; and his heroes were the inhabitants of another country, and it was upon their glories he reflected with confidence—it was to them his memory reverted with delight. This divided interest, therefore, be maintained, incapacitated the British Jew from ex. ecuting the duties he would be called upon to perform as one enjoying the full privileges of an Englishman. The constitution was chiefly supported by that love of country which pervaded every nglish bosom, and anything that dogged that feeling must be de. kterious. hard DARLINGTON said, that although a friendto liberty in general and to Parliamentary Rehm, he should oppose this motion, as he considered it uncalled fbr. He did not see that It could be advocated as necessary either upon grounds of justice cc state policy; and, therefore, although unwi, he must raise his voice against it; and this, notwithstanding a voicing he bad received tram a hived he met in the street the other day, who asked him, if he voted against this measure, how he could ever hope to borrow money ? But he replied, that the Jew would be just as ready to lend him money as before, since it was for his own sake, and not for that of the borrower, that he afforded the accommodation • and he quoted the passage in the .14roliant of Venice , in which , w hen Fhilock says, Fair Sir, you spat on me, on Wednesday last; You spurned me such a day ; another time You csll'd me dog;"--and so on. But Antonio replies— " I am as like to call thee so again, To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too. If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not As to thy friends (for when did friendship take A breed of barren metal of his friend ?) But lend it rather to thine enemy ; Who, if he break, thou may'st with better face Exact the penalty." In conclusion, he never could give his permission that Turk, Jew, or Infidel, should be made a member of this house. Mr. MILDMAY was understood to say, that unfortunately on this subject his mind was not in unison with the opinions of his constituents. Still, however, he should not abandon principle for interest; for if he did, he was well aware that he should not only inflict pain on his own feelings, but that mode of conciliating the goodwill of his constituents would occasion him to lose their respect. Ho should therefore give his support to this mea sure. It was insinuated that those who favoured the measure now before the house wished to overturn the Constitution.— He yielded to no man in a wish to support and maintain the Church of England in all its purity ; for he believed diet in doing so he should best contribute to the welfare of the people in this world, and should must truly promote their happiness in the next. lie was anxious to discover a rag, a scrap of an argument—nay, even • pretence for an argument against this mea sure; but, so help him Heaven, he had not been abl e to d o so— (Hear, and a laugh.) It had been said we could not amalgamate with them. Why, we had amalgamated with the Prussian, the Russian, and the Turk—(No, no, no !)—and these were neither Russians nor Turks, but fellow.subjects, with one common interest with ourselves. He knew that some persons supposed that the Jews hated the country, and were influenced by a feeling inimical to the constitution. He denied that such was the fact. But if it were true, what he would ask, was the cause? The answer, was, the constitution itself. It treated their Intentions with scorn—it cooled their friends—it heated their enemies, and then the makers and supporters of this constitution turned round, and made an accusation that they pursued their own interests against those of others. The gallant Gen. had spoken of our institutions as if they always had been, and always were to remain unaltered.— What would have been the case if such had always been the princi ples on which our ancestors had acted ? We should have been a nation of slaves. The noble lord near him had supposed that the Jews never could and never would amalgamate with their fellow. subjects; but for himself he could see no reason for enteraining such an opinion, and he looked forward with confidence to the happy results of this measure. Lord BELORAVE explained. Sir E. DEERING} saw no danger in admitting Jews to the right of practising in all professions, and even of enjoying seats in corporate bodies, and filling corporate offices, but he should ever be against seeing them take their seats within that House. How was it possible that the two religions of Jews and Christians could ever be in se cord with each other, when the object of the professors of the one was to trample on the Divine Author of the other? (Hear.) It bad been represented by some honourable members, that the Jews were, and always had been, the persecuted race; and never had been the persecutors. He wished to remind such gentle men that for the last eighteen centuries the Jews had not been in the possession of power, and