The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

/31PERI k L PARLIAML
.;-' I. , they ought to admit the Jews. My lords, it is surely an
injustice to deny to the electors the right of choosing any
- * 1 man not legally incapacitated. Now, I contend there
HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) is no legal incapacity in a Jew, and that if you deprive
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack the electors of choosing any person they please, whether
at five o'clock. ' a Jew or a Christian, to represent them in Parliament,
Lord SAYE and SELF presented petitions in favour
you commit a decided injustice upon those electors.
of the Jewish Disabilities Bill. Then, it is always unwise in your Lordships, unless under
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented petitions from very extraordinary circumstances indeed, to oppose
Southampton and other places to a similar effect. yourselves determinedly and obstinately to the voice of
The Earl of MALMESBURY presented petitions the House of Commons in a case which peculiarly
ra
touchestouches
Irona Hampshire against the admission of Jews into the constitution of that house. (Hear, hear.
Parliament • also,
from Wh iteh even, against the open- ment after Parliament has confirmed that decision of the
ing of the Crystal Palace on Sundays. House of Commons on this subject. It is true that you
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from places need not fear on this occasion the pressure of danger
in Lancashire, praying for the extension of the county
Courts jurisdiction. The noble lord proceeded to urge lost' declare in this very
from civil war. There is
hnovfear • as I recollect hearing
the great duke whom we
thea
Catholic
`on the Government the propriety of introducing s measure to lessen the fees exacted from suitors in the _ some
from
ftehaartehfeaaesisveinl twedart.o
certaaituhloylitcheEremiaenuciepda_taiuogneAr
ec
ft
County courts, which now amounted to more
that kind. kind. But although there is no
.danger of a civil_
per cent, of the whole amount recovered.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Govern- collision. I say that if you go on year after year
war, give me leave to say that there is a danger of a
serious
'`lent felt the necessity of such a measure, and had
the and composition is
eielb.jematter in which their own body
refusing the just demands of the House of Commons in a
Subject at present under their consideration
Lord CAMPBELL expressed himself de'sirous of see-
, eng some measure passed to remedy this great abuse. which I should be very sorry to see carried further. Now,
essentially concerned, you expose yourselves to arisk
The Bishop of CHlCHESTERpresented petitions
against the Jewish Disabilities Bill. my lords, does anyman f
that alarming
you may
not have a pressure . .
' " Sirnilsr petitions were presented by Lord BERNERS, I hnve referred—does ainy -man suppose that this ques-
the Earl -
of DERBY, Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and other or the demand
noble lords. if it be the progress of reason
unanimous
tion can long remain without being settled ? Whether
0 rue Earl of CARLISLE
presented a petition from .e Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Council in favour before long to deal with this question. I am the last
of the other house of Parliament, you will be compelled
'of the Jewish Disabilities-
._ _ Bill,also petitions from places you possess of throwing out any measure which 1,,
's sent
man to say you should not exercise the just prerogative
-un 6ussex to the same effect.
Similar petitions were presented by the Marquis of
Lansdowne..., the Duke of Newcastle, and the Earl of which touches so
up for your approval. You do well to exercise it if you
think proper • but in this question,
Albemarle, from the Great St. John-street Synagogue.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Crystal nearly the character and the composition of the other
a
house of Parliament, I do maintain, that although the
Palace Companies Bill was read a third time and passed: constitution has vested in you a full and free exercise
The D k u eof RICHMOND presented a petition from li -
your prerogative, yet you would do well to be cautious
how far you persevere in its exercise, My lords, be ev
a place in Sussex, against the malt tax.
•-• JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. ing as Ido that your lordships, in your inmost hearts,
are fully persuaded that this is merelya question of time,.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, in movine, the order of the this occasion
day for the second readin of this bill, said—My lords, I more or less, Ido hope that we shall on
arrive at that stage at which we shall see the settlement
have
of this long pending question. Ido hope the tirn.e
last
have now to move your logrdships to give a second read-
ing to the bill for the relief of her Majesty's subjects
professing the Jewish reli • (II hear.) My lords, now arrived at which we may cast to the winds this
the subjeat has already so much engaged' your lordships' rag of intolerance, and that we may make our practice
conform to those principles of religious freedom which
attention, and has been so fully discussed in this house, we profess to hold. (Cheers.)
