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

The LORD CHANCELLOR had been unexpectedly I
asked a question by the Noble Lord who bad just
sat down—a question which might lead into the labyrinth
of polemical difficulties and abstract political disquisition
were he to enter fully into it. He thought, however,
that for the purposes of this discussion it was not neces-
sary to go so deeply into the subject. He would endea-
vour, therefore, to avoid those difficulties, and answer the
Noble Lord without fearing that he should bewilder him-
self or their Lordships. In answer to the question of the
Noble Lord then, he had no hesitation in saying that in his
opinion, and in the opinion of all sound lawyers, his Ma-
jesty's subjects of the Jewish religion were born to all the
franchises, rights, immunities, and privileges th it the
other subjects of his Majesty were born to, excepting
where the law had positively declared to the contrary.
Their Lordships, no doubt, knew that a Jew had been
declared to be held by the law in the light of an alien
enemy—one hostile to the country—and he had been de •
prived of many rights in consequence. Now that opinion,
he would venture to say, in practice as well as in substance,
was exploded. In vain would any one endeavour to enforce
such an argument in a court of law.—(Hear, (tear.) This
was his answer to the Noble Lord. Having said thus
much, he would proceed to state to their Lordships
his opinion upon the Bill before them. He con-
sidered it a fundamental point of doctrine in matters poli-
tical, that no person ought to be excluded on account of
religious opinions, conscientiously entertained, from the
enjoyment of civil rights. He admitted, also, that the
supreme power of the State had always a right, for the
safety of the State and the protection of its interests, to
lay under disqualification as to civil rights any portion of
the subjects of the country. This power had often been
exercised. It bad been exercised on many occasions,
where the Crown was supposed to be in danger. The
right, however, ceased with the danger. Such laws also
were necessarily limited in their effect, not to say to a
certain extent ineffectual. They pressed hard upon men
of tender consciences ; but those who sought to make a
gain of their consciences here rather than hereafter,
escaped their operation. (Hear, hear.) Although
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land,
it was not abstract Christianity that was the law of the
land. The Christianity of the Unitarian, for instance,
was not the Christianity of the law ; neither was the
Christianity of the Baptist, of the Papist, nor of the
Presbyterian. The Christianity of the Church of Eng-
land, as by law established, was the Christianity which
was part and parcel of the law of England.—(Hear, hear.)
Could it be said that the constitution had lost its Christian
character, because the Roman Catholic had been admit-
ted to Parliament, and to the Bench of Justice? How,
then, could it be said that such a consequence would
be the result of the admission of a Jew to the like pri
vileges ? By admitting the Jews to the Legislature and
to the Bench of Justice, they would indeed be admitting
to legislate and to dispense justice those who denied the
divinity of our• Saviour. But was it fur the interest of
Christianity to keep out such when they admitted not only
those who denied the Son but the Father also ? They
admitted Deists; and even Atheists might come in when-
ever they pleased, and occupy a station in the Councils of
the country. Whoever had read Shaftesbury's Charac-
teristics, or Lord Bolingbroke's works, would appreciate
the justice of his remark. Persons had been Members of
that House who believed just as much of Christianity as
the Jews did, and no more. He could not concur in the
extravagant panegyrics passed on the morality and piety
of our ancestors. He believed there was much more true
religion now than formerly. As to the superior piety and
religion of this country over all the rest of the world,
neither could he concur in that; and the Noble Lord who
uttered the sentiment would smile at it in private. He
hoped it was so, however. At all events, if not the most
pious, this country was best satisfied with its piety.—
(Laughter.) The Noble and Learned Lord mentioned the
case of Mr. Wilkes to show that persons not possessing a
just belief in Christianity had been able to find admission
to the Legislature. It bad been said that whoever sup-
ported this Bill would be supporting impiety, irreligion, and
blasphemy. He defied the ingenuity of man to twist such a
charge out of such a line of conduct. Such charges, he
must observe, ought not lightly to be bandied about. The
ground taken by the opponents of the measure led to this,
that all who differed from their religion must be in the
wrong and blasphemers of that religion; and more, the
argument must come to this—that because the other party
did not believe in their religion, and they did, therefore
he must be in the wrong to believe in his own religion,
because that was so wrong that in their opinion it was
impossible for any man to believe in it. This was the
fundamental principle of all persecution, and so long as
such a principle should be recognised and acted upon, so
long would persecution continue to exist. He had de-
tained their Lordships longer than he had intended in
answering the question put by the Noble Lord opposite,
and should only say further that he gave his entire concur-
rence to the motion. If in so doing he thought it
possible that he should be acting with the slightest disre-
gard for the Christian religion, or even if in taking away
this last remnant of the penal code, which attached civil
disabilities to religious opinions, he should be offering
any the least discouragement to the Christian religion,
he would be the last man to adopt such a course. But,
on the contrary, he felt that in supporting such a
measure he was acting upon the purest principle, that
of charity, which his religion inculcated.