when they did possess it, he would vesture to assert that no sect ever suffered so much from another as the Christians did from them. He urged the house not to be led away by the love of innovation, and to pass a measure which be feared would be found to be pregnant with mischief to the best in terest of this country (hear, hear!). Sir R. WILSON should give the measure his most cordial my. port. He saw no danger in it, nor could he well conceive what jections could be made to it. It was said that the Jews of dif ferent countries would not amalgamate with the natives of the countries in which they resided. Was that statement true ? Did not the honourable member know that the Jews who were ad. mitted to the possession of rights, liberties, and privileges b France and the Netherlands, were as distinguished and useful members of the community as any others? He would ask whetbet this country was to be exclusively Christian ? (Hear, hear, hear from all sides of the house)? He thought the answer which that cheer implied was not an opinion entertained by any other indl. viduals than those who expressed it so loudly at that moment, and those whose feelings sometimes too much influenced their better judgment —(hear hear.) A noble lord had asked in a man. ner unworthy of the subject, whether a Jew was to be made an Englishman merely because be purchased old clothes in Mon. mouth-street? That was not the Jew's claim. it was because he was a good subject that he claimed to have all the rights and privileges of one. He (Sir R. Wilson) believed he might ap peal to his noble friend opposite [the hon. member meant Sir R. Peel, and a laugh was occasioned by his thus inadvertently using the word " Noble,' for Right Hon.n] whether the Jew was more guilty than others of the crimes punished by our laws. lie had been asked whether he would wish to lee Jews, Unitarians, and Christians, is that House ? and he at once answered, Yes, for he saw one member of the Unitarian profession sitting before him—than whose chime. ter none was more justly distinguished for kindness, hums. pity, generosity, and justice, and whose vote was always gives in favour of freedom, and with a view to further the best b. terests and happiness of mankind. (Hear, hear, hear.) Thee was one point to which he wished particularly to refer. The Jews voted at elections in Southwark--he had been told that their dohs so depended on the good nature of the other electors, who might i l they pleased, prevent their voting, by putting certain oaths to them. Now, he must say, that such a state of things ought not to condoms In his opinion, no state had a right to prescribe or to proscribe any religion, provided that religion was not destructive of the laws Of morality, and did not outrage the customs of the country. Sock was not tile state of the Jewish religion, and the followers of k ought not to be civilly proscribed. He was, perhaps, acquainted with more Jews than most other members of that house g a l me ang e hj. He had seen them in all foreign countries, especially in the Netherlands; and he had found them, even where suffering hem jealousies and oppressions, generous, hospitable, and kind, and were always most disposed to show the greatest gratitude for beneffis received. In his opinion, there was no class more deserving of favour, and of the concession of rights, than the Jews. He would remind the house, that there was one man of the Jewish persuasion who was at the head of no fewer than amity. seven British Charities—(hear, hear !)—many of which wimp for the promotion of Christianity. Why ? Because his own fell. gion was not a proselytising ; and he supported the pro. motion of the Christian religiut r i eli tuse be felt it was one which might do much towards ameliorating the condition of those among whom it was to be introduced. He was proud to be able to say, that be had his constituents' authority for supporting this bill: to which, as far as his own opinion went, he gave his most cordial support. Mr. O'CONNELL excited much merriment by beginning his speech with addressing the Speaker as " Mr. Chairmkr."—Order was called, and the hon. and learned member proceeded. He was proud of the opportunity of supporting the measure. He supported it both on principle and sympathy. The time had but recently gone by, when th e Catholics were assailed by clamours which he would refute that very evening by his conduct. They had been assailed by a Cry which might be very satisfactory to some Christians, who thought that no others were right in argument or good sense but themselves. The cry then raked was Protestant—now it was Christian. To persons who now raised that cry against this measure, be would say that they avoided or evaded the true principles of Christianity, which were liberality and charity. On the former occasion these persons said that the Ca tholics were the advocates of bigotry. Who were the advocates of bigotry now ? (Hear