The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

PRICE OF SUGAR.

The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed
from the returns made in the week ending December 14
1847, is 225. Phd. per cwt.

THE SEE OF HEREFORD.—We understand that
yesterday the first formal step was taken, in the proper
Court, at Doctors' Commons, to bring to a legal test the
orthodoxy or otherwise of Dr. Hampden.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Dec. 16.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—As I understand that my
Honourable Friend the Member for the University of
Oxford means to oppose the motion for the House
resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House
to consider the disabilities at present affecting her Ma-
jesty's Jewish subjects, I feel myself compelled, before
making that motion, to state to the House the general
grounds on which I intend to rest it. I am, at the same
time, given to understand by my Hon. Friend, that if a
majority of the House should agree to go into Committee
on the subject, he does not mean to carry his opposition
to the point of refusing to consent to the Committee
adopting the resolution which is necessary to the intro-
duction of a Bill. That being the case, it will be as
convenient to the House to take the discussion at this
stage as to reserve it, as was done on former
occasions, till the House had resolved itself into Com-
mittee. In bringing forward this subject I feel that I
cannot avail myself of many of the topics which those who
formerly proposed the removal of disabilities on account of
religious tenets were able to appeal to for the purpose of
inducing this House to comply with their propositions.
I cannot say—as I did in proposing the repeal of the
Test and Corporation Acts—" Here aro some three
millions of her Majesty's subjects, engaged in all the
pursuits of industry in your cities and towns, forming a
most important portion of the community, and distin-
guished for their loyalty to the House of Hanover, un-
deviatingly maintained ever since that illustrioes family
was seated on the throne of these realms." I cannot,
like the great orator who introduced the question of
Catholic disabilities, refer to the state of a neighbour
ing country as a potent motive to induce the House to
remove the cause of discontent and dissatisfaction. I
cannot speak, as he did, of the indignation felt by a whole
people at the deprivation of their rights; nor can I point
to the dangers which would menace the peace and welfare
of the country from refusing the claim to relief. I can
employ none of these arguments in favour of my pro-
position. I feel that this is a question which does not
affect a very large portion of the people of this country,
and does not involve in its accei tance or rejection the
monientous consequences which were justly apprehended
on former occasions. lam prepared to argue this ques-
tion as one of principle, not of political expediency—as
a question involving, indeed, the political liberties of the
country, but involving them only as they concern 30,000
or 40,000 people, members of a community which is not
disposed, nor indeed able, if it were disposed, to excite
clamour and tumult, to agitate the country by means of
public meetings, or to produce social convulsion, if its
demands should not be conceded. But, although I am
unable to appeal to the topics to which I have referred,
I must, nevertheless, take the liberty of informing the
House that there may be danger, not affecting the
public tranquillity, indeed, but affecting the character
and dignity of the Legislature, if the claims of our
Jewish fellow•subjects continue longer to be re-
fused. It may then be said that the Legislature is un-
willing to concede the claim of religious liberty, that
Parliament has never adopted those just principles of
equality which ought to be applied to all the subjects of
her Majesty; but that when the question regarded vast
bodies of men, important from their numbers and wealth,
or threatening from their dissatisfaction and discontent,
the Legislature yielded a reluctant assent to their claims
for the sake of immediate peace; and that when an op-
portunity presented itself of doing an act of justice with-
out any danger, and without inconvenience to public
interests, the Parliament acted on the principle of reli-
gious persecution, and was determined to show the
world that it was not from any willingness to adopt en-
larged and liberal principles as the rule of its conduct
that it had on former occasions yielded to the petitions
of its fellow-subjects.—(Cheers.) I venture to say, that
if such an opinion as that should become prevalent, it roust
have a very injurious effect on the character of this House.
There is, as I have before said, but little risk of danger to
the public peace involved in the rejection or adop
tion of my proposition. One danger was pointed out as
likely to arise from its adoption, many years ago, by my
Hon. Friend who intends to oppose me on the present
occasion, but he is not in a position to repeat his warn-
ing now. In 1830 my lion. Friend took upon himself
the character of a prophet, and said, " You may depend
upon it that if you admit the Jews to civil offices and
seats in Parliament, it will follow that in less than seven
years you will have a reform of Parliament."—(Hear,
and laughter.) But, without the admission of Jews to
Parliament, as the precursor of the so much dreaded
event, within two years of the time when my Hon. Friend
used those words I have referred to the reform of Par-
liament was effected.---(Hear.) Therefore, there is, at
least, one danger which it will be unnecessary to take
into consideration in discussing this question.—(Hear.)
