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

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
130de 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
Commissioners. 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 during
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 any 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
800,000/. 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
413 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
the 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 fact 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
80 strong a❑ impression that he had been 'ideated by a
Majority of only 37.
Sir. E. B. SUGDEN would not allow that because the
Baron 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,
praying 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 House 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 returns respecting the Court of Chancery; and par-
ticularly relating to the pecuniary transactions and fees of
the Master's office.
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;
and the hour of business was already arrived.
Mr. HERRIES fully concurred in the suggestions of
the Hon. Member.

11r. 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
thrown in the way of the Bill at that period, or any oppo-
ion offered to its 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
measure in this, its first stage, and other Hon. Members
having declared their design to suspend their opinions until
he
should have heard the reasons advanced on either side,
fie thought he had no option, but would be, however re-
luctantly, compelled 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, however, 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 unforeseen, hut altogether fortuitous. Under-
had g that some such question was in contemplation, he
been led to turn his attention to it—not without pre-
i,n:di", which, however, calm reflection had completely
WSSlPated ; 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 following 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 of that state of the law,
and why they consilered themselves entitled to relief;—
‘ then he would proceed tla)ot,: Ile uc;h would i lon
attempt
empmt etaonsanof
i affording that relief;
ands 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
Rennie 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 Dumber 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 youodeny 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
they did to a certain extent lend their support to the
Pagan religion, because they supported the Govern-
ment
indirectby which it was maintained ; but the evil of
which
hd
libtehreayllytligeall-.eefor(ewis,ileppoirtleddid 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)lf'ieoierrns: el:tier:l Go-
vernment
ttun'elw‘
of sitting in
' 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 impossible, 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
ooxnet
.e stepe,en
gnw,boteud b
they
sleymeieog,
uhtlttoi
think abolish i sfbtol
igaesplaaluatplobninelasiratecels
:alidvm, fo r
at
faenrnott
a.tnr, i
Igdveitae,ahenfeatteehn
Jr.
edisotnusrelcnsoil a
testpr of
HMorning
il)tuobldliethoapti
ntliaoen best
astecteusrtitbyein
g oCnh
trioienioctlieie7 thee onejt d hand,slw always held
fr o from thehat t
the grant
:roes!
fusel of civil rights was a mere matter of discretion, to be
decided by abstract reason, and not upon abstract 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.4tl
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; and 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 Jew 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, aed
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 is a thing at
epera 'r
to have aimed. On the
and we may conclude that with such rites and forme as
belong to their faith, it could scarcely be expected by any
cue 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-

~~
.~.