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

hold. that these past cruelties do constitute a reason why
reparation ought to be granted fur injuries which ought
to weigh, - heavily upon Our national conscience.—
(Hear, heal.)., Hear what another historian, Mr.
Sharon Turner. says upon the subject of the early per-
,ecutioil of the Jetvs. [The Right lion. I3artiet read
the passage enumerating the various massacres anti
cruelties to which the -Jews had been subjected i
and
nGer-
many and iu England, principally in the 12th,13th,
14th centuries, a passage which concluded by expressing
the wonder of the writer thtit the Jews could now exist
at all.] The Right Hon. Baronet continued :—But
ihey do exist—they have survived all these persecu-
tions, and have they not shown patience and forbear
:ince ? But suppose that they were a degraded race,
could you now plead that degradation against the re-
moval of these disabilities.—(Cheers.) If they were
degraded, would not we be responsible, we who have
oppressed and persecuted them?—(Cheers.) If they
had been degraded—if the iron had entered into their
souls—could you attribute the result to anything but
cruel persecution?—(Cheers.) Could you taunt them
now, because the flame of patriotism had not burned
brightly in their bosoms ? Could you be surprised
that, having suffered these cruel injuries, they should
permit their minds to dwell upon the distant and the
past, and allow the future to predominate over the pre-
sent. Could you he surprised at their manifesting
attachment to foreign lands, and by alien streams
sighing for their own Sion?—(Cheers.) But admit them
to equal privileges with yourselves, then, if there is
degradation, that very elevation will improve their con-
dition. &it I say there has been no degradation, notwith-
standing these persecutions. Still, in point of moral
character, of benevolence, of charity, and of wealth, they
are on an equality with ourselves.—(Hear, hear.) If
such be the case, if they have been exposed to such cruel
wrongs, ought we not to hasten the removal of disabi-
lities under which they still lie? But I have other
reasons for urging the boon. The Jews are still subject
in foreign nations to cruel injuries, still in Poland
are they an oppressed race,
still in Syria are they sub-
ject to severe persecutions ; and even within the last
two or three years they have suffered on account of the
infamous calumny that they murdered Christian boys in
order to use their blood at their festivals. Sir, that man,
so distinguished for his benevolence, Sir Moses Monte-
fibre, has gone to Poland, to Syria, in order to rescue
his brethren from these dreadful persecutions. On both
these occasions he carried letters of recconsmendetion
from British Ministers. But would not these letters
have been more efficacious if he could have said the pre-
judices in England against the Jews have expired, and
they now stand upon the same footing as other English
subjects ?—(Hear, hear.) Depend upon it your legis-
lation will exercise a jurisdiction and an authority in
other countries ; it will extend far beyond the limits to
which its legal operation is confined, and if you place
the Jews upon a footing of perfect equality with your-
selves, if you extend to them all the rights of British sub-
jects, then at least it is impossible that any foreign
power can ever persecute them, pleading the example
and authority of Great Britain. Your act here
will prevent persecution elsewhere; it will bring balm
and consolation to men pining in slavery. Your example
will be followed in other countries; it is not merely that
you will relieve the Jew from disabilities here, you will
rescue him from oppression and degradation in other
countries in which he is enslaved.—(Cheers.) On these
grounds, Sir, although they constitute no grounds for
impairing either the religion or the constitution of this
country, I advocate the repeal of the Jewish disabilities,
believing that that repeal will not be detrimental to
either.—(Cheers.) I shall only touch upon one more
argument, that of the Right Hun. Gentleman the
Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn). The Right
Hon. Gentleman stated that there were many sincere and
pious persons actively and zealously engaged in the
conversion and promotion of Christianity among the
heathen, and he expressed a fear that their efforts
would be to a great extent neutralized, should
we, as a nation, profess our indifference to the
great truths of religion, by abolishing distinctions
between what we believe to be right and what we
believe to be wrong. I agree with my Right Honour-
able Friend, that if such were to be the consequences of
this measure, they would be consequences much to be
lamented.—(Hear.) I agree with him that we have, iu
respect to our foreign empire, higher duties to perforin
than the mere aggrandizement of territory and the ex-
tension of commerce.—(Hear.) These are, however,
undoubtedly means towards an end, and it is possible
that they are the means by which the light of knowledge,
the day-spring from on high, may visit those who sit in
darkness and in the shadow of death, and perhaps were
the passing of the present Bill to neutralize such bless-
ings, that might be a reason for the continued exclusion
of the Jews; but no such consequences will flow from it.
