The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-06 00:00:00

he at on ers .ite ht nd Bl a .vr f Ind bat the )11- Ise Ley ad, the the 3 0' 411 11 ish' teh hat iad ib• xle ies. !nd la in- -1 of tat of nt lat ea ght rait et's me Es the !re.- rom 7red S of en, tent MS the ~ cts 'ere which wets on the list, and which had been satisfied.— One was that of the Irish College at Paris, for a large sum, Notwithstanding, however, the arrangement that had pre viously been made with respect to Ecclesiastical claims, the Irish College at Paris obtained no less a sum than 106,3041.. Their claim might be a good one ; but he contended that the Baron de Bode's claim was as good.— Among the claims not presented in time, was a claim of 3 ,009,312/. from the East India Company.—(" Francs," observed some Hon. Member.)—No-1,009,3121. ster ling. ;He requested to know from the Right Hen. Gent. nPpotite, what steps had been taken, and what steps it Was intended to take, with respect to these claims, and if ft were intended to take into consideration the extreme hardship of the circumstances in which the Baron de 13 0de had been placed. He begged leave to present the petition. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not now enter into the question if the circumstances of this particular case were hard or not; he only knew that where any general rule had been established, an individual might suffer a hardship for which it was not possible to devise a remedy. The great difficulty was as to the dis tribution of the remaining surplus in the hands of the C ommissioners. For it appeared that appeals might be made against the decisions to which the Commissioners bad already arrived. If those appeals were successful, the Surplus in the hands of the Commissioners might be de mandable by the persons by whom those appeals were pre ferred. The claim made by the East India Company was for the maintenance of prisoners of war in India d uring the late war. He agreed that as the Company hail not brged their claim in time, they were not entitled to a share is the remaining surplus at present ; and (as we under- Stood the Right Hon. Gentleman) he bad given the Corn- Piny a distinct and positive answer to that effect. Nothing could be declared respecting the claims until it was known if an y appeals were lodged against the decisions of the Commissioners, and if any funds remained out of which the bounty of the: Crown might be distributed. Dr. PHILLIMORE thought the case of the Ba ron de Bode one of very peculiar hardship, and it involved such injustice, that the character of the country was at stake. His Hon. Friend had made out a very strong case, and it could not be concealed that it had made a very favourable impression upon the House.—(Hear.) Mr. BERNAL would refer the House to another case, that of Newlet's claim for interest, which ought to be at five instead of three per cent. This person's claim was as sound as any upon the Boyd and Luxemburg Lists. A public body, the India Company, had put forth a claim which had never been heard of until the discussion of the 300,0001. He conceived that the Company had no claim whatever founded on the law of nations. The French Government said to the Baron de Bode, we have paid 8 00,000/. to England on this account, and you have no right to address-your claim to us--you ought to go to the British Government, which is a trustee for the due appli cation of these sums. The Treasury ought to proceed to 4 13 point a new Board of Commissioners, which would classify the claims and settle them. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained. Re said that a number of the petitioners had a right to appeal to the Privy Council, and if the Commissioners distributed their funds before the final term, what would the House say to him if he had to come down to Parlia- Ment and ask for a grant to pay the balances ? Mr. ROBERT GRANT thought the case one of great hardship, and the subject was of such importance, that it required a more formal inquiry. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the House had tra velled from the question before it, which was not that of the claimants in general, but simply the case of the Baron de Bode, which was but too well known to the House, for the merits of it had been stated with great ability by the Hon Members for Staffordshire and Pres ton. The case was one of very peculiar hardship.— (Hear.)—lt was never to be lost sight of that it belonged to Class No. 7, out of which a sum of 250,0001. had been most shamefully misappropriated. The money had been given by France to the British Government to pay the Claims, and it had been paid by the British Government towards building a palace.—(Hear, hear.)—lf Ministers would not re-open the case, he hoped his Hon. Friend the ketnber for Preston would bring forward a motion upon t he subject immediately after the recess. The petition was then read. kr. STANLEY, in moving that the petition be printed, Would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether it was not the f ac t that the Baron de Bode's being put on the list of claims under the British Government had barred his seek ing redress from the French Government, which, under other circumstances, he would have been entitled to de mand? Although he had also moved for a Select Com mittee, Which was not the way beat calculated to conci liate the opposite side of the House, yet the case had made 8 0 strong a❑ impression that he had been 'ideated by a Majority of only 37. Sir. E. B. SUGDEN would not allow that because the Baro n de Bode's case bad been registered, the claim must be allowed. This only made it a fair subject fur con sideration. Mr. STANLEY explained—The Baron's being put upon the list by the British Government barred his claim upon the Government of France. - The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. STANLEY then presented two petitions from the Brewers and Publicans of Manchester and Salford, and from another place, against opening the Trade in Beer. The HON. RIE3IIJER then presented a petition praying for a mitigation of the punishment against forgery. Sir J. GRAHAM moved that the British Consuls in South America be instructed to make returns of the quan tities of preeious metals produced in the respective States horn 1790 to 1810, and from 1810 to the present time. Lord KILLEEN presented a petition from the county of Leitrim, against the Vestry Act; and a petition from the Southern Districts of London, in favour of the Jews. Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from North Shields, prayin g relief to the shipping interests. Mr. BELL could bear testimony to the distresses of the shipowners. The petition was then ordered N lie on the table. Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from the same parties, praying that the India trade might be thrown open. Mr. BELL moved for certain returns of British shipping, the precise nature of which was not heard in the gallery. Mr. B. COOPER presented a petition from the inn keepers of Gloucester, against opening the trade in beer. Mr. PENDARVES presented a petition front Cirences ter, complaining of distress, and praying for the repeal of the malt tar. Mr. A. DAWSON presented a petition from the Western Division of Jews, praying for emancipation.—The Hon. Member then presented a petition from Mr. J. Reeve, com plaining of the irregularity of the post in the districts near the Edgware-road. Mr. SPENCE gave notice that he intended to call the at tezat- tention of the Hou se to the report of the Chancery Com mission, with a view to the saving of time and money in Chancery suits. The Hos. Member then moved for nu niermis retur ns respecting the Court of Chancery; and par ticularly relating to the pecuniary transactions and fees of the M aster ' s o ffi ce. Sir J. MACINTOSH would suggest to those Hon. Members had who petitions to present, whether they would " postpone them, as an important debate was coming on; a nd the hour of business was already arrived. Mr. HERRIES fully concurred in the suggestions of the Hon. Member. 