Star.
London, England, 1830-04-06 00:00:00

THE JEWS.

Mr. R. GRANT said he should have, for his own part, preferred
simply moving for the permission of the house, and been content to
defer all discussion upon this question to a future stage. As to an.
ticipating any difference of opinion, he could scarcely foresee any
objection, at least to a preliminary statement ; but as the discussion
was entirely new, and as one or two members had expressed the in.
tendon, as undoubtedly they had the right, to object, and contest
the principle of the measure, and as one or two other honourable
members had also intimated that they would suspend their opinions
until the merits of the question were fully before them, no option
was left to him but that of troubling the house, however reluctantly,
with an explanation of the grounds upon which he advocated a
change in the laws, as regarded the members of the Jewish persua-
sion. He trusted that he might preface this explanation by declar-
ftig that his connection with the subject was entirely fortuitous--
Understanding that measures upon the subject were in contempla-
tion, he turned his attention to it, not, he would confess, without
sonic prejudices, but which prejudices had been entirely dissipatal
by investigation and consideration. Such having been his opinion,
and the proposal coming entirely from strangers, he did not feel him-
self at liberty to decline this honourable office, though he thought
it right at once to make this declaration, as his sole object was, that
his advocacy might not lose even the small weight attached to it, it
being the result of conviction alone. In order to submit the case
as well as it was in his power to do to the judgment of the hotor,
he would first show what was the actual state of the law, as applt.
cable to this class of English subjects; secondly, he would beg t
lay before the house the grounds upon which they considered them-
selves entitled to be relieved from the state of the law ; thirdly, he
would mention the plan (which would be comprised in one sentence,)
and the nature of the measure he purposed to bring forward, and
then he would shortly adduce some reasons in support of his views.
This fourfold division would include both the evil complained of
and the remedy proposed for its adoption. It was necessary,
though it might be curious, and, in some cases, highly important,
to enter into an historical account of the condition and treat-
ment the Hebrew nation had experienced. It would be only rte.
cessary to mention one or two facts. It was perfectly notoriouv
to all who had examined this subject, that members of the
Jewish community had been at an early period domiciled in this
realm. After the cmquest, and during the reigns of the three first
Princes immediately following that event, they had received pro.
tection. But it unfortunately happened, after that period, the sue.
ceding Princes had given way to persecution ; and it was difficult
to decide whether, for the 150 years following, the Jewish people
suffered more from the mad malignant folly of the populace, or the
cool and calculating villainy of the Princes who professed to be
their protectors. The populace were inflamed by incrodible reports
of crimes, such as plotting against the state, conspiring to burn
the metropolis, crucifying christians, and charges of a similar na.
hire, so that the fury of the people was exasperated by such in.
credible rumours until it was vented in excesses only lens hor-
rible than those which were imputed and attributed to the Jews.
—(Hear, hear.) They were protected by the Sovereigns, but
how ? The protection afforded them was solely that which they gave
to the beasts in the Royal forests—they were only protected from
the invasion of others that they might be exclusively preyed on by
their masters. At this time laws of the most odious description
were enacted, and their persecution became a matter of profit, be-
cause, from their greater connection with other nations, and from
their being possessed of greater intelligence, they were more opu.
lent than any other class of the community. Great protection ass
nominally afforded the.n by the edicts of our Kings, which, at the
time, 1 the force of laws, well as by laws specially
enacteri7eastgeas
all' of which were mere pretexts for plunder and ra-
pacity. These laws were enforced by the most shocking cruelties.
of which he could give no better explanation than was afforded by
one short sentence of Matthew Paris, which, though figurative,
was so picturesque that he would rather leave it untranslated.
Of this quotation, from the low tone in which the Honourable
Member spoke, we could only catch a few words, which struck us
as being
" Non solum excoriendo sed eviscerando extomtt."

In the reign of Richard the First a law was passed to deprive them
of the power of possessing or transmitting lands. The law de.
scribed them as being the serfs or villains of the crown. Among its
other provisions was one restricting the Jews as to their modes of
worship, by declaring that they should conduct their worship so
low as not to be overheard by Christians. In the reign ot Ed-
ward the First, the Act " De Judaism" was passed, which con-
(erred many privileges on the Jews, but which denied them the
privilege of ,taking usury, which, in the language of that day,
meant what was now termed interest. At length, however, fee
some reason which It would be impossible to discover in the
18th year of that reign a royal edict was issued which expelled all
the Jews front this kingdom, to the number of 15,000. That
edict was carried into complete effect, and every Jew was not
merely banished the kingdom, but its execution was accompanied
with the scorn of those who plundered them of their fortunes, and
in some cases extended to actual privation of life. It was racism.
eholy to reflect that such stains blotted the brightest pages of the
history of England, and darkened those periods upon which every
Englishman loved to dwell with pride and with satisfaction. It
should, however, be observed, that these atrocities were more than
rivalled by the different sovereigns throughout Europe. The pro-
ceedings of this country were followed in France by Philip Augustus.
and their counterparts were abundant throughout the whole of the
German empire. Let them go to Spain and Portugal, and there it
would be found that not merely 13,000, but 130,000, Jews were
expelled in more modern times, under Ferdinand and Isabella,
while the most revolting cruelties were had recourse in Portugal,
to compel their conversion to Christianity. (Hear, hear.)—Alter
this period, one hundred and fifty years elapsed before any
Jew appeared in England. At length, after, as is said, a fruitless
negotiation with Oliver Cromwell, they entered this kingdom by
asinivance, under the reigns of the Stuart Princes. Letters of deni-
laden were given to several by Charles and James the Second, and
they protected them against the imposition of the Alien Duties, to
which they were subjected in the reign of William the Third. No.
thing afterwards took place until the Act of Anne, which compelled
a Jewish parent to support any child converted to the religion of the
Church of England ; and again in George the First's time, to which
he would not further allude. Nothing occurred after this but the Act
which parted in the middle of the last century, that was a matter of
history, in its details too well known to need explanation, and h:
only mentioned it to impress the distinction upon honourable mem-
bers, inasmuch as that Act had reference to foreign Jews, whereas
the measure he proposed to introduce would refer only to the
natural-born subjects of his Majesty professing that religion. It
was well known that, through the prejudices of the people. mani-
fested by overt acts of violence, and the miserable pusillanimity of
the Administration, it was speedily repealed, and from that time
to the present nothing whatever had been done upon the subject.