that it would be difficult for anyy one, and certainly im- The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said if anything could
possible for me, to attempt to place it before your lord- add to the importance of this discussion, it would be ,
~, Ps in any new point of view. But before I proceed that the noble earl who had just sat down, having for
..era, shortly to remark on some of the principal objet- many years opposed these claims as a private individual,
t"l"ns to this measure, I will offer a few observations in had now become not only the sUpporter but the pro-
T°,PPort of the case which I have now undertaken to pounder of them as the first minister of the Crown. A
ong before your lordships. My lords, when the ques• city that was set on a hill could not be hid, and he
yourlordships
.two
ailethu_wa.s last before
lo2cgt taking no part in the discussion onthat occa,- person.age. The gravity of the noble earl and the known
in' my vote was given against the measure. Now, my sincerity of his heart precluded him from making any
ds, althou rh lam not aware that a change of opinion observation on the change, and he would only express a
on this subjett necessarily calls for any remark, never- hope, nay more, a belief, that the grounds on which he
theless lam desirous of stating to the house that this reversed his vote this night were as solemn and true as
Change of opinion on my part took place more than a those on which he formerly stood. He was astonished
year ago. In the month of January or February last to hear it said that the popular voice was in favour of
Yeer---certainly before -the accession of the noble earl op- this measure. Why, the popular voice, in the full
Posits to office--I communicated to my right hon. friend extent of the term, was neither on the one side nor the
the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, and now, other. - There was, upon the whole, a general apathy
Member for the University of Oxford, my intention of on this question. here any feeling was entertained, it
liuPPorting the removal of the Jewish disabilities on the was deep and serious, but the feeling did not pervade the
next occasion when the subject should be brought for- whole of the community. It was argued that the Jews
Ward in this house. I subsequently made the same corn- had a constitutional right to sit in Parliament. He would
tannication to my noble friend near me, the noble duke undertake to argue the question if he thought that they
(the Secretary for the Colonies.) I wish to mention this really believed so • but by this bill, so far from stating
pii•cunistance, lest, by any possibility, it might be sup- that, they stated the very reverse. For one enabling
.eseo that my change of opinion had any relation to clause they had a dozen disabling ones ; for one
tinaii recent political combination, with which, as far as I privilege that they gave there were eight or ten that
~,,,
eeorencerned, it has had nothing to do. (Hear, hear.) they refused. (Hear hear.) They enacted that no Jew
:3 There is less cause for remark upon a change of opinion should be Lord Chancellor, or Keeper of the Great
r"lc, suche a question as this, because I apprehend it has Seal, or Lord-Lieutenant of' Ireland, or Lord High
n place on the part of most of those of your lord- Commissioner of Scotland ; that Jews should not present
ships who are now favourable to the measure. Most of to benefices in right of office ; that if they advised the
those, of your lordships who now support it must recollect Crown as to presentation of benefices, they should be
a time When your feelings on this subject were in a dif- guilty of a high misdemeanour. If they had a constitu-
!hent.% direction ,- and it is natural that this should be tional right to a seat in Parliament, they had a consti-
e case. I look upon this as less the result of argu- tutional right to all the privileges and consequences of
°4 s than of religious obligation, which when it is felt that right. When Jews were admitted to corporate
_and regarded, must be stronger than all argument and offices, it was argued that they had given their sanction
;rid reasoning on this subject. I consider the existing to the admission of - the Jews to legislative functions.
'4`iv. as a remnant of that feeling which formerly existed They replied that executive and legislative functions
thoughout this country. In former times, no doubt were diametrically different, that they might be trusted
Withminis-
-the much greater intensity, this prejudice against with one and not with the other. But they (the minis-
‘4 Jews existed ; and it was turned to account by terialists) now reversed that order. They said the Jews
cruel men and atrocious tyrants for the purpose of might be trusted with legislative functions, but they
Persecution and cruelty ; nevertheless, some of them excluded them from a large share of executive power.
may have thought by so acting they were doing They were told that this demand ought to be granted
,Outiod service. My lords, I do not now speak of perse- in accordance with the principles of civil and religious
on, for I know that those who oppose the claims made liberty. If by civil liberty was meant that every man
°Y the Jewish people entertain and express feelings of should be free in mind, body, and estate, he believed they
_Pod will and kindness towards them. Nevertheless it all, Jew and Gentile, were free enoughin that particular.