11 r . THE JEWS. It GRANT said, that in introducing the motion of which lie had already given notice, to the attention of the House, he should prefer avoiding all particular obser vations, reserving to himself the right of bringing them for- ward during the discussion of the question at sonic future stage; and this course he would hare pursued, because he could not hate anticipated that any difficulties would be th r own in th e way of the Bill at that period, or any oppo ion off ere d to i ts farther progress ; but having understood that one or two Hon. Members had announced their inten ,' lion, as it undoubtedly was their right, to contest the measur e in this, its first stage, and other Hon. Members having declared their design to suspend their opinions until he should h ave heard the reasons advanced on either side, fie thought he had no option, but would be, however re luctantly, c ompelled to trouble the House with an exposi tion of those points upon which he founded the belief, and indolged in the hope, that his proposal would he entertained. lie begged, h owever, to preface his observations upon the subject with an explanation of the nature of his con nection with the cause he advocated. It was not only unsought and u n f oreseen, hut altogether fortuitous. Under had g that some s uc h quest i on was i n contemp l at i on , h e been led to turn his attention to it—not without pre i,n:di", which, however, calm reflection had completely WSSl P at ed ; and thus convinced of the justice and policy of the measure, Ile did not consider himself at liberty to de cline the honourable office of conducting it, although it came fiom strange , ge hands. lie stated this, that his humble opinions might not lose their due weight, however small that m tiont igh be, being as they wereentirely the result of convic. The question before the House he proposed to treJt after the followi ng manner. He would first state the law to that class of British subjects en whose behalf he which theseersons compl appeared. He would next declare the grounds upon p ained o f t h at state o f t h e law, and why they consilered themse l ves entitled to relief;— ‘ then he would proceed tla)ot,: Ile uc;h would i lon attempt e mp m t e t a o ns an of i affording that relief; and s stl i ewer some objections with which he hail been informed the measure was to be encountered. - The division of his address would then be fourfold. The state of the law— the grounds of complaint against it—the remedy--and the objections to that remedy ; and having touched upon these four topics, he would put the House into full possession of all the considerations, views, and objects necessary to guide their decision. Now, as to the state of the law, it would not be necessary, though it certainly would be curious, to enter into an historical deduction of it from the olden time. He would accordingly content himself with ad verting to one or two facts. It was a matter notorious to all who had examined the question, that members of the Jewish communion were, at an early period of our history, domiciled in these realms. After the Conquest, there were, during the first three reigns, frequent persecutions of that unfortunate race, without any just causes of com plaint against them—and, indeed, for the period of a hundred and fifty years that followed, it was difficult to say whether they suffered more from the mad malignant fury of the populace, who were their avowed enemies, or from the cool rapacious tyranny of the Sovereigns who professed to be their protectors. The excesses committed against them by the people were urged on by the most incredible reports ; such as their plot ting against the State—conspiring for the purpose of setting fire to the Metropolis—crucifying Christian children, and so forth. And the fury of the people being excited and exasperated by these incredible reports, vented itself in excesses only less horrible than those crimes which were so falsely imputed to them. It was true they were protected by the Kings; but what was the nature of that protection? It was the same protection that these Princes afforded the wild beasts in the Royal fo rests. They were secured from general invasion ; but it was only that they might be the more effectually preyed on by theiteßoyal masters.—(Near. )—At these periods, laws of the most odious nature (or Royal edicts, which had then the effect of laws) were passed, with a view of ex tracting from the Jews, under the various titles of taxes, imposts, duties, gifts, that wealth which the pet - sons had acquired by means of their superior intelligence, their more extended cunneation with foreign parts, and their ac tive and industrious habits. And these laws were en forced under circumstances of the most terrible and revolt ing cruelty, and by acts which fixed an indelible blot upon and even left a stain on human nature. He would not de tain or disgust the House by entering into a recital of them. He would content himself by quoting a passage from Matthew Paris. Although the language was figu rative, it was yet so picturesque, that he preferred giving it untranslated. It referred to the conduct of one of our Sovereigns, and declared, " Non solum excoriendo, sed eviscerando extorsit." In the reign of Henry 111. certain ordinances were passed, denying those of the Jewish com munion the right of holding or transferring land, and keep ing them in all respects as serfs and villeins of the Crown, and likewise restricting their religious worship, for they were commanded to conduct their worship in so low a voice as not to be overheard by the neighbouring Christiana. Next, in the reign of Edward 1., was passed the Statute de Judaismo. This conferred upon the Jews certain pri vileges, which, however, were more than counterbalanced by depriving them of the practice of usury, which, in other times, meant the same thing as the taking of interest. In the ISth year of the reign of Edward I. by virtue of a Royal edict, the Jews, to the number of 15,000 were ex pelled the kingdom ; and this inhuman law was carried into effect, with every accompaniment of cruelty and scorn —with the confiscation of all their valuable property— with the infliction of the most galling personal suffering, and in several cases with the actual privation of life. It was well, though it was at the same time melancholy, to reflect that these dark and sanguinary stains were inflicted upon the brightest pages of English history, and those on which an Englishman was wont to dwell with greatest pleasure—the stirring days of the chivalrous Richard 1., and those of the wise and enterprising Edward. But great as the horrors perpetrated in these realms, they were more than reflected in the acts of contemporary sovereigns. They had already suffered in France under the iron rule of Philip Augustus ; an ample counterpart for this was to be found in Germany ; and then the storm rolled on towards Spain and Portugal, gathering force as it proceeded. So that from the first kingdoni 150,000 Jews were driven by Ferdinand and Isabella, and most shocking cruelties were re luctantly perpetrated against the miserable fugitives and their fellow religionists, by Emanuel, the otherwise en lightened and liberal Monarch of Pea tug rl ; 150 years after the Jews had been expelled from England, they again entered this kingdom. Having in vain negociated for their return with Cromwell, they were admitted by con nivance under the reigns of the succeeding Stuart.; for under Cherie! 