The Hon. Gentleman then proceecdcd to slow how they were
affected by various enactments not levelled at them. The first.
was the Oath of Allegiance, prescribed by the Act of Elizabeth,
for that was to be taken en the Holy Evangelists, and, of count,
could not be taken by Jews. Again there was the oath of Abjura-
tion.eThere was nothing In that which they could not willingly take.
but the conclusion of the formula was, that it was to be taken on the
" true titbit of a Christian," and this, of course, an utter impediment
to its being taken by any Jew. The Sacramental Tests were also an
obstacle as long as they continued in force, but there intervening the
Annual Indemnity Act, which was an abolition, but in the nature of
perpetual received respite, they were thus enabled to enjoy the same
respite which was extended to Protestant Dissenters. These were
repealed by the present fortunate administration In the Act of the
year before last ; but what was substituted in its stead 7 The in-
demnity was at an end, but a declaration was introduced, not cer-
tainly in this, but in the other House of Parliament, which corn.
named with the words, " oar the true faith of a Christian; and
thus again were the Jews excepted from this benefit—for observe, it
was necessary that this should be like other oaths, taken upon
the Gospel. The house would ace that there was nothing in the
body of the test that could not be adopted and maintained by every
Jew. (Hear.) They were thus deprived of the relief bestowed upon
others by the collateral effect of this introduction into the oath.
Secondly, he would observe that all this was not only indirectly
and collaterally, but fortuitously, or, at least, incidentally intro-
deiced. The prescribing of the taking of oaths on the gospels was
amide when there was no Jew In the country. lewould be also in
the recollection of the house, that when the oath of abjuration was
introduced, it was intended not to apply to subjects who were not
christians, but as a political test to those who were. (hear, hear.)
This declaration was inserted in tho bill of the maim before
last, by the House of Lords, and was only Atopted here
not to dietutb the great measure; and the lboilpe would
surely, theftfore, not allow this to be taken as a deliberate
and direct provision. Vat being all - that excluded the Jews
from the civil rights 00101 lay leis libjeate's ether subjects,
be would begin, without • the,peeseel *cries to
the"voial Castowit So VISO . Mon if di. tlisabthttss
udderWhith !her1411941m4, on dassibed ip. an ancellent pamper
lately Pohliilhod. IM ODthe •ealSject. They were impala/ el'
eluded Fran all offices, civileued ;tasty could not either be
Wrists"' or attorneys ; they could not be high er chief constables,
nor could they be members of either house of parliament. It was

aim at the option of any one who chose to tender them the oath,
e holier they could be allowed even to vote for a member of parlia-
ment; and, lastly, they were excluded from all offices in corporati-
,,a. These were certain disabilities; but he would also mention
that, after the long lapse which had taken place, a doubt existed
whether the act of Richard I. with respect to laws did not also sub-
; and even whether their worship was fully protected by the To-
leration act of William 111. In this, as in other cases, it was true
that, besides the great injury inflicted: by the law, a greater under.
~:row di of local disability was not necessarily engendered. He would
not go through all the instances where this took place, for he knew
that there were some exceptions, such as Exeter, Liverpool, and
Margate, where Jews were freely admitted to immunities ; but he
multi not help expressing his regret that in this great metropolis
they were subject to the most galling exclusion ; they could not be
members of the corporation, and, in consequence, could not exercise
any retail trade in the city—and this, upon the lower members of
the body, operated as a dreadful hardship. While upon thin, head,
he would say that, as to the disabilities they laboured under, they
stood upon the same footing as the poor Catholics did until the last
session of Parliament ; and whatever difference might exist was cyen
in favour of the Catholics. The next point to which he would allude
was, that of the grounds upon which they were entitled to repeal the
laws against them. The Jews in London amounted to 18 or 20,000.
As to the extent of their numbers in the country, a difference of
opinion existed ; but the whole number did not exceed from 30,000
to 40,000. The house would take notice that, as a sect, and as a
community, it was well known they were the most ancient in exist.
ence. Their religion, their feelings, their political principles, were
known; so were their habits; and it was as well known that they
acre peaceful and useful subjects, and less stained with political of.
fences than any other class of the community. It was a fact that
the effect of the law was cruelly aggravated, instead of diminished,
the great measure of toleration passed the year before last. He
would allude merely to one instance in support of this statement,
which was that of a gentleman perfectly qualified, in every r
for admission to the Bar, but who was refused admission, andes cent:
tirely deprived of the opportunity of following the profession, by
I he very Act which was intended to be one of complete tolera.
tion—(hear, hear), and which, professing to remove disabilities,
tell into the most absurd persecution. When he stated this,
he exhausted all that he was able to say in support of the
claims of a people coming thus humbly before the house.—
This being the nature of the disabilities they laboured under, the
emit point to which he would advert was the nature of the mea-
sure he was about to propose for their relief, and he begged to say
that, as the Catholic Code presented a precedent of the grievances
under which the Jews suffered, so did the act of last year afford a
glorious precedent of what it now became the house to do. He
conceived that the measure, which he hoped would pass, should
be on the twang of the Catholic Emancipation Act, not only be-
cause it was the simplest form that could be adopted, but also
because it was important and essential that the Jews should
have the same benefit of judicial decision extended to them
that was afforded to others. He hoped also that the same effect
would result here as had happened with reference to the Catbo.
lics—namely, ;that the Emancipation Act would be immediately
followed by a removal of those injurious corporate restrictions
which affected all, and especially the Jews, in this metropolis.