hear.) Christian charity, with such people, was a good thing to talk of, but when they came to the point they refused to put it in practice. (Hear, hear, hear.) Who were before the House now in the &erecter of claim ants for rights ? They were not foreigners—they were not Pala— nor Russians—nor Turks—nor Inclimen—they were men born in England—men entitled to hold property in Hagland—to inheriroperty from their ancestors in England--in shun they were En glis hmen . They were debarred from some of the privileges of Engl ishmen because they refused to take an oath of a particular kind, and therefore they were shut out of that house. They were excluded, as it was said, because the safety of our hmtitutions demanded their exclusion. But the house might ho melted whether they would admit the unbeliever They did sank the 31abometan. The lifehometan might perhaps refuse the Beth KMthe faith ef a Christian." Yes, that was true, the Alabama. las might be asewidmed excluded ; but would they laugh at him new when he asked them, what sanction bad they against the admissise tithe Atheist or of the Deist ? Against any man who did believe Is a (ham et in a religion they had a protection, but they had Me shirk tepee the man who had no religious faith. (Hear, hear.) lit was said that the Jews had sympathies elsewhere. In the SIM manner it had been said that the Catholics had sympathies else. where. (Hear hear.) Let them not talk of the n a me of CY& tianity, when it was used to do evil Massed of good. Is Mk a case he scorned the name; be desired the substance. Club**, was charitable; it was the precept of Jesus Christ, their Swarm himselE He was charitable to all men, ems to his murderers; he prayed even for them, mying, “ Father, forgive them ; they know not what they do." In France they had a Christian legislature, and the Jews ware ranked with the other eidsens o( the state. Per haps it might be denied that the French legislature was Christian ; Lord J. RUSSELL was surprised at the opposition this bill had experienced, for it seemed little to require it in point of policy and expediency: the admission of 90,000 or 40,000 jews to the privileges of the constitution could make but little difference in its chance of future existence; and when he heard hon. members tale of danger to that constitution, he could not but wonder in what that danger consisted. He did not think that the Jcws I would be thus enabled to convert all the Christians to Judaism, or obtain such a degree of power as would overthrow the established religion of the country. (Hear.) In point of principle, however, the bill was of great value, for it was founded upon the basis fully recognised last year, that religious opinions ought not I to interfere with political privileges. (hear.) It had been once held to be the maxim of the Constitution that none but persons attached to the Church of England should partake the benefits of that Constitution—an Intelligible and a plausible theory ; but when once that maxim was abandoned, when once it was agreed that persons who were not members of the Church of England might be members of the legislature, the particular tenets of a representative of the people became a matter of pure indif ference. Now, Roman Catholics and Unitarians were allowed to sit in Parli ament, although the one considered the Church of England an apostacy, and the other a corruption. Both were admitted to political power, and by Acts of Parliament, it was de clued that the Constitution was thereby exposed to no addl. tional peril. Those, then, who would exclude Jew., argued on • false usumption, that none ought to be admitted to political power but those who were of the religion of the State. He maintained, on the contrary, that religion was no longer a ques tion, when any man required to be admitted to the privileges of the Constitution. It had been decided over and over again, by majorities of this house, that no man was objectionable on the ground of his religion, but on the ground of loyalty to the King, and fidelity to the State. The Jews had acquired pro. perty, bore their share of the burdens, and contributed to the exigences of the nation. They paid the taxes and obeyed the laws, and the house ought to be glad to admit them as good and faithful subjects. Moreover, it ought never to be forgotten that exclusion encouraged separation, and that if this bill passed, the distance of separation would be gradually diminished, until both sides ap proached so nearly, that they could join hands in one common cause for the good of their common country. He did not wonder to see the hon. baronet, the member for Oxford, adhere to the exclusion of the Jews, since it was the last hold of intolerance and persecution, and it could not be relinquished without a pang. Like Niobe, when she clung to the last of her unhappy offspring, the hon. beet. might exclaim - Unam minimamque relinque De multis minimam posco, clamant et Imam.'" The majorities