The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-18 00:00:00

holding one of those offices. But the precedents or practices
of other countries ought not to be precedents for the guidance
of this: for, though in the offices to be held, cases might be
analogous, yet they were not analogous in this, for :he Govern-
ments to which he referred, were either despotic, or ad exhibited
symptoms of conduct which, he trusted, would no be adopted
in England. If this Bill was passed, what sec irity had they
that the Jews would not object to our laws
.with regard to the
keeping of the Sabbath. At present, they could not complain,
but if they permitted them to hold high municipal offices, was
it not likely that they would refuse to enforce our laws upon
that subject. For all these reasons, he should move that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said that a respectable individual who had
been named more than once was at that moment high sheriff of
the county which he had the honour to represent. He had
nothing to say against that individual. But in this country
we either were Christians or not, and if we were Christians we
were about to admit to office those who derided the name of
that Being in whom, as Christians, we trust, and in whom we
glory. He desired to exalt the name of that Being, and he
thought they were about to invite a desecration of that Holy
name. He was quite sure with the Honourable Member for
the University of Oxford that this measure would prove any-
thing but satisfactory to the country. He was convinced that
this was not a measure of opinion, or to be classed with the
measures which had been lately passed. It was one that was
disreputable to the House and the Government. He felt assured
that every man who felt any real respect for the Great, Head of
the,Church he belonged to could vote for it, for it was one which
desecrated the honour of- that great and glorious Being on
whose merits he depended for eternal happiness. If this
Bill were passed, there would be great reason to fear that that
great and glorious Being would cast this nation out of his fa-
vour. Without the favour of Almighty God he would ask
where was the security for the prosperity of this great nation ?
God forbid that this Bill should pass, but, if it did pass, they
would neglect the obligations which laid upon them as reason-
able men, and still more as Christian men. He was aware that
theological questions could not be entertained in that House,
on any other than political grounds, but he could not help think-
ing that as Christian men, the Members of that House could
not discuss the question without a reference to the opinions of
the great body of the Christian inhabitants in this country. He
feared that his remarks would receive but little consideration,
yet, in his view, the matter was of such importance that he
could not refrain from seconding the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Honourable Gentle-
man who had just sat down put the question on grounds which
it was difficult to notice, but impossible to avoid. The Hon.
Gentleman had stated that if this Bill were passed there was a
danger of a loss of the favour of the Most High. In the course
of his observations he had allowed that the remarks of the
Honourable Member for Oxford had shown that the office of
magistrates was filled by Jews. He had himself stated, that in
his own county the office of high sheriff was held by a Jew.
These offices were of the utmost importance, and if the Hon.
Gentleman did hold these opinions, he ought to have brought in
a Bill to prevent Jews from holding any offices whatever. But
if such a Bill had been passed, he would have asserted that
offices were only to be held by members of the Church of
England. That was going on the narrowest grounds of in-
tolerance ; grounds, to which, as a Member of that Rouse, he
could never consent.—( Hear, hear.) The House of Lords,
by the decision of 1828, had declared that Jews might be
safely admitted to the offices to which this Bill gave them a
right. By the solemn decision in 1845 of the same House
that declaration had been confirmed. And so far from losing
the blessing of the Most High, by admitting the Jews to these
offices, they were doing away with religious rancour and dif-
ference, and if this were promoting the cause of charity, it was
the most essential means of securing the blessing of God. So
long as Jews fulfilled every duty of British subjects, they
were entitled to the same honours and advantages as other
subjects. The Hon. Member for Oxford had stated that the
Jews felt that they were a nation; but it should be recollected,
that so long as those Jews were contributors to the revenue,
they were members of the community of this country. The
Right Hon. Gentleman reminded him of a remark of one
whom he would not say was the fairest evidence, Dugald
Stewart. Dugald Stewart had compared the University of
Oxford to a ship moored in a running stream, and by which
the rapidity of the stream was to be measured. The Hon.
