Star.
London, England, 1830-05-18 00:00:00

Lord BELORAVE explained.
Sir E. DEERING} saw no danger in admitting Jews to the right
of practising in all professions, and even of enjoying seats in corporate
bodies, and filling corporate offices, but he should ever be against
seeing them take their seats within that House. How was it possible
that the two religions of Jews and Christians could ever be in se-
cord with each other, when the object of the professors of the one
was to trample on the Divine Author of the other? (Hear.) It
bad been represented by some honourable members, that the
Jews were, and always had been, the persecuted race; and
never had been the persecutors. He wished to remind such gentle-
men that for the last eighteen centuries the Jews had not been in
the possession of power, and when they did possess it, he would
vesture to assert that no sect ever suffered so much from another as
the Christians did from them. He urged the house not to be led
away by the love of innovation, and to pass a measure which be
feared would be found to be pregnant with mischief to the best in-
terest of this country (hear, hear!).
Sir R. WILSON should give the measure his most cordial my.
port. He saw no danger in it, nor could he well conceive what
jections could be made to it. It was said that the Jews of dif-
ferent countries would not amalgamate with the natives of the
countries in which they resided. Was that statement true ? Did
not the honourable member know that the Jews who were ad.
mitted to the possession of rights, liberties, and privileges b
France and the Netherlands, were as distinguished and useful
members of the community as any others? He would ask whetbet
this country was to be exclusively Christian ? (Hear, hear, hear
from all sides of the house)? He thought the answer which that
cheer implied was not an opinion entertained by any other indl.
viduals than those who expressed it so loudly at that moment,
and those whose feelings sometimes too much influenced their
better judgment —(hear hear.) A noble lord had asked in a man.
ner unworthy of the subject, whether a Jew was to be made an
Englishman merely because be purchased old clothes in Mon.
mouth-street? That was not the Jew's claim. it was because
he was a good subject that he claimed to have all the rights
and privileges of one. He (Sir R. Wilson) believed he might ap-
peal to his noble friend opposite [the hon. member meant Sir R.
Peel, and a laugh was occasioned by his thus inadvertently using the
word " Noble,' for Right Hon.n] whether the Jew was more guilty
than others of the crimes punished by our laws. lie had been asked
whether he would wish to lee Jews, Unitarians, and Christians, is
that House ? and he at once answered, Yes, for he saw one member
of the Unitarian profession sitting before him—than whose chime.
ter none was more justly distinguished for kindness, hums.
pity, generosity, and justice, and whose vote was always gives
in favour of freedom, and with a view to further the best b.
terests and happiness of mankind. (Hear, hear, hear.) Thee
was one point to which he wished particularly to refer. The Jews
voted at elections in Southwark--he had been told that their dohs
so depended on the good nature of the other electors, who mightil
they pleased, prevent their voting, by putting certain oaths to them.
Now, he must say, that such a state of things ought not to condoms
In his opinion, no state had a right to prescribe or to proscribe any
religion, provided that religion was not destructive of the laws Of
morality, and did not outrage the customs of the country. Sock
was not tile state of the Jewish religion, and the followers of k
ought not to be civilly proscribed. He was, perhaps, acquainted
with more Jews than most other members of that house galmeangehj.
He had seen them in all foreign countries, especially in
the Netherlands; and he had found them, even where suffering hem
jealousies and oppressions, generous, hospitable, and kind, and
were always most disposed to show the greatest gratitude for beneffis
received. In his opinion, there was no class more deserving of
favour, and of the concession of rights, than the Jews. He
would remind the house, that there was one man of the
Jewish persuasion who was at the head of no fewer than amity.
seven British Charities—(hear, hear !)—many of which wimp
for the promotion of Christianity. Why ? Because his own fell.
gion was not a proselytising ; and he supported the pro.
motion of the Christian religiutrielituse be felt it was one which
might do much towards ameliorating the condition of those among
whom it was to be introduced. He was proud to be able to say,
that be had his constituents' authority for supporting this bill: to
which, as far as his own opinion went, he gave his most cordial
support.