11. and James 11. they received letters of denization, which, although pressed, these Monarchs re- I fused to violate. Under William HI., however, the alien duty was imposed upon them, and in Queen Anne's time an Act was passed compelling the Jewish parent to make provision for his child who should have become a Christian. In George the First's reign an Act had been passed, to which, in the present instance, it was not neces sary to allude. This allowed the naturalization of foreign Jews, and this freed them from the alien duties; but here the question was not about foreign Jews, but about British born subjects. He mentioned this to show there was no relation between the measure now proposed and that carried in the last century, which, however, he regretted to say, had, by the miserable pusillanimity of the Ministry been repealed a few months after it was carried. No Act, he believed, had since been passed with the direct purpose of affecting the Jews. The oath of allegiance passed in the reign of Elizabeth contained nothing in its form or substance which was adverse to the feelings of these persons; but as it was required that it should be sworn to upon the Evangelists, it could not be taken by a Jew. Aeain, the oath of abjuration, which was intended to guard the kingdom against the return of the Stuarts, had nothing in it which they could not con scientiously take ; bet unfortunately, at the conclusion of it, there was a formula which was to them an insuperable barrier. It was " upon the faith of a Christian." Next came the Sacramental test, imposed by the Corporation and Test Acts, which excluded them, as, previously to the Session before last, it did Protestant Dissenters, from va rious rights and privileges. Well, the House was pleased to remove this restriction, but it was replaced by a test, not to be applied subsequently, as it was, but previously. And, worst of all, the Acts of Indemnity were at an end. The new Act compelled a man to swear " upon the faith of a Christian." Thus the three hinges of exclusion (if he might use the word) were these :—The necessity of taking the oath of allegiance upon the Evangelists—the formula at the end of the oath if abjuration—and the new test, " on the faith of a Christian." Now there was no thing in the body of these teats that they would not adopt and subscribe ; and he submitted to the House that the restrictions imposed by them on the Jews were fortuitous and antecedent to any desire of legislating against them. The form of the first oath was made out before the re-admission of the Jews into this kingdom; the next oath was framed when they were beneath political notice, and the oath was made, not to supply a teat for those who were not Christians, but to bind those who were. Then, as to the new restriction, it was suggested not by them, but by the other House, and that House would support him in the assertion that it was not a deliberate act of legislation. All that excluded Jews from the ordinary privileges of British subjects were those formula lie had stated. He would now state the general nature of these disabilities, as stated in a clever pamphlet. They could not hold any office civil or military; they could not be schoolmasters or ushers ; they could not be serjeants at law, barristers, solicitors, pleaders, convey ancers, attorneys, nor clerks; they could not be Members of Parliament, nor could they vote for the return of Members, if any body chose to enforce the oath ; and, finally, they were excluded from all corporation offices.— Some doubts, too, had been started if the Statute de Juda ismo was not still in force, excluding them from the right of holding or transferring lands, and leaving their religious worship without protection. These were certainly de bateable grounds ; but eren so, nobody could doubt the right of the House to confirm that which was doubtful, and, consequently, he had been induced to mention these in addition to their notorious grievances. He might also remark—and a memorable instance of the truth of his assertion was afforded in the discussion of a Bill carried last Session—that capital disabilities, imposed by the law of the country, always inflicted a hundred-fold growth of evil in the shape of other disabilities, forming a sort of aftercrop of oppression through the agency of union and local regulations. It was quite true that this did not universally prevail throughout the country. In Exeter, Norwich, and other parts of the kingdom, Jews might engage in all trades, and enjoy the common privi leges of citizen. ; but be regretted to state that in the great metropolis of the commercial world, they were subjected to restrictions of the most onerous nature. They could not obtain the freedom of the city—they could not exercise a retail trade—regulations, which to the great mass of the members of the communion were the most galling and the most oppressive. The Jews, in short, were nearly on the same footing as the Roman Catholics were last year ; but the difference was in favour of the previous situation of the R e nnie Catholics, and against the Jews. Such, then, be ing the principles on which he claimed the attention of the House, and the grounds upon which he called for the repeal of these laws, he had next to state that the number of the Jews iu the metropolis amounted to about 20,000. Ac counts differed much respecting the D umber of them in the country, but they might be estimated at from 30 to 40,000. This calculation would embrace all in the United Kingdom. He, in the next place, begged the House to observe, that as a sect the Jews were known by the weal as the most ancient. Their religious and pmditical principles were upon record—their habita were .eecognised as peaceable and industrious ; and as subjects, they were proved by the experience of ages to be less stained than any other by the crimes of treason to the Monarch or the State. Such were the persons who thus suffered, and who now claimed justice and mercy at their hands. They lived usefully and peacefully under the Constitution ; but all it had of grace, of favour, of privilege, or protection, was denied to them, while they had to groan under all that remained upon it of what was illiberal and oppressive. He wished to observe, too, that the effect of Catholic Emancipation had been to aggravate the evils under which they suffered,. He could mention one case in which it had been peculiarly oppressive, in which a young man, prepared to be called to the bar, was disqualified by the effects of that very Act of Toleration which had conferred such inestimable blessings upon others. Now, when the peculiar pressure of disabling laws on one class of the community was the result of the removal of disabilities from another, the severity and unfairness of the infliction was quite clear ; and having said this, he felt he had exhausted all that could be said upon the subject. The Jec tell you, that by paying taxes, they contribute to the support of the State, and that by their wealth they contri bute to its opulence ; and in return, they call upon you for that which you o deny them—an admission to the rights and privileges of the:British Constitution. This being the nature and extent of the disabilities under which these persons laboured, he came now to the measure of relief, and he would say shOrtly, that as the Catholic Code afforded a perfect precedent of the disabilities common to the Roman Catholics and the Jews, in the years before last, so did the removal of those disabilities, as regarded the former, furnish aegiorioue precedent of the mode in which relief might be extended to the latter. The House might put them upon the same footing with the Roman Catholics since the passing of the Act. And for this special reason, that since Catholic Emancipation was likely to induce a judicial decision, they should give the Jews the benefit to that judicial decision, which would, in all probability, previously take place in the case of the Roman Catholics. The Emancipatory Act pronounced by the country would, he anticipated, be followed, as in the case of Catholic Emancipation, by the removal of all corporation restric tions, even in the metropolis. And here he