I place the question upon this simple, but, I think,
solid ground—that every Englishman is entitled to the
honours and advantages which the British constitution
gives him.—(Cheers.) I state further, that religious
opinion of itself ought to be no disqualification for the
enjoyment of those rights--(Renewed cheers.) I found
myself on a declaration in one of the statutes of the law
of England—" It is the birthright of the people to en-
joy the privileges common to all." I found myself on a
declaration made in the House of Lords during the dis-
Bill :—" The Lords think
Y
c thatus s i
an
sEonnotihs
he
mCa Conformity
fcoarnniniot be reduced to a more un-
happy condition than to be put by law under an incapa-
city of serving his prince and country ; and therefore
nothing but a crime of the most detestable nature
ought to put him under such a disability." I say,
then, that on this ground, unless something shall be
proved to disqualify Jews, they stand in the position
of persons bora in this country, bearing all the burdens
them,country in any capacity which they
and ready to serve their
prince which
andar are imposedtheir on
may be called upon, and that, therefore, they are en-
titled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by their
fellow- subjects.—(Cheers.) I state this with confidence,
and I will not attempt to ask your favour by anything
which I might urge in behalf of the merits of the Jews.
I think this is not a matter of favour towards the Jews,
but that, unless some strong ground of disqualification
be proved against them, it is a matter of right.—
(Cheers.) I, therefore, will not urge that even those
who have opposed the claims of the Jews have admitted
their peaceable conduct and their moral character as
subjects—that they are governed by that moral law which
is adopted by and is binding on us—that there is among
them many persons distinguished for eminent talents—
that in the offices to which they have been admitted they
have shown themselves as capable of discharging their
duty as any of their competitors ; and that in various
other capacities, as well as in the pursuit of science and
art, they have shown themselves competent, by their in-
telligence, to undertake the duties of any position to
which an Englishman may aspire.—(Cheers.) I will not
urge these circumstances, because, by doing so, I might
seem to make this a ratter of favour and indulgence.
No ! I ssk the Legislature to remove the disabilities
under which the Jews labour, not on account of any
peculiar merits belonging to her Majesty's Jewish sub-
jects, but because, being subject to the burdens of the
State, being born in this country, being compelled to
fulfil all those duties which the State imposes on them, I
maintain that they have a just claim to be admitted
to its honours and rewards.—(Cheers.) I come, then,
without pressing any peculiar merits appertaining to
the Jews, to consider the objections which are urged
in bar of the recognition of the rights which I claim for
them. In the front of those objections this is put—that
it is proposed to un-Christianize the country—that it is
proposed to take away the Christian character of the
country by admitting not only Jews, but every kind of
infidel intorarliament and the offices of State.—(Hear,
hear.) The lion. Member by that cheer seems to ad-
mit that I am correctly stating, the objections which are
urged to tho measure lam advocating. I will not say,
in answer to such objections that the religion of man is a
thing apart from the business of man.—(Hear, hear.)
I certainly will not say otherwise than that I thmk. that
in our private concerns—in our daily occupations—in all
those trades and professions which men exercise, religion
should have influence and control. Still more, therefore,
when I am speaking of the Legislature which has to dispose
of all the various interests of the country, should I be
disposed to say that religion ought to influence and con-
trol its decisions.—(Hear, hear.) I do not, therefore,
argue this question on the ground that civil offices and
seats
in Parliament are totally separate and apart from
religion; but what I do contend for is, that it is entirely
a mistake to suppose that by the words of an Act
of Parliament, by the postcript of an oath or the fag end
of a declaration, you can insure religious motives and
religious obligations.—(Cheers.) I believe, and I think
I can prove, that by those declarations you do not obtain
the security which you pretend to obtain—that
you do by these means shut out men who are
conscientious and deserving—men who would exe-
cute the duties of civil offices, and exercise the
functions of legislators with due regard to religious obli-
gations—and that you do not shut out these whom you
profess yourselves afraid of admitting, I mean, that class
of persons who, havingthrown off altogether the obliga-
tions of religion, do not conceive themselves bound to
fulfil any of it duties.—(Cheers.) I say that it must
depend upon the general opinion of the country—it must
depend on the state of things therein existing, it must de-
pend on the state of edueation—it must depend on the
religion existing in the country, whether or not you
hove a Christian Parliament. Let me, for the sake of
illustration, refer to two very different times.
tin the
reign of James I. nod Char!es . c 13n
te,. in this country. Men were divided into several
s but nothing was more remarkable than the
deep religious fervour which prevailed, sometimes

burning more Sercely in one sect, sometimes in
another, but all believed themselves bound by
Christian obligations. Imagine that yon have
before you the assembly in which Falkland,
Hollis, and Vane met—men differing from each other
in religious views, but all sincerely religious, and pro-
fessing the doctrines of Christianity ;—would the Chris-
tian faith have been better secured in that Parliament
if no man had been permitted to enter it without binding
his conduct by a declaration "on the true faith of a
Christian?"—(Cheers.) Would it have added in the
slightest degree to the security of Parliament, and
would you have believed more strongly than you do
now that those wen were Christians, because they had
stated the fact at the end of a declaration?

