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

will venture to predict that the result I prove that
ffi armation to be well founded. If you prepared to
lay it down as a principle that Deists, Atheists, and other
infidels may hold the highest offices of the State, and
possess seats in the Legislature, then you must be pre-
pared to revolt the feelings of the country. For fifteen
years in France and the Netherlands have they been
entitled to all privileges, and during forty years b. ve
they possessed those advantages in the United States;
yet during the entire of these periods not one of
them has obtained a seat in the Legislature of those
countries, only one has been appointed to a 1-.'ll
situation at Amsterdam, and one has been made Mayor of
Now York ; and that convinces me that the exclusior.N9f
Jews does not arise from their political incapacities, Pot
from their own peculiar institutions and usages. So rnoch
for the principle of the measure. The mode in which- it
is proposed to carry it into effect I look upon as equally
objectionable. Its advocates propose to abolish all disabilities
on account of religious opinions. The Hon. Member for
Clare would have every man allowed to worship God as ire
might think proper : but if the present Bill be passed, it
will not be necessary for a man to worship God at all.
The Deist and the avowed Infidel are admitted under this
13111. From its provisions this principle necessarily flows,
that political power is, and ought to be, unconnected with
religious belief—that I take it is the legitimate conse-
quence. Now if that be intended, why not avow it at
once and for all ? Does any man in this House suppose
that this is the last Bill which will be passed upon this
matter of religious freedom, as it is called? There are at
the present moment three great classes of his Majesty's sub-
jects eligible to high political office and to seats in Parlia-
ment ; but they were all required to be Christians; these
were the Protestant Dissenters, the Roman Catholics,
and the members of the Church of England—and
now we are called on to admit the Jews ; but are there
no Christians excluded ? What becomes of the Quakers ?
Why is not a Bill brought in for their admission ?
bear.)—l again hail those cheers—if the
'Jew be admitted, there is no doubt that the Quaker is
equally well entitled. Why not one as well as the other ?
Are you afraid of the consequences?—(No, no,)—Observe
the admission—if this Bill be allowed to pass, other Bills
a fortiori must pass. Is it wise then to disturb yearly the
religious feelings of the people of
.this country by separate
Bills for the relief of the several classes of his Majesty's
subjects from the disabilities which from the earliest period
the Constitution imposed upon them. If the measure be
right, establish it free and for all, and let us not have a
Bill one year for one set of men, and another year for an-
other. I know of no tenet of Quakerism which ought to
exclude them from the enjoyment of political power if the
Jews are to be admitted. It is said that the relief of the
Catholics placed the Jews in u worse situation than before
-that the more the space was narrowed the greater was
the suffering—to speak inalliematically, the intensity of
the suffering varied inversely with the space operated
QM But I reveat, that if the Jews are entitled to this
relief, so are the Quakers—so are the Separatists. On
these grounds, then, Sir, I am not prepared to admit the
principle, and I object to the mode of giving effect to the
Bill ; and I confess I do so with much regret. There
is nothing in the conduct of the Jews themselves which
ought to create the slightest prejodiee against them. The
upper classes are eminent for charity and sympathy with
the sufferings of their fellow men, and the lower classes are
not marked by any vices beyond what is common amongst
[vens in that rank of life. I, therefore, cannot but feel
the necessity of opposition as most painful, so fir as landed
estates are concerned. I see no objection to the Jews
being empowered to hold them ; my own opinion is that
they can do so already; but in that I, of course, submit
to authority; but my own opinion is, that it requires no
new law to enable them to hold estates in land. The
late Lord Ellenborough contested himself with such
a title as a Jew could make to land, and after
that I think we need have little doubt that Jews may
hold land and make good titles. But, with respect to the
present Bill, I think it cannot be so amended as to meet
my views, and therefore I say, uabesitatingly, that I must
oppose it: foreseeing its consequences, I cannot give it

my support.