could not avoid remarking that it was a strange thing that the city of London, great and wealthy as it was, should withhold that right of citizenship from the Jews which was con ceded by Rome—by Pagan and Christian Rome, in its most high and palmy' state. But he certainly did hail it as an auspicious event that, notwithstanding the hostility displayed upon all occasions by the city of London to these persons—its anxiety to exclude them from all Corporation offices—to impose upon them the alien duties, and to pre vent their naturalization in the country, that yet he had great reason to believe he should that night have the cor dial support of the four Members for this great metropolis. He had now stated generally to the House the nature of the measure he proposed for the relief of those persons. He would next address himself to the objections raised against it ; and, in doing so, he must implore the indul gence of the House, when he said, that not a single ob jection should be brought forward by hint, excepting such as he had either heard in that House, or understood in pri vate conversation were to be advanced in opposition to the measure. This he thought it necessary to say, lest on the one side he might be suspected of betraying the cause be professed to advocate, by conjuring up new and formidable obstacles in its way ; or, on the other hand, of evoking mere phantoms of argument and opposition, that he might reap the vain honour of having laid them with a tri fling exertion of his power. Having premised this, he would proceed to observe, that the principal objections were of a nature scarcely fit for popular discussion. They touched upon considerations too high, too sacred, and thus he was embarrassed, hut still he could not altogether pass them by in silence, lest he might be presumed to ad mit the correctness of the arguments founded on them, neither could he debate upon them with the same freedom admitted in other topics. The objections were three-fold ; and there was also a sort of preliminary objection which contended against altering the law which had resulted from the wisdom of our ancestors; saying that, surely we should not hastily make any innovation on a state of things thus time-honoured, and thence insidiously wishing to deduce that it should not be rendered susceptible of any change what soever. his lion. Friend, in his observations upon this sub ject, had wished them to abandon the principle of the le gislation of the two last years, but it was rather to be hoped they would follow up that principle to its proper extent, and place the Jews on that footing that would enable them freely to enjoy their political and civil rights. There were some persons who thought that the Jews ought to he ad mitted to the enjoyment of civil and political rights, but with some qualifications, one which was that they were not to be admitted within the walls of the British Parlia ment. These propositions of partial or more extended ad mission were advocated by those who stated and brought them forward, on the grounds of the established law of the country, and the wisdom of our forefathers. But whether they appealed to the one or the other for examples of the principle of mixed admission and exclusion, merely on ac count of religious differences, he denied that any such pre cedent was to be found. He denied that there was any in stanee of any sect of Christian separatists, (except the Catholics might be so considered) whoehad been admitted to the free exercise of all the common rights of subjects, and yet excluded from seats in Parliament, and from the enjoyment of civil privileges. In all the laws which had been framed on these subjects our forefathers had carefully that mixture of civil disabilities and political exclusion with personal rights. In the first place there were the members of the Church, who enjoyed all the benefits of the Constitu tion ; then there were the orthodox Protestant Dissenters who enjoyed equal freedom with the Churchmen, and were admissible to Parliament ; then there were heterodox Protestant Dissenters, and they too were admissible to Par liament, and many of them had seats there, but they were not admissible to office, and were denied the exercise of their worship ; and then there were Quakers who were not admissible to Parliament nor to office, and who were denied civil lights, inasmuch as they were not permitted to give evidence in Courts of Justice, as they would not take an oath ; and lastly, there were the Catholics, who had perfect freedom of worship, but were excluded from office and from Parliament. Such had been the state of our laws, thus exhibiting every variety of disability and of pri vilege; but it seemed that by some miracle time Jews had escaped from both those situations, which were, however, now pressed against them on the grounds of the experience of past time and the wisdom of our ancestors. This ques tion had been stated on other grounds. It must be given up on precedent; but then it was said that our institu tions were based upon the Christian religion, and that in our statutes every one who professed Christianity was ad vantageously distinguished from all those who denied its divinity and truth. With respect to our institutions, that argument had been urged in the year 1753 against the project for the naturalization of the Jews, and it had then been nobly answered by Mr. Pelham, who thus applied himself to its consideration :—" As to what has been said, Sir, about Christianity being part of our establishment, and that we ought not to allow time professed enemies of our ecclesiastical establish ment to come and live among us, no more than we would allow the professed enemies of our civil establishments to come and live among.: us, it is an argu ment that goes a great deal too far—not only Christianity, but Christianity as professed and practised by the Church of England, is a part of our establishment ; will any gen tleman say that we ought not to allow any person to live amongst us that will not in every punctilio conform to the profession and practice of the Church of England? Surely, Sir, I am not to look upon every man as nay enemy who differs from me in opinion upon any point of religion.— This would be a most unchristian way of thinking ; there fore I must think that the Jews ate in much the same case with the Disenters front the Church of England." Such had been the liberal sentiments of the man who was then the Ministerial leader of that House. Such sentiments lie (Mr. R. Grant) had beard with pleasure from the lips of Mr. Pelham's present successor in the office of the Right lion. Gentleman, whose absence and its cause he now so much regretted, but who, he trusted would, on some future discussion of this question, repeat those sentiments which had already gained him so much credit among men of enlightened and generous minds. At no period could it be shewn that our laws had supported one form of Christianity and had not opposed another ; then how could they collect that those laws had supported both these contrary forms against a third ? The laws had been such as he described till they came to time reign of William 111., when there was a nearer approach to that system for which gentlemen now contended ; but in that day there was no collection of sta tutes supporting general Christianity as part of the law of the land; they supported Christianity indeed, but it was the Christianity of the Church Establishment, which con demned the Catholic as meditating treason, and the Uni tarian as uttering blasphemf. But if it was said that be cause the laws were found to support some one part of Christianity it supported the whole, he denied the asser tion, and maintained that he was entitled to reverse the argument, and then employ it in favour of his own views of the question. At the time of the Reformation it was said that Chrierianity became a part of the law of the land, or, in