73itn,ye7pinion that this feeling of opposition is a remnant But as to religious liberty, if this bill passed, the Jew
iexistedta t prevailing persuasion which in former times would have his religious liberty, but he did see bow
fyrr strongly in every country in Europe. (Hear.) Christians would have theirs. If it were a principle of
they nc,":, nook upon the Jewish nation, scattered as civil liberty that a man should be tried by his peers, he
of a crimea,z,l' as a People who lie under the commission held it to be an equal principle of religious liberty that
Lee.dthee
queries
tt that t
ere'cr i
empreca.__, 0 inconceivable magnitude, and who have none but Christians should be allowed to make laws that
oeuiaseeeieenstheir heads the curse which was to ensue should bind Christian churches. The opponents of the
we haveme. We have insensibly bill respected the Jews, they saw them under a cloud,
-wrath—
wive effect to the dear Illson
ion the vennce accessories in the Divine but they acknowledged them as hereafter to be the sove-
ourselves, more or less, to reign family of the human race ; they wished them well,
into operation e—ee of the Most High, and to carry they could not be harsh to them, either in language or
not for
'we recollect that "vengeanceof the Almighty ; but when even in thought ; but when they heard their advocates
, is
pity and
us "to rnot ours," and that it is declare, that for the purposes of legislation, all religions
with re we should view te Jewish people were alike, then they said emphatically—No ; and they
humanity' 31 exhibit towards them fellow-feelings of said it upon what they believed to be the "true faith of
exhibit
this country, at least in recent a Christian." (Hear, hear.) His lordship then moved
times,eJsi _heas.Prodaimed an absolute freedom of religious that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lao.: • We have declared that religious truth, or re- The -Earl of ALBEMARLE would ask the house, as
tiTiluri error, shall not be the test of anyqualification for they had lately done a great act of justice to their Cana-
13ers„ ghts. (Cheers.) My lords, the Jew is the only dean fellow subjects to do a similar act towards the
c.t,4'a Who is excluded from rights and immunities, in Jews. He asked this the more confidently, because a
libi eauence of his religious belief. (Hear. hear.) Hor- great statesman had on that evening; for the first time,
ota;,and unchristian as those laws were which persecuted spoken in defence of the rights of their Heorew fellow-
top
~,'‘onean Catholic fellow-subjects, still they were not countrymen. That fact alone ought to have weight
41447,,e4:1 so much WI their religions creed, but were upon those of their lyrdships who were not decided in
kel adopted as a compendious test of political belief, their minds upon this question. It was nowt e yearsof
bumnot incorrectly chosen as indicating that since Oliver Cromwell sought to relieve. .h
.Jews
LeZloal faith. (Hear.) But, my lords, the Jew, simply England from the operation of these disabilities which
for his time, and was not
tl "'lse he entertains a religious belief which we un- effected them at that period. That great Protestant
assn des be most erroneous, is the only prince was too enlightened
-eaa We can prove to
A century ago—in 1793—a
regard to him alone bill was brought in somewhat similar in its nature to
of his Who
.in the present day is proscribed in consequence successful in his attempt. . .
1,, religious opinions • and with
edo not acting on the principle which . e are '
Jeetted since the abolition of the Test and Corporation of Parliament and received the royal assent ; but so
,
it the same
obi,and the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. (Hear.) The powerful a clamour was raised against the mea-
ez-te--`,4°,13 t° extending to the Jews the same principle we sure that it was necessary to repeal
teem
e_bo all other. persuasions, howeve.r they may differ year. The tories were at that time upon the oppo-
sieei urselves, is founded mainly, I think almost exclu- sition side of the house, and a general election being
aria 7, upon this feeling, that we are doing something at at hand sought. to obtain power by an appeal to the
is ,o:ace with the Christian character of the country. It religious prejudices of their
cseyeesroafl constituents. At
" no mass-houses,"
Plied. very easy to understand how this argument is ap- the hustings there were heard n
Since that
ento
te The existence of the Jews in this country is, pro "no conventicles," and "no synagogues."
t.