Let us take another period and another coun-
try. Let us imagine a Parliament assembled in
France towards the end of the last century, at a
time when many among the aristocracy were the
disciples of Voltaire, and among the democracy of
Rousseau—let us suppose Mirabeau, Condorcet, Robes-
pierre, and other men of that description, returned to
that assembly; can you believe that any secatity would
have been obtained by compelling every one of them to
pledge himself to observe the oath which he took "on
the true faith of a Christion ?"—(Cheers ) I will refer
to another illustration, which our own country furnishes
me with. The complaint against the Jews is, that they
are revilers of Christianity—that they make a mockery
of the Christian religion—that they hold up Christ as
an impostor; yet was there ever a man who more
sneered at Christianity—was there any Jew of the last
century who used such language with the view of de-
preciating the doctrines of Christianity and destroying
the belief in it in the minds of the people, as Gibbon?
—(Cheers.) Yet Gibbon took your declaration.—(Loud
cheers.) Ile came to the table and swore "on the true
faith of a Christian."—(Cheers and laughter.) He held
office under George lll.—he sat on the Treasury bench,
under a Government which was more of a High Church
Government—which was more disposed to raise the cry
of " Church and King," than perhaps any Government
which ever existed during the reign of that monarch.—
(Loud cheers.) Take the case of Mr. Ilurne.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not, it is true, have a seat in Parliament,
but he held an office under Government, and I believe
that he held office for a short time at the Court of Paris.
The Eight Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford must well know that there was no
man in the last century who wrote essays so much
calculated to undermine religion as Mr. Hume; and
yet, if he had been returned to Parliament, and had to
make the deelaration " on the true faith of a Christian,"
he would have taken the oath with a smile or a sigh, as
the case might be, but he would have taken it, and the
cobwoh would have been swept away. I hold that it
is not by a declaration of this kind that you can ob-
tain security. You say that the Legislature ought to be
a Christian Legislature; that the Parliament ought to
he a Christian Parliament; but do you not say that the
nation is a Chr:etian nation. and that the British people
are a Christian people? Why, in the same sense in
which jou say that the nation is a Christian nation,
though there may he 30,000 Jews among them, you
might say that the Parliament was a Christian Parlia-
ment, although among the 656 Members of the House
of Commons there might be six persons professing the
Jewish religion. I therefore wish that this ground of
argument were not taken by those whose object it is to
prevent the Jews entering into Parliament, because the
general character of the Parliament must depend now,
as in termer times, on the sentiments of the people at
large, and on the sentiments of those who represent
them; end it is not by inserting seven words in an Act
of Parliament—it is not by a mechanical contrivance
of this Ethel--that you can secure religious obligation.
But I have heard it said that, although there might be
such instances as those of Mr. Gibbon—instances of
persons sitting in this House and subjecting themselves
to the required declaration, yet, that this Parliament has
been from time immemorial a Christian Parliament, that
Christianity is acknowledged to be part and parcel of
the law of the land, and that it would be a portentous
innovation if we were to quit that safe and secure ground
of obligation. It appears to me that great mistakes are
made by those who thus regard the history of this
country. In the early history of this country the Jews
were persecuted in every mode and by every contrivance
which cruelty could suggest. At one time they were
forced to surrender all their property, at another time
they were sent to prison, at another time they were
tortured, and at another time they were banished
the realm by a general Act of the Legislature.—(Hear,
hear.) Such was the treatment of the Jews. But, with
respect to the theory under which this law was adopted,
that theory was, not that the Legislature should be
open to all classes of Christians, but that every
member of it should belong to the church which was
then universal, the Roman Catholic Church. It is stated
by Bracton that the statute De Hwretico Comburendo
was supposed to be as ancient as the common law itself.
Every heretic was committed to the flames at once; and
I will read to you the words of an ancient author
(Lyndewode) to show what sort of a person a heretic
was :—" Heereticus est qui dubitat de fide Catholica,
et qui negligit servare ea gum llornana ecclesia statuit
se servare decreverat." He thought that every man
was a heretic who did not adhere to the Roman Catholic
church, or who departed from it in any particular.
Such was the common law of this country, which was
nut framed in favour of Christianity, but for the protec-
tion of what was then the established church of the
realm. But in the course of time the Reformation came;
various sects arose ; the Reformation was triumphant,
and the Church of England became a Protestant church.
But heretics still continued to be punished, and in the
reign of Elizabeth, I believe, persons were sent to
the flames on account of heresy. But at another
time there arose a new distinction—a distinc-
tion founded, not upon religious belief, but
very much upon political differences. The Roman
Catholics of that day, thinking that they had no chance
of supremacy under Elizabeth or James 1., entered into
repeated conspiracies with a view to change the succes-
sion of these realms. I am asking your attention on
this point, because it was at that time that the words
were introduced "on the true faith of a Christian." In
the time of Elizabeth it was necessary that the oath of
allegiance should be taken on the four Evangelists, which
the Jews, a despised and neglected race, could not take.
