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

tual recrimination Eitaiust one another; but every unt
lows the side on which the balance between the Jew and
the Christian is weighed down. As to the opposition of-
fered to this Bill by my Hon. Friend, I am at a loss to see
on what he has grounded it, unless he takes the broad
principle that no one who is not a Christian is to be en-
trusted with power, as his rule of action ; I am at a less
to see hew he can refuse his ascot to, or oppose this
measure, without throwing himself open to the charge of
inconsistency. If this Bill, as well as the Roman Ca-
tholic case of last Session, is to be opposed, it in abbe
eondemnine the strong and the weak, the violent and the
patient, the proselyting and the exclusive, the political
and the religious.—(Hear, hear.)—lf this is the course
that is to be taken for our guide, persecution will never
want an excuse—(Hear, hear)—and the wolf will ever
he able to invent a pretence to bear down and
+lestroy the lamb.—(Hear, hear.)—lf this is to be
the maxim set up for our land-mark, it will soon
appear that every thing may be a reason with the ag-
ganger, as every thing is shown to be a crime in the ag-
gressed. In all the opposition that was lately evinced
against the Catholics, it was never once assumed or pre-
tended that the opposition was religious ; it was political,
and nothing thee When the object was to excite ill blood
and rename in the country—when red-hot speeches and
tub sermons went forth on the subject, the people were
told that the question• was, whether they should be com-
pelled to worship stocks and stones, instead of the true
God ? But this was a point of view never alluded to by
the more distinguished and candid opponents of the Ca-
tholic claims. I myself remember having heard the Earl
of Eldon declare that it was not on religious but on poli-
tical grounds that he was opposed to the measure. The
question just at that time under consideration was that of
transubstantiation; and the Noble and Learned Lord ob-
served that it was not because the Catholics believed that
that was the real presence that they were objected to, but
that being the test by which they were kept out, they were
through that kept out, because they were not good subjects.
But now the whole case was changed. Political objection
is fairly given up ; and in its place religious persecution is
avowed.—(Hear, bear, hear.)—ln all that my lion.
Friend the Member for Oxford has offered to the
House, I have traced but two political objections; and
neither of them appear to me to be entitled to have
the weight which my Hon. Friend would give to them.
The first political argument that my Hon. Friend has
adduced against this measure is, that the Jews of this
country are more attached to their nation—wandering and
scattered as they are over the face of the eerth—than they
are to the people of England. The only answer that I
shall offer to this, is, that at all events it is exceedingly
unfair to lay down this as an objection till we have tried
the experiment whether by making Englishmen of them
they will not become members of the community. Till
that has been done, all we can say is, that as long as they
are not Englishmen they are nothing but Jews.—(A
laugh. )—The other objection of my Hon. Friend appears
to ine to be mere extraordinary still. He says that if this
measure is granted, the power of the Jews will be such
that they will come into Parliament in a much greater
'member then is proportioned to their relative number in
the country, and that the consequence of this will be, that
the present system of representation will be rendered odi-
ous to the people, and that a reform in Parliament must
ensue. Al! that I can see in this argument, is that the
Jews will get into Parliament, because we are labouring
sander a had system of representation. At all events, the
system that we have at present must be either good or bed.
If the system is had, it is evident that the sooner we get
rid of it the better. If the system is good, why should
we complain to which it naturally tends.--(Hear, hear.)
These objections seem to be the only political objections
that my lion. Friend has urged against the measure now be-
fore the House, and all the rest may be characterised as
'purely religious persecution. But even when my Hon.
Friend has brought himself to that, he does not pre-
tend to say that he oppcees the Bill because the religion
of the Jews is dangerous. No such pretence is put forth
at all. No such outcry as that raised last Session is
Leered now. The opposition which has made its appear-
ance now is, if I may use the phrase without giving of-
fence to my Hon. Friend, nothing but the offal—nothing
but the leavings of the intolerance which was so abund-
ant last year. All that the House has been told is, that
the Jews are not Christians, and that therefore they roust
not have power. But this has not been declared openly
end ingenuously, as it once was. Formerly the persecu-
tion of the Jews was at least consistent. The thing was
mede-complete at once isy taking away their property, their
liberty, and their lives.. My Hon. Friend is equally ve-
hement as to taking away their power; and yet, no
doubt, he would shudder at what such a measure would
really take away. The only power that my Hon. Friend
teems to wish -to deprive the Jews of is to consist in
marts, gold chains, and skins of parchment, with pieces of
wax dangling at the ends of them. But lie is leaving
them all the things that bestow real power. He allows
them to ha-re property, and in these times property is
power—mighty and overwhelming power. allows
them to have knowledge, and knowledge is no lees
power. Then why is all th's power mixed with intole-
rsnce? Why is the Jew to have the power of a principal
over his elerk—of a master over his servant—of a landlord
over his tenant ? Why is he to have all this, which is
power, and yet to be deprived of the fair and natural con-
sequences of this power?—(Hear, hear.)—Why, having
conceded all this, is my Honourable Friend afterwards to
teen round and say, " You shall have all these real effects
and advantages of your situation, but in the fair sequence
of their possession, you shall be crippled and borne down.'
