The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-22 00:00:00

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.

On the motion of Lord HOWICK, the house went
into a committee on this bi 11...

Several verbal amendments having been made, the
house resumed, and the report was ordered to be
received on Monday.
POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion of Lord A LTHO RP, the order of
the day for the committee on this bill was postponed
till to-morrow.

JEWS' DISABILITIES.

The order of the day for the second reading of the
Jews' Disabilities Bill being read, . ..

Mr. CUMMING BRUCE said he should not re-
capitulate the arguments he had made use of in op-
posing this bill on a former occasion. He felt that
the constitution of this country was founded on Chris-
tianity, which had been said to be part and parcel of
the constitution. He had hoped the project would
this year have been suffered to remain in the bosoms
of its authors. Indeed he had entertained strong ex-
pectations that this bill would have been suffered to
drop out of mere respect to our Christian Monarch
and his oaths at the coronation. That august' per-
sonage was bound to protect and preserve the consti-
tution both in church and state as delivered to his
charge ; and, in order to preserve that august per-
sonage from the disgrace of having this bill offered to
his acceptance, he should, were he to vote alone, press
the house to a division on this occasion, so as to have
his sentiments in opposition to the measure recorded
Od the minutes of the house. He was glad to find
that the sense of the public was, in contradiction to
the sense of the present administration, against the
measure. So far the charge against this kingdom.
ac a kingdom, not as composed of individuals who were
admitted as such to be eminently religious, brought by
the hon. and learned member for Dublin, of atheism,
was disproved. That hon. and learned member's
doctrine was, that though no man could be too reli-
gious personally, yet, nationally, every great people
must be atheistical. Here the British nation had not
only, as individuals, proved itself Christian, and re-
pelled the charge, but collectively, as a nation, vindi-
cated its claim to the high appellation of Christian.
The hon. gentleman concluded by moving as an amend-
ment that the bill .be read a second time this day six
months.

Mr. PE TRE gave the bill his cordial support.
The arguments urged by the hon. gentleman in oppo-
sition to the measure appeared to him, in themselves,
sufficient reasons for supporting it. He rose princi-
pally for the purpose of expressing his earnest wish
and ardent hope that all civil disqualifications, on ac-
count of religious opinions, would he completely done
away with, and that every man would be suffered to
worship God according to the dictates of his own con-
science, provided that his conduct was not detrimental
to the state, and did not compromise his allegiance to
his sovereign. Man was answerable to no one but Cod
for his religious opinions, and therefore he ought to
suffer no detriment for them.
Mr. PO ULTE R said, that in the absence of any
proof that the Jews were deserving of a continuance
of the restrictions to which they had hitherto been
subjected, he should support the measure. The his-
tory of Poland, France, and the United States, proved
the perfect competency of the Jews to fulfil the duties
of citizens, in all those states where they had been
admitted to a fair and honourable participation of civil
rights. He looked upon these laws as the last remnant
of expiring intolerance, and hoped that the spread of
liberality would speedily extinguish it.
Sir D. K. S AND FORD said that the history of
other nations had been referred to, but he would not,
in legislating for this country, consent to take an ex-
ample from America, in which events were witnessed
go fatal to all religion. ( Hear, hear.) He trusted
the hon. member for Dublin, who cheered him in so
peculiar a manner—who had spoken so eloquently
elsewhere on the subject of the union between church
and state, would bring forward a motion on the suLject,
and then he ( Sir D. K. Sandford) should be able to
prove what he had asserted as to the pernicious effects
upon religion, which were to be traced in the history
of America. He did not recognise this measure as
p. measure of true toleration. He looked upon it as
the offspring of a false liberality. This was a
Christian country, having a Christian legislature ;
we were a Christian people, and we ought not to
do anything by which our Christian principles would
be compromised. He saw nothing in Scripture
which led him to consider that Christian charity de-
-Inanded the concession of civil or political privileges.
ITC had heard it said, " Why refuse the Jews admis-
gitm to this house when there are already infidels in it?"
But he asked, would any man dare to avow himself in
that house a declared and open infidel ? If any man
wished to make such a profession, let him go to the
Old Bailey, and he would be driven from the court
amidst the scorn, and hisses, and execrations of the
people. He was not putting an imaginary case. Such
an instance had occurred, and it was a proof that no
man dared to avow himself in this country a declared
and open infidel. In his ( Sir D. Sandford's) opinion,
the moment a Jew was admitted into that house, that
moment the Legislature of the country would be un-
Christianised.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM supported the bill, and con-
tended that there could not possibly be any danger in
Fetnpving the disabilities under which the Jews la-
boured. He denied that there was the slightest ana-
logy-
.!-between the case of an infidel presenting himself
_,ox and a Jew. A Jew's evidence would
in a wi 1
tness-
he received in a witness-box, but an infidel's evidence
would be rejected. (Loud cries of " Question.")
IW, W. ROCHE supported the bill, and main..
tallied that tranquillity could never be established in
ibis country till all relations in society were placed
upon an equal footing, with regard to religious free-

dom.
Mr. R. GRANT briefly replied. He hoped the
house would not consider him guilty of any disrespect to
lion. members, or any indifference to the subject, if he
declined going into any arguments on the present oc-
,casjon. It was with profound and sincere regret, be
must say, that heought such arguments as he had
heard urged on the opposite side could do no good to
the cause of Christianity.

The house then divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority 9l
'T he bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be read a third time on Monday next.