The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-18 00:00:00

LONDON,

SUN,

the subject. Argument the most convincing, elo-
quence the most brilliant, had been brought to bear
upon this subject; but yet that was no reason why they
should abstain from the discussion of this subject. Pre-
judices the most determined had been found to give way
to argument, and therefore he called upon their Lord-
ships to discuss this question, which was nothing more
nor less than to extend the benefits of civil and religious
liberty to the Jews. When it was first proposed to admit
foreign Jews to naturalization in this country, such was the
ferment occasioned that their Lordships thought it ex-
pedient to withdraw that boon; yet that boon had been
subsequently extended to them, and now Jews were en-
abled to hold the highest municipal offices. Their
Lordship had always opposed a barrier to sudden
innovation. Their Lordships deliberated, and delibe-
rated cautiously, but when they saw that the sense of the
country was in favour of an alteration in the law, their
Lordships deliberated and considered the subject, and if
they saw no insuperable objection, they determined in
accordance with the feeling of the nation. Five times
had the House of Commons determined in favour of
Jewish emancipation. It had been said that the
absence of petitions proved the indifference of the country,
but recent occurrences had shown them that the people
were by no means indifferent to the safety of the Estab-
lished Church, or of the Christian religion, and there-
fore the absence of petitions showed that the people
entertained no apprehensions as to the effects of the
passing of this B.A. Few, indeed, had been the peti-
tions presented in opposition to this Bill.--(Hear.)
He called upon their Lordships to do an act of justice
to the Jews, and in so doing he would recall their Lord-

