The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-08-08 00:00:00

father is wrong in soppesirg his children went
through the usual course of education. I cannot
help reg►etting that the Trustees ever admitted the
children of Jews into the school. lam •ware their
motives were truly benevolent; but in doing so, it
would be held as • precedent in this and other
charities. God forbid that I should ever so far
forget myself or my duty so much, as to wish to
deprive soy man of his rights; but, situated as I
am. as Counsel (or the Trustees, I think myself
bound to do my btmost for them."
The Loin CHAscRILLoa.—., What have the
Elders and Riders of the Jewish Synagogue to 110
here in this case—what are they made parties for?
I do not think I Can notice them ; fur, as a Judge,
I um not sitting on a ca►e where the Jewish
Elders in London are concerned. An inhabitant of
the town of Bedford might apply for the benefit of
the chards,. and, on refu,al, may conic to this
Court ; but can► the Elders of the Synagogue
do so ?"

Sir Samuel, Rom u.v I think, as every
person has a right to become relator to the Attor-
ney-General, they are autho►ised, particularly as
the existence of the Jewish religion in this country
is recognised by many of the statutes; they err not.
however, as Elders of the Symugogue, but in their
private character."
l'he SOLICITOR..GENICaIIre..." Your Lordship is
asked to declare the pour entitled to the charity.
whether Jews or Christians. The engirt ci the
called to do this, except by those who are actually
aggrieved. The question is certainly most inipui-
taut, as it rehires to every charity, and I have no
doubt but it will meet the most d►spssaiooate atten-
tion from your Lordship."
Mr. PHILLIMORL and Mr. SHaDWELI. followed
on the same aisle.

Sir S. Rout ter, in reply—" The Petition pre-
seeded by my clients is of the heghtest impo►t,ncr.
to them •s individuals ; but it has acquired still
greater importance hood the manlier iii who It it Iwo
been envied by my Learned Friends opposed to
But before I proceed to reply to them, allow
me, ►oy Lord, to mention why do- Ehlers of the
SyouKelpie hare come forward. 'lfni felt it was a
duty they were bound to discharge, on account of
the particular trusts which they had the honour to
hold. They did not come forward in the first in-
stance, nor would they have done so now, hail the
claims of the girl Sheba Lyon not been refused by
the Trustee►. they, considering that the ~mist was
of infinite moment, not only as it regarded the
poor at Bedford, but else whole nation of the chil-
dren of Israel. They took it up from a mot;ve
which does them honour. •s they *ow it was impres-
sible for the poor parents to bear the ceiwore of a
Chancery snit, and they tlwrefore lent their assist-
ance to have the question decided. In doing so,
they have done • public service. Every elm-
rity is interested in the decision, and which, trent
the source it is to come from will be received with
reverence. and put the question for ever to rest.
The Solicitor-General has contended that there is
too instance of a Jew being admitted into the cha-
rity ; i, on the contrary, 'maintain that there iv no
instance its which ■ Jew has been refused berme
the present, and I call on him to she* one. It is
argued that no Jew has ever been a trustee ; let it he
so; but what is the reason? why, because there was
tint a sing'. Jew living its Bedford before the year
1787. Irliere certainly are Jews there How, bait
tome of them can be trustees, bemire they are too
poor that they require the benefit or the charity:
so much then for this argument. And dons not the
Solicitor-Getieral know, that by the rules of the cha-
rity. no man can be a trustee who receive• benefac-
tions frosts the estate? I ask your Lordship. or any
oilier man of common understanding, is it to he
said, because a Jew from poverty is di►qualified
from being a trustee, that his religious is to be charg-
ed with the faults of his poverty ? It is worse than
niousirous to hear such doctrines promulgated in
this liberal age. As to the argument relative to
the certificate beisig signed by a clergyman and
two churchwardens, as being a strong proof that
instruction in Christianity war meant. I will tell
the Learned Counsel. that to the ho of lett-
nom nature there is a clergyman to be found, and
in Waned, of such liberal principles, as to cows
ceive, that when • person acts its the holiest princi-
ples aid! proper religion. those " of doing justly,
loving ►mercy, duisiggood to all, and walking 1111111
lily with God," was entitled to the certificate.—
The Learned Solicitor-General is also mistaken
when he say., that no Christian master would take
a Jew apprentice, for our boy out of this eery
charity sa an apprentice to a Christian (Mr. Jeffries)
at Bristol. and • Jewish girl is witl► a Christie',
lady at Bedford. So much then fur the accuracy
of the Learned Gentleman. It has been also said,
that the tortoise of the Jews was such in Bedford
as to entlasiger the security of the Christians ob-
taining the betwfit of the charity. How much then
must they be astonished when I inform them, that
out of seven Jewish families that were at Bedford
there only remained three. I rim decidedly of opi-
Mon, were the doctrine of the other side to
be sanctioned by your Lordship, it will form
• new epoch i►► the history of public charities.
—The Solicitor-General certainly is nostakeis
when► he speaks of Lord Harilwicke refloat%
the protection of tlw Court to Jewish be-
nefit societies. It never was, amid I trust in God it
never will, be the doctrine of any Court ill this
kingdom. Lord Hardwicke in that case, which
was that of Do Costa, refused the protection of the
Court. for the relief applied for was not for a cha-
ritable society, but for one which had in view the
promulgation of Jewish principle's. Suppose an
hospital was founded by Jews, can I to be told that
this Court would not interfere and give it its pro-
tection? If it would not, I ask where is the boast-
ed liberal principles of Englishmen and Ireemen ?
When Mr. Shailwell retested to the memorable de-
bate of 1753, lie seems to have forgot that the -
versa! ot ttttt ors now is, that Jews can sell and hold
as ivell as any other person. IV:is it ever supposed.
because is mail was a Jaw, that he could not grant
a title to au estate ? It is well known that the Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench (Lord
Ellenborough) slid hot think PO, fur of thou' very
moment he is with his family in his house at Roe-
Kimono), which formerly belonged to the late Mr.
Gplitsmid, a .1, w ; vet his Lordship did not refuse
to take the title troin a Jew. Ily the Act of the
13th of George 11. all Jews helot; severs tears in
one of the British Colonies. bee me, ipsofactoi na-
turalized. An allusion bad been suede to a chock-