As things now stand, a Jew may he the richest man in
England—he may possess the whole of London—his in-
terest may be the means of raising this party or depressing
that—of making East India Directors, or sending
Members into Parliament—the influence of a Jew may
he of the first consequence in a war which shall he
the means of shaking all Europe to its centre. His power
may come into play in assisting or retarding the greatest
plans of the greatest Princes ; and yet, with all this con-
fessed acknowledged, undenied, my Hon. Friend would
have them deprived of power.—(Hear, hear.)—lf, indeed,
any Hoe. Friend would have things thus arranged, I would
have put a question to him thus—Does he not think that
wealth confers power? If it does, can he be prepared to
ray that the Jew shall not have power ? If it does
not, where are we to draw the line ? How are we to
permit all the consequences of their wealth but one?
I cannot conceive the nature of an argument that is
to hear oat such a position. If it was to be full
and entire persecution, after the consistent example
of our ancestors, I could understand it. If we were called
on to revert to the days when, as a people, they were pil-
laged—wheu their warehouses were torn down—when
their every right was sacrificed, the thing would be com-
prehensible. But this is a delicate persecution, with no
abstract rule for its guidance. As to the matter of right,
if the word " legal" is to he attached to it, I am bound to
acknowledge that the Jews have no legal right to power;
but is the same way, three hundred years ago, they had no
legal right to lie in England ; and six hundred years ago
they had no right to the teeth in their heads—(A laugh,
and hear, hear)—but, if it is the moral right we are to
look at, I say that on every principle of moral obligation,
I hold that the Jew has a right to political power.—
(Hear, hear.)—Every man has a right to all that may
conduce to his pleasure, if it does not inflict pin on any
one else.—(Cheers.)—This is one of the broadest maxim',
of human nature, and I cannot therefore see how its
supporters can be fairly called upon to support it.
The onus prohandi lies, not on the advocates of free-
dom, but on the advocates of restraint.—(Hear, hear.)
—Let my Honourable Friend first show that there is
some danger—some injury to the State, likely to arise
from the admission of the Jews, and then will be the
time to call upon us to answer the case that he has made
out. Till such an argument, however, is fully made out,
I shall contend for the moral rights of tile Jews. That
they wish to he open to the privilege of sitting in Parlia-
ment, has already been shown ; it now remains to show
that some harm is calculated to ree-lt from that admis-
s'on. Unless that is shown, the ~.::sisal is neither more
nor less than persecution. My Hon. Friend put a diffe-
rent interpretation upon the particular word I have
oeed ; but the meaning will still remain the same ; and
when we come to define the sense, it must be found
that see are only quibbling about a word. Any person
may build a theory upon phrases; with some, perhaps,
burning would be persecution, while the screwing of
thumbs would not he persecution ; others may call the
screwing of thumbs persecution, and dealt, the justice of
that expression when used to whipping. tut according
to my impression, the infliction of any penalties on ac-
rount of rang" opinions, and on account of religious
opinions alone, is. ,generally understood as coining within
the meaning of the term, for all the purposes of
political argument. Defining persecution, then, as I
do, I cannot conceive any argument to he adduced in
favour of the mildest degree of this justice, which lo-
gically speaking, though net morally indeed, might not be
used with equal force in favour of the strongest grade of
the same.—(Hear,. hear.) I have, to make my apology ,
for having occupied so notch of the time of the Hon. Gen_ I
tlemen present; but I could net refrain from making
known my sentimeots to this House of Commons, which
has done more foe the rights of conscience than any Parlia-
ment that ever sat. Its Sessions of 1828 and 1829 have
been marked by a glorious course iii favour of religious
jaw), and 1 hope that, before our teparatiori, this Sys-

sion of 1830 will put the finishing hand to that work I
which so many great and good men wish to see accom-
plished, but which cannot be till this most desirable mea-
sure
shall be carried into effect.----(Cheers.)
Mr. BATLEY—The Jews could not be admitted into
Parliament without an alteration of the original writ of
summons, as their religion was quite at variance with the
spirit of that declaration. It was contended that the Jews
were unambitious, and might therefore safely be trusted.—
But if they were unambitious, it was because they had had
hitherto no stepping atone for their ambition. It had
been calculated—and he believed upon very sufficient
data—that in the event of such a measure as the present
being carried into effect, twenty-five Jews would obtain
seats in the Commons House of Parliament.—(A laugh.)
For his own part, he could never consent to any one
taking his seat in that House who did not believe in the
Christian religion.
Sir JAMES MACINTOSH—The speech they had
heard from his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Macauley)
was one which, he had no doubt, would snake its full im-
pression on the House, and that was worthy of the name
which he bore. It was oot, therefore, to supply any de-
fects in that speech that he had risen to address the House,
for, indeed, there were none that he could find ; but it
was principally to absolve his own conscience that he of-
fered himself to the attention of the House. He felt that it
was a duty he owed to his religion, to mankind, and
his country, to declare his sentiments on this occasion.
His desire was to hear testimony to the completion of that
system of religious liberty of which that House had al-
ready effected so large a portion. However politic it
might have been in his Hon. Friend, who had so lumi-
nously introduced this topic to the House to have ab- I
stained from any thing which might have been deemed
applicable to the late differences of opinion which had pre-
vailed
in the House, he (Sir J. Macintosh) could not con-
sent to forego the vantage ground which the late proceed-
ings of Parliament had afforded him. In turning his
thoughts in this direction he could not but congratulate
himself that he was, on the present occasion, addressing a
House of Commons which had done more for religious
liberty than any assembly since the first Parliament of
William the Third ; and it would even have been with-
out that exception, if that Parliament had not passed the
Act of Toleration, which, as it was the first step towards
religious freedom, ought always to be considered also as
the greatest. With respect to the arguments which the
Hon. Member for Oxford had advanced against the mea-
sure, he should abstain from offering any general answer
to them, as that task had already been so ably undertaken
and performed by his Hon. and Learned Friend ; and he
should, therefore, confine himself to a few remarks on the
practical consequences which the Hon. Member for Oxford
had urged. The first of these appeared to him to he
one of a very singular nature. The Hon. Gentleman had
done neither more nor less than discovered a great secret,
one which had never been whispered within the walls of
that House, and still less had been surmised beyond them.