other words, that the Holy Scriptures were made part of the law of the land. He was not unwilling to enter upon that ground of argument, and in doing so he trusted that what he was about to say would not he considered as a proof that he was dead to the value of the ' institutions of the country. There was one sense in which Christianity was certainly part of the law of the land, in asmuch as the law undertook to protect the Sacred Scrip tures. It did so because those Scriptures were part of the State religion of the country. Now a large part of those very Scriptures were supported in their sacred character by those very people in whose favour he was at that mo- ; merit addressing the House, and from their ancestors had we derived our knowledge of them. On these grounds, therefore, he saw no possible objection to the mo tion he was about to propose. Nor did he suppose that, because some Hon. Gentlemen had disapproved of the legislation of the two last years, that they ought to dis approve of this, or to believe, as his lion. Friend seemed to imagine that we had quitted our former high station, and were.now following a descending progression, that would ultimately lead us from the truths of Christianity itself. His Hon. Friend could not say that he was neces sarily compelled to go into opposition ; for he (Mr. R. Grant) confidently expected that he should have many supporters among those who had opposed the measure of last year, which he was proud to say he had so cordially supported. On those who had voted on the same side with him on that question, he now called for support ; for it was not possible for them to stop short in that career of liberality on which they had so generously and so nobly entered. He called on the House to say whether they had been in error, whether that charge was sanctioned by the voice of the country, or by the voice—or he should rather say by the silence—of those for whom that measure of re lief had been intended ? Those who opposed him said they did so, because they felt that they could not deviate from the maxims of their ancestors. The only mode in which they could be worthy of their ancestors was to adopt . the principles of those ancestors, and to adapt them to the altered circumstances of the pre eent day. Instead of adhering to the letters of their Acts, they should adept their spirit, and do that which under the mute circumstances, their ancestors would have done. If we looked back to past events, we should find that our ancestors introduced those things that were now established as part of the institutions of the country ; but at that time they were bold and daring inno vations on existing forms. In introducing them our an cestors showed their wisdom ; but if, when circumstances changed, we still retained these things, merely because they bad been once introduced, instead of being proofs that we possessed the wisdom of our ancestors, they would re main memorials of the folly, the rashness, and the mad ness of their descendants.—(Hear, hear.)—These argu ments applied to one set of objections made to this measure. He came then to objections of a secular kind, founded on those peculiar habits of the Jews which, it was said, un fitted them for the full and unqualified exercise of civil and political rights. It was said that they were a sort of wandering dispersed people, concerned in operations be tween different countries, but belonging to none. He partly admitted the fact, but what was the cause? Was it not to be found in laws which gave them no country, and attached them to no soil ; and were not those who made such laws and then complained of their effects like those'who made men commit crimes and then punished them for their criminality ? The circumstances in which he then stood proved their readiness to adopt the princi ples of a settled community—their readiness to give the Parliament their full affection and allegiance, if the Parliament would give them full protection and conciliation. They would adopt domestic habits if Parliament would give them a home—they would be come a settled people if Parliament would afford them a country.---(Hear, hear.)—Another argument connected with the same branch of the subject was, that there was something so demoralised in the state of some of their body that they were not fit to be invested with civil privi leges. That charge was true with respect to some of them, but was false with regard to the greater part of them. There were no citizens more remarkable for their probity, integrity, and high-mindedness than the higher classes of the Jewish body. He admitted that the charge was well founded with respect to the lower classes of the Jews ; but the moment the law that put an end to their disablities was passed, a most triumphant tours e would have been adopted to put an end to the accusation for ever. The higher classes had laboured hard to afford the advan tages of education to their humbler brethren, but the latter were found in a situation of the most demoralised kind, and the feeling that they were so only tended to keep them in that state, and to demoralise others. He knew no readier, nor any, he would say, more wicked way to demoralise a people, and to make them corrupt, than to enact laws as if corruption already existed among them. So much for the secular head of objec tion to the measure he now proposed. He now came to another objection. It was said that though these exclusions were not to be justified on the ground of precedent, yet that as matter of propriety the law admit ted only Christians, and his Hon. Friend had said, " I for one will not give a vote to unchristianise the British peo ple." The argument was, that if Parliament admitted any class of persons who were not Christians, a door would be opened to the admission of all sorts of persons who denied the doctrines of Christianity. In the first place he denied the truth of the comparison, and he as serted that the most eminent divines of our Church had admitted that the system of Judaism stood in such a rela tion to the Christian religion as was not found and could not be found to exist between Christianity and any other religion. The very foundations of our religion were in the religious books of the Jews—in these books their prin ciples were to be discovered, and the sincere professor of Christianity was deeply implicated in the past history, and in the future estimation of the Jewish people. On that subject he would take the liberty of reading a few words from the letter of an excellent and Learned Clergyman to the Jews. The writer said, so many and so strik ing were the analogies of the Jewish and Christian religions, as to prove, beyond all doubt, that both had their origin from the same source, and owed their existence to the same authority—they were founded on evidence of the same species—they were the same in their practical nature and result—they were not distinct and dissimilar religions, but were identical—they were one and the same—Judaism was infant Christianity, and Christianity was adult Judaism. He fully agreed with this, but he put the admission of the Jews upon the higher grounds—they were men wile maintained and revered the obligation and sanctity of oaths, and who acted the part of peaceable, loyal, and upright citizens. He must state that he was not aware of any principle on which they had a right to exclude the Jews from those privileges which were enjoyed by their fellow-subjects. If all were placed on one footing, all would direct their energies to one COIIIIIIOII purpose. As members of one com munity they would employ all their power to effect one common object. As lebourers, they would furnish to the State their industry—the brave would give their valour—the rich their means—and the wise their council, for the service of the State. The vital principle of all society was, and must be, mutuality—this was destroyed by political restrictions, but put an end to them, and the reciprocal rights and duties of all men would again come into full operation for the benefit of the whole community. In the state of our National Church there were offices from which, as connected with it, the Jews must be ex cluded; but there was no reason why they should be excluded from those civil privileges which were com mon to the rest of their countrymen. The great principle which bound men to each other acted as universally as the principle of gravitation which attracted bodies to each other, and could be violated with as little propriety. The principles of our religion condemn a system of exclusion, which could only generate between men ; and on every ground, he was satisfied the House would feel that they ought to conciliate the affection and attachment of those with whom they lived. He referred his Honourable Friend to the earliest times of Christianity, and called on him to say whether the sincerest and most devoted members of the Christian faith did not freely take offices in those Pagan establishments under which they lived? Why did they do so ?