The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-02 00:00:00

of which he was an bumble teacher if he did not vote
against this Bill.—( Hear, hear.) He considered the Jews
as the most remarkable people upon the earth. They
shone like a bright star in the firmament as a proof of the
attributes of the Creator of mankind, and the hopes they
entertained that a Redeemer would be sent to enlighten a
benighted world, was an incontestible evidence in favour
of the Christian religion. In fact, this people retained to
the present time their original character, and that too was
another voucher for the Divine truths. He hoped that
the time would soon arrive when the veil which now ob•
s:ured their vision would drop from their eyes ; when they
would be convinced of the delusion by which they had
been led astray, and fly to the arms of n gracious merciful
Saviour that were ever open to receive them, although
they had despi.ed and rejected him. He regarded them
as brothers who, though belonging with him to the one
family, were estranged from it, but who would ultimately
be restored to the household of faith and the love of the
one eternal Father. He moved, by way of amendment,
that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

The Archbishop of DUBLIN said that there were two
classes of objections to the Bill ; the one civil or political,
the other religious. With regard to the politicsl part of
the question he would say nothing at present about it;
and he would only say a very few words with respect to
the disabilities under which the Jews now laboured in
consequence of their peculiar religious tenets. It was said
that the Jews hail denounced and vilified the Christian
religion ; but upon this point a question arose which he
thought it would be difficult to answer. That question
stood in this way—the Jews were good subjects, they
obeyed the laws, and paid the taxes equally with every
other subject in the State. Then as long as their religion
did not interfere with the religion of the State, why should
they be deprived of the advantages, at least the civil and
political advantages, of every other subject in the State ?
It was asked, as an objection to this Bill, why should Jews
be permitted to legislate in cases where the safety of the
Protestant Church might be concerned ? And he would
in return ask how came both Houses of Parliament, Ro-
man Catholics and Dissenters, to legislate in affairs con-
cerning the Protestant Church ? They were not members
of the Protestant community, and yet they were permitted
to legislate for the Protestant Church.—(Hear, hear.) He
trusted he might dismiss from his consideration whether
the legislature of this or any other country ought to take
upon itself to punish man for his offences towards his
God. In the abstract he took it to be undisputed that
no legislature should punish any man for his religious creed,
except that creed inculcated doctrines and opinions which
endangered the protectio'n of the State. Neither did the
Christian religion sanction the use of forcible means to
effect the conversion of the Jews or any other class of
persons in the community. His opinion was, that the
nearer the Dissenters approached to the Protestant Church
the greater would be the danger of corruptions being
introduced into it, than from the admission of the Jews
to the exercise of every civil and political right. They
would not be likely to interfere with the Church whose
doctrines they disbelieved; and if they did, what injury
could they possibly do it? Was the Church so feeble
that it could have any thing to apprehend from the eman-
cipation of the Jews ?—(Hear.) He never could believe
it. It was said that as we had a Christian Legislature
so the Jews should be kept in bondage. And as well might
it be said that the continuance of the Inquisition might
be justified in Spain because Spain was a Christian coun-
try. It was with grief and shame be felt compelled to
say that the greatest persecutions ever practised in the
world had been by one Christian sect against another.
It was said that the Jews were under a curse. True,
they were so ; and he looked upon the Jews as the most
extraordinary monument to the truths of Christianity.
But then a Christian legislature should take care not to
make themselves the executioners of the divine judgment.—
(Hear, hear.) Persecution was no part of Christianity;
neither was it a part of Christianity to punish the reli-
gious errors of others. It was a scandal and a shame to
Christians much greater to persecute than it was in the
Jews not to believe. But it was said the admission of
Jews into Parliament would be a scandal to the church.
Now be should like to know how that could be proved.
In the first place the number of Jews likely to get into
Parliament would be but few, and those few must first be
elected by a Christian constituency. And here he should
like to know if it were intended to prevent the Christians
of this country from selecting any competent person,
Jew or otherwise, as their representative?—(Hear, hear.)
In conclusion he would merely say that every subject of
the State who contributed to its support should have the
full enjoyment of civil and religious liberty.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA said that the Jews de-
nied God, and yet it was said they might safely be per-
mitted to legislate in cases where his holy religion was to
be vindicated and preserved.—(Hear, hear.) In his
opinion it was a stain upon their Lordships' House that
they had not indignantly spurned this question when the
Sill was proposed to be read a first time. He would ask,
was not Christianity a part and parcel of the law of the
land ? If it were, as no man could doubt it was, then he
would say that the admission of the Jews into Parliament
would, in the face of God and the world, be a palpable
act of blasphemous infidelity.—(Hear, hear.) Hitherto
we bad enjoyed under the Christian dispensation innume.
rahle blessings. The gifts of Heaven had been show-
ered down upon us, and would it be fitting now to turn
round and say we should despise all those blessings, And
thus add ingratitude to infidelity?—(Hear.) He had
no objection to give the Jews any civil rights short of ad-
mission into Parliament.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER was quite surprised
at the observations of the most Rev. Prelate (the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury), that, having extolled the Jews to
the skies, he should all at once turn round and say he
would vote against this Bill. No alarm could be enter-
tained against the Jews getting into Parliament ; and be
was now and always had been against keeping any class
of men from civil and political power because of their re-
ligious creed. He would give his hearty support to this
Bill. Indeed he would go so far as to say that he thought
it unjust to exclude clergymen from the other House of
Parliament while Bishops had seats in this House. He
believed that the country was favourable to the mea.
sure.