Ile had discovered a secret which, had it been proclaimed
by a hostile voice, in spite of the " Tell it not in Gath
—publish it not in the streets of Ascalon," would have
amazed the universe ; a secret which, if it was once got
at by an interloping Jew in that House, would put an
end to the whole system of the representation of this
country. It seemed that this profound secret had re-
mained concealed till the Honourable Member lighted
upon it ; in vain had the gnat Earl of Chatham pro-
claimed the notorious sale of seats in that House—in vain
had Mr. Burke, in his immortal speech, told the world
that the Nabob of Arcot sent no less than eight Members
into that House—in vain had been the thunders of Mr.
Fox's eloquence, supported by all the talent of that side
of the House, and reverberated by the brilliant eloquence
of Mr. Pitt ; the thing had never yet been truly disco-
vered till now; and, in spite of the long acknowledged
venality of the seats in that House, it had remained for the
lion. Member for Oxford to find out that once a Jew, and
he would discover the secret and make it known to the
world. A comment of more pleasantry was, " A
Wonder—a Woman keeps a Secret !" But the wonder
that the Hon. Member had lighted upon—that it was re-
served for a Jew in the year 1830 to make known to the
world what had been reverberated by every wall of that
House for more than sixty years—was a miracle much
more worthy of a proverb. The next argument of the
Hon. Member for Oxford was equally singular with the
first. It was singular, too, that the Hon. Gent, had not
perceived how strongly his facts were destructive of the
inference be had drawn. He had told them that the
Nabob of Arcot sent eight Members into that House : but
was that for want of -disabling laws.—(Hear) ?—No ; all
tliis had happened in tke time of proper and becoming re-
strictions ; and yet the Nabob of Arcot, at the head of
this band of eight, had broke through their rules—had
broken down their Statutes, and, taking possession of the
table, went through the form of the oaths as by law re-
quired. Here, then, was one refutation of the Hon. Gent.'s
argument! According to him the remedy existed, and
yet the disease was raging in all its fury. The Hon. Gent.
had then gone on to tell them that in Holland, and in
France, and in the United States, in spite of favourable
laws, no irruption of the Jews with the Legislature had
taken place—no conspiracy of the Jews to spend vast sums
upon their elections had been detected ; and that it was only
in the humbler stations of public service they were to be
found. After this, had he (Sir J. Macintosh) not a right
to say, that as the Bon. Gentleman's first set of facts had
destroyed one part of his argument, so this second set of
statements equally refuted his supposition that in the event
of public office being opened to them here, they would over-
run the country ? With respect to the exceptions made be
the Hon. Gentleman in the case of the United States, he
could assure him that it was not the Sheriff, but the Mayor
of New York that was a Jew ; and with reference to Hol-
land, a most learned and valuable Jew, of the name of
Meier, was President at the Criminal Court at Amaterdam,
a gentleman who, for his judicial character, and for his
works on jurisprudence, was well known ail over Europe.
But the Hon. Gentleman contended that there was some-
thing in this country which laid us particularly open to
the attack of their wealth. The Jews then were safe in
Holland, in France, and in America, but in England they
were not safe. If this argument were to hold, it would
appear that they were to be all powerful in England, while
they possessed none elsewhere. Did the Hon. Member
mean to say by this that the character of England was so
much worse than that of any other nation, or that we
were a more venal people?—(Hear, hear, from Sir R. H.
Inglis). He hoped that this was :lot the ease; but if it
were so, the representation of England must be worse
than any other; and the materials being bad, there was
no reason for a Jew to proclaim, " Urbem venalem et rib
perituram." The argument of the Hon. Gentleman went
to show that the Jews ought not to be admitted into the
offices of the State, because they were more attached to
each other than to any country. True, that was the case;
but it was the Government was to blame for this. It first
deprived the Jews of a country and a character, and were
we then to complain of their vices, and attribute it to
them as a crime that they had neither country nor charac-
ter? We had deprived them of all objects of affection in a
country ; we fold made them attached only to their own
persons, and then we urged our own wrong as an objec-
tion to granting their prayers. He was unwilling to go
far into the objections that had been urged ; but he should
like to know who were the persons who would be let into
a share of the Constitution by the precedent which would
be established by consenting to this measure? The
Hon. Member had spoken of the natural-born subjects
of his Majesty in the colonies ; but they were eligible
already. They were capable of holding land ; they were
capable of - sitting in the Parliament ; some of them
did sit there, and lie wished that many more of them
did. The Hon. Member had argued the question on the
ground that the natives of India were not entitled to the
privileges of the Constitution. But every native of India
was one of the King's subjects e he owed his Majesty alle-
giance, and to Lire in return, was due protection and jus-
tire. It was the first maxim of political society that they
were not to withhold the advantages for which allegiance
was paid, unless it was distinctly proved that great advan-
I tages would issult to the State from not giving to indivi-
duals all the privileges claimed. That was the rule of jus-
tice. Every man born under the Constitution was enti-
tled .to all the privileges of the Constitution. He would
I repeat, as had been stated before, that this maxim ought to
be applied to the Jews. It had been stated as an objection
to the Jewe, that they had been attached to Napoleon ;
but why had they been attached? What attached them ?
