The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

Pea have not been entrusted with the occupation of land,
use have been able to direct your industry into retail trades ?"
Is that Julies ? Is that an argument which can fairly be used
=time affected Wit ? (Cheers.) Bat, sir, there are
eiedvise where the Jews have bow .adwittaid to ell
SW 406 elmatire subjects. They.hewe hem sielleted is
fewee. I believe, to all the hewesere, ollera, sod mewls i
mop which IM state has to give ; and it la the *Yammer
mows el the met enlightened men in Frenos—Depse sod
other•—that *ay have acquired all the feelings ot. native
eralia
is rikeUraititthatthethriegyhtstohotoldthane dumexeeraweatt.ctozeontdeut
to
the eilewl, the same industry in the pursuit ot
1 trade,as yea flail from any others to whom such
edvenapillit Mege (Hear.) Do not therefore, I beg
=we ups me her disqualifications, upon your
preeeripshos, mid theme argue that, if those (Nue-
' Mations end psereiplione were taken away, you would not
find the Jew es reedy to adopt any of the arta of industry or
the oecupatione attends to which their neighbours would
resort in a similar situation. (Cheers.) But, sir, against
this other arguments have been used ; and on former mut-
lions we have been told, in awful language, that not only
were the Jews, on grounds of policy and of Christianity, to
be excluded, but that there were solemn denunciations in
prophecy which should prevent us from ever granting
them these privileged'. Now it is obvious that if such
is the meaning of prophecy, it is not for us to decide what
shall be done. Providence will accomplish its own purposes
—(hear, hear), and it is not for us to help and eke out the
designs of the Almighty, which will doubtless work their
own fulfilment. (Cheers.) But, sir, I would ask, where is
it that those who use this argument would draw the line ?
Those Jews who live in France hold all the rights of citi-
zens; they are admitted into the chambers. I believe more
than one member of the Jewish persuasion bag had a seat in
the Chamber of Deputies. In this country we have very
much relaxed the restriction. Of late years, a Jew has been
a megidrate ; a Jew has been • sheriff. (Hear, hear.) By
a late law, proposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite,
the member for Tamworth, when he was in office, the Jews
can now hold calm in corporations; and it wu but the other
day, that, by the consent of his fellow-citizens, a Jew was
raised to the office of alderman in the City of London.
(Cheers.) Now, I ask, what right have you to interpret
prophecy so as to draw that line between an alderman and a
member of the legislature—between the right to hold her
Majesty's commission as a justice of the peace, and the right
to had a seat in parliament su a member of the legislature ?
(Hear.) Who enabled or authorised you to say th at that was the
line intended by prophecy, and that you can take upon your-
'elves to define it, sod to limit the line which the Almighty
has intended to be drawn? (Cheers.) That indeed would
be to—
" strike from Almighty hands the avenging rod;
Prejudge 'injustice; be the god of God."
(Cheers.) I trust, sir, that no such presumption will fall le
our lot ; but that we shall do that which we think our duty
to our fellow-countrymen, that which we think is best forth.
gauntry, according to our imperfect notions, and that we
shall rest in pious, bumble confidence that the Almighty will
accomplish him purposes by. means best known to himself.
(Cheers.) But, sir, there is that which I can hardly call an
argument, but that which operates more against thou whose
cause I have undertaken, than perhaps any other considera-
tion : there is a popular prejudice against the name of the
Jews, founded upon Tenets' circumstances which I need not
now enumerate,—founded partly, I think, upon a mistaken
view of their afflictions, and partly upon the dislike which
there is in many persons for men of a different form of reli-
gion from their own. But, air, that popular prejudice,
which induced the administration of 17d3, after passing an
act for the naturalisation of the Jews, to come down in a
hurry the next year and propose its repeal—thatprejudice, as
I believe, has verygreatly subsided. (Cheers.) Thee it has
subsided in this metropolis, I bad with my own eyes a proof;
because a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion in the City a i
London, well known by his extensive transactions, known
likewise by his charity and liberality, was elected for that
city by nearly 7,000 vote at the last general election.
(Cheers.) I quote this as a proof that the house would not
be safe in laying, " Such is our opinion—we are liberal, and
intend well to our Jewish fellow-subjects ; but there is such
a prejudice amongst the people against them that it will not
be safe to legislate in their favour." I warn hon. gentlemen
not to rely upon that feeling. (Hear, hear.) I believe that
the people are to the full sa en l' hteued as the members of
this house. (Hear, home) I lieve that the general
opinion—the right and the true opinion, as I conceive it to
be—is, that religious opinion ought not to bring with it any
penalty or any punishment. (Cheers.) I believe that that
glen and tree opinion is fast overbearing and extinguishing
any prejudice that may have existed heretofore. (Cheers.)
Sir, I have now stated the reasons why I think that the ob-
jections which have been made against the admission of the
Jews are futile and unfounded. If I ant raked what are the
prevailing reasons for the motion which I propose, I
appeal, in the first place, to the constitution et these
realms. (Hear, hear.) I appeal to that constitu-
tion which is Intended to give a man those re-
wards, that honour, and that estimation to which his
chuicter and his talents may entitle him. (Cheers) I
appeal to that constitution which is the enemy of restriction
and disqualification (hear, hear) —to that constitution
which, by the abrogation of laws existing a few years ego,
1 has put an end even to there cases of exception which our
ancestors thought, upon grounds of imminent danger to the
state and the church, they were justified in imposing.