Gentleman was moored in the stream, and so he was letting
opportunities pass by. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Newark, whose assistance was not rendered in this debate,
had declared, in one of those speeches in favour of posi-
tions which he was so well able to maintain, that no
line of demarcation could be drawn between the admission
of Jews to seats in Parliament and the highest offices • and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. in Isis speech in reply to his
Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay),
had asserted that Jews could not be excluded from seats
in Parliament, any more than any other sect.—( Cheers. )
He was not one of those who were so credulous as to suppose
that the Jews will not aim at higher privileges than were be-
stowed by this Bill. He presented a petition some time ago
from a Jewish community, in which it was stated that they
would be glad to have this measure, but that they would not
give up one jot of their claims to higher privileges. He (Lord
John Russell) agreed with them and with the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Newark, and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that the only principle upon which they agreed
to this Bill was, that it would lead to the admission of Jews to
higher privileges. He believed that the religious belief of a
Jew would not interfere with the discharge of his duty. His
Hon. Friend opposite brought forward rather a singular autho-
rity—not for him (Lord J. Russell) or any Host. Gentleman
on his side of the House to quote—but a singular authority
for him ( Sir R. Inglis), Dr. Arnold. Everybody knew that Dr.
Arnold had an opinion which he thought a benevolent, pro.
visionary, theory, that they could unite in one religious and
political community, that they could have a State with a large
comprehension of religious differences, which woUld be animated
by one generous religious belief ; but for that purpose he pro-
posed that all Christians, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters of
every kind, should be admitted into his nation of equality,
which he proposed should supersede their present imrerfect in-
stitutions. Did his Hon. Friend imagine that there could be no
kind of sympathy created between Jews and Christians ? Why
did he take the benefit of Dr. Arnold's opinion with regard to
the Jews only? Let him go the whole way, or let him not
quote Dr. Arnold. He would not have it voted solely for
the Jews. For these reasons he ( Lord John Russell) would
give his hearty assent to the present Bill, though at the same
time he found fault with it because it was not comprehensive
enough. He held :t as a step to further measures that would
tend to extend the charitable feelings by which the members of
this community ought to he united, and he would heartily
give his vote, not only to this measure, but to any other measure
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, by which
the Jews would be admitted to all civil offices.—(Cheers. )
Mr. TREL AWN E Y made a few observations in favour of
the Bill, which were scarcely audible in the gatlery.
Mr. M. MILN ES condemned the continuation of the preju-
dice that at present existed against the Jews. He knew the effect
which it had in Prussia, where the animosity existing towards
them was only to be equalled by the aniusosity existing between
the blacks and whites in the United States. Ile thought that
they ought to extend the privileges and the rights of the Jewish
creed as far as possible, without injury to the State, and
he would, accordingly, vote for the measure.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority in favour of the motion —Bo
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Upon the motion that the House do go into Committee on
the Poor-law Amendment ( Scotland) Bill,
Mr. LOCKH ART said he hoped this Bill would not be pro-
ceeded with. lie was very anxious that it should be postponed
for a few days, say a fortnight, 83 the people of Scotland were
under the impression that the Bill would not be at all suited
to the country. He could assure the House that in many parts
of Scotland there were a great number of Irish and English
located, who had found their way into those places, and had
obtained a location that they were not entitled to, and therefore
it would not be fair that the parishes in which those people
resided should be taxed for their support. Altogether the Bill,
in its present sta-e, differed so much from its original form that
time ought to be given to consider it. After a few further
observatiens, which were totally inaudible in the gallery, the
Hon. Member concluded by saying that though he hal at
first intended to move the postponement of the House going
into Committee on this Bill for a fortnight, yet, upon a more
mature consideration of the question, he would withdraw the
motion.