Why he did them justice. He gave them protection, and
made them the sharers of the privileges of the State. Ile
admitted them directly into all the advantages of the law.
He (Sir James Macintosh) would ask, if it were true of
the Jews that they had no regard for the esteem of their
fellow-men, that they were persons of no character, that
they were lost and degraded ; was it not, he would ask,
because the law had degraded them, and that they had
only sunk to the level of the reputation established for
them by the law ? According to the old maxim—cone
temptu
.1-curia contemptu virtutis—they were made regard-
less of their fellow-men ; and they were guilty, perhaps,
of crimes and vices,. But what was the remedy? To
degrade them still more—to continue their degradation ;
or rather, ought they not to remove the cause of the die •
e.ase? There was, he believed, a theory of the present
day, that disease was only to be cured by administering
more of the stimulus that had caused it; or, according to
the old proverbto take a hair of the dog which bit the
patient, But, with all his respect for llAtorite, And pru-

verbs, it would not do to apply the same doctrine to the
Jews. Their subserviency was because they were openly
despised ; the moral defects of their character arose from
the oppression they were subject to. What was the re-
medy ? To revive their regard for the esteem of other
men, they must have similar motives for their conduct—
they must be released from their present degradation, and
must he treated like other men. This should be the first
step to reclaim them—this ought to be the first means to
restore the character of the Jews. This made his case so
strong, that he might rely on this argument; and he
should content himself with asserting, that the depravity of
the Jews was one of the strongest arguments which cou'd
be urged in favour of the measure. The Jews were new
peculiarly situated in every country of Europe, and in
every one their condition was much the same. They
were composed of two, or rather they contained two
classes—one was extremely poor and degraded, en-
gaged in the lowest occupations and without any regard
to character. They were reduced to a state of hereditary
depravity, and for them emancipation was necessary to re- '
store them to their situation in society. That was the only
remedy which could relieve thesis from the moral malady
with which they were alllicted. On the °thee hand, there
was a large body of Jews, merchants of great extent, pos-
sessing vast wealth, engaged iu extensive schemes of in-
dustry, and filling a high and respectable station in society.
They were engaged in transactions with every State of
Europe.—(Hear, hear.) He would say, with respect to
them, that they deserved emancipation. The lower class
of Jews could only be reclaimed, and the higher only
placed in the stations they deserved to occupy, by the same
measure.—(Hear, hear.) Most of the Governments of
Europe, whether they bad in them any Of the democratic
principle which some gentlemen thought so much a source
of evil, or whether they had none of their principles, like
Austria,—all the Governments of Europe were now en-
gaged in reforming the lower classes of the Jews; atil
what was the first expedient they had adopted ? The first
thing they had all done was to take away the moral brand
which had doomed them to malpractice,. The first effi-s
cacious step to improve their moral condition was •to let
them know that they were men, and to teach others that
they were to be regarded as men. They were relieved from
the prejudices of the vulgar, and learned to regard with
the affection of brethren those whom they had before looked
on as enemies ; and, receiving great cause for gratitude,
they were improved and elevated. He would trouble the
House with but few further observations. His lion. Friend,
on a former occasion, in the year 1828, had said the
House had severed the State from the Church. In 1829,
his Hon. Friend had declared that the House was sepa-
rating the State from the Protestant Religion—a union:
which, as far as he knew, never had existed. Theris
had been, he admitted, a union between the State and '
the Established Church ; but the union between the
State and the Protestant Religion was not mentioned in
any law, and it would be absued to make that separatioes
a ground cf alarm and apprehension. The Protestant
religion comprised Lutherans, Calvinists, Armenians, and
Unitarians, all of whom differed from one another, agree.,
ing in nothing, except in protesting against the claims of
the Catholic Church. What was his Hon. Friend's
language ? The State, he said, was to secure the Pro-
testant religion, and therefore it was not to enable persons
to fill offices in the State who were not Protestants. But
his Hon. Friend gave no reason for this—he merely
stated an arbitrary definition. What gave a State a pecu-
liar but the disqualifying laws which pre-
eluded the members of any other religion from taking part
in its peculiar affairs ? His Hon. Friend's principle, then,
was merely an assertion that the State made disqualifying
laws, and then was bound to maintain them. It was a •
merely arbitrary definition, and his lion. Friend would
rot find any enlightened men who would admit his defini-
tion. He could never take a second step, or establish a
second proposition. If his Hon. Friend said that the re-
ligion established was only safe, and could only he secured
by such disabling laws, that was begging the question.—
The argument would have been good before the House had
passed the measures of the last Session and the Session be-
fore, for the relief of the Catholics and Dissenters. Who-
ever gave that interpretation to our disabling laws, begged
the whole question concerning them. His Honourable
Friend's arguments were complete anachoriems, and his
speech of that night might have done very well in 1828,
before the repeal of the Test Act. Then his arguments
might have had some force. His Honourable Friend aa-
mimed erroneously that disability was the principle of the •
British Constitution—but that he denied. Certainly that
was not now the principle, since the two Acts of the last
Session and the Session before the iast, repealki the m(At
important of our disabling laws, left the remainder of any
such laws only the petty exceptions to the great principle
o f freedons—the mean separations of mighty ruins.—
Before they opened the gates of the Constitution to the
Catholics and the Di,senters—before they were passed, the
arguments of his Hon. Friend might have had sonic plau-
sibility. What was the principle of our Ecclesiastical Law,
as stated by the Right Hon. Gent., whom he did not then
see in his place, when he took the lead in proposiraee the
measure last Session ? lie stated that the principle of our
Ecclesiastical Law was, that we should have an Esta-
blished Church, combined with civil and religious liberty,
admitting all religions to a community of civil rights.__
This was, if he recollected it right, the language of the
Right Hon. Gent., which he had inscribed on the banners
they had all willingly followed to victory. That language
had gone forth into every pa
Parliament bail diets declared—inthe
ls2kng
si,,ir
Ii ;
sia9n—d
titilte
at
these principles were the basis of our EcclesiastnicdalsiLwaupitd.