But I will beg to read to you the preamble of an Act
which is the first which I can discover in which the
words "on the true faith of a Christian" were intro-
duced, the Act 3 James 1., c. 4, entitled " An Act for
the better Discovering and Repressing of Popish Recu-
sants." The preamble states:—
" Forasmuch as it is found by daily experience that
many of his Majesty's subjects that adhere in their
hearts to the Popish religion, by the infection drawn
from thence and by the wicked and devilish counsel
of Jesuits, Seminaries, and other like persons, danger-
ous to the Church and State, are so far perverted in
the point of their loyalties and due 'allegiance unto
the King's Majesty and the Crown of England, as they
are ready to entertain and execute any treasonable
conspiracies and practices, as evidently appears by that
more than barbarous and horrible attempt to have
blown up with gunpowder the King, Queen, Prince,
Lords, and Commons, in the House of Parliament as-
sembled, tending to the utter subversion of the whole
state, lately undertaken by the instigation of Jesuits
and Seminaries, and in advancement of their religion,
by their scholars taught and instructed by them to
that purpose, which attempt by the only goodness of
Almighty God was discovered and defeated."
And section 15 prescribes the oath of obedience :
" I swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any
declaration or sentence of excommunication or depriva-
tion made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the
Pope or his successors, or by any authority derived
or pretended to be derived from from him or his see,
against the said King, his heirs, or successors, or any
absolution of the said subjects from their obedience,
I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, his
heirs, and successors, and him and them will defend to
the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and
attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or
their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or
colour of any such sentence or declaration, or other-
wise, and will do my best to disclose and make known
unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons
and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know or hear
of to be against him or any of thew. And Ido further
swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and ab-
jure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and
position that princes which be excommunicated or de-
prived by the Pope miy be deposed or murdered by
their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And Ido be-
lieve, and in my conscience am resolved, that neither
the Pope nor any other person whatsoever bath power
to absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I
acknowledge, by good and full authority, to be lawfully
ministered unto me, and do renounce all pardons and
dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I
do plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and swear, ac-
cording to these express words by me spoken, and ac-
cording to the plain and common sense and understand-
ing of the same words, without an equivocation, or men-
tal evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever, and I do
make this recognition and acknowledgment heartily,
willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian."
In the seventh year of James I. another Act was passed,
by which Members of Parliament were required to take
the oath of allegiance according to the oath in 3 Jac. 1.,
c. 4, a. 15, that is " upon the true faith of a Christian."
Now this shows clearly what the intention of Parlia-
ment was in inserting that declaration, "on the true
faith of a Christian." It was intended to meet the
cases of those Roman Catholics who bore true alle-
giance to the Crown of this realm, and to separate them
trom those who declared that their prince might law-
fully be murdered. Therefore these words, "on the
true faith of a Christian," were intended not to exclude
either Jews or infidels, hut to give a greater sanction to
the oath which the Roman Catholic Christian took
when he declared himself a faithful and true servant of
the Crown. Now, I think I can contend that the his-
tory of this declaration shows that it was intended only
to give a security that those who were Roman Catho-
lics, and who were admitted to office and to Parliament,
were not men who had swerved from their allegiance ;
and that, being Christians, they were asked to
make the declaration "on the true faith of a
Christian." I have stated this for the purpose
of showing that, so far as the Roman Catholics
' were concerned, the introduction of these word', so far
as any exclusion or disqualification was in view, was
founded upon what were supposed to be political dif-
ferences. In the reign of Charles 11. the saute reasons
prevailed. James 11., and those who were with him,
wished to overturn the laws of the country, and there-
fore political reasons, and not others, led to the continued
obligation of the same form of oath. But there was
another class who were likewise excluded from Parlia-
reent—l mean the Protestant Dissenters. Were they
excluded on the ground that they differed in religious
belief ? By no means. The
,eround of their exclusion
was must ahiy stated by 13ishup bliei lock, then a yolln,
man, in a pamphlet which he wrote in defence of th;
Test and Corporation Acts. He declared that every
Member of Parliament ought to be well affected to the

Established Church of the realm, and that it was not
enough for him to be well affected to the civil institutions
of the country, hut that he must also be a friend
to the Church as established by law. This was
the ground on which the religious distinction
was based. It was based on the ground that reli-
gious opinion was a reason for disqualfica-
tion. In earlier times, a difference in religious opinion
led to the stake, and, if you take that ground as a suffi-
cient reason against the admission of Jews into the
Legislature, why do you not resort to that penalty
which was then inflicted—namely, capital punishment?