He trusted that England, great and wealthy as she was, would no
longer hesitate to follow the example set her by Imperial Rome,
not only as a Pagan but a Christian state, for she had given the
Jews the rights of citizens always. Not only in late but in past
times, he regretted to say that the City of London had been re-
ruarkable for persecution. He mentioned this not as a reproach,
but for the purpose of stating what he had reason to believe as an
evidence of the present feeling of the Corporation of London, that
he should now have the cordial support of all the representatives
of the City—(hear, hear). A Jew might enjoy all such rights as
would enable a man to buy and sell, and live in society; but he was
to be denied all civil and political franchises, and was especially to
he denied admission into the Houses of Parliament. One or two
persons were disposed to qualify the subject. and to say, " We will
admit them generally, but we will not admit them within the walls
of the British Parliament." lie explicitly denied, when this pro.
position was stated and brought forward on the ground of the esta-
blished law of the country and the wisdom of our forefathers, that in
any period of our history any precedent could be found as to Jewish
subjects separated from the Establishment—or any instance of any
sect of Christians admitted to all common and ordinary civil rights,
and excluded from Parliament and civil privileges. The heterodox
Dissenter was admitted into Parliament, but not only not admis.
Bible to office, but denied the exercise of his worship under penal.
ties.—(Hear, hear.) Then there were the Quakers—allowed the
exercise of :heir worship, but not admissible into Parliament or
into office, and, at the same time, denied ordinary civil privi-
leges, inasmuch as their evidence could not be taken in courts of
justice. Lastly, there was the Catholic, excluded from every thing
freedom, office, parliament. The next argument was the precedent
of past times, and the wisdom of our ancestors. The argument
used in 1753 by Mr. Pelham, upon the question of naturalisation,
was this,—that the Jews were Christians according to the under.
standing of the Church of England. The words of Mr. Pelham
were, " Would any gentleman say we ought not to allow persons to
live amongst us who did not conform to the provisions and practice
of the Church of England ? " Such were the liberal and can.
dal sentiments of the then minister of the House of Corn.
noes. At no period was the law to be found supporting ono
tone of Christianity but the same law equally opposed ano.
therfonn. If you had the law supporting the one and opposing
the other, how could it be said that it opposed both ? In every ease
the law supported what it called the truth of the Christian religion.
There was no general support of Christianity, as such, till we carne
the reign of King William, and then there was a nearer approach
to that for which the hon. gentleman contended. No statute would
he found which could support the assertion that the object was to
s radii a general system of Christianity as such, because in sup-
one form the law opposed another. In one sense
t hristianity was the law of the land, inasmuch as the law
rained itself, to protect the Sacred Scriptures from every sort
in invasion. It did so because the Scriptures had been re-
milted as the state religion ; it equally protected them, whatever
'its received them; but it protected a great part in favour
of the very persons in whose favour he made this motion.—
Thus far as to the preliminary objection ; we then come to the
ether objection, that the habits of the Jews were not of that kind
winch fitted them for full and unqualified rights of citizenship,
is other members of the national establishment. It was said
that tlmy were a sort of wandering sect, concerned in the opera-
tions of different countries, and belonging to no country. He
portly admitted the charge, and begged to ask what had given them
this character ? Could any thing be'worse than that state of law
which forced men to commit crime, and then condemned them for
eintunitting it ? (Hear, hear, hear) Supposing, it were con-
ceded that these persons were not entirely animated with semi.
:wits of citizenship, yet the ground upon which be, their hum-
ble advocate, stood forward, was, that they were ready to adopt
chase seniimetits—they avowed that they were ready to give full
• Ilegiance if they were afforded protection. If you will find
Man a ountry, :hey will find you a people. There was ano-
ther objection —that there was something so demoralising in
the state of the community, that they were not fit for civil
privileges. In answer it might be asserted that the whole
metropolis produced no citizens more remarkable for inte-
grity and probity. He knew no wickeder way of corrupting
Ad demoralising a people than laws enacting that they
should be treated as it they were corrupt. The nest argu-
i,ent was, that if any body of persons, not Christians, were
admitted to the privileges of the State, there was no saying
A abet extent the principle might be carried, and any per.
.en would be admitted who was not a Christian. In the first
:lace he denied the consequence. The most eminent writers
a (air own Church, persons whose names had been ideuti-
-11,4 with theology, had all admitted that there was such a re.
:sawn between the system of judaism and the system of christianity
as could not possibly subsist between christianity and any other
Imam Our most eminent divines said that the very foun-
d mans of out religion were to be discovered in the religion of
the jewish people. They told us that from the religion of the
irs,sh people we derived all our principles. That he might
ism be supposed to exaggerate the argument, he begged leave
to read an argument of the Rev. Alr. Home, which he selected
item nunicious others. He said, that so many and striking
were the analogies between judaism and christiaaity, that it
was widest they had originated bathe same source and saute sis-
'6l4, and were founded on evidence of the same species; they
i.iete or the same nature and the same tesu/t—not distinct in re-
t.gton, but identified as one and the imme—Judaisin was infant
lir.mianizy, and Christianity adult Judaism. lisplacad ionnbility 4.1 these persons upon higherind bialder grounds. ilk
insertedtet that they were a sect distinctly repagnlocel,.and in ill two*
it 1 to 44 :In active part in the community. Alle weapot aware
many Ort..eiple upon which they could be .excluded. The &molar-
ailr mot her presumed to.Snd this principle in the eitostitutign
:.
..t 11.:beitt;.. Ile conceived. t 'tat when, by the ordination of Petti-
ite`,"l : )ite t. ,tli.tent.petsons were collected together, they Were to
top t:,et fora C. 4113111011 interest and • object. The very
entuom of their
being funned into 4 Society supposed
;4414,01iaaa 1 ar11,,4
column interest to
ti Ti
h I ted
their toil, the bums thtir vilpur, the rich
cantt IL defied any one to Otte that. it was thgir:ktereat
to haulm Part I :
y istinconan said exclusive pined lea. The vital
herd : I le of is/I • ociety could be nothiitg aloe than ibis rineAuttlitYs
n I might he said to be a great axis reglntiipon 'the haalsof Kg!