Mr. BROUGHAM regretted that he differed altogether
from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He should not stop to
refute the extraordinary doctrines which had been laid
clown by some Hon. Members; amongst whom the Hon.
and Gallant General (Gascoyne) had put a strange gloss
on one of the great principles of Christianity,—that what-
soever you would that another should do to you, do like-
wise to him; which the Hon. and Gallant General had
interpreted, "Do unto another what he would do unto
you."Z.He had referred to the history of the Jews, and
had said, "Do you recollect how they acted towards
you ?" He (Mr. Brougham) was not sure that he re-
collected to have often heard speeches less distingui.hed
for good sense and the principles of Christian
charity than those which had on the present occa-
sion received the applause of the House—the loud,
and he might say clamorous, applause bestowed upon
the very worst opinions. He had heard propositions so
received, which, in respect for the House, induced him
to believe that their tendency and import could not have
been rightly understood. The Right Hon. Gentleman,
however, had not argued in that way. He had not ap-
pealed to the passions, as others had done on this subject
But he was compelled to differ from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman. He said that this Bill tended to abolish Chris-
tianity ; that from the earliest period tests were employed
to make us all Christians, and to exclude those who did
not profess the Christian religion. Is this the fact?
Where was it to be found in history or in law? No man
who hail read history or the Acts of Parliament could
believe it. The language of the oath plainly showed the
contrary. He would beg the Right Hon. Baronet to ob-
serve that the present measure was not advocated on the
same grounds as the Bills for the relief of Protestant Dis-
senters and Roman Catholics. The Bill before the House
was advocated on the grounds of justice, and justice only.
The objects of the measure were a body of men distin-
guished for their transactions in commerce, and esteemed
for the honour and probity of their dealings, as the un-
precedented number of petitions which had been presented
in their favour testified. It was true they had not
threatened the Government, because they could not do
so : they had not been urgent in pre-sing their case upon
the attention of Government, because their numbers
and weight were too limited. In his opinion those
were circumstances which should operate favourably in
the consideration of their case. It could not be said
that concession to them was the result of fears excited
by the conduct of associated demagogues and agitators.
The cause of the Jews came before the House devoid of
any extrinsic aid derived from adventitious circumstances.
They stood only upon the justice of their case, and ap-
pealed to the favourable consideration of Christian feeling.
Was that placing their cause on low grounds? No! It
was placing it on the highest. How useless was the test
which the opponents of the measure wished to apply,—
" upon the faith of a Christian !" That test was, he sup-
posed, intended to exclude bad persons. But would a bad
person be excluded by it ? Provided a Jew could make up
his mind to add to all the other terms of contempt which
were showered upon him, such as " infidel," &c., that of
hypocrite, by making the declaration " upon the faith of a
Christian," he might then fill all the offices of state, and
make laws fur the government of a Christian people.—
(Hear.)—lf a Jew would only do that, he was certain of
coining into that House, and they were incapable of shut-
ting the door in his face, notwithstanding the Christian,
orthodox, and charitable chorus of the gentlemen he had
the honour to sit amongst, whom he heard that night
cheer, roar, and, he might say, bawl, so vigorously. But
his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite (Mr. Bankes) had
informed the House that if any man should make the de-
claration " upon the faith of a Christian," who was know❑
to disbelieve in the tenets of Christianity, he would possess
no sort of weight or authority in that House. He'should like
to know front his Hon. and Learned Friend how far that de-
claration had acted upon Mr. Gibbon. That individual made
the necessary declarations against idolatry, after having once
tasted of it ; but when he abjured the errors of the Catholic
religion, he abjured Christianity at the same time. He,
however, took the necessary oaths te entitle him to sit in
the House of Commons. He abjured transubstantiation
and the Pretender, swore all " on the true faith of a
Christian," and held the office of a Lord of Trade just
as orthodoxly, and received his salary as punctually, as his
Learned Friend opposite ! He could not do it more so.—
(Cheers and laughter.)--,llnt his Hon. and Learned
Friend might say that Mr. Gibbon ezercised no great
weight in the deliberations of the House. This, of purse,
was owing to his having committed such a breach of
pagan morality, as to pretend to be more of a Christian
than he really was.—(A laugh.)—l•le probably felt that
if he, who was known to be an infidel, but had obtained
his seat by pledging the faith of a Christian, had risen,
there would have been a cry of " spoke, spoke," and other
noises, which not unfrequently addressed themselves to
the ears of Members of that House, and therefore, partly
from the apprehension of noise, and partly from the
moral effect of his situation, he was incapable of dis-
playing his talents. Thus far it might seem that the case
of Mr. Gibbon was an illustration of ..he correctness of
the argument advanced by his Hon. and Learned Friend.
F - put what would he say to the example of Henry St. John,
Viscount Bolingbroke He would remind the House
[ that Bolingbroke hid; dutipg the whole of his life,
f been known by his writings and conveiiations be a
[ scoffer. Nevertheless, he, "on the true faith of a