The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-11 00:00:00

SYRIA.

Mr. HUME wished to know when the papers re-
lative to Syria, which had been ordered a fortnight
ago, would be laid on the table ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not give a positive
answer to the question as the papers were not in his
office, but had no doubt they would he presented in the
course of a few days.
JEWS' DECLARATION BILL.

On the Order of the Day being read for the second
reading of this Bill,
Mr. HODGES presented a petition from the Hebrew
congregation of Edinburgh in favour of the Bill.
Mr. ANDREW WHITE presented a similar pe-
tition from Sunderland.

Mr. HAWES said that as his Hon. Friend the
Member for Exeter was not in the House, and had
given him no notice of his intention with regard to that
Bill, be hardly knew if in his absence he should be
justified in moving the second reading. He did not
know if any opposition was to be made to the Bill ; if
so be would not press it.
Mr. LAW HODGES said the Hon. Member for
Exeter had requested him to move the second reading,
although it would have been more agreeable tl hie
feelings to have left the matter in the hands
of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, whose name
was on the back of the Bill. In performance of the
promise then made to the Hon. Member for Exeter,
be woad now move the second reading of the Bill.
Tue House, he trusted, were already aware of the diffi-
culties under which persons professing the Jewish reli-
gion laboured with respect tocertain offices in the kingdom,
and it did not require any lengthened statement from
him to justify the motion that this Bill be read a second
time.—(Hear, hear.) When the Test and Corporation
Acts were repealed, a declaration was required from all
persons taking office that they would not use
any power which they might acquire to the prejudice
of the Established Church. The 9th of Geo. IV. re-
quired that all persons holding office under the Crown
should take the declaration within six months after
taking office, but in Corporations it was required that per-
sons holdingoffi e should make the declaration on entering
on the duties of their office, or within one month after-
wards. Now they all recollected a gentleman who had
filled the high office of Sheriff of London and
Middlesex, who had afterwards appeared at the bar of
the House with petitions from the City of London,
and who had discharged his duties a ith the highest
credit to himself. Ile had afterwards been elected an
Alderman of the City of London, but he had not been
able to avail himself of the confidence placed in him
by his fellow-citizens on account of certain words intro-
duced into the declaration required by the Act of Parlia-
ment. From that difficulty Quakers, Mormians, and
Separiitisti hail since been la lieved, and he sought by
this Bill to afford the same relief to per-
sons professing the Jewish religion--(Hear, Lear.)
The same gentleman had afterwards served the office
of Sheriff of the county of Kent, and probably it was
owing to that circumstance that his Hon. Friend
the Member for Exeter had reoc:tel him to
move the second reading of the Bill, as it
would be more satisfactory that some gentlemen
connected with that county should have an opportunity
of bearing testimony to the manner in which he had
discharged the duties of the Sheriff of the county of Kent.
He knew many High Sheriffs, and he must confess
that he never knew one who discharged his duties with
more credit to himself, or satisfaction to the county,
than Mr. Salomons. There was not a charity that
was brought tic der his notice, and for which his assist-
ance was required, to which he did not most cheerfully
laid liberally colitribute.—( Hear, hear.) There were
even instances of thtlt gentleman's contributing to the

PRICE sd.

building of churches in the county of Kent.—(Hear.)
The difficulties under which these parties laboured
were not from the provisions of any statute, but from
conscientious motives which they had imposed upon
themselves, from making the declaration required of
them. He had been told that in the Corporations of
Southampton and Birmingham, persons of the Jewish
persuasion were members of the Ginned, arid they had
become so because they were not required
by those Corporations to make the declaration ; it
show ed, therefore, that it was in the power of Corpo-
rations convict( ly to exclude persons from situations of
honour and trust. That was a state of things that
ought not to continue. It was an act of justice to
place these persons upon the same footing
of (-quality with the Quakers and Moravians.
He was unwilling to take up the time of the House
further, believing that they could not do better than to
pass this Bill, which would have the effect of joining
all persuasions in one bond of common interest. It was
upon these gronnds that he Leiged to propose the
second reading of the Bill.