:•real right, upon which the whole form of milk a
natant revolution. He knew nut aPiinflPle not
.whiCh
t,.ticoold be excluded from civil ptliileges by not hag Idea-
:id with
3w the majority of their brethren. licensiht VW* "I°l4
b by which this exchmiciii .cop foibirkies. Every body
l'etv the great principle which. bound man to man; laws of- nein-
,
were opp veil by every maxim which was cherished as the

maxim of private conduct. A heavy responsibility was incurred
by tik.r,vssing the consciences of our fellow-subjects by jealousies.
ercati :g a conflict between their interest and their duty. were
bound, upon every: ground, to conciliate the affection and attach-
ment of those with whom we lived, and not to pronounce a direct
sentence of condemnation, or enact exclusive laws. He would refer,
as a precedent, to the primitive times of that faith which he and his
hon. friend professed. He would refer to the primitive times of
Christianity, and ask his hon. friend to tell him whether, in thole
times, the sincerest and most rigid Christians did not freely take
offices, civil and military, under Pagan establishments ? The Mai-
rect effect was to support and credit tho e Pagan establishments._
Was it because they were indifferent to the value of the Pagan reli-
gion ? That was not the reason, but because they felt that the or-
dination of the'StrraENZ POWER had thrown then: into relations of
society, beyond their views, with Pagan governments, and Pagan
subjects, although what they did tended indirectly to support those
governments. He would venture here to make an observation as to
the representative system, because there were persons who would
admit the Jews into every civil department, but not into the House
of Representatives. He contended that the Jews showed by
their conduct that they were worthy of civil rights. At present
they admitted amongst them all classes of persons who took the
oaths, and some day they would find that all sects of separatists
would find their way into the house. It was possible that one day
there may be a strong feeling that a measure like this was against
the sense of the country; and the next day, when it was passed, the
victory would appear so grand that it would be wondered why such
a measure was put off so long. It was ridiculous to suppose that
any of our great establishments would be made to suffer by a con-
cession like this. The tear of such results was the objection which
many would make to his motion. Nothing was worse in his opi-
nion, than that valetudinarian legislation. (Hear, hear.) We
sacrificed all hope and means of improvement to save our existing
establishments ; as if, indeed, these were to be endangered by
measures of improvement. But if a system was defective in itself,
cranks and stays could not long uphold it. The best security was
to be found in general justice. (Hear. hear.) One objection
to his motion he would mention, not without reluctance, but being
informed that a most respectable member of the house would oppose
the question on that ground he should not pus it by. It was this,
that the Jews having been ever labouring under disability in this
country, they ought not to be classed with other subjects. The con.
elusion in that case fell short of the premises. The premises were, that
these persons were hunted to and fro in all times, and persecuted,
therefore what was the conclusion to be ? He would giv.: them part of
what they wanted. That part they already had ; and so far was the
exclusion from office from being a long and unexampled persecution,
he would say that it was no persecution at all. For those who
came forward with the argument which he was now combatting
it would be necessary to go back to the time of the Plantagenets,
when those unhappy people were given up to the popular rage : if
they did not go so far back, they should give up the argument.
The hon. member here cited an eloquent passage from Bishop New.
ton's prophecies, which it was impossible to collect in the gallery.
He had now done. It was not his object to address himself to the
feelings of the House. He could not go over centuries of oppres-
sion. The justice of this measure ought to be inducement enough
of itself to adopt it. Such a measure, and the extensive effect of it,
would secure the exter.sion of the renown of this country ; for the
persons to be affected by the relief he was about to propose were
spread over the world, and they spoke different languages. They
hitherto knew Christianity only as the author of persecution. lie
would not detain them long, but would exhort them to do justly,
and have a love of mercy. The hon. member concluded by moving
for leave to bring in a bill to remove the disabilities affecting the
Jews.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the motion. He trusted the
house would meet this question, and set it at rest for ever upon lb.
present occasion. The hon. member (11r. R. Grant) had told
them that the declaration inserted in the late Act for the admission
of the Homan Catholics into parliament, had shut the door closer
against the Jews than it was before. lie rejected this position of
the hon. gentleman, and denied that from any portion of our his.
tory he could produce a single instance of the admission to office
of any but a Christian. The tests of admission had always been
Christian. The measure, therefore, of last session, fatal and ill.
omened as in his opinion it was, had not as the hon. gentleman af.
firmed, given rights which never existed ; it had not gone further
than to restore rights of which the parties claiming them had
been deprived. The question then for the house to determine was,
whether there was any thing in the condition of the Jews at
present which could be fairly considered to make them more eligible
than formerly ? He (Sir R. Inglis) contended that there was not.
They were aliens in the eyes of the law, and not merely in a technical
sense. They were justly viewed and treated as aliens, because they
were interested in other countries besides that in which they resided.
Not only were their interests different—they were hostile to the
country in which they dwelled. it was unnecessary for him to refer
to instances, of which history was prolific, in support of this propo-
sition. The history of Bohemia in the hat century furnishedone
signal instance of the truth of what he stated. It was notorious that
the Jews facilitated the retreat of the French from Russia, against the
interests of those who gave them protection. Again, it was well known
that Napoleon applied to aJew in London for a loan when this country
was at war with France, and he obtained it. He adduced these instances
in support cf his position that the Jews were not entitled to a de.
parture from the principle by which all their legislation had been
tiovenied throughout the whole course of their history as a Christian
btate. So many different oaths would lead to the abandonment of
all oaths. Disposed as he was to bow to the sovereign power of
public opinion, lie was not quite so much prepared asaome Has.