—was it because they were indifferent to the evils of Paganism ? Certainly not ; for rather than drop one particle of Incense on the altars, they would hive suf fered a thousand deaths. It was because they felt that tire Supreme Disposer of Events had thrown them into a society with which they were connected by the ties of a common country, and they therefore gave their ser vices for the promotion of tine common good, and in favour of the Government under which they lived. In doing so t h e y did to a certain ex t ent l en d t h e i r suppor t t o th e Pagan religion, because they supported the Govern ment indirectby which it was maintained ; but the evil of which hd lib t e h r e a y lly tli g e a l l - . e e for ( e wi s ,i l e ppo i r t le d d id thleiberGaloly that support could not outweigh the claims nien:tetn:r.teo. the enjoyment of all political rights except and protection. He would here inter 'l)‘.o‘'f'radvou with respect to the representative system. persens who thought the Jews ought to be Parliament. Our ancestors, at the golva : r) l f'ieo i e rrns: el:tier:l Go vernment ttun'elw‘ of sitting i n ' glorious Revolution, felt that every class of the community was worthy of civil rights, and might delegate a part of themselves to represent them in the great council of the nation. Last came what was said to be the great practical evil of the change h: proposed...thnt Dissenters of an classes, sour Presbyterians, and wily Jesuits, were ad mitted into Parliament; and that some day or other, when Ministers were absent, and Opposition off their guard, the Separatists, it: a body, would come down to the House; and Church :Ind State, King, Lords, and Commons, would be out-voted and destroyed at once. Suppose any thing so unlikely—so impossibl e , he might call it—to happen, it was not by one vote that a matter of this kind could be accomplished ; and what had been done one day, might be undone the next ; and instances were not un known, when a strong vivaciosts feeling prevailed, that a measure was proposed contrary to the sense of the country, and opposed to the interests of the people, which although adopted by one vote, was annulled by onother. A rally had invariably occurred, to the discomfiture, with great less, of those who had succeeded for the moment by surprize. But was it not ridiculous to suppose, that any of the great moral establishments of this kingdom, founded on the love and affection of the people, would be endangered by the admission of a few individuals of a different creed? No thing could be more miserable than that sort of valetudi narian legislation which, under the terror of fancied sacrificed the well-being of the State to chimerical imagina tions—nothing could be more short-sighted than such a proceeding, for he begged to add this principle—that the only mode of securing our establishments from such perils was to fix them as fairly as possible in the hearts and affections of the people. 'those who indulged such ap prehensions, said in effect that the pyramid of national power was in imminent danger from every gust that blew ; and why was it in danger? Because they preposterously attempted to balance it on its apex, and to prop it by the ingenious but futile machinery of legislation, instead of resting it upon the broad base of the love and allegiance of the people. Let it be placed upon that base, and it would remain for ever in solid and unassailable tranquil lity. He would touch very briefly on another objection: he mentioned it with some reluctance, but having been in formed by a respectable and intelligent Member, that it would be the foundation of his vote, could not omit it ; it referred not to the religious opinions, but to the religious position of the Jews—that inasmuch as both. Jewish and Christian commentators agreed this community was under a species of heavenly proscription, those who endeavoured to improve their condition would be guilty of impiety and presumption. He should say in answer, that the conclu sion of the argument fell infinitely short of the premises, for what did it amount to ? that was, much as the Jews are under this ban, in consequence of which they were to be hunted to and fro—denied the ordinary rights of ci tizens—allowed no homes—no country—no freedom of worship—and to experience nothing but hatred and perse cution, . that therefore what ? That they shall have ordi nary protection—that they shall enjoy a certain degree of freedom of worship—that they shall have half what the argument denies them—(Hear, hear)—but that they should be excluded from civil office and franchise, which, so far from being persecution, was, as he maintained, no persecution at all. Those who were disposed so to argue should go the whole length of their proposition—should re-enact the murderous laws of the Plantagenets, and re-sacrifice the unhappy Israelites to the fury of the po pulace. Then, again, as in the reign of Richard 1., the streets of York would be floating with the blood of 1500 Jews, who put an end to their own lives rather than fall into the merciless hands of their Christian enemies. Unless those who used the argument followed it out to this extent, they contradicted themselves, and were bound either to abjure their premises, or with a Christian spirit to do an act of justice and liberality. Upon this point he would only read an extract from the work of a pious and enlightened Bishop of our Church, who said, " the Jews are blameable for persisting in infidelity after so many means of conversion ; but that is no warrant or authority for us to proscribe, to abuse, to injure and oppress them, as Christians of more zeal than knowledge or charity, have been in all ages prone to do; it is worse in us to be cruel and uncharitable, than in them to be obstinate and unbe lieving."—(Hear, hear.)—The same writer went on to adduce motives for showing compassion to this unhappy people, contending that only wicked nations harassed and oppressed them, while the good would treat them with kindness and forbearance; and he added, " we should rather be the dispensers of Heaven's mercy, than the executioners of its justice."—(Hear, hear, hear.)