Mr. O'CONNELL excited much merriment by beginning his
speech with addressing the Speaker as " Mr. Chairmkr."—Order
was called, and the hon. and learned member proceeded. He was
proud of the opportunity of supporting the measure. He supported
it both on principle and sympathy. The time had but recently
gone by, when the Catholics were assailed by clamours which
he would refute that very evening by his conduct. They had
been assailed by a Cry which might be very satisfactory to
some Christians, who thought that no others were right in
argument or good sense but themselves. The cry then raked
was Protestant—now it was Christian. To persons who now raised

that cry against this measure, be would say that they avoided or
evaded the true principles of Christianity, which were liberality and
charity. On the former occasion these persons said that the Ca-
tholics were the advocates of bigotry. Who were the advocates
of bigotry now ? (Hear hear.) Christian charity, with such
people, was a good thing to talk of, but when they came to
the point they refused to put it in practice. (Hear, hear, hear.)
Who were before the House now in the &erecter of claim-
ants for rights ? They were not foreigners—they were not
Pala—nor Russians—nor Turks—nor Inclimen—they were
men born in England—men entitled to hold property in
Hagland—to inheriroperty from their ancestors in England--in
shun they were Englishmen. They were debarred from some of the
privileges of Englishmen because they refused to take an oath of a
particular kind, and therefore they were shut out of that house.
They were excluded, as it was said, because the safety of our
hmtitutions demanded their exclusion. But the house might
ho melted whether they would admit the unbeliever They did
sank the 31abometan. The lifehometan might perhaps refuse the
Beth KMthe faith ef a Christian." Yes, that was true, the Alabama.
las might be asewidmed excluded ; but would they laugh at him new
when he asked them, what sanction bad they against the admissise
tithe Atheist or of the Deist ? Against any man who did believe
Is a (ham et in a religion they had a protection, but they had Me
shirk tepee the man who had no religious faith. (Hear, hear.) lit
was said that the Jews had sympathies elsewhere. In the SIM
manner it had been said that the Catholics had sympathies else.
where. (Hear hear.) Let them not talk of the name of CY&
tianity, when it was used to do evil Massed of good. Is Mk a
case he scorned the name; be desired the substance. Club**,
was charitable; it was the precept of Jesus Christ, their Swarm
himselE He was charitable to all men, ems to his murderers; he
prayed even for them, mying, “ Father, forgive them ; they know
not what they do." In France they had a Christian legislature,
and the Jews ware ranked with the other eidsens o( the state. Per-
haps it might be denied that the French legislature was Christian ;

Lord J. RUSSELL was surprised at the opposition this bill had
experienced, for it seemed little to require it in point of policy and
expediency: the admission of 90,000 or 40,000 jews to the
privileges of the constitution could make but little difference in
its chance of future existence; and when he heard hon. members
tale of danger to that constitution, he could not but wonder in
what that danger consisted. He did not think that the Jcws I
would be thus enabled to convert all the Christians to Judaism,
or obtain such a degree of power as would overthrow the established
religion of the country. (Hear.) In point of principle, however,
the bill was of great value, for it was founded upon the
basis fully recognised last year, that religious opinions ought not
Ito interfere with political privileges. (hear.) It had been once
held to be the maxim of the Constitution that none but persons
attached to the Church of England should partake the benefits of
that Constitution—an Intelligible and a plausible theory ; but
when once that maxim was abandoned, when once it was agreed
that persons who were not members of the Church of England
might be members of the legislature, the particular tenets of a
representative of the people became a matter of pure indif-
ference. Now, Roman Catholics and Unitarians were allowed
to sit in Parliament, although the one considered the Church
of England an apostacy, and the other a corruption. Both were
admitted to political power, and by Acts of Parliament, it was de-
clued that the Constitution was thereby exposed to no addl.
tional peril. Those, then, who would exclude Jew., argued on
• false usumption, that none ought to be admitted to political
power but those who were of the religion of the State. He
maintained, on the contrary, that religion was no longer a ques-
tion, when any man required to be admitted to the privileges of
the Constitution. It had been decided over and over again, by
majorities of this house, that no man was objectionable on the
ground of his religion, but on the ground of loyalty to the
King, and fidelity to the State. The Jews had acquired pro.