Gentlemen to surrender the privileges and the duties of legislatio•
to such • tribunal The transfer of this privilege into the hands of
these people in the present state of society would be injurious to all its.
terests. Although i: was a delicate subject to refer to, Hon. Members
dould not but be aware that there were commercial advantages connect.
ed with the possession of seats in that House, of which the Jews would
know how to avail themselves. Upon one occasion there were font
partners in one commercial house sitting in the House of Commons,
and their commercial interests were well served by it. Was it pee.
'able to suppose that the Jews would be insensible to this mab of
serving themselves through the medium of parliament ? If
the system of representation were more popular, he should
not have the same objection ; but knowing, as he did, the mesas
by which seats in that house might be obtained, and knowing
'the command of capital possessed by the Jews, he could not
hesitate to believe that many would be introduced in a manna
objectionable. In ordinary cases it was not for the house
to inquire too strictly; they were bound to suppose every
member the unbought representative of the people. But the presence
of a single Jew in that house would be direct evidence of corrup-
tion. It was impossible that a Jew could be returned by any set of
constituents but through corrupt means. Ile was satisfied that the
admission of a single Jew into parliament would be the signal of re-
form, which would be carried within seven years from the event. (A
laugh.) Notwithstanding the opinions expressed by the house, he was
confident that such would be the result. What greater inconsistency
could be imagined than to give in charge the interests of a Christian
people to the enemies of the Christian faith ? He could not without
a feeling of great repugnance anticipate the presence of a Jew at
that table, treating with irreverence the seeded name by which
every Member of that House was invoked, to the conscientious
obstevance of his obligation. The Honourable Member (Mr. R.
Grant) had referred to foreign countries for an example. It should
however, be borne in mind, that the saoie body which admitted the
Jews to the privileges of the Legislature unchristianised the
country. But the lion. Gentleman would not find a single in.
stance of a Jew being admitted into any high office of civil power
in any Christian state. The only course for the House to pursue
was, in his opinion, to make a determined stand against the
attempted innovation at once. And this he called upon them to
do. At the same time, he begged to assure his Hon. kriend that it
was not out of any want of personal respect for hint that he called
upon the House to refuse to grant him leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. AIACAULEY contended that all the friends of the late Ho.
man Catholic Bill were bound to support this measure, because
they had professed to support the other upon the general principle
of religious toleration. In this case, all the special cithumstanees
tended to place it upon that principle alone, while in that of the
Catholics the special circumstances were those of exception.-~t
Against the Catholics, too, it was urged that they had, at different
periods, committed crimes of persecution and oppression, and nt.
tacks upon the liberties of the country. And in the disputei of all
Christion sects, whether Presbyterians, Protestants, or Catholics, it
`was always a contested point which had been the most guilty of
such dap& But history furnished no example in which the Jews-
wereo to any such charges. They had always been the ay.
and Dever the oppressors. It those who opposed thiamin.
eipades el the Catholics upon such grounds now opposed the &Nis
"their oviduct woubishow that persecution never wanted an mime:
His honourable friend, the member fee the 'University of Oxide
l had opposed the motion. because it woe calatlatedthotoruce *pm
il in Parliament. But if his botiouraide friend t the system
cola of the represent& so bekthet the, odasipaien of e Jews would
Lilac for it tke enct.of the fount", olgy did .be object .to se.
'knit ? On the o hod, if 1009 Vitan 14/5 good, the a' ' •
ors Jew was not ely AO illigdatitS soth, areas u his ben. . .. I
Ifsared fioni it. I his bon. friendsiould feel so much horror at ma
1/
hpg aj err take his seat In shit house, would lie pot feel equal i
in seeing those who' were pin there by the Jews' money,'
who -
do every thing against the interests of the Church or the Chris '
rtitglen islidt the Je,yr would do himself ? But it was bnpossib
'sr: Mahon friend, and those who acted w' at their
,I to grant this

acquiring and holding property, and that was power; he had the right
of acquiring knowledge, and that was power. Would his hon. fri-,!io
deny that property could not command political influence he this taut .-
try ? And if so, when persons of this persuasion had amassed we.eitl:
which enabled them to supply the governments of the world, would
any one undertake to say that they did rot possess political power ?
He contended that to kocp up the existing disabilities was only to
inflict an injury by a form which gave no advantages whatever to
the state. He called this persecution. lie considered that every
man had a right to that which afforded him pleasure, and injured
no other parties ; and to deny him that was persecution. He trusted
that the times were oast in which tatiacution could in any shape be
maintained. The parliament in 1828 had passed one great measure
of religious toleration, and in 1829 a still greater one was adopted.
He trusted that in the year 1830 they would make perfect the work
for which so many great and good men had so anxiously baked_
the work of complete religious toleration. (Hear.)
Mr. H. BAT 'LEY rose to oppose the motion upon the gronnd
that none but persons professing the Christian religion ought to be
admitted to the seats in that House. lie was confident that if the
Jews were admitted they would be carrying on as extensive specu-
lations In seats of Parliament as in the Three per Cent. Consols.
Sir J. AIACKINTOSII said that ti, • present Parliament had
done more for the advancement of religious liberty than any
Parliament since the Revolution, excepting the first of King
William, and he should only make that an exception because the
Act of Toleration having been the first step, should always be
considered the greatest. His Hon. Friend who introduced the
question, and his Hon. Friend who had spoken so ably in sup-
port of it, had left no defective parts in the argument for him to
supply. The hon. baronet, the member for the University of Ox-
ford, had opposed the motion upon the discovery of a very great
secret, and which he was afraid to give the Jews an opportunity of
discovering also, and of communicating it to the country, and thereby
producing a Radical Reform. (A laugh) In vain hail Lord
Chatham, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Pitt denounced the buying
and selling of seats in that house, for it remained a profound secret
both within those walls and out of those walls, and the hon. baronet
was in the utmost alarm lest it should be found out and exposed
by some interloping Jew. One set of the honourable baronet's
facts entirely destroyed his argument, while the others in their
turn were demolished by the inferences deduced from them. The
hon. baronet had argued that if the Jews were let in their wealth
would enable them, after they had made the discovery of the hon.
baronet's secret, to purchase seats in such numbers as would swal-
low up all the other interests in the house. But then the hon.
baronet came to his facts, and stated, that although the disabilities
of the Jews bad been removed in France, and in the Low Countries,t
and in America, yet there was no single instance of one having got!
into any of the legislatures of those countries. It was contended
by the opponents of the measure that the Jews were equally at-
tached to other countries, and that they were not Englishmen.
