The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-01 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 1, 1833.

(No. 12,628.)

tion of the country, then be understood what he meant
by the term " lower orders."

Sir CHARLES BURRELL would not touch on the
subject of the Jews as introduced by the the Hon. Metn-
ber, but he must say a word or two on the other subject
upon which he had touched. He denied that there was
any class of persons escaped taxation, and called upon the
Hon. M mber for Oldba n to state what class of persons
he meant by the rich. He was not very rich, but cer-
tainly he did not escape from taxation, nor did he believe
that the Hon. Member himself did. Therefore, to state
that the rich were not taxed was a gross fallacy. Again
be called upon the Hon. Member to point out who were the
rich that he alluded to. If it was to he fundholders that
he painted, they were a class of persons who had lent 'heir
money to the State, and they had as much right to their
interest as any other person had to what was his own.
Night after night they had heard from the Hon. Member
that the rich bad no feeling for the poor. He must deny
that statement. He had been at a meeting last week, when
what were called the rich had come forward most liberally
in support of the poor; and amongst those were noblemen
merchants, and a great many clergymen, both of the
Church of England and of Dissenters. Thee were in that
House many most Hon. Gentlemen, in fact there were
three or four then present, who now bore most honourable
characters, whose grandfathers belonged to that class of
the community alluded to as the poor. However, there
was another class of men i❑ the community, who bad
made their fortune by exciting the poorer classes against
all those from whom they got their living. If any such
should find their way into that House, be ought to be
spurned.
An floN. MEMBER said that he had been requested to
support the prayer of the petition, which he did with the
greatest pleasure. He was very anxious that the poor,
out of the seven days, should have one for their recrea-
twn ; that they should have one day, that, by law, their
masters could not call upon them to work.
Another IloN. AIHMBER said he had a very great re-
spect for all classes of the community who conducted
themselves properly. Though be did not entertain a very
high respect for the political opinions or the writings of
the Hon. Member for Oldham, yet for that Hon. Gentle•
man's knowledge of the English language he had a very
high respect, and he would feel most particularly obliged
to him if he would point out, or give them another term,
in place of that which had displeased him—" the lower
orders."

Mr. RUTHVEN said that upon no subject more than
the one now under discussion should the term " the lower
orders" be kept out of view. In the eye of the Almighty
there was no difference between the poorest of the people
and the Monarch on the throne. In his opinion it would
interfere most effectually with the due observance of the
Sabbath, if that House were to enact any severe law to
curb the people. He would say, let the preachers do their
duty, and inculcate upon the people the due observance of
that day. If they did so, any measures of that House
would be unnecessary.—(The Hon. Member was then
about to enter into the system of taxation, when he was
called to order by the SPEAKER.)
An Host. MEMBER said be had heard a great many
strange arguments on this subject. It had been said
among other statements that it was vain to introduce any
statute law on the observance of the Sabbath at all. If
this was to be carried to the full extent of the argument
it could mean neither more nor less than to say that all
law might be dispensed with together.—(Hear.) This
could not be a doctrine very likely to meet with the sup-
port of the House or the public.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY was anxious to say a few
words on this very important subject, particularly as he
had been intrusted to support a petition from his own part
of the country very much to the effect of the one that
had just been presented. No man could be more desirous
than himself that the Sabbath should in all respects be
duly observed ; but it was his candid opinion, that it
could not be made to he more sacredly observed by any
legislative act whatever.—(Hear.) If an individual
had not a proper sense of what was due to
his Creator, so as to induce him to abs ain
front worldly pursuits, and other unchristian vocations
en the Sabbath Day, no legislative enactment would make
t•im mere attentive to his duties as a Christian.—(Hear.)
He agreed with what had fallen from the Hon. Member
for Oldham in one respect, and in one respect only,
namely, that if any legislative act were to be passed for
the better observance of the Sabbath, it ought to be di-
rected against all classes.—( Hear, hear.) It would be a roost
improper interference on the part of Parliament to enact
for one class of society a statute for the observance of
the Sabbath, leaving another class exempt.—(Hear.) He
would suggest to Hon. Members who had thought on this
subject, and he gave them as much credit as he took to
himself for a real inclination to observe the Sabbath,
that a most effectual way to inculcate a proper and
regular observance of the Sabbath was by those who
had an opportunity of setting an example— (Hear, hear,
hear)—te other classes, duly and properly affording
that example.—(Cheers.) The example of the higher and
richer classes would have a Brest effect in inculcating
upo❑ other classes of society the proper observance of the
Sabbath, and a much greater observance than any other
course that could be thought of.—( Hear.) He would
only call the attentiiin of the House to an old Act o! Par-
liament now in existence, and wiiich Issd bleu acted upon
two years ago, viz., an Act for making a poor man decent
on a Sunday morning, before going to a place of worship—
the old Act that was found a few years ago to prevent a
barber from shaving on a Sunday morning.—(Hear.)
He had always thought a law of this description was a
barbarous measure.—(A laugh.) It was wall known
that a po.ir ruin could not have an opportunity on Satur-
day evening of rn king himself fit to attend at a place of
worship on a Sunday morning, and why there riould be a
law to prevent him (Ding it on Sunday morning he could
not conceive. He doubted exceedingly the efficacy of
any law that could be passed in p:ocuring the end in
question. _ _