H e felt as great respect for some of the gentlemen frorn
whom he differed as for any men living; but be must say
that those who had then adopted this principle, a
net now carry it into effect, would find, as stated by his
Hon. Friend the Member for Caine, a ten-fold greater dif-
ficulty in making any specious objection to the present
measure, than they would before have had ; and they could
not refuse to vote in favour of the present proposition,
without declaring that they had abandoned the pi inciples
which they then adopted as the guides to their conduct._
Did they refuse to vote for this measure it might give rise
to a suspicion that their former votes were dictated by a sets_
timent of fear, not by a principle of justice. Would they
not act on the same principle towards 40,000 Jews as te-
wards seven millions of Catholics ? The House must, how-
ever, shut out the consideration of numbers, whether of
thousands or of millions. Justiee, it was said, was no re-
specter of persons, neither was she any respecter of mul-
titudes; her rules must be observed towards individuals,
and numbers formed no elements in forming her rules. It
would be said, did they refuse the motion, that they had
been ready to do justice to the strong but not to the weak,
and that they had formerly been governed by fear, and
not by those high principles which ought to guide them.
If they now departed from those principles their conduct
would be imputed to improper motives. He could net
conceive that any gentleman who had voted for those two
great and healing measures, would oppose the motion, and
would adopt one rule for the Catholics and Dissenters, and
another for the Jews. The inconveniences which it was
said would arise from the measure could only be discovered
by a microscopical eye. The only difficulty he hash ever had
in considering the subject was, to find out any argument
which could be urged against the measure, and which he
might be prepared to answer. Ile tours find sues and ;
had been so perplexed to discover even the shadow of an
argument, that he had said to a friend he would advertise
a reward for any argument, that he might get one to re-
fute, against granting emancipation to the Jews. He
might safely have advertised even a large reward, and
have been sure of not finding one. In conclusion, he
would beg the House to recollect what was, according to
divine law, to be understood by our neighbour. The
founder of Chris,ianity did Not take as the exemplification
what was righteous, not what was beautiful and admired—
he selected a heretic, who was held at that time in ab-
horrence by the people, to whom he addressed himself.
Ile inculcated the divine precepts of his divine religion,
not merely the principles of faith, but the nobler princi-
ple of charity, the safest guide for the conduct of life, and
his observations directed us to minister to the wants of
each other—to love our neighbour as ourselves, were made
evident by the example of the good Samaritan a charac-
ter who was hated by the Jews of that age.—(Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if
he could consider that it would be a departure from the
principles of the Bill of last year to oppose the present
measure, he should be one of the last to oppose it. But
be was of opinion it stood on very different grounds to
that measure. Ile could not view the subject in the same
light as the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just addressed
the House. Ile considered that there was a great and
broad distinction between the parties to the measures of
last year, and "those who were new claiming tl:e indulgence
of the House. In opposing the measure he begged to be
understood as having no prejudices against the Jews, lint
there were considerations which should induce the House
to pause before it extended to them the privileges it had
granted last year to the Catholics. It had nothing to do
with charity, as the Right Hon. Gentleman bad stated,
but it was a chains on their part to be admitted to a share
of political power. It was a questionlfor the Parliament
worthy of its grave consideration, whether it would not be
likely by altering
P
principles of admitting
people
arliathmeeoliatthyseaarnad hfttere
year,
it might not run
sonic risk of affronting the religious feelings of the people
into
of this country. These feelings might be called prejudices,
but they were honest prejudices, And the •House might find
ip that a moiyu fur ropows them. Parliament was bound

to attend to the religious feelings of the people; and it was
a sacred duty in the Members of that House not to conduct
themselves so as to make the people believe they were in-
different to their religion. Tice House must be aware how
it, by new measures of liberality so speedily after former
measures of liberality, begot an impression in the country
that it was indifferent to all religion. He had listened
with. great pleasure, as he always did, to his Hon. Friend
the Member for Fortrose, but he could not find in his
speech any argument to encourage the Meuse to give poli-
tical power to a set of men who contradicted the Chris-
tian faith. His Hon. Friend had stated that they had,
by late Acts of the Legislature, admitted the Catholics
and some Protestant sects, not interested in supporting
the Estab'ished Church, to seats in the Legislature; and
why not the Jews? He, for his part, did not think
this a good arguMent. If his Hon. Friend's argument
were just, it ought not to stop at the Jews ; and he was
hound to push it so far as to maintain that all sorts of sects,
as soon as they grew into notice, might claim a seat in
Parliament. His measure ought, therefore, to have gone
further. If the House were prepared to open the doors
of Parliament to the Jews, they might open them to the
Turke, and to the members of every other religion. If
the case of the Jews were shnilat to that of the Catholics
and that of the Dissenters he should not oppose it, but he
did not think the cases similar. He thought the House
run a great risk, however, by running counter to the
good feelings of the people, the majority of whom he had
no doubt were opposed to the measure. There was this I
difference between them and the Catholics—that the Ca-
tholics had shed their blood for us—they had fought our
battles both by sea and land—they had swelled the force
of our fleets and our armies, and there was a good reason
why we should not make enemies of those who had served
us, and who amounted to seven million people. But the
Jews had not fought our battles—they had not served in
our armies and navy, and they did not amount, it was
stated' by a writer of their own nation, to more than
27,000 persons. The arguments which applied to the
Roman Catholics seemed to him, therefore, to have no ep-
plies:aims to the Jews. The relief given to the one was •
no precedent for granting the claims of the other. The
Right Hon. Gentleman coucluded by declaring that, a. 9 be
did not wish to oppose the general religious feelings of the
country, he should oppose the motion.
