The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

rain religious opinions by the Jews is a decisive proot or
their civil unworthiness, you have a right to exclude
them, but the onus is imposed upon you. The presump-
tion is in their favour. The presumption is, unless )on
..an establish a case to the contrary, that a Jew, as ft
subject o' the British Crown, is entitled to all the qua-
tifications and privileges of a British subject ; and
the onus of rejecting that claim is On you. In
my opinion, the claim of the Jews, as British-born sub-
wets, is for entire and complete qualification for
You do not answer that claim by saying you grant him
partial qualifications. You allow him to fill municipal
offices; you concede to him
.the elective franchise; but
the responsibility of assigning a reason for withholding
from him what remains is precisely the same. Nay,
after you admit his qualifications for these privileges
end franchises which you have entrusted to him, it be-
comes the more incumbent upon you to assign a reason
or withholding complete qualification. A Noble Lord
who has spoken with so much good feeling upon this
question, the Member for Bath—(Hear, hear)—quoted
an authority entitled to much weight, a distinguished
man, now no more, to whom there is no one entertains
a mere sincere disposition than I to render justice. I
wish to speak of the late Dr, Arnold with the utmost
respect. The Noble Lord, the Member for Bath, read
an extract from the works of Dr. Arnold, which appeared
to make a considerable impression upon the House. He
quoted a passage in which Dr. Arnold says—" For the
Jews, I see no plea of justice whatever; they are
voluntary strangers here, and have no claim to
become citizens but by conforming to oar moral
law, which is the Gospel." H i
He tells the Jew that he s a
voluntary stranger here, and has no claim to citizenship,
though a subject of the British Crown. If we were de-
scendants of the ancient Britons, then we might taunt
the Jew with being a voluntary stranger here; but if
there be amongst us any mixture of Danish blood, of
Roman blood, or of Norman blood, it seems a kind of
presumption to tell a Jew, " You have no claim to
eitizenship here, for you are a voluntary stranger." Dr.
Arnold goes on to say, "I would give the Jews the
honorary citizenship which was so often given by the Ro-
mans, viz., the private right of citizenship, jus cow-Rut:ll
et jus connubii, but not the public rights, jeer suffragii et jar
honorurn." I contend that the British law recognises no
such distinction; that, after conferring upon the Jew the
jus commercii and the jus connubii, the onus lies upon you
of assigning to the Jew a reason for witholding from hun
any other right of citizenship; and unless you show that
there is something polically hostile in the character sad
conduct of the Jew in relation to the state; that
in times of civil discord and discontent there is
reason to apprehend that he would join the disaffected,
the onus is not discharged; you must give the Jew
a reason, founded on political justice, for withholding '
from him the entire and complete right of citizenship.
To the opinion of Dr. Arnold I oppose the opinion of
a still higher authority, that of Lord Bacon. In his
argument upon the rights of the post nati of Scotland,
Lord Bacon says—" It seemeth admirable unto me to
consider with what a measured hand, with how true
proportions our law doth impart and confer the several
degrees of the benefits of naturalization. The first de-
gree is an alien enemy, the second is an alien friend, the
third is a denizen. To this person the law giveth an
ability and capacity abridged not in matter, but in time.
The fourth and last degree is a natural born subject ;
he is complete and entire. Other laws do admit more
curious distinctions of this privilege ; for the Romans
had, besides jus civitatis,whicti answereth to naturaliza-
tion, jus sufiragii. For, though a man were natura-
lized to take lands and inheritance, yet he was not
enabled to have a voice in passing of laws, or at election
of officers, and yet, further, they had jus petitionis or
jus honorum. For though a man had voice, yet he was
not capable of honour or office. But these be devices
commonly of popular or free estates, which are jealous
whom they take into their number, and are
unfit for monarchies ; but by the law of England the
subject that is natural-born hath a capacity or ability to
all benefits whatever."—(Hear, hear.) The Jew is a
subject natural-born, and I contend that he has a right
to all civil honours, that he has " a capacity or ability
to all benefits whatever," unless you show a reason to
the contrary—a reason not founded upon a mere reli-
gions error, but upon some political disqualification.
Now, I have heard in the course of this debate the
exclusion of the Jews justified by reference to other
disqualifications that now exist. It is contended that it
is no hardship to exclude the Jews, as copy holders are
excluded from rights which freeholders possess, and
minors are excluded from the exercise of powers which
a man of full age enjoys. An Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, who bears a name which must ever be honoured
in this House (Mr. Walpole), contended that there is a
distinction between the elective franchise and the right
of legislation. But all these are ingenious fallacies,
employed for the purpose of concealing from ourselves
the real character of this harsh exclusion.—(Hear,
hear.) How does the elective franchise differ in cha
ratter from the right of legislation ? There are
no rights given by the common law ; the elective
franchise is a creation of the Legislature. You
withhold from the 91. householder a right which you
give to the 10/. householder. And with respect to the
exclusion of the clergy from this branch of the Legisla-
ture, and with respect to the excluoion of minors and
those who have not sufficient property, these exclusions
differ altogether from the disqualification you impose
upon the Jews. In the first place, the Jew is equally
subject with those who profess Christianity to all these
exclusions—of minors, of copyholders, and 91. house-
holders; all these disqualifications he is likewise sub-
ject to; but you superadd another disqualification—
(Hear, hear,)—he is subject to the same disqualifica-
tions as other of her Majesty's subjects, and you subject
him to another disqualification of a totally different
nature. And many of these exclusions are voluntary.