(Cheers.) I ask you, in the name of that constitution, to
take away this last remnant of religious persecution—
(sheen)—to show that you are not influenced by the num-
bers, or the terror, which might make that which was an
act of political justice, an act of political necessity. (Hear.)
I ask you, in the name of this constitution, to admit the
Jews to all the privileges, to all the rights, of? which the rest
of her Majesty's subjects are so justly proud. (Hear.) And
let me tell you that you cannot judge of the feelings of those
who are excluded by the number of those who with for seats
in parliament, or who aspire to offices under the crown.
Many a man who would not seek either, who would be con-
tent to pan his days in obscurity, and who seeks no other
advantages than those of private life, feels, nevertheless, the
galling degradation—(hear, hear)—the brand that is impend
upon -him when he is told that men of all other classes
—members of the established thumb, protestant dissenter,
Roman catholice—may all enter within these walls—may all
enjoy those advantages—but that he belongs to a sect whom
by the law acd the constitution you proscribe and degrade.
(Cheers.) But, sir, I would make a still further appeal ; I
would make an appeal to the principles of that Christianity
which we all profess. (Cheers.) I appeal to you, then, in
the name of that religion, as a religion of love and of chanty,
" to do unto others as ye would that they should do unto
you." (Hear.) I ask you why it is that, when we are
taught by example and by parable, how it is that we ought
to lore our neighbour, it is not the priest or the Lente who
is singled out as the instance for our approbation and admi-
ration; but it is one of a despised and proscribed sect—one
who belonged to what was then the refuse of all nations. I
ask you why is this, but to teach us that all men are brethren,
and that there is co portion of the human race, however
divided from us by treed or by 'colour, who ought to be se-
parate from us : but that they all belong to the family of
man, and ought all to be regarded as brethren. (Loud
cheers.) I ask you, therefore, in the name of that magi-
tenon, which is a constitution of freedom, of liberty, and of
justice : I ask you in the name of that religion which is a
religion of peace and goodwill towards men, to agree to the
motion which I have now the honour to submit. (Loud
Ind prolonged cheers.)
Sir R. INGLIS, after alluding to the talent with which
ibe subject had been brought before the house, and the im-
ps/twos of the question, said he should be content, at this
eller ,to take one division. lithe sense of the house should
he eel the Speaker do leave the chair, he would give the
Uwe now no further trouble ; but it was the fixed intention
el himself and others to give the measure, in its future
stages, every possible opposition. Since 1830, he bad always
ibit it his duty, on such questions as this to take the sense
of the house at the earliest period. He had not done in in
reference to the Roman catholic Relief Bill ; but on this
question, which was entirely. one of principle, the opposition
would be as readily stated In its first stage as afterwards.
Never had this question been prow nted to the legislature so
advantageously as on this occasion, under the auspices of the
=minister ; and it might be expected to be much more
in consequence. Still, the noble lord had not ventured
le introduce the measure as one which her Majesty, with
the ailment of her council, recommended to parliament. Nor
did he think it was the measure of the united cabinet ; he
hoped it was nothing more than what was called " an open
i question." (lieu.) The noble lord had first adverted to
the personal merits of the Jews, which he (Sir R. Inglis) was
far from denying. He thought them men of great charity
and liberality, and perhaps exemplary in all the relations
of social life. But men were not on that account to be placed
the shipping
:t
bsr
LogiAult
,I, tetde i
n i ir v
lo ton::: 'y
:t. I).
member of
theo)3:
inquiret
htbe: o
oexiv petition,
n.
l'
in parliament. How many exemplary and respectable men
did not possess the borough qualification of 3001., or the
county qualification of 6001. a year? The right to sit in par-
liament was only such as it was defined by the constitution ;
therefore, to speak of the injustice of the privation of this
washt mere declamation. lf, am Mr. Macaulay lied said,
was a punishment, he would ask were the millions
whom the elective franchise was withheld punished ?
Nei awe were the Jews punished by being excluded from
'parliament; for the right must be defined and limited in
some way. This was no question between Jewsuad Chris.
liens, but between Christians and non-Christisas—be-
twins Christians and hinssulmep, Hindooss Penns,
Hottentots, and all others. If the noble lord's
were admitted, that this was a remnant et
the door of parliament would be opened to tbateillpeinlielpleir
tisman whom they bad seen under the gallery kw. inwelay--
tu ga tz i
oce, wwohuol d
.7:: d
.thj door
o tioooothisa Teo preelanatlavde tir,fi
wealth ; they were subjects of the same soweelipa ; and
hjiintwhd:::thishwt:j.whepeoe.rilierincohretcht:
itund
were certainly entitled to representation. Why should not
principle
ib iblreat
snynb
be
noble
had 1
implied
Eaid lordo
appliedrf
W East, be represented here, if the door of parliament was
had presented, it teemed to be implied that election con-
e opened
degraded
I:
bouts
electors?
theu.d.W7
if a bankrupt were returned ? Would it be contended that
had truly represented the decision of the " sweet voices " of
degradation, how many classes of our fellow-subjects were
in a pamphlet, entitled, " Ought Baron Rothwhild to sit in
Parliament ?"—that tkis was not • Christian country. Now,
if this was authority, might they not expect the Baron
Rothschild to reiterate these news, and do his best to carry
them out? With the fact, that the Jews regarded our
Saviour, God, as a crucified impostor—this was language he
did not wish to use—but, with the knowledge of that fact,
when a Jew wrote such a pamphlet as that to which he had
referred, would he be likely to be so gentle to his
Christian brethren, as to render it desirable to pass as act to
admit hint iota parliament ? The argument he used was,
.. , . ..