Dr. LUSIUNGTON said, if he thought the motien
likely to beget an impression among the people that the
Parliament was indifferent to Christianity, he should find
great difficulty in agreeing to the principle of the measure.
But whether be looked to the principles of the motion of
his Hon. and Learned Friend, or whether he looked to
the conduct of the people since notice was that it
was the intention of his Hon. Friend to bring forward
such a motion, be was satisfied that the country did not
regard it in the light described by the Right lion. Gentle-
man. It was than between six and seven weeks since his
Hon. and Learned Friend had given notice of his motion ;
that notice had been wafted from one end of the kingdom
to another, and yet not one petition against the Jews had
been laid on the table of the House. No, not even a ra-
mour of a petition had reached it. When he saw this,
and recollected how numerous were the petitions against
the Catholics—when he recollected what a great interest
their emancipation excited throughout the country—when
he saw how quiescent at present the country was—he must
say that he saw no sign whatever of the prevalence of those
feelings the Right lien. Gentleman had attributed to the
country. He would say that the Jews were at present, in
this country, in an anomalous condition, such as no people
ever were in, in a country that pretended to good erder.
Few persons were probably aware that Jews could now
hold advowsons, and what was perhaps more extraordi-
nary, it appeared by a decree lately given by the Earl of
Eldon, that they were capable of electing Clergymen.
In those cases in which the Clergyman was elected by his
parishioners, it had been decided by Lord Eldon,
after two years' consideration, that Jews paying
parish rites were entitled, as well as other pa-
rishioners, as well as members of the Pro-
testant Church, to vote for the Protestant Clergyman.
The Hon. Bart. the Member for the University of Oxford
(Sir R. Inglis) had cited what he very properly consi-
dered a great law authority in proof of his opinion, that
the Jews were not to be considered as entitled to hold the
same rank as the Christians. But did the Hon. Baronet
knew in what light that opinion of Lord Coke was re-
garded by his countrymen ? Did he know that in the
reign of George the Second an attempt was made to cite
that opinion in argument, and the whole Bar of the
Klng'e Beucb, with the C4lief Justice at their head, ex-
claimed at once—" For the 'aisour of that great and truly
learned man, and for the sake of the respect due to his
memory, do not quote a passage which, above all other
things, has most detracted from his character and under-
standing."—(Hear. )—The great principle of the Constitu-
tion of this country has been also contended to be Christianity
Now in the good old times of Popery, was Christianity
the principle of the Constitution ? No, the religion of the
State was the religion of the Pope for the time being, and
up to the reign of William 111.. the principle of the Con-
stitution and the religion of the State were direct intole-
ration, without the slightest regard to the religious opi-
nions of others. To so great an extent, indeed, was this
carried, and so little was the establishment of our religion
thought of, that an individual who lived through
two or three reigns was actually obliged to change
his religion eight different times. The Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite.(the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
seemed to think that the admission of the Jews to that
House would have the effect of injuring the Established
Church, by raising an opinion that the Members of that
House were wholly indifferent to religion. His opinion, on
the contrary, was, that the Established religion was too
well fixed in the affections of the people to require the aid
of exclusion to secure it. They were told, however, that the
case of the Catholics formed no precedent which could
govern them in dealing with the Jews. That they were
only 27,000 in number—that they were unimportant as a
body—and that there was no reason for those apprehen-
sions with regard to them which formed so strong an er-
gement for the removal of exclusion from the others. He
considered it to be most unfortunate and most lamentable
that the opponents of the measure should be compelled to
resort to such arguments, and he deplored the existence of
a feeling which would seek to resist a measure of justice
until it came before them under circumstances so suspi-
cions. If, however, the number of Jews was so small,
and their influence so bounded, that there could be no
danger in refusal, what possible danger could there be in
admission._(Hear, hear.)—He was reluctant to press on
the time of the House, but he thought the period was
arrived when, without any violation of the principles of
the Constitution, they could grant what the Jews re-
quired, with safety to the Established church, and with
satisfaction to those who prayed this concession. The
Riaht Honourable Gentleman had declared repeatedly
that he was unwilling to allow the Jews to be
admitted to that House. He (Dr. Lushington)
could not well understand that, for he believed the Right
lion. Gentleman was by no means unwilling to meet the
Jews elsewhere—(A laugh)—and the time was not far dis-
tant when he would snore than ever require their assistance.
The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed unwilling to trust
them in Parliament, and yet they had been entrusted with
; his tea thetreand times more important than any con-
nected with the-possession of a seat in that House. The
Jews desired nothing more than to be placed in the same
situation as the Roman Catholics. They were willing even
to abandon a part of what they already possessed, in order
to obtain the same privileges as the Catholics. They were
willing to give up the possession of their advowsons, and
some other privileges; and for these reasons he thought
those who were not friendly to the Jews would act at least
more liberally if they permitted the Bill to be brought in,
and obtained some understanding of its provisions, before
they declared against it a determined hostility.