The Bishop of LONDON opposed the measure simply
and solely on the ground of the duty be owed to the con-
stitution of this country. It was, after all, a Christian
constitution, and ought to be upheld as such. He knew
it bad lately been contended that Christianity was not
part and parcel of the law of the land ; and it was
said that no man should be persecuted or excluded from
his civil rights on account of religious belief. Upon
that point his opinion was that such questions were to
be detertnined by the particular circumstances of the
country ; and the propriety or impropriety of admitting
persons holding particular tenets must be in the breast
of the State. It had been said that there was nothing
in the Statute-book against the admission of Jews to
civil power. It was undoubtedly so; but what was
the reason? Simply that the Legislature never con-
templated being asked to grant civil power to the Jews.
--(Hear, hear.) He was perfectly ready to admit that
the State would not be in great danger from the admis-
sion of a few Jews into the Legislature. He agreed
their number would cot be likely to be sufficient to out-
vote the other Members ; but the effect upon the public
mind of such a measure would be to stamp the idea that
the Legislature was indifferent upon the subject of the
Christian religion—(Hear, hear)—and as the best in-
terests of the country were indisso!ubly bound up in the
maintenance of the supremacy of that religion, he
thought they were bound to uphold and maintain it by
every possible means. It gave him great pain to take this
course of opposition against the Jews. He lived in a
parish in which many of them resided, and be could bear
ample testimony to their excellent conduct as a body.
Still he could not hesitate as to the course it was his duty
to follow. The people of this country exulted and re-
joiced in the belief that the principle of Christianity was
the principle of the constitution, and he considered that it
would be a dereliction of the duty of self-defence to break
down that barrier of the true religion in the minds of the
people.—( Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of CHICHESTER said the Jews were the
elder brothers of the Christian., and they were ultimately
to be converted to the true faith. He did not mean to say
that the arm or the wit of man had power tb accelerate
what God intended to effect ; but it was a fair question
for them to consider ehether this measure of kindness and
conciliation was likely to retard that consummation. He
confessed he did not see the difference between the Jews
and the Christians in so strong a light as his Right Rev.
Friend ; and as he hoped ultimately to see Judaism trans-
' fused with Christianity, he should vote for the present
pleasure.

Lord DE CLIFFORD wished to ask the Noble land
Learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the Jews in this
country were born in and to the privileges of the British
Constitution ? If so, then, according to the principles of
Mr. Fox and other eminent authorities, they were entitled
of right to admission to civil power and the enjoyment of
all civil privileges. It was upon such grounds that the
claims of the Roman Catholics had been argued by all their
most powerful advocates. He did not apprehend danger
to the State from the admission of the Jews. Although
as a Roman Catholic he regulated his conduct by the social
and mond principles of the Catholic Church, yet, as a
Member of that House, he was guided by the moral and
social principles of the Prottetant Constitution of the
Stato.