[So we understood the Noble Lord to say, but, as he
was but indistinctly heard in this part of his speech, we
cannot vouch for the accuracy of this sentence of the
report.] But, when the ground of a political disquali-
fication was taken as a reason for exclusion from Parlia-
ment or office, it was either on the score of the Roman
Catholics failing in their allegiance to the king, or, in
the case of the Dissenters, that they were so averse to
the ecclesiastical constitution of these realms, that the
Church could not he secure unless they were excluded
from office. But, whatever these reasons might be, in
the years 1828 and 1829, we removed all those dis-
abilities. Parliament declared, in its wisdom, that
the Roman Catholics should no longer be sub-
jected to the imputation to which they had been
exposed, that of infidelity to their Sovereign, and
that they were as well qualified as any other
persons to hold office, with the exception of some offices
connected with the ecclesiastical constitution of the king-
dom. They declared, likewise, that the Protestant Dis-
senters should not be subject to the disqualifications
which excluded from corporations and from office—for
they were before eligible to Parliament—because dis-
affection to the Church Establishment was no sufficient
ground for depriving them of the honours and rewards
which were the right of every subject of these realms.—
(Hear, hear.) I submit, then, to the House, that what
is called the Christian character of our constitution, if it
ever had any existence at all, has only existed from the
years 1828 and 1829. Previous to the first of those
years your constitution excluded certain persons from
Parliament, but it was on the ground of their political
and civil disability to perform the dutiesof good sub-
jects and citizens. With respect to the words in the
oath of abjuration, I should say that they were intro-
duced, not for the purpose of exclusion, but for the
purpose of giving a superior sanction to that
declaration. If it had been intended to exclude the
Jews from Parliament on the ground that their
erroneous faith ought to deprive them of the character
of British subjects, there would have been introduced
into that oath some declaration like that against the
doctrine of transubstantiation, or a declaration of a
belief in the New Testament, or some such declaration.
You admit that there are no direct words of exclusion,
but you leave exclusion to be inferred. It is said, again,
that Christianity it, part and parcel of the law of the
land. I have always understood the meaning of that
statement to be, as I have heard it interpreted by several
learned persons, that any writings reviling and blas-
pheming the Christian religion, the Scriptures being
part of the law of the land, are illegal, and that those
who so revile and blaspheme may be punished. But I
never understood it to mean anything beyond that, and
I think it would be quite a new interpretation of that
doctrine to assert that, because Christianity is a part of
the law of the land, every person is required, on taking
the oath of office, to make that declaration " on the
true faith of a Christian." I think now, therefore, I have
established that the law was intended and professed to
exclude, not persons of the Jewish persuasion, but per-
sons whom it was deemed advisable to keep out of
Parliament on account of political distinctions. I have
showu to you that, as the law is at present., there is
no security whatever for preventing an infidel from
sitting in Parliament. That declaration which the
scruples of the Jew induce him to refuse is taken at
once by the man who believes nothing.—(Hear, hear.)
If that be the case, let us see further whether there is a
any reason, not founded on our constitution, not founded
on the laws of the country, which should make you con-
tinue to exclude the Jews from Parliament and office.
One ground which has been stated for their exclusion is,
that the Jews are a separate nation. But the Jews
themselves utterly deny this allegation. They say that
they are not attached to any foreign state, and that as
the Jews in France are French subjects, those in Eng-
land are English subjects; and that they are ready to do
their duty as all good subjects should do, either in time
of war or otherwise. Again, I say, if they are aliens, to
what country do they belong? An alien is one who has
another king and another country to whom his alle
giance is owing, and therefore he cannot pay perfect
obedience to the laws of the state in which he lives, and
is subjected to some necessary disabilities. But those
Jews who have lived in this country for a century, or a
century and a half, who have their property in England,
their wives and their families, to what other king or
country can they resort in order to pay their allegiance?
To none whatever. It is obvious to all the world that
their attachment is to England, and to no other country.
But then we are told, though it is rather an insult than
an argument, that, as the late Mr. Cobbctt used to say,
we do not see the Jews following the trades which other
persons follow. Is there not a sufficient reason for this
in your own laws? You disqualify them from holding
land, and in many cities from practising retail trades;
and what right have you to turn round and say to the
Jews—" You have no taste for the cultivation of land,
or for trades which other Englishmen follow?" Is that
justice? Is that argument?—(Cheers.) I believe that
in France the Jews enjoy all the honours and emolu-
ments which the state has to bestow; and M. Dupin,
and some other eminent persons who have been elected
to seats in the Legislature, are of that persuasion. Do
not, therefore, I beg of you, rest their disqualification
upon your former proscription, and do not argue
that, if you take it away, you will not find the Jews
fulfilling the obligations ot citizens like other men in
similar circumstances. But we have been told also, that
there is a very solemn denunciation in the prophecies,
which would prevent our granting to the Jews the rights
which they claim. It is obvious that if such he the
meaning of the prophecies, it is not for us to decide
what should be done, but that Providence will accom-
plish by its own means its own purposes. But I would
ask where is it that those who use this argument would
draw the line ? I have told you that in France
they hold all offices to which Frenchmen are admitted,
and that more than one Member of the Chambers has
been of the Jewish persuasion. Even in this country
we have much relaxed the rigour of our enactments re-
specting them. A Jew has baen a magistrate, a Jew has
been a sheriff. By a late statute, which was introduced
by the Right Hon. Member for Taanworth, Jews may
hold offices in corporations, and it was but the other day
that a Jew was admitted to the office of alderman in the
corporation of the city of London.—(Hear, hear.) I
ask you what right or business have you to interpret a
prophecy so as to draw the line between an alderman
and a commissioner of customs—between a justice of the
peace and a person having a right to sit Parliament ?