Mr. PERCIVAL (in a low tone of voice, as we under-
stood) entreated the House, in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, to preserve the religion of Christianity—the reli-
gion of the state—from being defiled by the introduction of
the Bill now proposed. If they wished to preserve the
name of a Christian people—if they were anxious to sup.
port the distinction's of their Christian Constitution, lie
implored them to reject a measure which gave political
powerito a sect whose religion was hostile to both.
Lord MORPETH said that, if to justify himself in
hazarding a few observations upon this subject, he had felt
any hope that he should have been able to add any thing
to what had already been brought forward, he had cer-
tainly better not now have risen ; but he was inclined to
think that upon an entirely aesv question the expression of
a mere concurrence of opinion might be of some use, from
however humble a Member of that house, though it added
nothing in point of argument. The effect of argument
might safely be left to time speech of his Hon. and Learned
Friend, the very circumstance of whose introducing this
measure had conferred much benefit upon it, much by his
great power of mind, and much by his blameless charac-
ter. An objection, anticipated indeed by his Hon. and
Learned Friend, had been taken upon a religious ground.
It was to that point alone he (Lord Morpeth) now wished
to advert, because all other points of the case were both so
touch snore easily disposed of in themselves, and bad been
so satisfactorily dealt with already, that he should be little
inclined to further interference with them. Upon the go-
, neral question his own inclinations always led him to be ?f
opinion that every person who contributes to the exi-
gencies of the State, who pays its taxes, and defrays the
wages of its servant, lass an equal right to the enjoyment

of all its privileges, and admission to all its distinction,.
Against this right of enjoyment and admission, especially
upon that point which was the most valuable of all to a
citizen, the right of a seat add a voice in the legislature of
hie Country, being extended to the members of the Jewish
cernmunion, a relinione objection had now been taken by
the Member for the University of Oxford.. " Educated
at that University like the Worthy Baronet, nursed
like him in its discipline, and attached like him to its
recollections, I am never sorry to have an opporte-
nity of showing that the spirit of hostility to the
broad principle of religious freedom which per-
vades the Parliamentary conduct of the Worthy Ba-
ronet ie not the inevitable result of a residence within its
walls. And I am the more anxious to guard myself in
every instance against such a disposition, because I believe
it in fact to be the same spirit which, modified in this in-
stance by the genius of the age and the mildness of his
nature, formerly in erery quarter of Christendom prompted
every species of oppression against the persecuted Jew, and
thought it virtue." It was foretold by the Author of the
religion in the profession of which we are so inclined to
vaunt ourselves. that He came not to send peace on earth,
lint a sword, and the passions of mankind have interpreted
the prophecy as if it had been a command. We were told
that we were for the first time causing the legislature of
the country to be no longer Christian. This was a start-
ling proposition, but more addressed to the sound than the
sense. He did not see in what way the adoption of this
measure would diminish the influence or retard the pro-
gress of Christianity. He did not see how it would make
her be less powerful, or appear less amiable. We were
not disposed to look upon either France, or Rolland, or
America, as being less of Christian countries, since they
had adopted the great principle of making the discharge of
civil functions independent of a prescrileed religious lies!.:ef;'
not, undoubtedly, because we did not recognise the im-
portance of religious belief, hut because that importance
was so infinite as to make all human interference with it
As inadequate as it was presumptuous. He wished to ask
where, in this ease, was the if anger? One of the chief
reasons which made him so anxiously wish, and se sincerely
rejoice in the accomplishment of the great measure of Cs-
tholic relief, was the assurance he felt that Protestantism
would not suffer from its more close alliance in temporal
matters with Catholicism; still less has Christianity itself
—the faith which unites Protestant, and Catholic, end
Greek under her common banner, planted upon the rock
which shall never crumble—any thing to dread from any
possible result of the measure which had been so convinc-
ingly recommended.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that the situation
of the Jews had been more than once likened to that of the
Roman Catholics, although it appeared to hint there was
wide and material difference between them. The Catholics
'had possessed great power and privileges, of which they
had been, for good reasons, deprived : and it did great
honour to those who, studying well the circumstaaces of
the country, had restored them to the situation they before
had held. But how did the case of the Jewsa:l,lnd ? They
had possessed nothing ; they held nothing. They had no
civil rights ; they never had any. He hooked with as
much abhorrence as any man, and deplored as much as
any man, the atrocities once perpetrated against them;
but he could not, therefore, be insensible to the nature of
their situation in this country. They lead no natural
rights ; and Lord Coke, although he agreed with the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) in a menner
not very creditable to his character, had declared they
were the natural enemies of the Christians. After sus-
taining great persecutions, they were banished altogether;
and when they returned at the Restoration in small num-
bers, they returned as men who were not permitted to
claim any rights of citizenship, or to hold lands, or in
any manner to be received as subjects of the State.—
As they chose, however, to come hack in this manner,
and under these circumstances, it was impossible to
deal harshly with them, or to subject them to the
ssate restrictions and persecutions in modern times
which they had suffered before their banishment. Nothing,
he was ready to admit, could well justify the code of laws
enacted with regard to the Catholics : but the Jon's,
with the exception of an Act passed in the reign of Queen
Anne, which permitted a child who became a convert
to Christianity to take his parents' property by succession,
in defiance of their wishes—an act not carried into effect
beyond one or two instances—were comparatively free
from restriction. This lod him to the question of the
Jews holding land, and 'he could not avoid expressing his
opinion, that they had as much and'as good a legal right
to hold land, and to take and lease it by descent, as ant,
other person in the country. If there was any doubt on
the'stibject, although he thought there was not, he should
be glad to see these doubts romoved by a 13P1 brought in
for that purpose. He should be happy to see the Jews
become landheldere. He should rejoice to see them be-
come country gentlemen.—(Hear, and a laugh.) On the
other grounds, however, he confessed he saw objections to
the admission of the Jews. Christianity was a part of the
law of the land, although he was told that it varied with
the opinions of the day; still, with all the variations of
creeds and opinions, it wns Christianity.—(Year, hear. )
The question seemed to lie this :—The door of the Con-
stitution had been opened to the Catholics of Ireland ;
were they, therefore, prepared to admit other claimants?