Had they not been prevented from becoming such by these ex-
clusions ? They were first prevented from becoming Englishmen
by proscriptive laws, and then reproached with not being as
good subjects as the rest of the community. It had been said
that the Jews aided Napoleon. M'as that surprising, when he was
the only Prince in Europe who had then begun to do them any
thing like justice ? If depravity was to be found among the lower
orders of the Jews, it was a kind of hereditary depravity to which j
each succeeding generation must be driven as long as their moral
degradation was continued by the stigma of these laws. Exclusion
could no longer be said to be the rule of the constitution, for since
the Acts of 1828 and 1829, disability was only the petty exception,
and to attempt to keep it up in the few instances where it remained
was only like making noisaable reparations upon a mighty ruin.
Those who professed to vote for the measure of 1829, upon the
fearless principles of justice, were bound to support this measure if
they would gain die credit of sincerity. The tearless principle of
justice respected the rights of 40,000 Jews as much as those of seven
millions of Catholics.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if he
could persuade himself that in opposing this bill he should be de-
parting front those principles of justice and of charity to which the
right hon. gentleman had alluded, he should be one of the last men
to stand up and advocate the opinion he was about to declare : but
be could not view the subject in the same light as the right hon.
gentleman. He felt bound to oppose the motion, but he did so
with considerable pain, as no one knew better than lie did the cor-
rect and peaceful conduct of that class on whose hehalf it was made,
and whom he certainly regarded personally with none of the feelings
of aversion and scorn which had been imputed to some; but there
were reasons which compelled him, however reluctant, to refuse
the required concession. He thought the question was one which In-
volved most deeply the religious feelings of the country. He
thought Parliament must take care that an impression was not
created in the minds of the people that they were becoming in.
different to the cause of religion. The Christian religion was
by the Constitution of the country hound up with our political
institutions, and this it was above all which recommended them
to the affections of an eminently sober and religious people.
It was incumbent on them to beware lest their acts might shock
the feelings by which those institutions were rendered sacred;
and lie was pne of those who believed that If to entertain the
motion was calculated to create any impreuiou of that kind,
they should be acting a part more becoming to a Chrietiaa
Parliament if they rejected it at once. If the arguments used
la its favour were just, then they were bound not to atop with
this measure, but must be prepared to expect that each succeeding
year would bring new proposals for altering the forms of the oaths
or tests by which persons were admitted to bold offices in the state
or seats in that house, Nothing, he thought, could be more •
venient and objectionable than that parliament should annually be
altering the law by which such religious obligations were regulated.
The mea,ure of last year he was prepared to admit ran counter to
the opinions of a great portion of the country. But then they had
a great national object in view, and he felt himself justified in in-
curring the risk of opposing the feelings of the country, when he
was convinced that the great advantage to arise from the measure
would gradually satisfy all minds that it was a good one. There
were no such considerations in the present case, neither were there
any of necessity or of danger. He therefore could not feel the ex-
pediency of eying his vote in favour of such a proposition.
Dr. LUSHINGTO asserted that the people of this country
were not opposed to the emancipation of the Jews, and contended
that their Indifference to the subject was proved by the fact that not
one petition had been presented against it. The hon. and learned
Member said the Jews were as ready to qualify themselves for seats
in that house as the right lion. gentleman ; the only difference was
the form of swearing ; the Jew swore by the Old 1 estament, which
his conscience pointed out as the most correct teat. Could the house
say his refusal to swear by the New Testament should deprive him,
of those rights they had a common right to claim 1 The honoura-
ble baronet, the member for the University of Oxford had cited
the diciumof a great legal authority, but it should be remembered
that on one occasion, when Counsel quoted that authority, he was
addressed by the learned judge, who said, For the honour of
the Court, and respect for that learned man, quote not the pas-
sage which should of all others be expunged from his dicta."
They had been told the great policy of the constitution was to ex-
clude all but Christiana from Parliament. In old Papal times
is was so. The doctrine was then burn and destroy. All previ-
ous to the reign of William the Third was intolerance. The
changes of religion were so frequent that men could have no
-Axed faith. Old Jenkins was obliged to change his religion no
log than eight times. He lived to the age of one hundred
mai sixty, and was compelled, during the several reigns which
algutred in his time, to profess eight different creeds. When
he examined the wisdom of our ancestors, as applied to the
Jews, he thought they ought to go by modern doctrines. The
Established Church was fixed in the affection of the people, anti it
did not require the exclusion of individuals from civil rights nod
privi.eges. It was said no necessity existed for the change, and that
the number of Jews did not exceed 27,000. It was also urged that
the Jews had no claim arising from services in defence of the coun.
Ca. The hon. and learned civilian had never understood that the
tholic emancipation was allowed upon a claim of military services;
but however that might be, there could be no justice in keeping
27,000 men in a state of 'political degradation. The Jews must feel
severely that a state of degradation was a bar to their prosperity
and honour. He should contend that they ought to grant
Emancipation to the Jewish nation. He was at a has to tell why
the Right Hon. Gentleman could meet members of the Jewish na-
tion upon matters of importance to the Government, and refuse to
meet them upon the affairs of the nation in that House.—(A.
laigh.)—lt was the duty of Parliament to be consistent in their
Botha, and if they acted upon the principle which led to Catholic
Winancipation, they must concede the rights of the Constitution to
hismajesty's Jewish subjects.