—(Hear.) What enabled you, or authorised you to
say where the line intended by the prophecies should be
drawn, and how can you take upon yourselves to draw
tho limits of the line the Almighty intended to mark out?
—(Cheers.) It would be, in respect to the Almighty
being, to
" Strike from his hand the balance and the rod,
Rejudge his justice—be the God of God."
I trust that no such presumption will fall to our lot—that
we shall do that which we think our duty to our fellow-
countrymen, and the best for the country according to
our imperfect reason, and rest in pious but humble confi-
dence that the Almighty will accomplish his purpose by
means best known to his wisdom.—(Cheers.) Bat, Sir,
there is that which I can hardly call an argument, but
which operates more against those whose cause I have
undertaken perhaps than any other thing. There is a
popular prejudice against the name of the Jew founded
upon various circumstances to which I need not allude
—founded upon what I think a mistaken view of Sacred
Writ, and the dislike and distrust there is on the part of
men of a different religion. But that popular prejudice
which induced the Administration of 1753, after passing
an Act for the naturalization of the Jews, to come down
in a hurry, in the next year, for the purpose of repealing
it, has, I believe, very greatly died away—(Hear, hear)
—that it has subsided in this metropolis I have with my
own eyes a proof, because a gentleman in the city of
London, well known in that city by his extensive tran-
sactions, by his wealth, his charity and liberality, was
elected for that city by nearly 7,000 votes at the last ge-
neral election.—(Hear.) I quote that as a proof that
this House would not be safe in saying—" Such is our
opinion ; we are liberal ; we intend well to our Jewish
fellow-subjects, but there is such a prejudice amongst
the people against them that it would not be safe to
legislate in their favour.—(Hear, hear.) I warn Hon.
Gentlemen not to rely upon that feeling. I believe that
the people are to the full as enlightened as the Members
of this House.—(Hear, hear.) I believe that the gene-
ral opinion' and the right and true opinion, as I con-
ceive it to be, is that religious opinions ought not to
bring with them any penalty or punishment.—(Hear.)
I believe that that is the right and true opinion, over-
hearing any prejudice that may have existed against the
Jews.—(Hear, hear.) I have now, Sir, stated to you
the reasons why I think that the objections which have
been made against the admission of the Jews are futile
and unfounded. If lam asked what are the prevailing
reasons for the motion that I propose, I appeal in the
first place to the constitution of these realms; I appeal
to that constitution which is intended to give to every
man those rewards, that honour, that estimation to
which his character and talents may entitle him.—
(Hear, hear.) I appeal to that constitution which is
the enemy of restriction or disqualification—(Hear)—to
that constitution which by the abrogation of the laws
existing a few years ago has put an end even
to those cases of exception which our ancestors thought,
upon the ground of imminent danger to the State and
Church, they were justified in imposing. I ask you in
the name of that constitution to take away this last
remnant of religious persecution, to show that you are
nut influenced by the numbers or terrors that might
make that which was an act of political justice an act of
political necessity.—(Cheers.) I ask you in the name
of that constitution to admit the Jews to all the privi-
leges, to all the rights, of which those who are not ex-
cluded from them are so justly proud—(Cheers);—and,
let me tell you, that you cannot judge of the feelings of
those who aro excluded by the number of those who
might wish for seats in Parliament, or who might aspire
to hold office under tho Crown. Many a man who would
not seek for either, would be content to pass his days in
obscurity, and would wish for no other advantages than
those of private life; but lie feels the galling degrada-
tion, the brand that is imposed upon him, when he is told
that men of all other classes, 'men of the Established
Church, Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics,
may all enter within these walls, may all enjoy those
advantages' but that he belongs to a sect which by
the law ;end constitution is proscribed and degraded.
—(Cheers.) But I would make a still higher appeal.,
I would make an appeal to the principles ot that Chris-
tutinty which has so long been the law of the land.—
(Cheers.) I appeal to you, then, in the name of that re-
ligion which is a religion of charity and love, "to do

unto others as ycu would they should do unto you'.'
(Cheers.) I ask you why it is, that when we arc taught
by examples and parables that we ought to love our
neighbours, it is not priests or Levites who are singled
out as instances for our approbation and admiration;
but it is ono of a proscribed sect—one who belonge
to what was then the refuge of all nations? I ask why
it is that we are taught that all men are brothers—that
there is no part of the human race, however divided
from us by feelings or colour, that ought to be separated
from us; but that all belong to the family of man, and
ought to be loved as brothers.—(Cheers.) I ask you,
therefore, in the name of that constitution which is the
constitution of freedom, of liberty, and of justice—l ask
you in the name of that religion which is the religion of
peace and goodwill towards teen—to agree to tbe mo-
tion which I have now the honour to make. The Noble
Lord then moved " that the House should resolve itself
into a Committee on the removal of the civil and poll'
tical disabilities affecting her Majesty's Jewish sub-
jects," and resumed his seat amidst loud and long.eon-
tinued cheers.