coul4 an unchristianising of the nation. The only period the provisions against mass-houses and conven '-
folio rY that is consistent is Spain. No doubt you might Iles were abolished. The noble earl asked. the house by
Jew
w the exam
bench of bishops
example of Spain, and you might expel the their vote on this occasion to place the synagogue also
but 84.,,fr°n1 Your dominions. That would be consistent ; upon the list. On looking across to
the
• ht rev prelate
to .`" Confer privileges, rights, honours on Jews, and yet he was reminded by the presence
t of
tia,„l7 that their admission to Parliament is unchris- (the Bishop of Norwich) that itweas athriegßishop'of Nor-
elearl, the nation, is such an argument I cannot with who, at that time, incurred the greatest amount
and --./ comprehend. It is true that Christianity is part oblogy. Indeed it was said that thefebrisdhowpewaondldunhoelud
will !.a.rcel of the law of the land, but your lordships an ordination upon. the. Saturdays
seliniee.ec'neet, so far as Parliament is concerned, it is not the Sundays for Christians. He trusted that tdheiursipguht.
bliebllanity alone that has been the law, but the Este- rev. prelate opposite would be equally orwahr • pe
nit:Church has been the law of Parliament. You port of the Jews. An advance had certainly been mad
excluded various
dsetcts; by means of acts of indem- in public feeling since the last century. Take the City
)louse 4,11,.„ave contintroduce Dissenters into the of London, for instance. A century ago that had been
those ‘„,14 k-onunonsribeut the principle has been to exclude the head-quarters of the opposition to the Jews. Now
the -,„,,"",`" do not 'belong the principle
the Established Church of that city, numbering 20,000 inhabitants, had returned a
apprZentrY. That state of things no longer exists. I Jew as their representative. During the debatsehuerpoenf
as exele 9 that in no sense will be said that Parliament this subject in another place a distinguished.
t , persons entertaining 'tier' p s'Yely---in the sense in which it is used—a Chris- the legal profession had urged in opposition toin member
bill,
Chris-
' Parliament ; that is to say there are modes of be- the inconvenience which would arise from a call of the
arleame ing peculiar opinions, admitted into house being made upon a Friday, upon which day the
to b, ut, those opinions being so erroneous as almcst Jewish Sabbath had commenced. He had, however,
edini:l3Pcsed to Christian belief. Now if we extend been assured by a Jewish friend that no inconvenience
ereeneolma to Parliament to persons bolding opinions so would arise in such a case. The prejudice which existed
eipie f2p. so grievous, so monstrous, I think the prin- against the Jews was the effect of their legal disabilities.
elusiv7T us entirely of looking to Parliament as an ex- Prejudices, if not fostered by legal enactments, surely
bee 0:, god of any Christian persuasion. But you have died away in the course of time. Every one could re-
tbesemY admitted to Parliament persons entertaining collect the prejudice which had existed against Scotch-
aezel rave opinions, but you have actually, although men, and how the poetry of Churchill and the prose of
hied ore not unchristianised Parliament, unchristian- Macklin were levelled at them. When John Earl of
liatee_ifer legislative bodies. You have by act of Par- Bute was First Minister the complaints were not levelled
nada:" admitted Jews into the Legislatures of the Ca- so much against his incapacity as at his country. A
nechLand of Jamaica, and why by so doing you would Scotchman was now upon the Treasury bench who had
thetalstianise those bodies any more than by admitting shown that he would not hesitate to do justice to the
tienieetto the Imperial Parliament you would unchris- Jews. As to the objection that the Jews were merely
oaris7 it cannot understand. The truth is, you un- sojourning in this country he believed that they could
haii_arse neither the one nor the other. Whether
the e,
.::!zen Jews be in the Assembly of Canada or in make out a longer term than many others. For in-
stances—those who came to this country after the Edict
the .osta ish House of Commons makes no difference to of Nantes, and those who, like his (the Earl of Albe-
this °I-letian character of the Assembly. But, after all, merle's) ancestors, came to this country with William
41,,.. exclusiveness, as your lordships are perfectly well
leokfee,nrests only on an accident. There is no law at this 111. Spain and Portugal were often referred to upon.