Mr. PERCEVAL opposed the motion. Ile alsirms con-
sidered this a Christian people, governed by the haws Arid ipOociples
of Christianity, and on that ground alone he, could not conarnt td
the proposed Innovat ion.
Lord :11ORPETH thought the Introduction of the measereige
his right hon. friend had done much for the question. 'they hidf
been led to believe opposition would be offered on religioes gretlolitr
He had found that to be the case by the speeches of that Oglea
!lie bad always. thought that all his majesty's subjectsspiyht
wards the exigencies of the state, were enthral to the advantages if
the constitution. The hon. baronet, the tingober for thoUnivoriter
,pf Oxford, where .he alas bad been educated, opposed shaky.-
metwort • on omelette prejudices. He e
sition honourable baronet had
that

position would daelare the constitutional policy of the country not
t► be Cbristir.n. He could not see how the admission of Jews to
that house could retard the principle or growth of christianity.
How would England have less elitist/tinny than America. Holland,
and many other states were there was general toleration ?
tianity could never suffer for giving to men who contributed to the
wants of the state their equal rights. The noble lout could not see
any danger in the admission of Jews to parliament. Clitistianity,
including Protestants. Catholics, and Greeks, would stand upOiea
rock which could not be shaken, whilst the foundation was publi:
liberty.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL bad heard with surprise ti is
question put upon a parallel with the Catholic Question. No ques-
tion could stand on more different grounds. The Roman Cathuhis
were once in possession of rights, and they had a just claim (what
those rights restored. There ttould not be a blacker cede than that
which once applied to the Roman Catholics. According to the law
of England from the earliest times, the Jews had no civil rights in
the country. An honourable baronet hail truly stated that one o: the
greatest authorities in law had described the Jews to be porpt:uat
aliens. He admitted that the expression was harsh, but the tact
was, the Jews had no rights. IV hen they came back at the Res,.
lotion they had no rights, yet they had not been badly treated
modern times. Now they could purchase estates. Their chilil•en
were legitimate, and could take by descent. Why did they not bt.y
estates, and, it' they wanted to get into Parliament, turn country
gentkmcn ?—(A laugh.).—Christianity alone was the religion tit
this country, n:.O. when the Constitution was Christian, his hope
was it might remain so. The lion. and learned gent. was happy to
flnd some good had been derived in Ireland from emancipation, bet
the time had not come fur seeing the full effect of that meatitare.—
The Catholic. had not been fully ;Omitted to Parliament. lie
could not consent to admit the Jews, because he never could think
it was the intention of parliament to open the doors of that house to
all religions. (hear, hear.) The lion. member adverted to th.
individuality anteing the jews. Their lass and prejudices pre.
vented them frott: mixing with Christians. They ought to a..!.
themselves whether they were prepared to admit Jews into that
house ? He sl.oulti contend that they could not be admitted with.
out danger to the constitution.
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH said etete was one point he could not
avoid alluding to. The hon. and learned gentleman had said why
did they not become owners of estates anti couutty gentlemen
Why, how could :hey become such, whilst the laws kept them de-
graded ? lie could not but think those gentlemen who met-the ques-
tion with a religious argument, had forgotten the great precept of
the Founder of the Christian heligion. They were to " render unto
Caesar the things that are Caviar's, and unto GOD the things thtit
arc lion's." Independent of religion, which was a private virtue,
they ought to act upon principles of justice. They had been talk.
ing of Jewish pinciples, but his opinion was that religious opinions
hail nothing to do with political rights and privileges. The bun.
member sat down amidst a loud cry for the question.
Mr. ROBERT GRANT, in reply, said he had experienced de, p
disappointment at the objection taken by his right hun. friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only had the right lion. gent. tip.
posed the measure, but the deepest wounds had been inflicted on the
Jewish community. The only argument he heard ass that the (pee.
Lion could not he conceded, because the parties were Jews. That
was not a sufficient ground for opposition. He really thought
his right honourable friend last year would have been a martyr
to principles, the reverse of those lie hail adopted in the present
instance. It alms said they wire to attend t.O the prejudices of tit*
people. That argument might have applied at the time the Jews
were tortured, plundered, and murdered, and driven out of the
country with their wives and children. 'I hose prejudices no longer
existed' and he might ask what tight any man had to appeal at
this day to the prejudices of the people ?—( Hear hear. )—lle
called upon Parliament not to fix on theenselt es the disgrace of
having opposed a question which they had supported in the form el
Catholic Emancipation.
The House then divided—

For the Motion ..
Against it ... 87
Majority -18
The gallery was occupied by many persons of the Jewish permis-
sion, who expressed much satisfaction when the result of tile divi-
sion was known.

Mr. R. GRANT then brought in a Bill for the relief of his
Majesty's Jewish subjects, which was mid the first time.
Mr. TRAM' declared his intention to oppose it in every stage.
Colonel SIBTHORP expressed a similar intention.
The second reading of the Bill Was then fixed for the 26th of
April.
The Four per Cents. Bill went through a Committee. Report
to.monow.

The other Orders of the Day were 'then disposed of, and the
Houk adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICILCIIANCELLOR'S COURT, Aram 5.
EX PARTE 5T1103111031 lit RE STROMBON.
This was a Petition praying that a bankrupt, whose estate bad
paid, previous to the passing of the present Bankrupt Act, a die i.
eland of 10s. in the pound, should be paid the suns of lOW. in re.
spat of his allowance for the payment of that dividend.
Mr. Rosa contended that although it had been decided that the
present Act, granting an increased allowance to bankrupts, was re-
trospective, yet it was only retrospective as to the Commission, but
to nothing else, and that it never could have been intended to pass
an es posyiscto law to give a bounty to bankrupts in respect to di-
vidend* paid before the passing of this law.
