The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-26 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER ELEC TION DINNER.

On Monday the Twenty-third Anniversary of this Poli-
tical Festival was held at the Crown and Anchor. The
number of persons present, however, was by no means
so numerous as we have witnessed on former occasions.

Sir Francis Burdett was in the Chair, and was sup-
ported on his right hand by Mr. Hobhouse, arid on his
left by Lord Ebrington. Among the others who were
present we observed Mr. Otway Cave, Mr. A. Dawson,
Mr. Byng, Mr. John Wood, Mr. Monck, Mr. Jones Bur-
dett, Colonel Jones, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Wooler, and Mr.
O'Connell.

The first toast drunk, on the removal of the cloth, was
" The People, the only source of legitimate Power."
The next toast was—" The King,: and his speedy re-
covery."
The next toast proposed by the Chairman was—" A
full, fair, and free Representation of the People in the
Commons House of Parliament, the only efficient Remedy
for all our national grievances."
Lord EBRINGTON in rising to propose the next toast,
did it with mingled feelings of pleasure and regret; for,
whatever pleasure he Might feel in having to propose the
toast, he could not but entertain sensations of regret that
Mr. Sturch, who for twenty-two years had been the pro-
poser of the toast, was prevented by indisposition from
being present on that occasion. This absence he should
regret the more if any eloquence were required ; but the
services of Sir Francis Burdett were too distinguished—
he had been too long before the public—and his exertions
in the cause of civil and religious liberty were too well
known to require any eulogium from him to give them
effect in their eyes.. He had to propose—" The great and
consistent Advocate of the Rights and Freedom of the
People, Sir Francis Burdett."—(Applause.)
Sir F. BURDETT then mounted the table and was re-
ceived with cheers. Before he had had the honour of
having any connexion with the electors of Westminster,
he had enlisted under the banner of reform ; five or six-
and-thirty years ago be had first made his appearance in
that room before a numerous body of his countrymen.
That was the first time that he bad ever opened his mouth
in public, and he had advanced the same principles then
as he did now. His Hon. Friend who had done him the
honour of proposing his health had given him more credit
on one topic than he deserved—he meant that of religious
liberty. With respect to the Catholic question, be had
never looked on it iu the narrow light of a religious
question only. He had never been able to regard it as a
sectarian matter, for it had always presented itself to him
on the broad basis of religious liberty, and civil and re-
ligious liberty could only stand on one basis. He had al-
ways felt that they must sink or rise together. It had
been their happiness to see the great question of Catholic
Emancipation settled; but it was not to themselves that
they were to take the credit. The great men who had
straggled for it in former times—Fox, and Burke, and
Sheridan—not forgetting the share that was due to Ire-
land, with her Floods and Grattans, as they had borne
the brunt of the day—ought to have ceded to them the
highest of the praise; and those of the present day ought
only to congratulate themselves on being fortunate enough
to conic in at the end so as to share the triumph. But
the principle on which they had acted was net a hole and
corner principle; what they desired to have ceded to the
Catholic they desired to have ceded to all the world ; and
he should feel ashamed of those with whom he had co-
operated, if there was one among them who did not regret
the loss of that Bill the other night, by which the Jews
were still deprived of their civil , rights. The principles
that caused the loss of that Bill arose from a most igno-
rant, absurd, and stupid prejudice; and he could not but
regret to find that there were still minds haggling after
their former bigotry. Those who had been compelled to
yield to the claims of the Roman Catholics opposed them-
selves with a very ill grace to those of the Jews ; they had
not even any show of reason in resisting their claims, for
all they could say was—we woa't grant them, because you
do net think exactly as we do. Nor did he see how they
could argue against the admission of the Jews on the
ground that Christianity was a part of the law of the land,
fur even they themselves could not deny that Judaism
was a part of Christianity.—(Applause.)—But let it be
part and pared of what it pleased, what had that to do
with the civil rights of any set of men ? He must say
that he could not envy the situation of those who, as
Ministers, consented to the sacrifice of these unoffending
people, in return for the great gift which they had been
compelled to bestow on the Catholics on the former
occasion. No charge whatever Ives brought against
them; and, indeed, the treatment they received re-
minded him of a humorous story iu Gil Blcq, in which
soma rogues make their way into the house of a Jew, in
the garb of Grand Inquisitors, for the purpose of seeing
what can be got out of him. Having uo evidence of their
own, they got hold of the Jew's servant boy, from which
it appears that his master never eats pork. The secretary
therefore, writes him clown as a confirmed Jew. It also
appears, that at Easter he had some 1201 which is writ-
ten down as confirmatory of his keeping the Passover;
and on this evidence they acted their pleasure on him.
Now, against the Jews of this country, in like manner,
there was no charge •hgtever but that they were Jews,
which no one would attempt to gainsay or deny. He was
sorry to have seen an argument used against them in a
newspaper which had great influence in the country (the
Times)—an argument at which he was both astonished
and ashamed. In the first place, it was said, that being
Jews they could not feel like Englishmen ; but Heaven
only knew why, if they were given the rights of Eng-
lishmencertainly it was a most extraordinary thing to
draw an argument against a man, on an act of our own
infamous and scandalous corruption ; and yet the paper to
which be alluded went on to argue, that the House of
Commons was so notoriously con upt, that if the Jews
were once admitted, they would in a very few years see
that House turned into a Jewish Sanhedrim. For himself
he must say, that he should like to try the effect of a Jew-.