who had recently supported the cause of civil and religious liberty must vote in favour of this bill ; if they did not, it would prove that the late concession to the Roman Catholics was extorted by fear, and that the right hon. gentlemen he law oppo site had grante d privileges, not because they believed in their hearts that they were deserved, but because they thought they could resist no longer with safety. Mr. G. BANKS agreed with the honourable member for Clare, that many of the objections to the admission of Roman Catholics did not apply to the Jews; but the converse of the proposition was equally true, that many objections to the admission of Jews did not apply to the Roman Catholics. It had been asked whether, after the .)ews had acquired and knowledge, it was fit to with. hold from them political pt.( ? Mr. Burke and others had said, that" the supreme is the legislative power," and for that su preme power they were not qualified as long as they continued enemies to Christianity. In foreign states where they were admit. tad, the legislature had not the same controul even over the rites and ceremonies of the church. He opposed the bill, because the avowed object of it was to give the Jews the privileges that had been granted to the Roman Catholics. Sir J. WROTTESLEY explained. ' Mr. HUSHISSON said, that knowing the abilities and power of argument possessed by his hon. friend (Mr. It. Grant) who had the conduct of this bill, be had intended merely to give a bilent vote, and he should not have spoken but for what had fallen from his nt colleague (General Gascoyne), respecting a petition he Mr. Huskisson) had presented from Liverpool. He denied that' t e Jews. who were chiefly retail traders, exercise any pe culiar inhume In that town, or that the signatures 1114“ *Axed through their influence [Gen. Checoyne said across the house, 4, In a few instances.") A noble lord who had spoken seemed to think that there was such a community of interest between the bank. ors and merchants of Liverpool and the Jews, that the latter could dispose of the votes of the former ss they pleased. (Hear ' hear.) The fact was, that there was no place In England where the Jews were lass likely to have influence than in Liv erp ool, and the Petition spoke the true sense of t h e genera l body of Christians there. His pliant colleague had said, that he was op peed to all innovadeas—that our ancestors were opposed to all in novations, and that our Roman Catholic predecessors were more ea. pecially inimical to changes of every kind. If the Rowan (' thanes had any claim, as he had admitted, on the score of the i ", tiquity of their faith, sure l y t h e J ews h a d a stronger claim, mdn upon the same ground. As to innovation, also, his gallant col lesgue might, perhaps, recollect, that though our ancestors write op posed to change, they had effected both the reformation and the revolution. He (Mr. I iuskisson) admitted that the qurstlite was one of paramount importance or of absolute practical necessity ; but upon principle the concession ought to he made, and as a up:_ form supporter of the Roman Catholics, he could not refuse his sistance to the Jews. All the arguments against this bill he had heard during the last thirty years, whenever the Catholic Question was discussed ; change but the name Roman Catholic into that of Jew, and there would be found no difference. After having been told for 30 years that it was impossible that Roman Catholics should be admitted to political power, it was at last discovered that there existed an overruling necessity for relinquishing the exclusion the choice t w i rls between civil war on the one hand an d concession on the other. No eucliover.tuling newt:sit,. was apparent in this case, but it was fit that the last blot of the kind should be erased front the statute-book. The great principle would then be completed, are the Jews in this country would be placed upon the sate:- footing as in France and the Netherlands. (Hear, hear, h ear.) If they went into committee with the bill, it did, there. fore, follow, that being there they should adopt all the pro. visions of the bill as it at present stood. He should latihra if the bill stopped short of what it now was, but if he mild not obtain all he desired, he would not, therefore, reject what was within his reach. In the year 1812, a Bill was inn, duccd for the relief of the Roman Catholics ; it went the length of being committed, and in the Committee an Amendment was more,' excluding them from Parliament, and then the friends of the !nee. sure abandoned it. Now that he regretted ; for he thought the better course would have been to have taken whatever they could get. Ile did trust that the present Bill would be read a second time. If it were, he should most strenuously support it in the Committee, to keep the Bill in its present state ; but if altered, he could not help it: lie should rectal. mend the friends of