The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-18 00:00:00

innovation to adopt a measure pregnant with danger to
the best interests of this country.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. WILSON said, that the Jews, who possessed
civil rights and exercised political liberty in the Nether-
lands and France, were as useful members of the state as
the professors of any other religion. Did the Noble Lord,
who said the Jews would not amalmagate with the people
of this country, mean to sty that the country ought to be
exclusively Christian ?—(Cheers from the Ministerial
benches.)—Such an opinion could not be entertained ex-
cept by those who now cheered, and who appeared to be
under the influence of feelings which controlled their better '
judgments. A gallant General had asked, was there to be
a union of sects in that House? He replied, that he
should be glad to see the Jew, the Unitarian, and the
Church of England-man all sitting together. He made
that remark because he saw sitting before him a member
of the Unitarian community (Mr. W. Smith, we believe),
distinguished forhis humanity and intelligence.—(Hear. )
At Southwark, the Jews were allowed by the tolerance of
their Christian brother electors, to vote at elections for
Members of Parliament. Still that right was liable to be
denied them, and therefore he called upon the House to go
into Committee, if not to grant the Jews seats in Parlia-
ment, at least to confirm to them the other rights of
citizens. The state had no right to prescribe a religion,
or proscribe a religion, unless its principles were obnoxious
to the safety of the country; but he had had great ace
quaintance with Jews in different parts of the world, and,
though suffering under the most grievous oppression, he
had always found them generous and humane.—(Hear.)—
There was now an individual in this country belonging to
that sect who was at the head of seven-and-twenty
Christian charities, many of which were for the purpose
of promulgating the Christian religion. Those charities
he supported, because, though not believing in the
Christian religion himself, he still thought it was one cal-
culated to improve the morals of the country.—(Hear.)—
Such was the conduct of one of that race to which the
House was called upon to render justice by the present
measure, which, he was happy to say, met with his most
hearty concurrence.
Mr. O'CONNELL was proud of the opportunity
afforded of supporting the present measure on principle
and sympathy. He remembered the time when the cry
raised in the House, instead of being the cry of
" Christianity," was the cry of " Protestantism." It was
said that the Catholics were higotted, and if let into Par-
liament would net permit liberty of conscience. Who
were now, lie would like to know, the advocates of
bigotry?—( Hear, hear. )—Who were the parties now be-
fore the House? Not foreigners, but English-born Jews.
A Noble Lord had called them unbelievers, and asked
whether the House would allow unbelievers to enter ?
Let it be remembered that the Jews were excluded from
Parliament merely because they were conscientious per-
sons, and would not swear an oath which they dis-
believed ; while the House had no security against the
entrance of Atheists and Deists. There had been some
talk about a divided interest. It had been said that Eng-
lish Jews had a fellow-feeling with the Jews abroad,
This was nothing else but a translation of the divided
allegiance of the last Session.—(Laughter.)—What was
the condition of the Jews in Prance? It might, perhaps,
be said, that the French Legislature was not a Christian
one. It had not, to be sure, the essential of a Christian
Legislature, the presence of boroughmongers.—(Laughter.)
Members could not there go from the cote gauche to the
cote droit with ten or eleven borough-owners at their
teil.--(Great laughter.)—But the Jews were emanci-
pated both in France and the Netherlands; they wet e ad-
mitted to high judicial stations, and to seats in the Legis-
lature, and proved themselves impartial and zealous magis-
trates. .A. Gallant General had said that those who op-
posed the Catholic Relief Bill ought in consistency to op-
pose the present measure. He denied the justice of the
conclusion. The Catholics were numerous and prosely-
tising perhaps ; but the Jews were not so numerous as
the Catholic., and were far from being a proseletieing
stet. He supported the measure on the principle of uni-
versal toleration, and on the right of every person to
worship God according to the dictates of his own con-
science.—(Hear, hear.)—The spirit of persecution and
exclusion ve,ss abhorrent from the tolerant and benevolent
principles of genuieee Christianity, and in accordance with
the precept to do as you would be done by, he conceived
that he teas only fulfilling a portion of that duty which
the Christian religion imposed upon him, in giving his sup-
port to this measure._(Hear.)
Mr. TRANT was determined to give every opposition
in his power to this measure. He was the more inclined
to oppose the Bill when he found Mr. Robert Owen—an
individual who had openly, at a public meeting, declared
that Christianity wee an imposture—coming forward to
petition in its favour. Let the Hon. and Learned Member
who had introduced the measure attempt to gloss and var-
nish as he might, it could not be concealed that this Bill
went to destroy that principle of Christianity upon which
the institutions of this country had been hitherto founded.