The Duke of GLOUCESTER considered the present
question to be one of the most serious and awful that ever
arose under their Lordships' consideration. The question
was simply this—whether their Lordships were prepared
to decree that that nation which had been marked and set
apart by our Saviour—that that nation which had cru-
cified our Saviour—that that nation which had still
the blood of our Saviour upon its head, should become the
legislators for a Christian people ?---(Hear, hear.) How
was it to be supposed that Christian laws and institutions
would be maintained by such a nation ? What was their
faith ? Why, that ours was a false faith, and that they
were justified in crucifying our Saviour, who promul-
gated it. Allusion had been made to the state of the Jews
in foreign countries, but it was forgotten that with regard
to political office, the Jews were precisely in the same
state in France as they were here.—(The Duke of Sussex
dissented.) He begged the Noble Duke's pardon, but he
would find that to be the case. In France the Jews were
not admitted into the Legislature. They were tolerated
and protected by the laws, and so they were in this coun-
try ; and God forbid that they should not be admitted to
every enjoyment and comfort afforded by private right and
personal security, but he would not consent to place in
their hands political power. He wished to impose no
control upon their consciences, but all he said was, that
he would not consent to let them sit in a Christian Le-
gislature.—(llear, hear.)
The Duke of SUSSEX gave to his Illustrious Rela►ive
credit for the sincerity of his opinions, and only claimed
the same allowance for his own, though of an opposite
character. He was one of those who thought that it was
, purely a political question, and had nothing whatever to do
with religion. After all, he did say that that was the true
nature of the question. It certainly was true that the
Jews were visited with a certain curse, as had been stated

by a Rev. Prelate ; but the Scriptures also went on to say,
" Woe to them who shall have to carry the curse into
effect." He should, therefore, be sorry that we should be
the instruments which had been se denounced. As to
the exclusion of the Jews from political rights in France,
they were not only admitted to them, but a provision, was
made by the State for the Rabbis. A gentleman of the
Jewish persuasion, Mr. Meyer, was Minister of Justice in
Belgium, and there highly respected as a most able and
upright Minister. He trusted that the example of those
countries in which this wise change had been made would
be followed, and the last stain of penal disabilities be
wiped out from our code.
The Duke of GLOUCESTER explained that he had
said not one word of Belgium, but of France, in which
country he maintained that the Jews were not admitted
to power.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that when their
Lordships passed the Bills affording relief to the Roman
Catholics, and removing the Carporation and Test Acts,
it was because it was held no longer necessary to continue
the restrictions for the reasons fur which they were im-
posed. But was that the case with respect to the Jews?
The Roman Catholics and Dissenters had enjoyed all the
privileges of sitting in Parliament before restrictions were
imposed to prevent them. Was that the case with the
all
na Jews? Never. The Jews were considered as alien
enemies, and were never allowed by law to exist in the
country
wouldany untilltn telhetlimhi of the Commonwealth. Well,
then, m that the Jews stood on the
same ground
the Christians in this country to whom
House.
was Acts
w 0 at
ascertain political advantages had been recently granted ?
ofThe
ParliamentN
o b ande
giving dl
uegnon done,i Learned
but
to appealedutthtteh h
it to ilc
Jews
in
en
h
the colonies. And were there no reasons assigned fur
these measuresw
? Inhabitants were required in the aes very
perfectlywords
u ofe
that tlie
had
co-
lonies at the time, and it was deemed wise to create in-
ducements for the Jews to settle in them. This was
particularly the case with regard, to the Act of George 111.
which had been alluded to. European inhabitants, and
especially English inhabitants, were required in Canada,
and the measure was
passed to induce them to go there.
But did they require inducements now to bring Jews to
live in this country ? No such thing; and no attempt
had been made to show, by one single word, that any