His Honour the Vtex-CHANCELLOR said that, as he understood
that the Lord Chancellor intended to consult him on a point in the
name of Howard and Gibbs, argued on Saturday, whether two bank-
rupt partners, whose estates had paid dividends, entitling them to
the full allowance, were entitled to the full allowance each, or to
only one allowance between them, be should not give his decision
till he had mentioned this case to his Lordship ; but if it depended
es him, he should say, that the words of time act, " whose estates
shall pay," were future, and could not applT to past dividends.
CORK ASS I ZES.— DON ERA ILL CONSPIRACY.
On Tuesday morning, Baron PENNEPATRER entered the Court,
sod, at had been arranged pn the previous day, desired that the trial
'Me persons in custody for the conspiracy to murder certain Magis.
testes, might be immediately called, whereupon the long panel was
dlcd over, which occupied the Court more than an hour.
Patrick Lynch, Edasead Coasters, and James Wallis. were
then placed at the bar—(a fourth man, Daniel Keefe, it having
,been arranged abould not now be tried, in conseqnence of his not
being one of those given in charge at the late Special Commis-
' oksa).—ehatged in several counts with conspiracy to murder
Ilestsi Bond Lowe, Michael Creagh, and henry Evan..
Esqrs-2dly, for conspiring with others unknown, and for the
cconspiracy, and instigating to murder each, individually, and
in other counts for a general conspiracy against those Gentlemen.
3lr. Serpent Gooi.o (with whom were Mr. G. BEristurv, Mr.
Recorder WAGGETT. Mr. PLTINILT, and Mr. WOULPZ) so,e.
and stated the case on behalf of the crown. After the learned Ser.
geant had concluded his address witnesses were called.
The jury retired, after one of the most luminous charges from
Barop FXRNEIATHER, that was ever delivered in a court of pas-
tice, in which he reviewed the entire evidence, and at the coneitivlun
of which be acknowledged the jury bad an extremely ethical inves-
tigation to go through.
At the suggestion of Mr. Fergeant GOOLD refreshments were or.
dered for the Gentlemen of the Jury, to be partaken of before {hey
should enter upon their consultation ; so that it is probshlc awe
hours will elapse before a verdict will be had. &tort PERIM-
PATHEICS charge commenced at half-past six, and concluded at
twenty minutes to nine o'clock. The Court Continued crowded to
excess. '

QUARTER. PMIT Taw o'CLocx.—At We moment the Jury
bare returned, with a verdict of Guilty against Lynch, and'acquit.
ting both the other prisoners. Sentence of death war pissed, but
no day named, the Jury having recommended him to uurey.
YORK ASSIZES, Aram 2.
AlunDZlL—Wiliam *haw was indicted for the wilful murder

of RaehealOwashy. Itse htiell-was the deughter of a poor
coal miner. About heer years sob she gene birth to a child, ar,d
she was attain pregnant by him. He 'had been several times •
urged by the parents to many be, WO as repeatedly peer/teal
carrying the promise he made into affect. Abont nine o clotk
on the nlYht of *l.e 9th 'Starch, the deceased left' howl, and. on
the following morning her body was found et die Aeolian. s of a
coal.pit. Her clothes were pinned and fastened round hsr in a
met4peculiar manner. Some of her limb.* were broken,' and her ~
7 sad bowl were beet and iiredsql in. •
.slteatiful W 313130.
- injuties . could not have been orcasionli'bf ?we falling
accidently into the 'pit. li wit Pored that the ptisoret was
roein• with the deceased tiecr .the pie tikeiii, idler the left her
tiditer's house ;,foot marks wera seen near the pit willth cur. ..
;nsponded ' with the pAioner's sb es, And 'it *is also proved •
thin* prisener made seas mug* relative to, the dreeand, which
rsoppled with the other eireuitistances, led to the suysioeltion that
,ice codtemplated the Mattel.: When die inquest was •sitting.fm:lhs
btely. a pan ton et priamterisaitill,to ,him, I. Qh, Hill, pill ! I
eth atmul thee know 'et sumo)* about-it." The -priirmti itilill et, '
tild Wad, "Veil,' I know as inieliallefut it as any hotly." • ,
'Oe riigSs' ottlie llw Alaibutie. Prileittryienukel hen guilty. and
iudge Seed him iibe executed On illoitday, syn,ydayyand • •
•be to be 111411 tithe sti9nitihtlbs dbiektacm.
ate lead to leinflilia Petienty-right &bewares of -:
Estelisit.Open tiouse;osat of the preNNIII-11010/0:a"..
• I.lkteetlthr• .
/It we.beheee. was tlibtreeo : o great ail it iii at tit IR 1
4 the hwethis' sif Vairryiliri and -rtalfestilsireis ,Palasavals, , .
distraint.' fee re: t, and emigeetiou to Agin, are without
recident. • -Sheffield CoureeL

no every thing against the interests of the Mr& orthe Christimi "meserge ups ascleut prejudices. He mad. liy that:* - thitTi.daft;
religion Aid' the kw would do himself ? But it was impsseß& *ion of the honourable baronet had not been acquired is bot to
ortoriA
feritiabon. friend, and those who sated with him, to seep et their the !alb. of that university. He believed the APPINIBAIMI.
refusal to grant this relief to the Jews. To be einekeest therm* AO balig OA" otilbt to be delis* few Obe $1141004 %Ve ate
f#UbwEdliat Mimi by thug from the Jew,as *demi %Ord, ii, wMOI3 le t•Wiff wed Jle .gorimeedleut sad - -. 4 alew 21
4=
isrii us4isiespiebbfwictilele te.l4 licfmeri,ll aar:i 4”49:44d1 PalLl2l.:(
ti)Altilroteelleor•Teert. .41.1 vtelept.re
be ellithVooftet. alltUattomArtils4lLlM?:itaAßSSlM tgi .A ; NO* 4114 Igo..
_lroltidt '!
enell.,
e Jew had then no right to his own property;asa oro yeses ego be av init. at SIM tune,. moons repression of sent to ' • eIIBM
had no right to the teeth in his bead. But he had now the right of the question. The bon. baronet bad said the adoption of the pro. twocedoot..