Sir R. INGLIS, after alluding •to the talent with
which the subject had been brought before the Houses
and the importance of the question, said he should be
content, at this stage, to take one division. If the sense
of the House should be that the Speaker do leave the
chair, he would give the House now no further trouble;
Vut it was the fixed inteation of himself and others to
give the measure, in its future stages, every possible
opposition. Since 1830, he had always felt it his duty,
on such questions as this, to take the sense of the House
at the earliest period. He had not done so in reference
to the Roman Catholic Relief Bill ; but on this clues'
tion, which was entirely one of principle, the opposition
would be as readily stated in its first stage as after-
wards. Never had this question been presented to the
Legislature so advantageously as on this occasion,
under the auspices of the Prime Minister; and it might
be expected to he much more fatal in consequence. Still
the Noble Lord had not ventured to introduce the mea-
sure as one which her Majesty, with the consent of her
Council, recommended to Parliament. Nor did be
think it was the measure of the united Cabinet; he hoped
it was nothing more than what was called " an open
question."—(Hear.) The Noble Lord had first adverted
to the personal merits of the Jews, which he (Sir It.
Inglis) was far from denying. He thought them men of
great charity and liberality, and perhaps exemplary in
all the relations of social life. But men were not on that
account to be placed in Parliament. How many exem-
plary and respectable men did not possess the borough
qualification of 3001, or the county qualification of 6001.
a year ? The right to sit in Parliament was only such
as it was defined by the constitution ; therefore to speak
of the injustice of the privation of this right was mere
declamation. If, as Mr. Macaulay had said, privation
was a punishment, he would ask were the millions from
whom the elective franchise was withheld punished ?
No more were the Jews punished by being excluded
from Parliament ; for the right must be definded and
limited in some way. This was no question between
Jews and Christians, but between Christians and
non-Christians—between Christians and Mussul-
mans, Hindoos, Parsees, Hottentots, and all
others. If the Noble Lord's arguments were
admitted, that this was a remnant of intolerance,
the door of Parliament would be opened to that respect'
able gentleman whom they had seen under the gallery
last evening—(Laughter)—it would open the door to the
representative of the Hindoos, who exceeded ourselves in
numbers and in wealth; they were subjects of the same
sovereign, and were certainly entitled to representation;
Why should not the shipping interest of Bombay, and -
the other interests of the East, be represented here, if
(he door of Parliament was opened to the Jews? In
the petition which the Noble Lord had presented it
seemed to be implied that election conferred the right to
sit. But could this principle be applied if a bankrupt
were returned? Would it be contended that the House
could only inquire whether the returning officer bq,
truly represented the decision of the." sweet voices
of the electors ?—(Hear, bear.) If exclusion neees".
sarily implied degradation, how many classes Of .our
fellow-subjects were degraded ? A member of the
Jewish pm rsuasion had said in a pamphlet—entitled,
" Ought Baron Rothschild to sit in Parliament?Th
that this was not a Christian country. Novi,
this was authority, might they not expect the Baron
Rothschild to reiterate these views, and do his best tO
carry them out ? With the :fact, that the Jews, re-
garded our Saviour, God, as a crucified impostor--this
was language he did not wish to use—but, with the
knowledge of that fact, when a Jew wrote such a Pan?"
phlet as that to which he had referred, would he be
likely to be so gentle to his Christian brethren, es t 9
render it desirable to pass an Act to admit him into
Parliament ? The argument be used was, that as t
British empire was extended so widely that the sun •
never set upon it, it embraced all creeds and sects, and
was no longer exclusively, entirely a Christian eriapire.
A letter, which had been extensively circulated 01
morning by a person of the Jewish persuasion, said
that the Christian character of the English constitution
had only existed since 1829. He contended that at 131
period was there a single instance from the reign of
Alfred to this time when an oath had ever been taken
except on some Christian symbol.—(Hear, hear.) The
elder Edward swore by a relic, which it was said iv°
" holy in the sight of God." The Jew had bee!!
excluded from Parliament because he could not give I'
guarantee that he would discharge his duties "on the true
faith of a Christian." There certainly were such men
as David Hume and Edward Gibbon, to whom his Noble
Friend had alluded, but they were infidels and disre-
garded Christian morality—there was also Sir Francis
Dashwood, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the same
opinions; but because they could find such men, who
had been employed by the State, or had sat in that
House, were they to blot out the declaration that the
Members of the House of Commons should perform
their duties as Christian men? And they could only
admit the Jews by striking out the words " upon the
true faith of a Christian." A petition which he had
presented that evening said very truly that the most so-
lemn engagement of the House was that of public
prayer, and he need not add, that a Jew could not,
without awful blasphemy on the one hand, or deliberate
mockery on the other, join in the prayer—"Viris!
have mercy upon us ; Lord have mercy upon` us.
