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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEER CARY 154, 1848.

taro religious opinions by the Jews is a decisive proof or'
their civil unworthiness, you have a right to exclude
them, but the onus is imposed upon you. The presulop-
tion is in their favour. The presumption is, unless you
can establish a case to the contrary, that a Jew. as a
subject ot. the British Crown, is entitled to all the qua-
lifications and privileges of a British subject ;
the onus of rejecting Viet claim is on you. In
my opinion, the claim of the Jews, as British-born sub-
jects, is for entire and complete qualification for office.
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 fur these privileges
and franchises which you have entrusted to him, it be-
comes the more incumbent upon you to assign a reason
for 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 distinguiehe3
man, row no more, to whom there is no one entertains
a mere sincere disposition than I to tender justice. I
wish to speak of the late Dr, Arnold o ith the utmost
respect. The Noble Lord, the Menite r for Bath, read
an extract from the works of Dr. Arnold, which appeared
to make a considerable impression upon the Houee. He
quoted a passage in which Dr. Arnold se) s—" 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 our moral
law, which is the Gospel." He tells the Jew that he is 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
citizenship 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. j ice commercii
et jus connubii, but not the public rights, jus uff, agii et jus
honorum." 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 him
any other right of citizenship; End unless you show that
there is something polically hostile in the character mid
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 nuti 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 ;
ho is complete and entire. Other laws do admit more
curious distinctions of this privilege ; for the Romans
had, besides jus civitatis,which answereth to naturaliza-
tion, ins suliagii. For, though a man were natura-
lized to take lands and inheritance, yet he was not
enabled to have a ♦oice in passing of laws, or at election
of officers, and yet, further, they had jus petitionis or
jus honorum. For though a roan 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 cop) 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-
racter 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 94 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,)—ho 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 he 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 tetnporay 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, us 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-
cerned, which ,would justify his exlusion 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)—and that it would not be fair to subject
the Jew to this continued disqualification on account of
erroneous, though most sincere and conscientious opi-
nions, entertained on the ground of the omission of those
words. It was said, and truly said, by the lion. and
Learned Member for Southampton, that up to the reign
of Queen Elisabeth there was no oath required from
Members of Parliament. The principle of the British
constitution before the 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
of Elizabeth, when the oath of supremacy was admi-
nistered—an oath which, if not administered on
this book—[Here the Right Honourable Baronet
placed his hand upon a New Testament]—the Jew
would have been perfectly competent to take. At
that time the principle of the British constitution was,
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
Sunday, under a penalty of twelve pence. The terms of
pot hfo
excluding
xo
flt
uh doi nf g
assuringtsupremacy
the
tJew
wrom Parliament,
nuti inserted for the purposeament, but for the pur-
pose Q
ueen of the allegiance of her sub-
jects. But, from the fifth year of Elizabeth up to the
seventh year of James 1., no further oath was required
from Members of Parliament. It was in tile 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 iu force until the
first year of the reign of William and Mary. Now, if
any real importance had been attached to these words,
e first Act which was
s to repeal the Act of the
as a security for the profession of Christianity, was
it not remarkable that at the time of the Revolution
the Parliament made no provision for their con-
tinuancep ass e
d aft?e r
thie'eßt , e
vaollma
toin so w
t
tha
7th James the First, and instead of the words " on the
true faith of a Christian," the words of the oath were,
"I promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to his Majesty, &c." From the first year
of the Revolution till the year 1701 these words "on
the true faith of a Christian" were done away with
1701, when
athll
Louis
the Fourteenth.
ateoi
mgpes
rt he
tewer
en,
rdeaeer d
reel
cahot
agyne
idse weretdh oy
virrn of e v ve dE
England, in
land, and his
e
But then you say to the ow, .
Although we have
ceased to be a Protestant or Ciaurch-of-England Par-
liament,namely:
thet h
band of
ere is yet one hond that unites us,
common
Christianity."
The Jew, however, might fairly answer, " All
tests which exclude me ire tests which were originally
intended to guard against r'anger 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-