They were now come to this point,—were they or were
they not to put an end to all distinctions on the sub-
ject of religious opinions ?—(Hear, hear.) It was said
that there- were no petitions against it from the people.
He, for one, was glad there were no petitions ;
and that the popular ferments of 1753 would not
again disgrace the country, He wished the ques-
tion to be decided by the good sense of the house; and be
thought the absence of these petitions one of the most
favourable signs of the increasing knowledge of the time.
He was not disposed to emancipate the Jews in part. He
was not disposed to open the door of the Constitution and
place a sentinel at the gate. He might be asked then if
he was prepared to concede all? He would answer that
they had admitted the Catholics to participate in the ad-
vantages of the Constitution, but they hail not yet suffi-
cient experience of the result. They had opened the door
to office and to that House, but there was not yet time
for the Catholic to obtain office as he must attain it ; and
therefore, although the state of Ireland might be benefitted,
they did not know the full value of the experiment. In
the absence, therefore, of any sufficient knowledge of what
they had done, he, for one, was not willing to go further,
and place the Jews in that House, or admit them to the
opportunity of being placed in the high offices of the
State ; and in this respect, although he did not attach
much importance to the question of numbers, still it was
not to be left wholly out of consideratiou.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. SMITH maintained, that if it was desirable
the Jews should ever be admitted within the pale of the
Constitution, it was desirable that they should be admitted
with as little delay as possible. He must beg to express, not
merely his approbation, but his admiration of the manner
in which his Hon, Friend had brought forward the present
motion. He admired both the sincerity and courage of
his Hon. Friend ; and he had evinced both those qualities
iu time highest degree. Religion ought not, in his (Mr.
W. Smith's) opinion, to be introduced into any question
similar to the present, which was a question not of religion,
but of politics. Let those who introduced it recollect a
passage in the book which they so justly revered—" Ren-
der unto Clew the things which are Cear's ;" and then
came the grand distinction—" and unto Gad the things
which are God's." On all points of religion lie would
leave men to their own consciences. As to political con-
siderations, he wished to know in whet times had the
Jews evinced any inclination towards such political prin-
ciples as ought to prevent them from having a ehare in
the civil rights enjoyed by their fellow-subjects? He had
never beard of any such case. He had heard, indeed, of
their having engaged to furnish loans for other countries
than those in which they lived. If, however, they had
not the patriotic feeling which would prevent such a
transaction, the imputation rested, not on them, but on
the Governments which withheld front them those
civil rights and privileges which alone rendered a man's
country dear to him. He recollected an Hon. Member
who had that evening opposed the motion, and from
whose goad sense he should have expected a different
line
of conduct, declared in the last Session of Parliament that
when once a dozen Catholic Members avers introduced
into the House, it would be for the supreme power of the
State to take care of the Church of England, hut that for
his own part he should consider it as gone. That Hon.
Member must believe the Church of England to be founded
on a very tottering basis if the introduction into the House
of Commons of a dozen Catholics or Jews seas calculated
to lead to its destruction. He (Mr. W. Smith) was nee
of those who thought that political rights and privileges
should have nothing to do with religion. But if he were
asked whether they should not have anything to do with
any part of religion, he should answer that religion was
divided into two distinct parts, the moral and the Creed.—
If Government were to have anything whatever to do
with religion, it ought to he with the moral portion of it,
and not at all with the Creed. What was the morality of
the Jews? The morality of the Christians. What Church
was there belonging to the establishment which had not
the Ten Commandments, the morality of the Jews, side
by side with the Creed.—(Hear.)—lf any rational man
saw the Commandments and the Athanasian Creed thus in
juxta-position, was it doubtful to which would lie give the
preference—(Hear)?—To the question of morality, there-
fore, they ought, in his opinion, to confine themselves. If
they extended their consideration to matters of litith, no

PRICES OF HOPS.-April 5.
Kent Pockets*-.--. 51 15.. 6/. 12s. to 91
Stwex Ditto
llFeex Ditto 5/. 153. 6/. 63. to 71. 10a.
Farnham Ditto, Fine Ol. Os. :91. Os. to 111. Os.
Seconds 0/. Os. 71. Os to Si. Bs. ,
51. 53. 61. Os. to 71.; Oa.
51. Os. 51. 12s. to 51. 15s.
51. ss. 6!. Os. to 61. :Gs.
„,1;

Kent 14ags—
Es sex Ditto.
Stimx Ditto

PRICE OF POTATOES.—ApriI 5.
Kidneys
Scotch Reds ............. 4/. 15s. to 51. Os. ditto.
Oxnobles and Shows . . 3/. ss. to 3/. 10s. ditto.