The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-11 00:00:00

ruled that the declaration shotfid be taken at the time
of presenting himself, and that the Mayor, and Court
of Aldermen had the right to prescribe the order in
which the oaths and the declarations should be taken.
The result was, that the Court of Aldermen, who
had no voice in the election, might, by prescribing
the declaration in the first instance, exclude the person
elected, and place an officer favoured by them, but
not elected by the citizens, thus giving the aldermen
control over the elections in which they had no con-
cern. That was not the case in other towns in Eng-
land. In Birmingham the oaths were taken first, and
if the declaration were not signed afterwards, the
neglect was protected by the Act of Indemnity.
Thus it was in Birmingham, Portsmouth, Southamp
ton, and other places. His object was to get rid of
these anomalies, and to place the matter on a clear
and distinct footing. The mode which he proposed
was well known to their Lordships. It was when
the declaration was about to be taken by a person of
a Jewish persuasion, that the words "in the true
faith of a Christian" should be omitted. They had
done this in the case of Quakers, Moravians, Inde-
pendents, and others, who had scruples of conscience
against that form. He might he told that the object
of the words was to exclude Jews, but he had a case
in favour of this view, in times less liberal than the
present, when people saw dangers that were not now
apprehended, and were disposed to be more chime-
rical. In the 10th year of George 1., the same words
were omitted in favour of the Jews from the declara-
tion prescribed by the Abjuration Act. In the Act,
the 14th of George 11., the same exception in favour
of the Jews was made. He thought it right to rest
his case on these limited grounds, lest the particular
hardship might be lost sight of, if he went into a
wider discussion of principles. He would not go
into details of what was done in other countries—in
France, in Belgium, in the United States of America,
and, above all, in Holland—(Hear, hear)—where,
without any distinction, for a great number of years,
Jews had been admitted into the highest offices with-
out any inconvenience, and to the satisfaction of all
enlightened minds. In the Austrian States a great
improvement was proceeding;. but Prussia was taking
the lead of liberality to the Jews. Jews were ad-
mitted to the schools and universities, and several of
them attained the highest distinctions in the learned
professions. (The Noble Lord then read a document li
to the effect that the Jews in the Prussian universities
and the learned professions in Prussia, distinguished
for learning and genius, were considerably more than
in the proportion of their numbers to the other race.)
There was nothing that he more regretted than the
degradation of this class; and their Lordships had
always expressed a sympathy for the disabilities to
which they were exposed. And under these circum-
stances he did hope that their Lordships would pass
the Bill which he now submitted to their attention.—

(Hear, hear.) He thought it unnecessary to enter
on any lengthened review of the Acts which related
to the hardships and disabilities to which members of
the Jewish persuasion were exposed ; and he thought
that the time was come when all the obsolete Acts
by which these disabilties were imposed should be swept
from the statute book. He need only refer to one of
those similar Acts which had been imposed in former
times—he meant that of Edward I.—by which members
of the Jewish persuasion were not only confined to par-
ticular town 9, but to particular districts of those towns,
called " .Tewries," and by which they were obliged to
affix certain badges to their outer garments, which ex-
pressed their religious opinions and callings. This, he
thought, was a sufficient review to justify the House in
sweeping those acts from the statute book.

The Bishop of LONDON said that he had but one
observation to make on this Bill. He should not now
oppose it, for he knew that would only bring on a use-
less discussion ; but he would beg their Lordships to
observe that by this silent acquiescence in the second
reading he by no means precluded himself from opposing
it in a future state. He would not pledge himself to
any particular line of conduct with regsrd to the Bill.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he was
not at all surprised at the declaration just made by the
Right Rev. Prelate, but he nevertheless rejoiced at the
introduction of this Bill, and he trusted that the time
was not far distant when all disabilities would be re-
moved from the members of the Jewish persuasion. He
could not help congratulating the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack on the perfect consistency of his
conduct on this occasion. He (the Marquis of Lans-
downe) recollected that five years ago the Noble and
Learned Lord had presented a petition from Mr. Salo-
mons, for the very privilege which this Bill was about to
confer, and he would therefore congratulate the House
on the progress of liberal opinions, and hoped they
would find encouragement in the wise course they had
now adopted. His firm impression was, that the time
was not far distant when a full consideration of this sub-
ject would be called for, and when that House would be
compelled to do justice to a class of men than whom
none were more respectable ; and that without in the
least inconveniencing the public interests of the country.
What could be more injurious to the public interests,
what more unjust to the individuals themselves, than
that while respectable men of the Jewish persuasion
should be admitted to the magistracy in counties, they
should be excluded in corporations? What more ridi-
culous than that they were fit for the office of Sheriff
and Justice of the Peace, and yet be incompetent to fill
the office of Alderman of the city of London? He cor-
dially supported the Bill brought in by the Noble and
Learned Lord upon the Woolsack.
Lord BROUGHAM said he entirely concurred in
the opinions that had fallen from the Noble Lord who
had just spoken, and he hoped that the measure brought
in by his Noble and Learned Friend upon the Wool
sack would be passed without one voice being raised
against it. While he thought that no long time would
elapse ere further concessions were made to the Jews,
he yet thought that the limited Bill of his Noble and
Learned Friend was more politic and more expedient than
a more extended measure would be at that time. It was
certainly a most ridiculous anomaly that members of the
Jewish persuasion should be empowered to act as
ministers of justice in counties, and be denied the same
privileges—he would not call them privileges, he would
say rights—in corporations. It would be most ungrate-
ful in him—it would be most unjust to his fellow la-
bourers in the city of London—if he did not take the
opportunity of recording the great, the charitable, the
generous, the magnificent aid rendered by the gentlemen
of the Jewish persuasion to all sects and all classes, their
enlightened industry in promoting wise and useful ob-
jects, without regard to creed or sect, and the readiness
with which they aided, with purse and hand, any scheme
which was calculated to advance the interests of their
fellow-subjects.