the questions of religious disabilities, and the condition
11"_le
.t to exclude the Jews from a seat in Parliament. of those countries was not to be envied by this. Upon
tie,
ai,e an oath, the whole of which they are not able to the other hand, in Holland, the most Protestant of coun-
t n oath which I must say is one of the most urine- tries, for 250 years the Jews have enjoyed a perfect
Una ;37 and useless oaths. But they are ready to take equality of
therights with those of other citizens. Every
atst
one knew material prosperity of Holland, and this
racter • 11
of abjuration in its substance and essential cha,-
surely ought to be an argument of some weight with a
tiothz_, a that they cannot take is an assertion that adds
enererg
giving
to the substance of the oath, but
their lordships would show by their vote that they were
nation of shopkeepers. In conclusion, he trusted that
that Z., givulg an additional asseveration at.the close to
instances uich they have already sworn. Now,this, in many not unmindful of the rights of their Jewish fellow-
ietne You have dispensed with. By many acts of Pr subjects.
The Earl of DARNLEY
house
neuvsotitnif againstd. this inlela-
reake" You have allowed Jews to take the oath of abiu-
eexpressly omitting this asseveration at its close.
upon religious motives. It had beene saati
l'eeh.at,Z the mode in which you have extended the power sure, wished to state to the' 1
tdh,
;but
tehri
it was
st soho:
is
inoei
galney;
hy4ri,u,
.eisston to your Colonial Legislature. It is the mode lature already numbered among its
tekellei h you have over and over again admitted Jews to
and Unitarians. That might be truein'e
attempted plainly to recognise the
qaanc4_ll oath in this country. This oath, in its sub- was now
of DUBLIN said he did not like::
tion,
._?.. el is
they will take, except this addi-
Quakers one time,•
anti-Christian spirit
would is not binding on their conscience, and I •
i n
Thette Leg i
Archbishopa l at u ra.
tees ask any one of your lordships if you would yen-ferceto enact it at this moment. I think I recollect on a
Roman Catholics another, Dissenters another, and then
patchwork legislation. : relieving
zeestef occasion that a noble earl opposite, who is fore-
Jews. He would prefer a comprehensive bill, to do 'at
it l° everY good work, said he took this as he found
bill, if it
a asthat he would not be ared to introduce such once what had to be done in the end. (Hear, hear.)
Before he sat down, he wished. to say one word with
cd ?sdition. If so, what becopmreeps of the objection to the
tale
t° enact
of the Jews ? If my noble friend would hesi- respect to an evil which mightaariseont ofe this 10'4(13
their
such an exclusion, surely he ought not to were proffered and passed_ as triumph
triumphf Christianity.,,
The proper way to consider it was as a of Chris-
else bee r such
dependent on an accident. It has
n said
tianity—(hear, hear) —and he asked their lordshis to
discio 0 that these persdns are in truth not belong-
n our nation, that the arethat they are a it was a measure in
support the bill, not because
in favour
vith net people, and therefore aliens,
' of the Jews, but because it was a measure support of
-,.,_
~ us, and ought to be excludedhavenothing inl common
Christianity. (Cheers.)
D'aelotpierny hernia that they are in from our legislature. Christianity.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said he saw no weight
tiny is and will continue suntil one. sense a. '
in the argument of the most rev. prelate who had last
fulfilled, I • o their mysterious Iles-sense an tin' adnift ; but that they ' ' addressed their lordships, that the words "on the true
are in any other ,
,te
any etnh mg but Englishmen andfaith of a Christian" did not act as a protection to Chris-
rd ens
other, I utterl en ?..... as. good Englishmen .
nominal Christians might, under that cover,
ens 0e Englishmen y- You impose on them the , tianity, since
11, Ann of Englishmen , and you'enter the legislature. Because the bar was not quite
co be upon lit ought to confer the :.
be thrown down altogether ? Both,
fe a notion which i • t one I hold, therefore, this effectual, was it to
undation 1.s 11 terly untenable and'therefore, as a member of their lordships' house, and in
mere
~
.. J right reverend f ' e without .
friend of I • a for- his capacity as a bishop of the Church, he should give
e,.tioscasion, made a forcible nine, on :il: 1 g the Jews from Parliament -observation, that in ex- his vote against the bill.
jured,tY " Christian electors you in effect inflict a The Bi hop of ST. DAVID'S agreed with the most
~_ and that it is not , that it is they who are in- rev. prelate (Whately), that it was to be regretted that
re to the from a love t t
privileges of c,_ . ohe Jew, but a the title of this bill was such a misnomer, and that it was
unctions, he argued, that ' not called a bill for the relief of electors. He had never