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

other necessity demanded such a measure as that now be-
fore their Lordship.. The attention of their Lordships
had been directed to what had been done on this subject in
foreign countries. He did not know that it followed that
we were bound to do everything that had been done
in foreign countries. But, even if it were so, this mea-
sure was a different course than that taken at least by
France with regard to the Jews. It was true that Bonaparte
admitted the Jews to political power ; but before Bonaparte
admitted the Jews he took care that there were examina-
tions to see whether they were fit to be trusted with it.
We were to do no such thing ; but merely, in deference to
the liberal ideas of the day, to admit them without exa-
mination, and without any proof of the necessity of doing
so at all. He could not forget that he was sitting in a
Christian Parliament, that they were the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal sitting there to advise the Sovereign on the
throne to pass laws, which Sovereign was head of the
Christian Church. He, acting in that capacity, could
not advise the Sovereign on the throne to pass a law
which would admit to his Councils men who professed to
be disbelievers in the Christian religion. He must vote
against the motion for the second reading.
Lord MELBOURNE admitted it to be true, as laid
down by the Noble Duke, that there was a m irked dis-
tinction between the case of the Jews and that of the
Roman Catholics and Dissenters. Undoubtedly the Jews
had been suhjected to greater persecutions, and had for-
merly been deprived of more of their rights than any other
class of men. But he apprehended that those persecutions
were not to be used to justify the same system in the pre-
sent day--(Hear, hear)—and yet, if that ground were to
be taken for the purpose of resisting the present motion,
it would have been equally good against the removal of
those other penalties under which the Jews formerly la-
boured. But the Noble Duke had said that no necessity
had been shown fur the admission of our Jewish fellow-
subjects to a share in our political privileges, and that
when those privileges were granted to them in the colonies
it was because European inhabitants were wanted there.
Why, good God ! if these grounds of expediency were to
be justified or to be required as a means of justification,
what would become of the Noble Duke's higher ground of
principle in refusing to admit them because they were not
Christians ?—( Hear.) He denied that the proof of neces-
sity lay with those who claimed for the Jews their right-
ful privileges as subjects of the realm, and asserted that
the onus probandi lay with those who opposed the grant-
ing of them. He maintained that the principles of the
Ginstitution, and the dictates of common reason, gave
those rights to every natural born subject of the King. It
was an error which had run through nearly the whole of
this debate that they were now granting privileges to
individuals or to any set of men. They were not doing so.
These privileges were the privileges of the State to which
all individuals were entitled, and they conferred equal
benefits and advantages upon every branch of the State as
well as upon those who possessed them. He could recog-
nise the right of the State to impose disabilities as to
property, but he could see nothing in the religion or
character of persons of the Jewish persuasion which justi-
fied the Legislature in depriving them of the civil rights
they now claimed by the Bill, and he should therefore
support it.
Lord CLIFFORD, in explanation, said be was anxious
again to ask for an answer to a question which he had put
to the Most Rev. Prelate. What he wished to know
was, whether or not he considered the moral and social
code of the Jews to be part and parcel of Christianity, as
he did that of the Roman Catholics?

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY had said nothing
at all denying that the code of the Jews was inconsistent
with a strict performance of the moral and social duties.
He apprehended that the moral and social creed, when
conscientiously held, was the same of a Jew, as of a
Christian.

Lord SEAGRAYE expressed his regret at finding him-
self unable upon this occasion to concur in sentiment with
those in whose opinions he usually agreed. His rule with
regard to questions of this nature had been to extend
religious toleration and freedom to all classes of his
Christian fellow subjects; but the measures which he had
so supported had always contemplated parties professing
the Christian religion. But, professing Christianity as
he did, he could not consent to admit to the offices of a
Christian State those persons who disbelieved in, and
were naturally hostile to, that religion.
Lord HOWDEN supported the Bill.

The Earl of GOSFORD did not believe the measure
would be injurious to the interests of Christianity, and be
should give it his support.
Lord BEXLEY replied, and their Lordships divided—
contents, present 9O
Proxies
Non-Contents, present
Proxies
Majority against the second reading —5O
The Bill was therefore thrown out.
DWELLING-HOUSE ROBBERY BILL.

25-- 54

Lord SUFFIELD wished the House to go into Corn-
mittee on the Dwelling-house Robbery Bill.
Lord WYNFORD said he had permitted the Bill to go
through two stages without discussion, but he objected
decidedly to a further step being so taken.
Lord SUFFIELD gave notice for to• morrow for a Com-
mittee.
Adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.