perty, bore their share of the burdens, and contributed to the
exigences of the nation. They paid the taxes and obeyed the laws,
and the house ought to be glad to admit them as good and faithful
subjects. Moreover, it ought never to be forgotten that exclusion
encouraged separation, and that if this bill passed, the distance of
separation would be gradually diminished, until both sides ap-
proached so nearly, that they could join hands in one common cause
for the good of their common country. He did not wonder to see
the hon. baronet, the member for Oxford, adhere to the exclusion of
the Jews, since it was the last hold of intolerance and persecution,
and it could not be relinquished without a pang. Like Niobe,
when she clung to the last of her unhappy offspring, the hon. beet.
might exclaim-
- Unam minimamque relinque
De multis minimam posco, clamant et Imam.'"
The majorities who had recently supported the cause of civil and
religious liberty must vote in favour of this bill ; if they did not, it
would prove that the late concession to the Roman Catholics was
extorted by fear, and that the right hon. gentlemen he law oppo-
site had granted privileges, not because they believed in
their hearts that they were deserved, but because they thought they
could resist no longer with safety.
Mr. G. BANKS agreed with the honourable member for Clare,
that many of the objections to the admission of Roman Catholics
did not apply to the Jews; but the converse of the proposition was
equally true, that many objections to the admission of Jews did not
apply to the Roman Catholics. It had been asked whether, after
the .)ews had acquired and knowledge, it was fit to with.
hold from them political pt.( ? Mr. Burke and others had
said, that" the supreme is the legislative power," and for that su-
preme power they were not qualified as long as they continued
enemies to Christianity. In foreign states where they were admit.
tad, the legislature had not the same controul even over the rites and
ceremonies of the church. He opposed the bill, because the avowed
object of it was to give the Jews the privileges that had been granted
to the Roman Catholics.

Sir J. WROTTESLEY explained. '
Mr. HUSHISSON said, that knowing the abilities and power of
argument possessed by his hon. friend (Mr. It. Grant) who had the
conduct of this bill, be had intended merely to give a bilent vote,
and he should not have spoken but for what had fallen from his
nt colleague (General Gascoyne), respecting a petition he
Mr. Huskisson) had presented from Liverpool. He denied that'
t e Jews. who were chiefly retail traders, exercise any pe-
culiar inhume In that town, or that the signatures 1114“
*Axed through their influence [Gen. Checoyne said across the house,
4, In a few instances.") A noble lord who had spoken seemed to
think that there was such a community of interest between the bank.
ors and merchants of Liverpool and the Jews, that the latter could
dispose of the votes of the former ss they pleased. (Hear' hear.)
The fact was, that there was no place In England where
the Jews were lass likely to have influence than in Liverpool,
and the Petition spoke the true sense of the general body of
Christians there. His pliant colleague had said, that he was op-
peed to all innovadeas—that our ancestors were opposed to all in-
novations, and that our Roman Catholic predecessors were more ea.

pecially inimical to changes of every kind. If the Rowan ('
thanes had any claim, as he had admitted, on the score of the
i",
tiquity of their faith, surely the Jews had a stronger claim, mdn
upon the same ground. As to innovation, also, his gallant col-
lesgue might, perhaps, recollect, that though our ancestors write op
posed to change, they had effected both the reformation and the
revolution. He (Mr. I iuskisson) admitted that the qurstlite
was one of paramount importance or of absolute practical necessity ;
but upon principle the concession ought to he made, and as a up:_
form supporter of the Roman Catholics, he could not refuse his
sistance to the Jews. All the arguments against this bill he had
heard during the last thirty years, whenever the Catholic Question
was discussed ; change but the name Roman Catholic into that of
Jew, and there would be found no difference. After having been told
for 30 years that it was impossible that Roman Catholics should be
admitted to political power, it was at last discovered that there existed
an overruling necessity for relinquishing the exclusion the choice twirls
between civil war on the one hand and concession on the other.
No eucliover.tuling newt:sit,. was apparent in this case, but it was
fit that the last blot of the kind should be erased front the
statute-book. The great principle would then be completed, are
the Jews in this country would be placed upon the sate:-
footing as in France and the Netherlands. (Hear, hear, hear.)