Mr. COBBETT rose to reply ; but having already
spoken on the petition, was called to order by L,,rd Wil-
liam Lennox and Lord Althorp.
Mr. HILL presented a petition from a congregation of
Unitarian Dissenters, assembling for religious worship in
Bowle-alley-lane, praying for the removal of all religious
disqualifications still existing, and especislly for the re•
intival of the disabilities affecting toe Jews. There was
one remark of the Hon. Member for Oldham, upon which
he wished to observe. He understood the Honourable
Member to say, that if the Jews were admitted to
the same rights—or privileges and favours, as the Hon.
Member for Oldham, whom he observed to be a great
critic on words, wi,bed them to be called—there would
be an end to the Christian religion. But suppose that
the Jews were relieved from their civil disabilities, the
Hon. Member need not change his religion, whatever was
done in favour of the Jews, nor need aoy change take
place in the Sabbath Day. The Jews were careful to
observe both the Jewish and Christian Sabbath.—(Hear,
hear.) He never heard of the Jews offering such an
insult to the religious feelings of the country in which
they happened to reside, as not to show all proper
outward respect, and that was all that could be required
of them for the religious institutions in the midst of which
they lived. If the Hen. Member for Oldham were to go
to Turkey—and he should be sorry for him to go there or
anywhere else that would take him away from them—he
would find himself obliged, by that courtesy to the opi-
nions of others which had marked his conduct through life
laugh)—to observe the Friday with the same strict-
ness as the Jews do the Christian Sunday in this country. If
the Hon. Member did so, no Itnaurn in Turkey could justly
complain of him. He had to thank the Hon. Member fur
Oldham, for calling his attention to the phrase " lower
classes," which he certainly did no, like, because it had
been used to imply a contempt which he would be the
most contemptible of men if he himself could feel. He
had no right to put himself above the labouring class, as
he supposed the Hon. Member for Oldhum would prefer
calling it, for he belonged to that class. He maintained
himself by his I iliour, but he was, nevertheless, much afraid
that when the Honourable Member for Oldham came to
discuss the burdens borne by the labouring clan-, he would
not allow a pour lawyer to mix bitnselt up with it. The
prayer of this petition had his cordial support, for he
thought it a disgrace to the country that every remnant
of the laws against the religious liberty of the subject,
had not ►ong since been swept away. Even yet Dissenters
were not admitted to the Universities without signing cer-
tain tests, and although this might be thought a trivial
evil by those who were not Dissenters, he, who bad sprung
from a Dissenting family, could assure the House that it
was severely felt.
The petition having been read,
Mr. COBBETT said, this is a petition for abolishing
Christianity in England. Since we have met, we have