the measure to take whatever they could obtain. He had heard that there was some danger—thrr honourable members supporting the bill would find reason to rut their conduct when next meeting their constituents. He though: there was little danger of that ; for himself, he should not fear to meet hi. constituents ; he never failed to experience front them that reasonable allowance for conscientious difference of opinion ; and the constituents of honourable members felt any discontent, which be saw no reason to apprehend, lie was sure there would be found few amongst them not willing to make those allowance: which he expected front his own constituents. Again he would ex press a hope that the bill might pass, and form the consummation of that course of liberality which, he trusted, would immortalize the present parliament. (Hear, hear.) Sir Robert PEEL—I shall endeavour to condense into the shortest possible compass what I have to say on the present oe easion. As I had not the advantage of being here on the form - discussion, I hope the house will bear with me should I trouble them with any thing that they might have heard before. I must set out by saying that I cannot support this bill. I 12) not admit the principle of the bill, nor can I help objecting to the mode in which it is sought to establish that principle._ The bill professes to limit itself to giving relief from all civil disabilities to all the Jewish subjects of his Majesty ; but that is not the isle object to which the bill is limited. I will net say that it is a bill for unchristianising the legislature, but I sin say that one of the unavoidable consequences of this measure will be. that every one of the forms and ceremonies which gave us aseuranc. of Christianity must be abolished. I take that that follows as 3 legitimate consequence of this measure—that every man, to wham. ever sect or persuasion he may belong, will be entitled to pre. scribe the form of affirmation, by which he may glee *sumac. to the state. The session before the last we were called en to give our support to a measure for the relief of the Pro. testant Dissenters, and last session we passed a bill for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; therefore it is said that we arc bound, in consistency, to follow up these measures by adopting the present. I hear this with regret, because I hear it for the first time. In the discussions respecting either the Catholics or the Protestant Dissenters, nothing of tbe sort was ever intimated—it was never stated to us that be. cause we admitted our fellow Christians to a participation A power, that therefore, as an unavoidable and necessary consequence, we were bound to admit to all the privilet: of the Constitution men who reject Christianity altogether.' Some most forcible appeals were made to us on the ground of the common Christianity of the parties applying for relief. In the speeches of Burke, and in his recorded sentiments as contained in his writings, we learn that he rested his strongest arguments up.: the Christianity of the Roman Catholics ; so of Mr. Grattan, of Jlr Canning, and of all the great and eminent advocates of that cau'e ; even my right honourable friend on my left, in prcesitig their claims upon the attention of the house last Session, ob. served, that when serving with Protestants in the army, they entered together the same breach, they fought together on die same field, reposed together in the same grave, and rested their hopes of future happiness upon the merits of a common Re. dormer--those appeals were forcibly made, and successfully mad:. for it was not to be denied that Protestants and Catholics admitted the same great doctrines of Christianity. But if this bill pass, though it may apparently be limited to the Jews, and though confining out view solely to this bill, it does rot go beyond that class; yet we shall. if this be agreed to, have to pass other bills most objectionable ir my views of the Constitution. It is perfectly obvious that fear' this it follows, u a necessary consequence, that every fem. of oath which requires a profession of the Christian faith 'must be abandoned. Now this is a most important alteration in the erase: of this country. Before Catholics and Protestant Dissenters were excluded, there was still a necessity for all public functionaries to profess Christianity ; from the earliest period a belief in SW. tianity was required as necessary to official appointments or to seats in Parliament. No person who rejected Christianity could ob. tarn office; therefore, from the first, our constitution was, say the least of it, Christian. Here, then, we have an mi. dent and palpable departute from the principles of the ec7. stitution as admitted and recognised in the earliest periods; a: where is the urgency of this vast change ? What is it that require.. this departure trout the first principles of our constitution? is the case made out respecting the Jews ? it would 5eem.....1 my information from a book. which, I understand, is writte by a rely respectable Jew, and is considered a work c: authority—that there are resident in the United Kingdom abut: 27,000 Jews, natural born subjects of his Majesty, of when -20,000 are resident in London, 7,000 Jews in the other parts of the kingdom ; and for these seven and twenty or 30,000 in. dividuals I am invited to depart from the principle which has been acted on from the earliest period of the constitution. lam told the Jew is degraded by his exclusion—he is not excluded in the same manner that the Catholic and the Dissenter were— lie is not excluded by anything in the nature of a taunt upon his form or profession of faith. The Jew is excluded merely because the legis lature requires, as die great principle of civil government, that all persons admitted to office should acknowledge the fundamental truths of the Christian religion. The Jew is not a degraded subject of the State, he is rather regarded in the light of at alien--he is excluded because he will not amalgamate with us in any of his usages or habits— he is regarded as a Feigner. The history of the Jews, their domestic usages, their in. stitutions respecting , and in a variety t f other points. we find trough to accoun n : a Z a tt e e prejudice which exists against ther:.. We And them in the possession of political privileges in Franc:. in the Netherlands, and in the United States of America---!" the last during a period of forty years, and in the two former during the last fifteen years, and only two have been adenine.? to political offices. (bear, hear, hear.) I think I undentate. that cheer. I understand it to mean, that since so few have bee: admitted, there is no danger in admitting the English Jews t' political power. Now the inference I draw from it is, that if tte Jews expect to derive so little advantage from the removal of disabilities, the practical benefit to them must be very small; and only for such a trifle are we to depart from what, for centuries has formed the fundamental principles: of the British Constitution. Does the house suppose that the people of England are indifferent because no pedtions have been laid upon the table of this house - On the contrary, I will venture to affirm that the sense of the peo. ple of England is opposed to concessions of this nature, and I will venture to predict that the result will prove that affirmation to be well founded. If you ace prepared to lay it down as a pent. 2 r e :hat deists, atheists, and other infidels, may hold the highest years in France and the Netherlands have they been entit l ed to of the state, and possess seats in the legislature, e. all privileges, and during forty years have they possessed those must be prepared to revolt the feelings of the country. F t or he fi n ftee y advantages in the United States • yet during the entire of thou periods not one of them has obtained a seat in the legislatures of thus countries ' • only one has been appointed to a higit situation at Amsterdam, and on. has been made mayor el New York ; and that convinces me that the exclusion e Jews does not arise from their political incapacides, but from dui! own peculiar institutions and usages. So much for the principi!ei die measure. The mode in which it is proposed to carry it Into effect I look upon as squally objectionable. Its advocates Free to abolish all disabilities on account of religious opinions. be hoe. member for Clam would have every man allowed to worship Gov as he might think proper ; but, if the present bill be mord, it will not be oeorasary fee a man to worship 100 at fe e Deist and the avowed Mold are admitted under this bill. Front Its this principle necessarily flows, that political pewee L7n b er ile ought to be, unconnected with religious belfef—that take it is the kgitimate conseguencx. Now If that be intended, why avow it at once sod for on ? Don any man in this house supple hat this Is the lag bill which will be passed upon this matter - of re. Atom freedom, as it is called? There are at the Feeolti for ore mark of • Christian legislature they had not.—they had not a boroughmongering system--they had not one lord with ten re. tablets, who, after sitting with the eok fiewobs, went over just at the crit ideal moment to the cote droile,carrying his ten retainers with him. That was not the case inFrance ; and yet he imagined, notwith standing its disadvantage in this respect, it might be said to have a Christian Legislature. But both there and in the Nether. lands Jews were appointed Judges, Magistrates, and Legislators, and performed their duties in the most efficient and most ho. nourable manner • and at the moment at which he w as s p ea ki ng , one of the Sec retaries of the Sorbonne was a converted Jew. Conversion was prevented in this country by our system of laws. Affect to scorn a man for his opinions, or to deprive him of civil power on their account, and