--- He had now nearly closed all he had to say upon this sub ject ; but before he sat down, he wished to observe that it was not in his power upon this, as had been done upon a recent occasion, to make an appeal to the feelings, and even to the fears of Parliament ; he could not state that the Jews formed the great majority of the population of a conntry bordering upon a state of civil war, from an anti quated system of oppression and misgovernment ; be could not assert that the safety of the whole empire was at stake in the result of this question ; be had nothing to offer but their weakness, whose cause he advocated, and for whom he claimed protection. Let him say, however, that not unrewarded should be the service thus rendered—not only would the concession have in this country all the merit of unforced wisdom and spontaneous bounty, but the know ledge of it would be extended to climes where at present the British name was hardly known. The Jews spoke, as it were, a universal language, and they would spread the story of British liberality in the remotest corners of the globe. Hitherto they had known Christianity only as the author of savage persecutions, and they would celebrate the change not merely with empty praises, but their affections would be conciliated to our name, to our principles, to our insti tutions. They would esteem, and they would revere the nation, which, acting on a maxim common to both reli gions, for, on such an occasion, it seemed not improper to employ the venerable language of the sacred writings, had conspicuously fulfilled the duty "to do justly, and to love mercy."---(Hear, hear.)—He moved for " leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the civil disabilities affecting Bri tish-horn subjects professing the Jewish religion." Sir R. INGLIS resisted the introduction of the measure as an imperative duty from which he could not shrink ; and he hoped it would be rejected instantly, and for ever. In the speech of his Hon. Friend, he did not know which to admire most--the topics he had introduced, or those he had omitted. He had discussed his subject under four heads :—lst, The present state of the law; 2d, The grounds of complaint against the law ; 3d, The remedy he proposed ; 4th, The objections to that remedy.—The object was to obtain the admission of Jews into Parlia ment; but he defied his Hon. Friend, who seemed to have ransacked all history, to produce a single instance in which any but Christians had been admitted to political power. He contended, that long before the Oaths of Ab jtivation and Supremacy were framed, the test of admis sion was always upon some Christian relic, if not upon the Christian volume. The Jews had been excluded at all times, and not merely in mere modern times, by the words " upon the true faith of a Christian." His Hon. Friend might say that the Roman Catholic Relief Bill had ex tended the benefits of the British Constitution to all classes of his Majesty's subjects, but he (Sir 11. In glis) denied that that was the principle on which that measure had been brought forward ; and he asserted that nine-tenths of those who voted for it had supported it on that ground : that fatal and ill-omened Act, as he' must call it, did not by any means go so far. It did not confer rights—it restored them ; it re stored rights to those who had once enjoyed them, and had subsequently, wisely or unwisely, been deprived of them. It declared that within the pale of our common Christianity there should no longer be any distinction be tween Catholic and Protestant, but it established no broader principle. Then came the question, whether the case of the Jews justified any exception to the principle thus established ? It appeared to him that there was no thing in their character, conduct, history, or present con dition, which justified the appeal that had been made. He maintained that the Jews were aliens not in the technical and legal sense, when Lord Coke called them "aliens and perpetual enemies," but in the popular sense of the word ; they were aliens because their country and their interests were not merely different, but hostile to our own. The Jews of London had inure sympathy with the Jews resident in Berlin or Vienna, than with the Christians among whom they resided—and a reference to a few instances would show that their interests were different and hostile. In one of the wars of the last century, the Jews were ex pelled from Bohemia for assisting an invading army, and they importantly facilitated the retreat of Napoleon after his campaign in Russia; they furnished the means of those who were lucky enough to escape. It was a known fact, also, that while we were at war with France, the Jews of London had furnished Napoleon with a loan, to enable him to carry on the most determined hostility. Her did not see how his lion. Friend could consis tently stop at the point he proposed ; his argument neces sarily tended to the admission of all British subjects; for the distinction between British-born subjects and British subjects was too evanescent to justify a distinction ' between them. Whether British subjects happened to be burn in Quebec, Jamaica, Calcutta, or Bombay, they ought all to be admitted to a share of political privileges; the ne oo x ne t .e step e,en gn w ,b o te ud b they s l eymei e og , uhtlttoi think abolish i s fbto l ig a esp l aa l uatpl o bninel a sira t ece ls : a lidvm , fo r at faenrnott a.tn r, i Igdveitae, a hen f ea t te e hn J r . edi s otn u srel c nsoi l a test pr of H Morning i l ) t u o b ld lie th o a p t i n tl i a o e n best ast ec te u s r t it b y ein g o C n h t r i o ie ni o c t l i e ie 7 th e e one jt d hand,slw always held fr o from the hat t the grant : r o e s! fusel of civil rights was a mere matter of discretion, to be decided by a bstract reason, and n o t upon a b stract right; and, therefore , until better arguments were advanced, he should resist the admission of the Jews, on the point of expediency. it maititt be irgsd, that the nusullor was so small as to disarm apprehension ; but he said, with mr. Burke, that a small number might make up for ita want of weight by its activity, and produce the greatest puirlie event.. Those with whom his Hon. Friend sat were not precisely those from whom the House would expeet a con trary lesson. It might not he in good taste to expatiate on the value----the political and influential, not the peen niary value—of :eats in Parliament; but the Jews might get into the House of Commons, and use that power for their own selfish and unnational purposeo. They were not a sect ; but to this day they called therncelees a people ; and they might avail themselves of their political influence for objects connected with their own aggrandisement. At the time of the discussion of the debts of the Nabob of Arcot, Mr. Burke had not scrupled to designate certain indiriclaals, who had purchased their seats, as the Menahers for Arcot within the last thirty years many firms had thought it right to be represented by Members of their House, and in one instance four partners had 511 ed seats at the same time to avail themselves of the molliasirna tenaperafandi, when their own interests Were concerned. The Jews might obtz.in admission by the same means and for the same purposes, and his Hon. Friend had said that he knew of four who were ready to enter the Houso at once; considering that there were in the United Kingdom, at the utmost, 40,000 Jews, and that about suety forty thou sand Christians had only one representative ; this number was considerably above their fair proportion. The com mand of capital would enable' the Jews to obfgiti and the introduction of a Jew ought to be coneir4: , ol direct evidence of bribery, for it was out of the questli. 4 tl to suppose that they would ever obtain the nnbought sul frages of the people. A Jew Member would carry on his forehead the evidence of the roods by which he obtained admission; a n d certain be was that within seyen years after the entrance of the brat Jew, Parliamentary Reform would be carried.—(Hear, and laughter.)