A clergyman, when he enters upon the sacred office,
knows that he will be excluded from this House. A
minor knows that if he lives until ho attains his ma-
jority he will acquire his full rights. But with respect
to the disqualification of the Jew, it is on account
of' his opinions—(Hear, hear ,)—it is not a disquali-
fication that is temporay or voluntary; it is a super-
added disqualification, and it differs in its character
from the disqualifications to which other classes are sub-
ject. There is no analogy between them, and the dis-
qualification of the Jew is one which implies a suspicion
and inflicts a stigma and which nothing but a change of
opinion can enable him to escape. Now, as far as I have
heard, I have found no sufficient reason assigned for this
disqualification; and there are considerations which
have been admitted in the course of the debate, and
which make the hardship of excluding the Jews still
more grievous. I consider that, in point of moral con-
duct; in point of active exercise of charity; in point of
tried loyalty, and in point of property, the Jews are
entitled to as much consideration as any other religious
sect. I can assign, therefore, no political reason, so far
as expectation with regard to his future conduct is con-
corned, which ,would justify his exlusiou from Parlia-
ment. But there are two reasons—for I class all
the arguments urged against the admission of the
Jews under two heads, for the purpose of brevity,
which have been advanced in support of their exclusion,
the force of which I should be the last person to deny.
One of these reasons is, that you have for the last 300
years deemed. a recognition of the Christian faith a ne-
cessary qualification of a legislator; the other, that if
you now abandon that qualification and permit
it to be struck out of the statute-book. where it has
so long remained, this conduct on your part will
imply an indifference to religion, and that such
indifference is likely to relax the energies and paralyse
the exertions of many men who, in this and other coun-
tries, are using their utmost endeavours to propagate the
Christian faith. Now, I wish to weigh fairly these two
objections. As I said before, Ido not undervalue the
objection that you are about to remove from the statute-
book the words "on the true faith of a Christian." I
believe that you will give offence to many sincere Chris-
tians by removing those words; but, on consideration of
this subject! I am fully convinced that the popular im-
pression with respect to these words, and the circum•
stances under which they were inserted, is erroneous
—(Hear, hear)—arid that it would not be fair to subject
the Jew to this continued disqualification on account of
erroneous, though most sincere and conscientious opi-
ftohr
tShoeurethwamaaptohno,
oath
ht urpegtoeirt(hde reignfr
opi-
nions, entertained. on the ground of the omission of these
words. It was said, and truly said, by the Hon. and
The principle of the British
11'fleeamQr
constitutionnbueeedre n zbefobr the Parliament.first of Elizabeth was, that the
will of the electing body should determine the right to
sit in Parliament, and no oath at all was required from-
Members of Parliament up to the fifth year of the reign
competent
was
of Elizabeth, when the, ch
oath
if of supremacy was ani-
tsitaere h do
the compitish constitution to take. At
administered on
Honourable Baronet
placed his hand upon a New Testament]—the Jew
tihio—ka_n
[ller oathe which,theih t not
chat
timehl have been
tple perfectlyof
Br
that every man should conform to the Protestant faith,'
and my Hon. Friend will find that every British sub-
ject was required to appear in church once at least on
the prinoSunday, under a penalty of twelve ponce. The terms of
the oath of supremacywere,not inserted for the purpose
of excluding the Jew from I arliament,
but for the pur-
pose of assuring the Queen ef the
of of her sub-
jects. But, from the fifth year ot Elizabeth up to the
seventh year of James 1.,
ne further oath was required
from Members of Parliament. It was in the seventh
year of James I. that the oath was, required to be taken
" on the true faith of a Christian,, and the reason for
requiring this oath was given in the preamble of the
Act, reciting that a most abominable and terrible plot
had been entered into to destroy the King, the Queen,
and the Royal Family. The exclusion, therefore, of the
Jew, so far as it depended on these words, was an inci-
dental and collateral consequence of the Gunpowder
Plot. That form of oath continued in force until the
first year of the reign of William and Mary. Now, if
any real importance had been attached to these words,
as a security for the profession of C. hristianity, was
it not remarkable that at the time of the Revolution
the Parliament made no provision for their con-
tinuance ? Yet, almost the first Act which was
passed after the Revolution was to repeal the Act of the
7th James the First, tied instead of the words "on the
true faith of a Christian," the words of the oath were,
" T promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to his Majesty, SiFrom the first year
of the Revolution till the year, le 01 these words "on
the true faith of a Christian' were done away with
altogether, and they were only revived in 1701, when
the Pretender claimed the crown of England, and his
claims were recognised by Louis the Fourteenth.
But then you say to the Jew,, , •
Although we have
ceased to be a Protestant or Church-of-England Par-
liament, there is yet ono bond that unites us,
namely, the bond el a common Christianity."
The Jew, however, might fairly answer, " All
tests which exclude me are tests which were originally
intended to guard against danger from professing Chris-
tians."—(Hear, hear.) But is not this allegation, that
we are bound together by one common bond of Chris-
tianity, an allegation that we are bound together
for the purpose of excluding the Jew ? The Ho-