The SPEAILEIt having put the question,
Sir R. INGLIS said that when last the Bill was
before the House, he had stated that it was a Bill to
enable Mr. Salomons to fill the office of Alderman of the
city of London, and the speech they had just heard ve-
rified that statement. -That speech had told them much
of the excellent qualities of Mr. Salomons, but as to
the general principle involved in the Bill of un-
christianizing England for the purpose of admit-
ting Mr. Salomans to become an Alderman
of London, the Honourable Member had said nothing.
However reluctant he was to refer to individual cha-
racter, yet when it was brought forward he could not
allow it to pass altogether unnoticed. The liberality
Of David Salomons, Esq., would prove nothing more than
this, that he was ntither a Jew nor a Christian. If he
were- a consistent Jew it was iinpossihle that he could
assist Christians in raising a temple to one whom he
must blaspheme and regard as an impostor. An
instance of the same kind of liberality happened in the
United States. A Presbyterian chapel was in pecu-
niary difficulties, and a Jew came forward to assist the
congrogat:on. It was impossible that a man could act
in this way if he sincerely believed in his own religion.
All the offices of this country, whether legislative, judi-
cial, or administrative, had hitherto been exercised by
persons professing Christianity, and for the sake of an
individual,—at east a particular individual, had
been referred to by the Hon. Member—it was sought to
expunge the declaration made by allsthose who discharged
public functions, that they hold the true faith of a
Christian. It was, in fact, an attempt to unchristianize
England for the sake of admitting a single individual
to a public office. Oa former occasions he (Sir R.
Inglis) had stated the preliminary objection which he
took to this measure—namely, that tile Jews were a
nation as well as a creed,—that they were a
nation absolutely, and, as he believed, till it pleased God
by his own act to alter their position, irrevocably sepa-
rated from the rest of the world. The time would come
—all who were sincere Christians must believe and desire
it—the time would come when every Jew must become
a Christian, but till that time should come, the Jew, whe-
ther horn in Germany, or Portugal, or England, derived
his character, not from the accidental sport of earth on
which he may be born, but from the parents
from whom he proceeded, and from the creed
by which he was distinguished. He was a
member, not of the nation of Germany, or
any other country, but of the ancient Israelitish
people. This was so distinctly and emphatically the
case, that there was hardly any paper written by a Jew
in which there was not some reference made to this
nation. It escaped them almost involuntarily. The
very first sentence of a remarkable letter, addressed by
Mr. Hart, of Montreal, to the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, when he filled the office
of Secretary of State for the Home Department was
couched in these terms, " As a member of an oppressed
nation I appeal to you." They would all bear in mind
that his late Right Hon. Friend Sir R. Grant, was fre-
quently addressed by the Jews of Germany and Portu-
gal for his zeal in the Jewish cause, but they never
thanked him for interfering on behalf of any individuals,
but always for that nation ; they were a distinct nation,
and the House were about to naturalize a people and a
creed when they only professed to confer civil and reli-
gious liberty upon part oilier Majesty's subjects. The 8.11
was a very simple looking Bill ; it consisted of only
some seven or eight lines, and at first sight appeared to
be a very innocent one, but he would call upon lion.
Members to pause before they took a first step in such
an unwise course.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He
• would ask whether the public would have been satisfied
had a Jew been the presiding Magistrate, when
a person named Carlyle was charged with printing or
exhibiting a blasphemous print ? That person was un-
doubtedly..guilty of blasphemy in the eyes,of the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies—nay, in
the eyes of every Hoe. Member in the House.
—(Hear, hear.) Would the public have been
satisfied, or was it right for the House to put any owe
in such a false position as to call upon him to pronounce
judgment in a case where conscientiously he could
not believe any blasphemy had been committed ?
Law and legislation were formed of extreme cases, and
be knew the danger of beginning. There were many
Hon. Members in the House (and he spoke without
any personal disrespect) who had been admitted little
by little, and whose admission be had always regarded
as one of the greatest evils which the country had
ever sustained.—(lronical cheers.) The present was a
preliminary step to the admission of Jews, and, as the
Honourable Member for Kilkenny had said, of
Panee3, Mahommedans, and Brahmins) because,

in answer to him (Sir R. Inglis) tie Honourable
Member had said that he saw no objection to their
admission, provided they discharged their duty as citi-
zens. That he thought a most mischievous doctrine,
and he maintained that in the case of a State like Eng-
land, Christianity was an integral part of the lsw of
the country. It appeared to him that it they delibe-
rately expunged from their statute book the words, " I
do this upon the true faith of a Christian," it would be
preparing the way for expunging these words in all cases
as they arose, according as the increasing liberality
of Honourable Members on that or the other

