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

attend the permitting Jews to legislate for the established
church and religion of the country, the Hon. Member
concluded by repeating his determination to vote for the

amendment.

Sir J. WROTTESLEY explained.
Mr. HUSKISSON commenced by adverting to some
observations which had fallen from his Gallant Friend
(General Gascoyne), and from other Hon. Members, in
reference to the petition which he (Mr. Huskisson) had
presented on a former evening, from the town of Liver-
pool, in favour of this Bill. It had been asserted, that
that petition, which, as was admitted on all hands, was
most numerously and respectably signed by the leading
' merchants, bankers, and inhabitants of Liverpool, had
been got up principally through the great influencg pos-
sessed by the Jews in Liverpool. He (Mr. Huskisson)
knew something of Liverpool, and he could state that
there was scarcely a part of the country in which the
Jews possessed less influence. They were chiefly retail
traders in Liverpool, and were therefore less likely to
possess great influence in that town. The petition in
question spoke the genuine sentiments of the Christians of
Liverpool, in favour of that great principle which had
been asserted by the House, in the instance of the Catho-
lics and of the Dissenters. His Gallant Friend had re-
ferred to his (Mr. Huskisson's) opposition to the Bill for
the emancipation of the Dissenters ; but he would remind
his Gallant Friend that lie (Mr. Huskisson) on that occa-
sion did not resist the Bill for the relief of the Dissenters
on principle, but because he fe ired that the passing of that
measure abstractedly and apart from the great treasure for
the emancipation of the Catholics, might be injurious to
the success of the latter and greater question. It was
upon that conviction—an erroneous one he would ad-
mit—that he (Mr. Huskisson) at the time opposed
the Bill for the relief of the Dissenters. The arguments
which he had beard this night against the emancipation of
the Jews, were precisely the same, pintails mutand is, which
he had been in the habit of hearing urged for the last 30
years against the emancipation of the Catholics. The dangers
to he apprehended to the Constitution and to the Church
formed the constant theme with the opposers of Catholic
emancipation ; and yet that great measure had been
passed. Catholics had been admitted to Parliament, and
it was now acknowledged by his Right Hon. Friend (Sir
R. Peel) that no measure that had been passed during the
last century had contributed more to add to the strength
and resources of the empire. The arguments which had
been adduced again,t the present Bill were, in fact, the
exploded arguments which hail been unsuccessfully urged
last Session against the emancipation of the Catholics,
lie should support the expediency of this Bill, not only
on the score of justice, but on principle ; but he assured
the Hon. Gentleman that if lie was successful in per-
suading the majority of the House not to admit Jews to a
seat in Parliament, however much he- (Mr. Huskisson_ )
might regret that circumstance, be should not be one of
those who thought the Bill ought not on that account to
be persevered in. This was a measure of justice to per-
sons suffering oppression, and he trusted that the Bill
would he suffered to he read a second time. In the Com-
mittee he should exert himself to support it in its present
state, but he should not abandon it if the alteration was
adopted. This All had attracted a considerable degree of
notice ; and they had been told that those Members who
supported it would regret that support when they met
their constienenes. But he (Mr. Huskisson) on that
question, as well as on the Catholic question, had go-
verned himself by uo other principle than a regard to pub-
lic: duty ; and he, for one, was not afraid that on either
question his constituents would differ from him, when
they considered those questions with reference to public
utility. He gave his hearty support to this Bill, and
thought that it would be the consummation of measures
which would immortalise the present Parliament.
Sir ROBERT PEEL.—I shall endeavour to condense
into the shortest possible compass what I have to say on
the present occasion. As I had not the advantage of being
here on the former discussion, I hope the House will bear
with me should I trouble them with anything that they
might have heard before. I must set out by saying that I
cannot support this Bill. Ido not admit the principle of
the Bill, nor can I help objecting to the mode in which it
is sought to establish that principle. The Bill professes to
limit itself to giving relief from all civil disabilities to all
the Jewish subjects of his Majesty; but that is not the
sole object to which the Bill is limited. I will not say
that it is a Bill for unchristianising the Legislature, but
will say that one of the unavoidable consequences of this
measure will be, that every one of the forms and ceremonies
which give us assurance of Christianity must be abolished.
I take that that fellows as a legitimate consequence of this
measure—that every man, to whatever sect or persuasion
he may belong, will be entitled to prescribe the form of
affirmation, by which he may give assurance to the state.