made tolerable progress in abolishing many excellent things.
We began by abolishing the Committee of Grievances ;
we next abolished the Committee of Religion; af, r that
we abolished the Committee on the Courts of Justice;
and then we abolished the old practice of presenting peti.
tions in full Parliament, and established a petty Parliament,
sitting in the middle of the day, for the purpose of ap-
pointing at the same time a Committee to take the peti-
tions of the people into consideration, and order such
parts as they chose, and not as the House of Commons
chose, to he printed.—(Cries of " ar, heir, heir.")
Thit was a pretty beginning; and now comes this petition
tor over.etting the Christian religion. Let the Hon. Gen.
tleman tell me in what position the Court. of Liw would
be, if the Jews were emancipated. God knows they make
free enough already—(Laughter)—and certainly get more
money together than any set of Christians As if this
were not enough, a clause was slipeed into an Act of Par-
liament a few years back to enable them to poss-ss free' old
property in England. It w uld not have passed .0 quietly
I promise you if I'd been in Parliament.—(Laughter.)
But let the Hon • Gentleman, I say, tell me what
would be our position with a Jew Judge upon the
bench, a blasphemer by profession, one who calls Jesus
Christ an impostor? What would the Hon. Member do
with this Judge stuck up there—(A laugh)—to try a
man for blasphemy ? He is himself a blasphemer, and
regularly once a week blasphemes Jesus Christ in the

Synagogue, and once a-year crucifies him in effigy:

derstand that, to the shame of the benchers, one Jew is al-
ready at the bar, but what will the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman say if a Jew Judge is stuck up to try Carfile
or any other blasphemer ? Whet could there be then
said about tithes ? If the Jewish religion is as
good as the Christian, or if the Christian be good
for nothing, why do we maintain a Church Esta-
blishment? As to the fanatics who petition about the
matter, they have not considered it—they know not what
they say, or what they pray fur. They can never have
reflected that the House cannot grant the prayer of this
petition, without saying that nothing is blasphemy. They
cannot have reflected that the Jews call Jesus Christ an
impostor. They proclaim it in their books, in their
sermons, in their prayers, and in their psalms, which
they sing loud enough to stun any unfortunate Chris-
tian who may happen to be within hearing.—(Hear.)
In answer to the observations of the Hon. Baronet oppo-
site (Sir C. Burrell) I deny that I have ever desired to
raise a prejudice against the landowners, but it bappens
singularly enough, that I and my colleague, the representa-
tives of a manufacturing town, in which a great cry has
been raised for the repeal of the corn laws, have con-
vinced the people that the corn laws ought not to be re-
pealed until all the other burdens have been taken off the
land. If a fundholder die, and leave an intestate estate
worth 1,000/. to a son or a brother, that son or brother
has to p ty, in legacy duty, 45/. If a Bishop die, as the
Archbishop of Armagh and the Bishop of Winchester
did some time ago, leaving 300,0001., he had only
6,500/. to pay, which was not one-half in proportion to
what the fundholder paid. There was Earl Witz •
william, who died, and his son succeeded him. I
put it to the Honourable Baronet, who does
not seem to know all this, to what an extent
this system might eventually lead. I take as I find
it in the Act of Parliament. Earl Fitzw•illiam died,
I dare say, leaving 100,000/. a year in estates. Ido not
grudge his heir the possession of that property, but if he had
to pay in the same proportion as the fundholder, he
would pay to the public at this moment 180,000/. in
taxes. But he will pay nothing, for the law does not call
upon him to pay any thing. I hear a great deal said about a
graduated property tax. Let it be so. I will not talk
of the stamp taxes as regards what has passed, but if the
present laws he persevered in, I warn the House that not
only will the fundholder pay their proportion, but we will
go into the arrears. All I require is justice for the fu-
ture. Give us but that, and I will not ask for justice for
the past.