If they went into committee with the bill, it did, there.
fore, follow, that being there they should adopt all the pro.
visions of the bill as it at present stood. He should latihra
if the bill stopped short of what it now was, but if he mild
not obtain all he desired, he would not, therefore, reject
what was within his reach. In the year 1812, a Bill was inn,
duccd for the relief of the Roman Catholics ; it went the length of
being committed, and in the Committee an Amendment was more,'
excluding them from Parliament, and then the friends of the !nee.
sure abandoned it. Now that he regretted ; for he thought the
better course would have been to have taken whatever they could
get. Ile did trust that the present Bill would be read a second
time. If it were, he should most strenuously support
it in the Committee, to keep the Bill in its present state;
but if altered, he could not help it: lie should rectal.
mend the friends of the measure to take whatever they
could obtain. He had heard that there was some danger—thrr
honourable members supporting the bill would find reason to rut
their conduct when next meeting their constituents. He though:
there was little danger of that ; for himself, he should not fear to
meet hi. constituents ; he never failed to experience front them that
reasonable allowance for conscientious difference of opinion ; and
the constituents of honourable members felt any discontent, which
be saw no reason to apprehend, lie was sure there would be found
few amongst them not willing to make those allowance:
which he expected front his own constituents. Again he would ex-
press a hope that the bill might pass, and form the consummation
of that course of liberality which, he trusted, would immortalize the
present parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Sir Robert PEEL—I shall endeavour to condense into the
shortest possible compass what I have to say on the present oe-
easion. As I had not the advantage of being here on the form -
discussion, I hope the house will bear with me should I trouble
them with any thing that they might have heard before. I
must set out by saying that I cannot support this bill. I 12)
not admit the principle of the bill, nor can I help objecting to
the mode in which it is sought to establish that principle._
The bill professes to limit itself to giving relief from all
civil disabilities to all the Jewish subjects of his Majesty ;
but that is not the isle object to which the bill is limited. I will net
say that it is a bill for unchristianising the legislature, but I sin
say that one of the unavoidable consequences of this measure will be.
that every one of the forms and ceremonies which gave us aseuranc.
of Christianity must be abolished. I take that that follows as 3
legitimate consequence of this measure—that every man, to wham.
ever sect or persuasion he may belong, will be entitled to pre.
scribe the form of affirmation, by which he may glee *sumac.
to the state. The session before the last we were called en
to give our support to a measure for the relief of the Pro.
testant Dissenters, and last session we passed a bill for the
relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects; therefore
it is said that we arc bound, in consistency, to follow up
these measures by adopting the present. I hear this with regret,
because I hear it for the first time. In the discussions respecting
either the Catholics or the Protestant Dissenters, nothing of tbe
sort was ever intimated—it was never stated to us that be.
cause we admitted our fellow Christians to a participation A
power, that therefore, as an unavoidable and necessary
consequence, we were bound to admit to all the privilet:
of the Constitution men who reject Christianity altogether.'
Some most forcible appeals were made to us on the ground of the
common Christianity of the parties applying for relief. In the
speeches of Burke, and in his recorded sentiments as contained in
his writings, we learn that he rested his strongest arguments up.:
the Christianity of the Roman Catholics ; so of Mr. Grattan, of Jlr
Canning, and of all the great and eminent advocates of that cau'e ;
even my right honourable friend on my left, in prcesitig their
claims upon the attention of the house last Session, ob.
served, that when serving with Protestants in the army,
they entered together the same breach, they fought together
on die same field, reposed together in the same grave, and rested
their hopes of future happiness upon the merits of a common Re.
dormer--those appeals were forcibly made, and successfully mad:.
for it was not to be denied that Protestants and Catholics admitted
the same great doctrines of Christianity. But if this bill pass, though
it may apparently be limited to the Jews, and though confining out
view solely to this bill, it does rot go beyond that class; yet we shall.
if this be agreed to, have to pass other bills most objectionable ir
my views of the Constitution. It is perfectly obvious that fear'
this it follows, u a necessary consequence, that every fem.