side of the House prompted them. The House
was not pdrhapi aware that many" members of
the Jewish persuasion were opposed to the Bill
—the• Jewish community resident in that country were
certainly not unanimous upon the subject. The Hon.
Member for Lambeth would recollect that, five or six
years ago, he had presented a petition from Ebenezer
Dermal, praying that a similar Bill, then in
progress, might not be passed. (Hear, hear.)
He had received a communication from a Jew residing
in Cambridge. That individual addressed him (Sir
R. Inglis) privately by letter ; and also in a public
pamphlet. The substance of both were the same. In
the pamphlet, which he held in his hand, and which
was written in . answer to one on the emancipa-
tion, the writer addresses his Jewish brother
as follows :—" Brother," said he, •" you arc mis-
taken greatly—you are no Englishman." And again
addressing the Jew claiming the privileges of an Eng-
lishman, the writer said, " Though you r ere born in
England, you arc no more than a foreigner—you have
no home in this land, or in any other country—arc you
not a Jew ? If so, you muse -describe yourself as an
English Jcw, belonging to Jerusalem, and a free-
man of the land of Canaan." It was a Rabbi,
residing in Cambridge who wrote thus. That
Rabbi stated distinctly that a man could not be
a Jew and an Englishman at the same time.—(Laugh-
ter.) He (Sir R. Inglis) had quoted a Jew in sup-
port of his views on the present question, anti Hon.
Gentlemen did not contradict him (Sir R. Inglis) but
they were attempting to contradict that Jew.—
( Hear.) The Jews were not like the French Pro-
testants, who came over here to England, arid in one or
two generations became absorbed in the great mass of
the English people, so that one could scarcely dis-
tinguish, in the present mass of English society, the
descendants of the French Protestants. So also with
the Dutch who came over with King William,
and the:Normans who came over with the Conqueror
—they were all soon amalgamated in the general mass
of the English people. That was not the case with
the Jews. The object of the present Bill was to introduce
into the Corporations, and next iiito the Legislature of
England, men who of a ecessity and beyond the powers of
all human law, were unable to become the citizens
of a country in which they might sojourn.
If it was a claim of justice he would not Dives°
t
it was not—it was a claim of expediency. What-
ever was done in the Legislature
the true faith of Christians, and by s
was doneeeokn-
ing to introduce a few individuals according thet
ion.
'nese Jews who came into England knew whatdpre-
sent all they were preparing to expunge l
thatcc
thelara
law
of England was. We did not invite them. They came
for their own objects. Were they degraded or despised
here ? Had they not complete and absolute protection
of all social and personal rights unconecetueseltifywituhs
power? Two centuries ago there was not a single
Jew in England. They had gradually come in since
that pariod, and there was nothing to j
in altering on their account our social sys em. Out of
two arguments must follow. Were they prepared by
their legislation that night to declare that the al.
ternative of their own religion should follow ?
The Jews declared Him whom they all honoured
nameand
adored,alone
they to be
hopeda r impostor—thats,,h,ationwa }sl a e
,oceredecei.
When the Jew came to the table of that House, he
must state that as solemnly as any man could
state it. Thank God it was
theproposedasnotHyoeuts,,butLe
that that measure should pass