He would contend with Blackstone that Christianity was
the law of the land ; and he weed(' maintain, in opposition
to the assertion of the Hon. and Learned Member in intro-
ducing this Bill, that the Jews could not be considered as
Christians, and that they were not entitled to the same
privileges as Christians in a Christian state. The people
of England were strongly opposed to this measure. Who
were they for whose relief this measure was intended ?
They were the descendants of those who crucified Jesus
Christ, and who exclaireade--" His blood be upon us and
upon our children." They were the descendants of those
who persecuted the founder of our faith, and who would do
so again were it in their power.—(lnterruption.)—Hon.
Members might groan at these sentiments; but he would
tell them that these sentiments were not confined to so ig-
norant and stupid a person as himself, hut that they were
the sentiments of the people of England, who would have
sent forward numerous petitions against this Bill if they
supposed that there .eould be the least possibility of its pass-
ing. It was not persettneion to prevent the Jews from
sitting in that House ; then let the House look to the con-
sequences that would result from a Jew witting in the seat
of justice and administering the law of the land in a case
of an action for blasphemy. The thing was a perfect ale,
surdity : he should oppose time Bill because it went to de-
stroy the established church of this country.
Lord 3, RUSSELL would certainly admit that this
Bill, whether viewed in point of policy or of expediency,
did nut appear to mesh either that attention or that oppo-
sition which it had met in that House. In point of expe-
diency, the edtnission of some 30,4500 or 40,000 Jews to
the privileges of the Constitution was not a matter of much
consequence, and undoubeedly never could be atteeded by
those dangers of which some lion. Members had spoken;
neither was there any danger resulting from their exclu-
sion which would in itself justify such a measure as this.
ft was on principle en)y, then, that this measure could be
supported,--upon that pripciple to which the House had
last Session, and the preceding Session, given its full
assent, in the instances of the Catholics and of the Dis-
senters, namely, that religious opinions should not interfere
with civil privileges—that this Bill was: founded; and it
was upon such grounds it should have his—(fiord John
Hussell's)—cordial &ippon. When the Legislature had
once decided that it was not necessary to be attached to
the church of England to be eligible to seats in Parlia-
ment and the other privileges of the state, tolte exclusion of
the Jews was no longer defensible upon prineiele. He
would maintain that religious opinions no longer formed
a question with regard to the ad.nission to a share in the '
public privileges of the state. That had been finally set
at rest by the decision of that House. The Jew contri-
buted to all the burdens of the state, and while obedience
to the laws, and loyalty to the King, characterized his
conduct, he ought not to be exclude(' from the privileges
of that Constitution under which he lived.—(Hear, hear.)
--It was said that the Jews forme-e.t.a distinct and separate
nation in themselves, but that was the effect of the laws;
and if time present measure passed„r shJews would in the
course of a few years become perfecay amalgamated with
ourselves. The emancipation of time Jews was now alone
required to complete the great pringiple which Parliament
had asserted in the two last Sessions, aged by rejecting
' this Bill the House would be, in effect, revoking that
principle which it had then asserted by large majorities,
He should give his warm support to the measure.
Mr, G. BANKES would resist the Bill, and support
the atue4altnent. The Hon. Member for Clare had said
that Mahomedane, Deists, and Atheists, were, under the
existing law, eligible to seats in that House, and lie had
asked " why, therefore, alone .exclude the Jews?" But
the lion. Member was mistaken as to !iialtomedans and
Deists, for the oath which it was necessary to take opposed
an insuperable bar to their admission there. With respect
to Atheists, it wee erne that an Atheist, by taking the pre-
sent oaths, might obtain admission to the House; but he
(Mr. Banks) would tell the Hue.. end Learned Member
that in case get Atheist obtained a seat in Ghat manner by
taking the oaths, and declaring that he believeei that
which he really did not boloieye, there would lee a moral
feeling in that House which would ptrip him of all power
end influence whatever. It was said' tbae they allowed
the clews to acquire all that power which resulted from
their posse: inn of wealth and property, and that they
should not continue to exclude them from that one thing
more which they now sought. But that one thing more
was the legislative power, whir/a was, according to Mr.
Locke, the supreme power of the State, and there was,tho
ii
therefore, no
.consistency on their part in xc;u
Jews from a share in the supreme power in this country.
After dwelling on tie dangers which, he contended, would