he became wedded to them more firmly thaw ever. Such had been the ease with the Catholics, and such would be the case with the Jews, and with all other people in similar circumstances (hear, hear.) They had ' been told that the same reasons did not hold for admitting the Jews as for admitting the Catholics. It was true, for there were more reasons against the admission of the Catholics than against that of the Jews. It was because the Catholics were so numerous that they ought not to have been admitted, for if their belief was dangerous to the State, their numbers only rendered it doubly dangerous. That was not the case with the Jews, whose num. hers were insufficient to create the least degree of alarm. Then it was said that the Catholics were a proselytising race; that made them more dangerous still, though, perhaps, they could gain but few proselytes, for they could offer but few pecuniary ad. vantages; and, as an hon. member had said th e oth er n i g h t , if the road to heaven was not paved with gold, nobody would have taken the trouble to discover it—(Laughter.) He should support the bill on the universal principle of toleration, if that was not an improper word to be used on such an occasion, perhaps lie ought to have said right. That right was not to be infringed, either by an inquisition which inflicted torture, as in Spain, or by laws which, as in England, imposed privation. Alan had a right to inflict neither the one nor the other. Christianity had spread itself—not by the force of tem. Foul power—not by the efforts of chriatians--nor by the labour of Christian legislatures —but by virt u e of it s own trut h, an d i ts 1 mild and benevolent influence on the human heart. It had expanded itself, not only without the assistance of temporal power, but against the most formidable opposition; and where was the Christian that would tell hint that the arm of Got) is short, and needed the aid of 1 any of his creatures ? lie recognised them not—they belonged not to his communion, since their doctrines would deprive him of the consolation of his existence—the hope of eternity. Christianity bade him do as he would be done by, and he only fulfilled that duty when he gave this bill his most hearty support.—(Continued cheers.) Mr. TRANT was not surprised at the speech just heard from the hon. gent. (if he would allow him to call him so,) but nothing could more strongly convince him of the unfitness of adopting this bill than the fist that a Petition had been presented in its favour from Mr. Robert Owen. Let the hun. member (Mr. R. Grant) gloss the ' , matter over as he pleased, his measure did neither more nor less than destroy the principle which our ancestors for centuries had establish. ed, that the Legislature of England was essentially Christian.— After controverting the position that Judaism was nothing but an' elder Christianity, the honourable member cited the authority of 31r. Justice Blackstone to show that Christianity was part of the law of the . land, and contended that the vast majority of the people out of doors were decidedly adverse to the admission of Jews; they never could be brought to contemplate the possibility or ad mitting Jews into die legislature, that they might pass laws fur the regulation of a Christian community. He then adverted to the absence of petitions against the bill, and observed that such had been the case in 1753, because the people relied upon the House of Commons that it would nut adopt a measure so inconsistent and preposterous. However fallen the legis lature might now be in the opinion of the people, by pass ing the Roman Catholic Relief kill, it had not yet sunk quite so low as to render the belief possible that it could approve the measure upon the table. Who were they that clainkd admis.l sion into a Christian legislature ? Were they not the descendants of those who had crucified the Savroun, and whose blood was to be upon them and their children (laughter) ? They were the bitter enemies of Christianity—they had once trampled the cross under foot, and they might live to do it again (groans). Aye, honourable members might groan, but when they re. turned to their constituents they would discover that the sen. timents he had uttered were not confined merely to such ig. norant and stupid people as himself. Then as to the details of the plan. What Jew could sit and transact business in the House on Friday night, for their Sabbath began in the evening of that day ? It might happen also, that a Jew, under the new system, would be advanced to the bench of justice ; and how could he try such a man as Catlile for blasphemy and irreligion ? In fact, the Jews, while they remained Jews, ought to be, and must be, contented to remain l in a state of endured protection ; exempt from persecution, which' was one thing, and incapable of admission to political privi. legea, which was another. He should, therefore, support the amedment. i°l i~i y' ~~