Sir C BURRELL, in reply, said the lion. Member had
committed a great mistike regarding the taxes to which he
had alluded. Instead of the amount stated by him, the son
of a person as described by that Hon. Member would pay
but one per cent, and the brother three per cent.
L rd ALTHORP complained of the Hon. Member for
Oldham referring every day, before the question came re-
gularly on for discussion, to the st imp duties. It was not
fair, as it had the effect of giving a wrong impression to
the public.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Mel.ber
had said, " Let us do justice for the future ;" so sail
he (Lord Althorn). He could state that it was in the
contemplation of his Majesty's Government to bring the
question of the stamp duties before Parliament, a lii 1 for
the consolidation of the Stamp Acts being now in course
ut preparation, when all the subjects to which it referred
could be amply discussed. He would not support taxation
that should press untidily on any pat of the coin.
munity, aid he would not press harder on one class
than another, without giving reasons for it—he meant
that he would show that it was only apparently
a pressure on any one class. In some respects the Hon.
Member for o.oham hod shown that some parts of the
stamp duties required amendment, but if be lo- ked to the
whole of the taxati n for stamps he would fiod that the
pressure aid not operate unfairly on any class, but that
the rich paid th same pi op-rtion ..s ,he other classes.
Lit be w.,u:d satisfactorily show when the question was
brought before th, House.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON regretted that he must
infringe a little on the time or the House. He could not
but regret that so much of their time should he taken up
by the Hon. Member for Oldham on this anti other occa-
sion.. Day by day that Hall. Member delayed th.dr pro
ceeding with important matters, for the purpose of de-
livering his notions. He (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) agreed
with that Honourable Member on some points, but he
Miff red with him entirely on the fitness of the time
he cnose for declaring them. The question before the
House was. whether it would receive the petition
in favour of those British subjects which were
denominated Jews. Every description of religionists had
a right to bye their dilualitications removed, and to be
placed in a situation to he promoted to any situation in the
state. And no man should be excluded unless lie was known
to be a dangrrous Mall, or a traitor to the scare. Tots
House would admit persons not only without any re
ligion, but who were known to be Deists or Atheists.
No tent would keep out t:,ese, whits; the Jews, who
were always good subjecs, were placed in a worse situa-
tion; and he should not consider the system of liberality
and justice of his Majesty's Ministers comp'et,, without
the admission 01 the Jews to equal political rights. The
Hon. Member for Oldham was mistaken in some of his
refereuc,,s to history. It was the oath of abjuration that
prevented the admission of the Jews, which was not
enacted until the time of William the Third. This oath
ought to be put an end to to•morrow. Previous to the
passing of that Act, the Jews might have been admitted
to those privileges they were now excluded from. At the
proper time he would show that there was nothine; in the
religion, or in the character of the Jews, to justify their
disqualification.

Mr. O'DWYER could not refrain from expressing his
dissent from the arguments of 0:: Hon. Member for Old•
ham, with whom he agreed on almost every ether point.
He lamented that that Hon. Member should sully his high
political character by countenancing such prejudices; and
be appealed to him, and to such other Hun. Members as
agreed with him, to throw those prejudices aside.—(Cries
of "Question.")
Mr. TOOKE, and another Hon. Member, addressed
the House, but the impatience generally manifested to
have the question put prevented an intelligible hearing in
the gallery.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON said, that if the majority of that
House were of the opinion which had been expressed by
many Hun. Members that day, the present would be the
last Christian Parliament that would sit in that House.—
(Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Hon. Member fur
Oldham in what he had stated ; he thought he had gone to
the right of the matter, and placed it upon its proper
basis. He had clearly shown what the Jews
were in regard to a Christian community, and
he had no hesitation in saying, that if Jews
were admitted into that House there would be at
once an end to all Christianity. They treated the very
foundations of the Christian faith with ridicule, and called
its great founder an imposter. He agreed with several
Hon. Members, that the present subject was not to be
treated lightly, and regretted that the Hon. Member for
Oldham had treated it irreverent. He, however, hoped,
that in future he would restrain himself from
making his remarks in the way he had done.
He considered it very important also to look to what the
petitions were. It was true that they were now living
in times when all dissensions were to be done away with,
but he entreated the House to recollect that the present

petition came from Unitarians, whom he denied to be
Christians.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted that Hon. Mem-
here would rally round the Cross, and would not allow the
Christian teligion to be suhverted by the introduction
ofJews into that House.—(Cheers.) For his own part,
he should endeavour to prevent the passing of any Bill
that would tend to allow the Jews to sit in Parliament
by all the means in his power, and he entered his most
solemn protest against Unitarians being considered
Christians.