The Session before the last we were called on to give our
support to a measure for the relief of the Protestant Dissen-
ters, and last Session we passed a Bill for the relief of his
Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; therefore it is said
that we are bound, in consistency, to follow up these
measures by adopting the present. I hear this with
regret, because I hear it for the first time. In the dis-
cussions respecting either the Catholics or the Protestant
Dissenters, nothing of the sort was ever intimated—
it was never stated to us that because we admitted
our fellow Christiana to a participation of power,
that therefore, as an unavoidable and necessary
consequence, we were bound to admit to all the privileges
of the Constitution men who reject Christianity altogether.
Some most forcible appeals were made to us on the ground
of the common Christianity of the parties applying for re-
lief. In the speeches of Burke, and in his recorded senti-
ments, as contained in his writings, we learn that he rested
his strongest arguments upon the Christianity of the Ro-
man Catholics; so of Mr. Grattan, of Mr Canning, and
of all the great and eminent advocates of that cause ; even
my Right Hon. Friend on my left, in pressing their
claims upon the attention of the House last Session, ob-
served, that when serving with Protestants in the army
they entered together the same breach, they fought toge-
ther in the same field, reposed together in the same grave,
and rested their hope of future happiness on the merits of
a common Redeemer—those appeals were forcibly m ide,
and successfully made, for it was not to be denied that
Pt otestanta and Catholics admitted the same great doc-
trines of Christianity, But if this Bill pass, though it
may apparently be limited to the Jews, and though con-
fining our views solely to this Bill, it does not go beyond
that class ; yet we shall, if this be agreed to, have to pass
other Bills roost objectionable in my views of the Consti-
tution. It is perfectly obvious that from this it follows as
a necessary consequence that every form of oath which re-
quiresea profession of the Christian faith must be aban-
doned. Now this is a most important alteration in the
usages of this country. Before Catholics and Pro-
testant Dissenters were excluded, there was still a ne-
cessity for all public functionaries to profess Christianity;
from the earliest period a belief in Christianity was re-
quired as necessary to official appointments or to seats in
Parliament. Nu person who rejected Christianity could
obtain office; therefore, from the first, our Constitution
was, to say the least of it, Christian. Here, then, we
have yidcnt and palpable departure from the principles
of the Constitution
.as admitted and recognised in the ear-
liest periods; and where is the ufgency of this vast change?
What is it that requires this departure from the first prin-
ciples of our Constitution ? What is the case made out
respecting the Jews ? It would seem—l take my infore
maeion from a book which, I understand, is written by a
very respectable Jew, and is considered a work of autho-
rity—that there are resident in the United Kingdom about
27,000 Jews, natural born subjects of his Majesty, of
whom 20,000 are resident in London, 7,000 Jews in the
other parts of the Kingdom ; and for these seven and
twenty or thirty thousand individuals I am invited to de-
part frohn the principle which has been acted on from the
earliest period of thp Constitution. lam told the Jew is
degraded by his exclusion—he is not excluded in the same
manner that the Catholic and the Dissenter were—lie is
not excluded by anything in the nature of a taunt upon his
firm or profession of faith. The Jew is excluded merely
becTise the Legislature requires, as the great principle of
Civil Government, that all persons admitted to office should
ac.knorwalTteir!eigere
jrteeli,arfindamental truths of the Christian reli-
colfrilieids
usagesb e causeorhebwabiiltl
enioitnaodeegiirt,:iitiltedofsualiiijeacitieno—f tbhee
iSs State,
hgleonis,
. not
.he
graegnisartdee
regarded
with
anis°
rieni g
naenry
The. history. of the Jews, their domestic usages, their
marriage, and in a variety of
institutions respecting
other points, we find enough to account for the prejudice
which exists against them. We find them in the
;mole, and in the United pos-
session of political Privileg,l in France, in the Nether-
es of Aroe4ca—in the last
during a periodof forty years, and in the two farmer
during the last fiftee4 YeaP, and only two have been ad-
mitted to political offices.,-(Rear,
) I think I
understand that cheer. I understand it to mean, that
since so few have been admitted, there is no danger in ad-
that if the Jews expect to
political power. Now the
jeng.ieeits,friost,om the removal of disabilities,
the t.hem must be ;eery small ; and only
ienderiveing:scoett:cl Ill; ldEle:eanna.g.,d'llfivi English
advantage
for such a tribe are we to depart from what for centuries
has formed the fundamental principles of the British Con-
stitution. Does the House suppose thet the people of
England are indifferent because no petitions have been
laid upon the table of this House ? On the contrary, I
will venture to affirm that the sense of the people of
kinglaad is ovosed to concessions of this 4ature, and I