Mr. SHARNIAN CRAWFORD defended the Irish la-
bourers resident in England, and contended that they
would never have come to that country but they were wanted
as artisans and labourers.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would reserve any observations
he had to make upon this discussion until the House went into
Committee on the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. P. M. STEWART, the House
went into Committee on the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was a party to recommending the
introduction of the clause in this Bill in reference to the settle-
ment question. In respect to vagrants he begged to say that
no alteration whatever had been made in the existing law in
regard to them, and therefore his Hon. Friend near him had
been mistaken in saying that the Bill would have an injurious
effect in reference to vagrants. And then, as to the period of
settlement, that had been extended from three to five years.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he objected to the adoption of
such a principle, as he considered that any Member had an in-
disputable right to speak to the question, and oppose it if be
chose, prior to the Speaker leaving the chair.
The House having gone into Committee,
Sir J. GRA HAM, on the 73rd clause being put by the Chair-
man, said that as he had been a party to the recommendation
of that clause in the Bill which referred to the right of settle-
ment, he should support it in its present stage, as well as en a
former occasion he did its introduction. With respect to va-
grants, he begged to say that no alteration whatever had been
made since the measure was first presented to the House, and
therefore the complaint made by his Hon. Friend the Member
for Lanarkshire (Mr. Lockhart) was unfounded and uncalled
for. His Hon. Friend was also mistaken in his statements re-
specting the hardship, implied by the change which the pro-
posed law of settlement effected over the former, the fact
being, that the present provision would extend the claim to
settlement from three to five years.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he could not help thinking
that the Scotch Members had been treated very uncourteously.
Almost every one of them had urged the postponement of the
measure, at least until another session. All their requests
had, however, been treated with disregard, till at length a
motion was suddenly brought forward by an Hon. Member,
fortnight.
had previously supported the Bill, to retard it for a
ahi
astand
m atta n , Ih
provision,f
shoulde t
shhhaeav
ue dbonehn:
a.rnv 1:f
made
areapmdpesbousebeerhyd foraitt
am insignificant
those
as
in
wawrhkao Lanarkshire h
failed
aroietl
euhddpa pressedolnaoyapn pt ho un-
importantsaet
principles of the Bill.
Aualatree— v z
the obnoxious
Ge ne
HENLEYra ra l u t
wishedon
toreaopettsekhais Lee prarneodvisio
Friend
of thendtheA4d .
What was the meaning of th
of the medicaolfcesrctoifilcaantde
clause—viz.,
that t h
there mentioned, and whether the Sessions Court
wasT hthe A soulpv Oand
T E .G
E conscienceN Eo
Rf theL Scotchreplied
doctors?e
provision
had reference to the issue of the medican certificate 1 a one, and
was not to be found in any other part of the Bill, or applicable
to any other subject.
Sir E. COLBROOKE thought that either the law of set-
tlement in England, or that now proposed for Scotland, must
be erroneous, as the Government measure was totally different
from the existing law in this country. The Scotch, as native
occupiers, but above all as rate-payers, and the Irish and
English settlers, had equally a right to complain of the in-
justice comprehended and threatened in the measure, and
for his part he regarded all its provisions unfavourably.
Sir GEORGE CLERK controverted the statement that
the people of Scotland were opposed to this measure. On the
contrary, it was his firm belief, that they were universally in
favour of it, and regarded it as it really was, a Bill calculated
to be of great benefit to every class of the community.
Mr. DUNCAN would have supported the Member for
Lanark, had he pressed his motion to a division, in order to
give the people of Scotland an opportunity of forming, and
expressing an opinion on the measure, but as his Hon. Friend
had declined to take that course, had
he only to support a
clause which
he regarded as useful and beneficial.
Mr. Darby supported, and Mr. P. M. Stewart and Sir W.
Somerville opposed it.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that, after what fell from the
Lord Advocate, he would not
press
whichesstliii t
t the party was born, but
part of his amendment
which related to the province
he would move the remaining part, “tha
no person shall be
so removed, if by sea, save in a vessel affording sufficient cover-
ing and protection."
Lord D UNCAN was 'very glad to see the way in which the