arned ti'tam teat if they passed that initiatory inea-
-ilwAtlier would soon follow after; and that
reafter.:they would soon have to legisiate for the
ihriaianity el England.
Mr. CUMMING BRUCE seconded the motion.
Several Members rose simultaneously to address the
House and great confusion ensued, until the Speaker,
having put the amendment, called upon Lord John
Russell.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad the question was
now reduced to one between religious liberty on the
one hand and intolerance on the other. The
Right Honourable Gentleman stated in several parts
of his speech, that we must consider our religion true,
and the Jewish religion false, and that, therefore, the
Jews are incapable of holding municipal offices.
Sir, I do not think that those who opposed
the extension of civil rights to Dissenters
and Roman Catholics were willing to put their
opposition on that ground. They were always anxious
to put the question upon someissee
atlrigeuSntwintet
was concerned.— 'Their (Cheers.)
was that those who dissent from the Church bad not tb•
same interest in the State, and would not be so stead-
fast in thi it allegiance as those who here members of
the Church which was connected with, and, as it were,
a part of, the State.—(Hear, hear.) That argument
had been overruled by the Parliament, and Dissenters
were admitted to equal civil rights with their fellow-
subjects of the Established Church.—( Hear, hear.)
In the case of Roman Catholics, those who were op-
scd to their claims took every care to avoid saying
that they did so, because the Roman Catholic religion
was false and ours true. They said that the Roman
Catholics had another eilegiauce, namely, to the Pope
of Rome, and that, the Statc could not rd upon
their acting in Parliament and in civil offices,
with a faithful regard to the interests of the State and
the rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects. But
that argument also has been, I am glad to say, over-
ruled by Parliament, and Roman Catholics as well as
Dissenters are placed upon an equal footing as to civil
rights with Protestants. Now, Sir, when we come to
this case of the Jews, there is nothing to meet it but
the bare naked principle of intolerance—(Cheers)—
because they differ from us in religion.—(Renensed
cheers.) Sir, the principle which I would prefer is
directly opposed to that.—(Cheers.) I. think that, with
respect to civil offices, where we find persons fitted to
fill their, difference of religion is no ground for exclusion.
But with respect to the Church, it is another matter.
We cannot admit persons to hold offices in the Church
or connected with the Church, who hold opi-
nions different from those of the Church. But
in respect to civil offices, we have no reason
to inquire is
religious opinions of any candidate, pro-
vided he s qualified to discharge the duties—(Great
cheering)—add tbs.!: he can bc relied upon as respects
the Sovereign and Parliament for allegiance and obedi-
ence to the laws and fidelity to his fellow-citizens.—
(Chee(s.) is not this the case with respect to Baron
Rothschild, Sir Moses Montefiore, Mr. Salmons, and
other men whose families have long been established in
this country, and who are known to those who adminis-
ter the affairs of the country as persons as deeply in-
terested in the welfare, and honour, and liberties of
this country es any other subject of her Majesty ?
(Renewed cheers.) Could you say that such men are
nut to be relied on as members of the Common Council
of the City of London 2—(Hear, hear.) Really, Sir,
I do not understand the principle on which this opposi-
.

tion is founded.—(Cheers.) I have heard
with sur-
prise that a Jewish gentleman is accused of insincerity.
because he gave a contribution to the building of a
Christian church. Sir, I do not think that it is any
reproach to that gentleman, that when he saw a large
number of Christians in his neighbourhood unpro-
vided with the means of religious worship and instruc-
tion, he came forward to supply those means that they
might be made good Christians, instead of becoming
pagans. Is there anything extraordinary in this'?—

I think it exhibits the (sreatest wisdom and prudence,
as well as liberality.—('Cheers.) My Hon. Friend ar-
gued that it was a principle of the Constitution of
this country, and I think he added of the colonies also,
that what he called the Christian character should be
preserved ; and that, therefore, the Jews should be ex-
cluded. Now, with regard to the colonies, I can inform
my
Lien. • Friend of one, at least, which is an exception.
--(Cheers.) In the colony of Jamaica Jews are ad-
mitted to an equality of privileges with their fellow-
subjects.—(Loud cheers.) The Assembly of the Co-
lony, with the assent of the Governor, has decided
that Jews Ph-ill be admitted to all offices, and I can see
nothing to call for the intervention of the Crown to
prevent that decision from being carried into effect.--s
(Cheers.) My Hon. Friend goes on to say that th:,s is
a religious question, and that the prophecies declared
that the Jews were to be a separate nation ; and that
by the incorporation of them we were acting against the
sacred interpretation of Scripture. Now that is not
a point for the consideration of the House.--(Cheers.)
If it were necessary to enter into a discussion on that
subject here, 1 should say that the fulfilment of tie
prophecies was perfectly compatible with the persons of
that nation holding corporation offices. In my opinion,
Sir, the D.vine, power and the Divine institutions
require no assistance from us. My Hon. Friend
does not ree the absurdity of his arg'ument, which ren-
ders it perfectly unavailable forhis purposes.—(Cheero)
II 1 mistake not, in 1835 we passed an Act, almost 'un-
ani!nousiy, authorising Jews to hold the office of Sheriff
of London and Middlesex. Now, it a Jew being an
Aide: man is against the prophecies, the same argument
applies to the Sheriff of London and Middlesex.—
( Loud cheers.) Therefore these consequences have
already taken place, and the force of the lion. Gentle-
man's argument, as I take it, is that Jews must be cut oil
from office rt;tegether : for if you once admit them to
any office there is an end of his argument.—(Cheers.)
They now hold many offices, and in places in which there
arc Ito corporations the Act of Parliament does not
require any declaration ; and there Jews exercise the
office of trustees of towns, of Commissioners of Paving,
Lighting, and Police. It so happens, that in the town
of I)LN-or:port a Jew held the office of Trustee of the
tostn for Paving, Lighting, and Police, and it was only
when the town was incorporated that he was depriaed
of his office. So that at the present moment a Jew in
town not incorporated may exercise offices per-
fectly analogous to tl e office of Town Councillor. My
Hon. Friend cannot carry his principles into effect, be.