ships' attention to the situation in which the Jews now
stood. Their Lordships had consented to permit Jews
to be magistrates, and to fill all municipal offices. They
might sit in judgment on life and death. We now
depended on their oaths for the safety of all that
wee valuable in society. They might determine
el questions relating to liberty and property, and no
whisper had been heard against their administration of
justice. The obstacle which this Bill proposed to re-
move was the only barrier to the ambition of the Jews
to fill the highest effices. The British Jews were to all
intents and purposes British subjects, and as such were
entitled to the enjoyment of all civil rights.
He freely admitted that no rights could exist incom-
patible with the capacity for the due and proper per-
formance of those duties ; but he contended that there
was nothing in the position or conduct of the Jews
which would incapacitate them for the due performance
of the duties of the rights to which they aspired. They
were perfectly observant of the rights of property.—(A
laugh.) He hailed that good-humoured admission of
his argument as to the right of property ; and he hoped
that all his other arguments would be as unanimously
assented to. They were good subjects, they were no
disturbers of the public peace or of the public religion.
They administered justice uprightly, and they were
therefore entitled to all the privileges of good and faith-
ful subjects. Vattel had laid it down as a principle that
in a civil state, although the Prince was bound to up-
hold the established religion, yet as the State could know
nothing of religion, save by the acts of its professors, the
Prince was bound not to deprive any loyal subject of
his civil rights on account of his religious opinions, ex-
cept in the case in which the subject should make his
religious opinions a cause for disturbing the peace of
the State. Now, such could not be said to be
the ceFe as regarded the Jews. The burden of proof in
such a case rested with those who sought to exclude,
and no such proof could be brought against the
Jee s. Among the objections which had been brought
against the Jews was that this was not their country.
He could not understand this objection. Every Bri-
tish Jew was as much a British subject as a Christian.
He apprehended that all British subjects, without dis-
tinction of sect or religion, were entitled to the full and
free exercise and enjoyment of their civil and social
righte, without one single exception. In the language
of a Right Rev. Prelate, ho believed that all those rights
were trusts, and that there must be a capacity for the
full and faithful discharge of those trusts before those
rights could be claimed; but he did not think it would
be asserted that the Jews were incapacitated from ful-
filling those trusts on the ground that this was not their
country. He did not think that those who made use of
that phrase were aware of, or used it in its full extent.
They said the Jews were of no country, and, therefore,
ought not to be admitted-to a free participation of civil
rights with the rest of their fellow-subjects. But why
were they of no country ? Because until recently no
country would admit them to enjoy their full share of
civil and political rights. When it was said the Jews
were of no country, the meaning was that they enter-
tained hopes or looked forward to a period when they
would be restored to the position of a united people.—
(Hear, hoar.) But did that prevent them from
being of any country, or if permitted to become part
of any country, would they lose that for which
they prayed and asked? The period when they might
expect the accomplishment of the prophecies towards
which they looked, was somewhat uncertain, and were
they to attach themselves to no country in the meantime?
He apprehended that the Jews who were born and bred
in this country were for all substantial purposes as much
subjects of her Majesty as the members of any other
persuasion, and viewed themselves as being equally
citizens of this country. Admit them to a perfect en-
joyment of their rights, and he apprehended they would
soon see that every mark of distinction, social as well
as political, would be speedily obliterated. The fact of
the Jews having no country promoted no argument
against their admission to Parliament. They had no
divided allegiance. In this country give them the rights
of citizenship, and there was no reason to believe that
they would not be equally loyal as any other class of
subjects. Looking to their conduct under a system
of persecution, he argued that nothing what-
ever existed to warrant their farther exclusion
from the rights and privileges which it was
now contended they should enjoy.—(Hear, hear.)
This, thank God, was a Christian country, and he be-
lieved it would ever continue so. It certainly would not
become less Christian by admitting a few Jews into Par-
liament. What motive could the Jew have in impeach-
ing the Christian faith, or in endeavouring to diminish
the weight and authority of the Established Church?
When did the Jew ever attempt to make proselytes?
He was interested in preserving the prosperity of the
country, because it tended to the prosperity of his own
property. What breach of conduct in the Je.ve, as a
citizen, disentitled him to Parliamentary hhnoars? If
they wanted specimens of adherence to faith and sub-
lime truth, they would find it in the ancient Jews. As
good citizens, and as men faithful to their creed, they
were clearly entitled to that which they asked. Why
then withhold from the State the benefit of their wisdom
and experience? Their Lordships having had this
subject so frequently under their consideration would
deal with it with that attention, intelligence, and wisdom
which he attributed to them. He asked them to do jus-
tice and love mercy, confidently calculating on their
adoption of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Earl NELSON moved that the Bill be read a second
time that day six months. It was no argument to say
that because the Jews were admitted to offices of civil
responsibility they should be allowed to have seats in
Parliament. There was a vast difference between ad-
ministering and making laws.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord on the woolsack had not attempted to touch the
argument that the words—" on the true faith of a
Christian," introduced into the oath, were intended to
exclude the Jews from Parliament. It was perfectly
true the Legislature was not bond fide of a Cnristiau
character, but from that fact the religion of the Church
and State had been greatly shaken, and was it right to
add to instead of diminishing the anomaly ? The as-
sembly was professedly Christian, and it they allowed
the Jew to take his seat in Parliament without using
the words "on the true faith of a Christian," how far
could they exclude the professors of any creed? Oa these
grounds he opposed the Bill, ho concluded by expressing
an earnest hope that it would be rejected.
Lord WODEHOUSE briefly stated his reasons for
supporting the Bill. The object of introducing the
words "on the true faith of a Christian" into the oath,
was not, as the Noble Earl opposite had said, with the
view of excluding Christians, but to give more than an
ordinary degree of solemnity to the oath. He observed
with regret that the Bill before their Lordships had been
framed so as to apply to gentlemen professing the Jewish
religion alone. He thought they should admit toParlia-
ment those who professed any religion whatever. There
might be state grounds of policy for excluding some citi-
zens from political rights, but he did not believe that if
they rejected this Bill on religious grounds, they would
act in the spirit or essence of their sacred religion.
Amongst the most eloquent and able opponents of the Bill
had been the Right Rev. Prelates beside him. He ven-
tured to ask them where they found any authority, orsha-
dow of sanction, for the idea, that where Christians were
the majority in a country, it was their duty to reserve for
themselves the exclusive possession of civil privileges.
If the argument upon which Jews were to be excluded
from Parliament were to prevail, on what ground could
they justify the admission of Catholics and Dissenters?
But if this oath was any safeguard for the great principle
of their Constitution, he wondered how it had happened
that they could have allowed the avenues to that great
part of the Constitution—the House of Commons—to be
vitiated by the elevation of Jews to the highest munici-
pal offices.—(Hear, hear.) They allowed men of that
persuasion to acquire the confidence of their fellow-citi-
zens, and to rise to places where they might naturally
look forward to a seat in Parliament, and then they
turned round upon them with this pretence of an oath,
and refused them to enter. That was not a consistent
oath to take, and he hoped the House would put an end
to the grievance by the adoption of this Bill.—(Hear.)
The Archbishop of DUBLIN and Lord Shaftesbury
rose together, but the general call was in favour of the
Right Reverend Prelate. On this question, and on
that debated the other night, he thought at the
present time exactly as he had done for many years.
lie had never advocated the admission of the Jews into
Parliament, but he had all along advocated the expedi-
ency of leaving the question to the electors. He did not
think more of restricting the Jews than he did of re-
striction on Mahoaaedana or Hindoos, but ho contended
for the removal of all restrictions whatever from the
elector—(Bear, hear)—unless it could be shown that
civil danger was likely to ensue. For him, it was not
whether Jews sit in Parliament, but whether Christian
electors should have a right to elect whom they thought
fit.—(Hear, hear.) On this point, however, he must
express his full coincidence in the opinion expressed by
the Noble Lord who had just sat down, but this Bill
did not take a proper hold of the subject. His view
was, that they ought to remove all religious dis-
tinction whatever, . either enacting penalties or im-
posing civil disabilities, unless it could be shown
that those religious distinctions were in some way
or other connected with some civil dangers. In
Catholicsb
rave
that a nd
danger,Dissenters
rather
than depart, as they would have departed, had they eon-
the present question that had not even been suggested.
He was far from saying that there was no political
bduantgheer
thoughti
a
tinued to exclude them, from the spirit of the Christian
religion. But there was no doubt that the danger that
ought to to