—Notwithst;;nd ing what he heard, he repeated the assertion that Parlia mentary Reform must be carried within wen years after the first Jew obtained a seat in Parliament. Those who were in favour of reform world, of wart*, therefore cots , for his Hon, Friend's Bill ; and with those who were op.. posed to Reform, he trusted the observation he had made would have its due wtiilit. But supposing the introduc tion of Jews were followed by no consequences, he should still, on principle, resist their admission ; and from the first hour of the Constitution to the present, he defied any man to show an instance in which any but a Christian had been admitted to Parliament or to,power. Indeed Par liament and approved by the people. If. the J e w ap proached the table of that _one, he would app roach it the system of Christianity had been pro:eeted by the as one who declared the Saviour to be an impostor; and at the very time that he was sworn, his faith would bt that the holy name by which we called ourselves was a n mule of contempt and derision. When the Jew asked them to admit him to a seat itf that House, or on the judgment-seat, they were bound toremember that in such / case he would be called upon to adiniuitter the law to a Christian people. With this fact before them, it appeared to him that there was no principle which comic/ compel or justify them in giving the charge of a Christie Church or a Christian people to those who made these deelarotione.— (Hear. )—He could not but think that there was .a so lecism in this which it would be impossible to get ever, a e d which ought to be paramount against his lien. Friend'e Bill. He was willing to admit that in other countries this step had been taken ; but at the same time he wee un willing that the example of any other country on this subject should influence or affect the conduct of this ; earl in spite of what had been said by his Honourable Friend', he was sure that the institutions either of Pagan or of Im perial Rome would not heir them out in the course that was proposed. If they looked towards France, though it was true that the law there had given eligibility to the Jew as to offioe, vet there was not one single instance in which any Jew had been placed either in the Chamber of Depu ties, the Chamber of Peers—to the Administratien of . Justice, or to a seat en the Bench. In no case had a Jets' in that country yet held an office higher than that of Re ceiver. In the Low Countries the same was the case— there was no instance of a Jew being placed in a situation of power, either as regarded the representation of the country, or its administration of justice. With respect to America (a country which had frequently been held up as a model to England), there had not been a single Jew ad mitted into the House of Representatives; nor in any part of the United States had a Jew been Ad mitted to office, with the exception of one person (whose name was well known in this eountry), who had been ap pointed to that office which use the amend to that of the Receiver of Customs in New York. But in three particulars there would be a great difference between these conntries and ours. Once let the Bill of hie Honoirahle Friend pass into a law, net a year, not a day would pas., without the principle coming into operation ; and this/Is/trent once gained, it was easy to see that it would epee the way to the exercise of other and still more dangerous powers. In fact, if the point with respect to the Jews wan once con ceded, it would Le difficult to withstand the intrusion of any other class. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that the only course consistent with the remains of the old Constitution, and with their own character, was to resist the measure of his Hon. Friend from the very first. It was from no want of respect to his Hon. Friend that he took this earliest opportunity of resisting the Bill; bat with respect to such an attempt, he thought that they were bound to oppose even the granting of leave. In the course of the present Session, an Hon. Member, whom be did not then see in his place, had opposed the lion. 111 e mber for Staffordshire in asking for leave to bring in a Bit! to prevent the payment of labourers by butter and cheese instead of money. If these measures of such impera tively trivial importance were to be opposed from the very first, he trusted that it would not be deemed any want of respect to his Hon. Friend for him to implore the House to resist the measure of which he (Mr. R. Grant) was the advocate, by refusing at once to give leave for the Bill to be brought in. —(Hear, hear.) Mr. MACAULEY—In spite of the parallel which my lion. Friend (the Member for Oxford) has attempted—l think in vain—to draw between this case and the Roman Catholic measure before the House during the last See sion of Parliament, I trust that we shall not have to fore go the votes of many of those Hon. Gentlemen who in the last Session were opposed to the concession of the Catho lic claims Indeed, many of those gentlemen will be precluded by the course they then took from offering any opposition to the present measure. Time general prin ciple of religious toleration was involved in the question of last year as it is now; but most of those gentlemen who voted against the Roman Catholics declared in favour of this general principle, only they found that there were special circumstances which took the case of the Roman Catholics out of the pale of the principle. But, Sir, there are no such circumstances here. In this instance there is no Foreign Power to be feared. There is no divided allegiance threatening the State—there are no bulls—no indulgences—there are no dispensa tions—there is no priesthood exercising an absolute authority over the consciences of these who are under their spiritual control—there "are no agitators rousing and exciting the people to a coarse contrary :to all good Government—there are no amortietions assembling, or charged with assembling, for the purpose of assuming a power which ought only to belong to legally recognized functionaries—there are no mobs, disciplined to their task, and almost in the regular training of arms—there is no rent levied with the regularity of a tax. It was the fashion last year to declaim about a Government that yielded to clamour, opposition, or threats, having be trayed the sacredness of its office, but there ran be none such here—( Hear, hear)—for even those most opposed to the present measure cannot deny that the ;Jews have borne their deprivations long in silence, and are now complaining with mildness and deceney.—(Hear, hear, from Sir 11. H. Inglis. )—Opposite to this, the Roman Catholics were always described as an insinuating, restless, cunning, watchful sect, ever on the search how they might increase their power and the number of their sect, press ing for converts in every possible way, and only with held by the want of power from following up their ancient persecutions. But the sect with which we note have to deal are even more prone to monopoly as to their religion than the others were to propagating theirs. Never had such a thing been heard of as an attempt on the part of the Jews to gain proselytee—(Hear, hear)-- never as it may, it i s a thi ng at e pe r a ' r to have ai me d. O n t h e and we may conclude that with such rites and forme as belong to their faith, it could scarcely be expected by any c ue that a scheme of proselytism could succeed with them. Be that,howTe which they appear contrary, they have always discouraged such an idea. Let the history of England be examined, and it will furnish topics enough against the Catholics. Those who have looked for such things have always found enough to talk about as to the crimes that they have committed : the tires in Smithfield—the Gunpowder Plot—the "Seven Bishops--]rave always afforded - r— copious matter-melt yr to launch out an invective against the CathOlia."-‘ with respect to the Jews, the history of England affords events exactly opposite; its pages, as to these people, are made up of wrongs suffered and injuries endured by them, without a trace of any wrong or injury committed in re turn ; they are made up, from the beginning to the end, with atrocious cruelties inflicted on the one hand, and grievous privations endured for conscience-sake on the other. With respect to all Christian nests, their changes of situation hare always afforded scope fer eharges of mu- ~~ .~.