cause the Jews may hold many offices now.—(Cheers.)
Now with respect to the particular frame of the Act
we are now considering. When the repeal of the Test
and Corporation Acts was under consideration before
this House a declaration was proposed by the Right
Eon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth. That
declaration did not contain the words "on the true
faith of a Christiar," but they were inserted in the

, .
House of Lords, and it was only in consequence of
wishing that so important a measure should not be de
la} cd, thA I did not raise an objection to those words?
I believe if I had raised that objection that House
would not have agreed with the House of Lords in
making a new exclusion of the Jews. However, I de-
clared at once that I wished the Bill to be pressed, and
those amendments were agreed to ; but what is the
practical and I believe the legal effect of those words.
They do not altogether exclude Jewri from corporations.
The corporations may, if they please, require the (lc-
claration to be taken upon the assumption of office,
but if they do not. think fit to eolorce the put-
ting of the declaration the Jew may hold the office,
and would afterwards be covered by the Indemnity Act
for so acting. In the case of the City of London, the
declaration was put in the first instance, and the Judges
decided that the Aldermen had acted legally inputting
hathtehtlea::kr.:;ihat I
shall Support then-_
declaration ; but I do not believe there is any rest•
son for obliging Town Councillors to put that declara-
tion before the office is taken. This is certain, that
there has been mote than one instance of a Jew holding
office in corporations. There' is an instance in which
a Jew held office in Southampton, and I ens informed
there is another instance in the town of Birming-
ham. Teerelore what is now
to introduce a thoroughly new
npeeetiee, but
to allow that which has been done i Southampton
yeorporations anal
lion. Friend is
and Birmingham to be done inofatimr
boroughs. The last argument
m thatay thisha concession
Jews
a s kmayi
tgbtone
ftihsotahawmvreceraydiyesgdetatahoi
tnifurther,snukt hrnifil.tstips concession,
rtnsileutdi
aaebomtjaewyeicoiol
tint:h..
and every other privilege
5f uo
rf
tßh er
British sll concessions,
subjects ;buta° dosfetehki s t I
smallests bvsit-atiOt:
I do not know w
they respect
ma}
;011—sethcaitvilwith regard to civil privilegeFelti
itft:ssoklitr::lolrfliee those persons who may think
carry. the• principle
(Ttenieneou
they
D and no other, butwhen I
to its full e
beers.) I iciaeifiolitthioen
tent—. - qualification
swojahnhniall,tlimlasa:tasn:kiiri;teg(fi:l,fi,itt,:rehnbf
deuctaalnirtitl:'hsiviacptivil,
but
tnself respect b
yt o
sayingre l religions
i the
act s I are possessed, I
itthh the Church Establish-
ill rantdi
officesclaitn etohnehneactedWvii
proper
meat, I wish again to guard
the possession of all other
eujoyed by British subjects
case is entirely (Efferent ;
it is asked for, I wthi.tiln,l, regard
wprievnileevgeet to
. .
you should' carry out the' prin-
cif 1: to its full extent, and I am sure I shall
give my hearty support not only to this Bill but to
every measure that is founded on a similar principle.—
(The Noble Lord resumed his scat amidst loud cheers.).
Mr. E WART said if he had rose somewhat prattle-
tutely that evening the House must attribute it to the
imp,,tleilte he had ;almost said the indignation, with
"hie." hehad ii, ard some of the statements of the Hon.
Baronet opposite. Ile (Mr. Ewart) deprecated that
House being rna:!e tie theatre for theological discussion.
The non. Baronet had introduced theology instead of
reason. Tae claim dale Jews was founded upon the COM-
mon rieet deli men to be admitted to equal rights with
their I,llow-cit:zens. The Hon. Baronet had said that the
Jews bad proclaimed themselves a separate people.
What, he would ask, would induce them to persevere
more in that than drawing the line of demarcation
which the Hoe. Gentlemen wished to be kept up. The
argument of the Hon. Baronet with respect to the
Vansitt ets and the Keppels did not apply to the pre-
sent case.—(Cties of " Divide, divide.") It was not

-