Take the case of a New Zealander or a Chinese—ima •
gine an inhabitant of either of those couctriet sufficiently
enlightened to understand the logical force and sequence
ot argument, then if the missionary were able to say to
him that our present law was such as it existed in the
time of Edward the First, that we held no communi.ei
with Jews, that we so abominated the crime of which
their ancestors were guAty, that we held no intercourse
with them—if we could have used such arguments as a
missionary from the Spanish inquisition might have
used—then I could conceive it possible that the bar-
barian might consider such a refusal of intercour: e a
proof of sincere religious feeling. But the missionary
can make no such appeal. He must say that we do not
refuse to hold intercourse with Jews ; that we admit
them to great offices, and subject them to all the bur-
dens of citizens of a great State, that we borrow money
from them—(Laughter)—that in time of war we re-
quire their military services, that if he (the barbarian)
were to come to London next year he might find a Jew
the Lord Mayor, but that still we exclude them from the
House of Commons ; then, Sir, I believe that that ap-
peal would hardly be intelligible.--(Hear, hear.) Let us
then try an appeal of another sort—let us efface these
persecuting laws to which the Jews were subject—let
us say that we have adopted another course, that we
desire to make reparation, that our constitution knows
none of those ancient prescriptions, that we profess a
religion which enjoins that we should be forbearing and
forgiving towards all men, that we worship a God whose
Almighty power is most chiefly declared by showing
pity and compassion, that we worship a Saviour whose
life inculcated and whose death sanctioned the divine
precept of mercy, and therefore we have abolished the
distinctions which have so long and so injuriously
existed between the Jew and the Christian, that we
have admitted the once proscribed race to equal pri-
vileges and equal rights with ourselves.—(Cheers.)
This is an appeal intelligible to us all, which would
bear greater weight as a proof of Christian charity than
the appeal which might have been made in the
times of Edward 1., or than any which we can
now make on their behalf. Sir, from these reasons
—because I believe it to be in conformity with the
enlarged and comprehensive spirit of the British con-
stitution that these disabilities should no longer remain
—because I rejoice in this opportunity of making re-
paration for the great injuries and unjust obloquy of
former times—because I think the Jew has fairly earned
the indulgence which it has been proposed to give him
by great patience and by great forbearance, by tried
fidelity and by tried loyalty; but, above all, not because
I am indifferent to religion, but because I am one of a
Christian people, and a member of a Christian legis-
lature, I will perform an act which I believe to be in
strict conformity with the spirit and injunctions of the
Christian religion.—(Loud cheers.) Therefore it is I
will perform this act, not because I am told "to forgive
them who trespass against us," but as an act as sacred
in the point of moral obligation, and more trying to
human pride, namely, to forgive them against whom we
have trespassed.—(Cheers.) Sir, on these accounts I
shall give my cordial support to the second reading of
this Bill.—(Long and vehement cheering followed the
conclusion of the Right Hon. Baronet's speech.)
Lord DUDLEY STUART proceeded to address the
House, but owing to the great impatience of the House,
and loud calls for a division, he was nearly inaudible.
The Noble Lord was understood to deny that a regular
scale of payments for obtaining signatures to the peti-
tions in favour of the Bill had been established by the
friends of Baron de Rothschild, and to state that the
Hon. Member who said so had not made a correct state-
ment to the House, though he, no doubt, believed ito
be perfectly true. The prejudices of the party to which
the lion. Member belonged, rendered him extremely
liable to be deceived on several matters. The Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) threw down the gauntlet when
this Bill was first introduced, and challenged the Noble
Lord to appeal to the country. At that time the peti-
tions against the Bill numbered but 7,000 signatures,
those for it 13,000; but now the signatures for were no
less than 232,000, and against it only 35,000. He denied
that it was right to say with the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. Peel), that the
,JrehwesNioriblPeoLolanrddweeornecalutdere,sit.
by—
(Cries for a division.)
declaring his intention to support the Bill, because he
believed it to be a measure calculated to advance truth
and liberty.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE (chose rising occasioned re-
newed cries for a division) said he would detain tht m
only a minute. It was stated by the Noble Lord that
he (Mr. Newdegate) has asserted what was not the fact.
lle believed his statement was substantially correct,
though not in the terms in which it was reported. Ile
had received two petitions to present to the House in
favour of the Bill, which had been brought to him open
by the agents of the Committee for the return of Baron
de Rothschild, and it struck him as so strange a tact,
that ho was I)rompted to inquire if there were any orga-
nized system for procuring signatures. The result was
—that he believed persons were employed to procure
signatures in favour of the Bill proposed by the Govern-
ment on the part of Baron de Rothschild's friends, and
that for the first one hundred signatures there was paid
ls. 6d. He had been wrong in stating the manner in
which signatures were procured to the petition in favour
of the Bill. The fact was, that they commenced at ls.
6d., with a sliding scale terminating at 3s. the hundred,
which was afterwards converted into a fixed duty of ss.
a hundred.

Tho House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it .
Majority
Mr. ANSTEY gave notice that he would introduce a
clause in the Bill depriving Parliament of the right to
legislate on church questions without the previous con-
sent of the Convocation in the ono case, and the General
Assembly in the other.—(Great laughter.)
PRIVILEGE.
The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS appeared at the bar, and
informed the Speaker that Sir Robert Price and Mr.
Cumming Bruce were in custody.
Sir THOMAS ACLAND said that his Honourable
Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir Robert Price) was
then outside waiting the pleasure of the House. Ile
sayonhisshobueldhalt that he was
have
occasioned
ned
concernedhgraedatdlyesiredhimto
his absence
him its displeasure, or caused any inconvenience
whatsoever. He intended by it no disrespect to the
House, nor did he feel any indifference respect
ing the cause he had been appointed to try. Having