Lord CAMPBELL adverted to the Bill brought in in
1810, to remove the disabilities that pressed upon the
Jews. That Bill was rejected by a large majority in
that House. When be had the honour, in 1831, of being
Attorney-General he, in the case of Mr. Salomons, re
ferred to by the Noble Lord, brought in a Bill to re-
move those disabilities, but only in the single instance of
sheriff; and that Bill was founded upon the analogy that
existed between the duties of sheriffs in counties and
sheriffs in corporations, and that as the former were not
required to make the declaration, so ought not the latter.
He was exceedingly glad that a change had been made,
and he hoped tha' in the next session of Parliament the
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsa k would come
down to the House with a Bill which would enable a
person of the Jewish persuasion not only to sit in the
Court of Aldermen of the City of London, but to a seat
in the Legislature of the country.
The Bishop of LONDON would offer no opposition to
the Bill because he did not wish to promote discussion,
but he begged it to be understood that the Bill was not
to be taken as an instalment of future concessions.
Lord COLCHESTER said the speech of the Noble
and Learned Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) had almost
persuaded him to oppose the measure, but it nevertheless
was not his intention to do so. But in assenting to the
Bill it must be understood that he did not for a moment
. . . .

think it right and proper that persons of the Jewish per
suasion should ever hold a seat in Parliament.
Lord RE] ESDALE said it had been stated that

there was a similarity between this measure and a
Bill introduced in 1841; but this was strictly not the
case. There might be a similarity in the two preambles,
but in any other respect there certainly was none.
After a few words of explanation from Lord CAMP-
BELL, which did not reach the gallery,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Bill of 1841

related to municipal corporations, and no doubt this
had induced his Noble and Learned Friend to assume
that there was a similarity between the two. The Noble
and Learned Lord had certainly opposed the measure in
a circuitous mode, and it appeared to him, from what
had fallen from a Noble Lord on the Ministerial side of
the House that this circuitous opposition had nearly
proved successful.—(Laughter.)
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.

LUNATICS IN IRELAND.
Lord MONTEAGLE brought in a Bill fur amending
the law respecting pauper lunatics in Ireland. The
Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read again
this day week.
The Earl of CADOGAN moved for returns of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing in what parishes
there had been a surplus of the funds applicable for the
purposes of the Commissioners, and in what way such
surplus funds had been applied.
The Bishop of LONDON said that he had no ohjec
Lion to produce the returns called for by the Noble Earl,
but he trusted he would modify his motion so as to ob-
viate a great inconvenience, for part of the returns which
the Noble Earl des•red had been included in other
icturns already presented to their Lordships' House. If
all the returns which had been moved for were presented
the production of them would cause an immohe trouble
to the clerks, whereas, if the motion were modified, all

•
this would be avoided. Ile (the Bishop of London) had
not the slightest objection to give every information,
and produce all the correspondence in the possession of
the Commissioners, and he would, therefore, suggest that
the Noble Earl should move for the first of the returns.

The Earl of CADOGAN said that he acted simply on
public grounds, and that he wished to know how the
funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been ad-

ministered, and where there had been a surplus. If the
Right Rev. Prelate would give the returns of those
parishes where a surplus had been found, and how that
surplus had been administered, that was all he required.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested that the Noble Earl
should modify his motion.
The Earl of CADOGAN said that he would modify
his motion, and would be prepared to say in what way
he would put it to•morrow.

CONSTABLES (SCOTLAND) BILL AMEND-
MENT.
On the motion of the Duke of BUCCLEIICIL this
Bill was read a third time and passed.—Adjourned.