Then, again, why should they abandon ,their
Christian character to make a concession 'to so
small a number of persons as his Noble Friend admitted
the Jews in this country to be—numbering certainly
not more than from thirty to forty thousand? The pro-
position of his Noble Friend would go altogether to the
abolition of oaths, which were the main security of every
state. His Noble Friend said be hoped Parliament
would not continue religious persecution, but he (Sir
H. Inglis) contended that privation in this case was 111,
persecution. You must have some security that- .1"71
person you elected had an intetest in the Steal; an
therefore property qualification, as well as his being..
Christian, had been hitherto required; and one w.seTs
important, in his opinion, as the other. The "►Je
Noble Friend had stated, were a separate nation- the
one could for a moment say, who knew anything 0" a
history or literature of the Jews, that they were- new.r
nation, whatever prophecy might predict as to diet,
future destiny. The Jews came into this countri.,
drop by drop, without any invitation, beginnivb
at about the year 1656, for their own purposes e
and-ought the -laws to be altered for them now ? The.L
only asked for protection, and they had obtained I
Did. any one now insult them? They lived in /PIZ
dour ; did any one envy them ? lie called upon !he
House, by every consideration of duty and interest--.
called upon it iu the name of their common Christisiel
to pause before they sanctioned the admission ofle°
into Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. J. FOX could not conceive that either Chris
tianity or the constitution of this country had Witt.
siveness as their characteristic feature. Christiana:l
of all religions, was the most capable of amalgamag°6
with political society. The great moral princiPs,"
which were the glory of Christianity, were more ee'":,
prehensive than any other morality which had ever been
inculcated on the consciences of naen.—(Hear; 11,..„.681;:a
The 'great law which had guided the Noble bin
at the head of the Government in proposing' bla
measure, namely, " Do unto others as you 1121110,
they should do unto you," taught them tn‘...7,.e4.
in mind the civil duties which they rect`t—
of their Jewish fellow-subjects.—(Hear.) The burdcnh
which they imposed upon them, the co-operation4q.
they required of them in works of peace and charity,
mended the adoption of that great law ; and supPee,irj„"
we were the minority, and living under their dominle„-i;
we should assuredly look for rights commensurate wi
our duties. We were, therefore, taught by that C 11,135;
tian law to treat them in the same manner. Nor dia of
see in the constitution of this country any
exclusiveness that could be set up as modifying Chr,i„
tianity. What bad been the whole current of legis"'d-
tion in this country ? It had been continually toeicer
the pale of the constitution—to include one class, all
another. There had scarcely been an instance, for td",
last century and a half, where exclusion had been the 'O.
rect result of deliberate legislation.—(Hear.) 6113):,
period, in the reign of Elizabeth, the religion Oleo,
festere.y
fished in the country, and the religion held
the great body of its inhabitants, were identiueo,
but this was found to be impracticable as a peroarie.
arrangement, and the attempt to enforce it product" b
a
civil wars in the roign of Charles the First.—(Hear
hear.) Matters were again patched up, but it was,eaothe'
found that toleration was the principle by whit
Government of England must be guided. The Tolell.f
tion Acts put an end for ever to the unity of religion To
this country.—(Hear, hear.) The Society of Frier,
obliged the Legislature to concede civil privilege je
them, and exempt them from oaths. The penal
against the Catholics was from time to time relaxed
were
softened in its enactments. Orthodox Dissenters
admitted within the pale of the constitution, are bt
length Unitarians and all other Dissenters were brolJg.
within the boundaries of toleration by the repeal, o.ot_turi
Test and Corporation Acts, which at once threw e 17..
the barriers that had kept Dissenters out of civil ottt."_7.
—(Hear.) Where were they to find the constitution
of Great Britain, if it was not in the chare
ter-
istic features of a succession of legislative enmsn
ments? The Noble Lord at the head of the Govern
had very justly said that we had not a paper con
.I.l.ta_,
tion; it was not to be found in a set of cut and d le:t
propositions; but it must be sought for in the great
principles which had gradually and surely untold,„
themselves in the principles of legislation.—(llearq•
r.`:
saw the history of' the laws of this country they
ciple of religious freedom and equality developing (r-
-es
constitution.—(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet the /If? r'
and declaring itself to be one of the principles %%Lb!
for the University of Oxford contended that exclusionsons
was not punishment. There might be a class of per
od;
with reference to whom this doctrine would hold,g°,..i.
but it was scarcely applicable to any class who had 0u..,70.
ligence enough to conceive, and moral feeling_V. "fif:er.
ciate, the rights and duties of citizenslop. 'l,e,s'is a ,
any body of men arrived at that point, Lorry
wrong to have nothing to do with the laws but to
them.—(Hear.) The argument of exclusiveness cow

4.7

I.
'