of oath which requires a profession of the Christian faith 'must be
abandoned. Now this is a most important alteration in the erase:
of this country. Before Catholics and Protestant Dissenters were
excluded, there was still a necessity for all public functionaries to
profess Christianity ; from the earliest period a belief in SW.
tianity was required as necessary to official appointments or to seats
in Parliament. No person who rejected Christianity could ob.
tarn office; therefore, from the first, our constitution was,
say the least of it, Christian. Here, then, we have an mi.
dent and palpable departute from the principles of the ec7.
stitution as admitted and recognised in the earliest periods; a:
where is the urgency of this vast change ? What is it that require..
this departure trout the first principles of our constitution?
is the case made out respecting the Jews ? it would 5eem.....1
my information from a book. which, I understand, is writte-
by a rely respectable Jew, and is considered a work c:
authority—that there are resident in the United Kingdom abut:
27,000 Jews, natural born subjects of his Majesty, of when-
-20,000 are resident in London, 7,000 Jews in the other parts
of the kingdom ; and for these seven and twenty or 30,000 in.
dividuals I am invited to depart from the principle which has
been acted on from the earliest period of the constitution. lam
told the Jew is degraded by his exclusion—he is not excluded in the
same manner that the Catholic and the Dissenter were— lie is not
excluded by anything in the nature of a taunt upon his form or
profession of faith. The Jew is excluded merely because the legis-
lature requires, as die great principle of civil government, that
all persons admitted to office should acknowledge the fundamental
truths of the Christian religion. The Jew is not a degraded
subject of the State, he is rather regarded in the light of at
alien--he is excluded because he will not amalgamate with
us in any of his usages or habits— he is regarded as a
Feigner. The history of the Jews, their domestic usages, their in.
stitutions respecting , and in a variety t f other points. we
find trough to accounn:aZattee prejudice which exists against ther:..
We And them in the possession of political privileges in Franc:.
in the Netherlands, and in the United States of America---!"
the last during a period of forty years, and in the two former
during the last fifteen years, and only two have been adenine.?
to political offices. (bear, hear, hear.) I think I undentate.
that cheer. I understand it to mean, that since so few have bee:
admitted, there is no danger in admitting the English Jews t'
political power. Now the inference I draw from it is, that if tte
Jews expect to derive so little advantage from the removal of
disabilities, the practical benefit to them must be very small; and
only for such a trifle are we to depart from what, for centuries has
formed the fundamental principles:
of the British Constitution.
Does the house suppose that the people of England are indifferent
because no pedtions have been laid upon the table of this house -
On the contrary, I will venture to affirm that the sense of the peo.
ple of England is opposed to concessions of this nature, and I will
venture to predict that the result will prove that affirmation to be
well founded. If you ace prepared to lay it down as a pent.
2re:hat deists, atheists, and other infidels, may hold the highest
years in France and the Netherlands have they been entitled to
of the state, and possess seats in the legislature,
e.
all privileges, and during forty years have they possessed those
must be prepared to revolt the feelings of the country. Ftorhefinfteey
advantages in the United States • yet during the entire of thou
periods not one of them has obtained a seat in the legislatures
of thus countries ' • only one has been appointed to a higit
situation at Amsterdam, and on. has been made mayor el
New York ; and that convinces me that the exclusion e
Jews does not arise from their political incapacides, but from dui!
own peculiar institutions and usages. So much for the principi!ei
die measure. The mode in which it is proposed to carry it Into
effect I look upon as squally objectionable. Its advocates Free
to abolish all disabilities on account of religious opinions. be
hoe. member for Clam would have every man allowed to worship
Gov as he might think proper ; but, if the present bill be mord, it
will not be oeorasary fee a man to worship 100 at fee Deist
and the avowed Mold are admitted under this bill. Front Its
this principle necessarily flows, that political pewee
L7nberileought to be, unconnected with religious belfef—that take
it is the kgitimate conseguencx. Now If that be intended, why
avow it at once sod for on ? Don any man in this house supple
hat this Is the lag bill which will be passed upon this matter -of re.
Atom freedom, as it is called? There are at the Feeolti