[ocr errors]

at war with the same Napoleon, a ligious distinctions ?” There never Jew actually contracted a loan for could be a thorough community him in this country.

between Christians and Jews; there The Solicitor General said, that, was a marked line of distinction when the rights of the Jews were between them ; there was a comtalked of, it should be remembered plete individuality in the Jewish that, according to the law of Eng- character. It would not do to land, the Jews had no rights. When emancipate men without admitthey came back to this country, ting them to all offices. The House, at the restoration, after being driven therefore, should be prepared to out, no law had passed giving to say, if it was ready to admit Jews them the rights of citizenship. How- into that House, and see them ever, having chosen to come back, placed in high offices over Christhe did not mean to say that they ians. were to be treated with harshness.. Dr. Lushington, sir James MackBut how did they stand at present? intosh, Mr. Macauley, Mr. Smith, Their religion was protected; their supported the bill on what were children were legitimate; they had now common-place grounds in all the power to purchase land, to such discussions, viz., that it was take by descent, and to transmit persecution to look at a man's retheir property to their children. Jigion, when speaking of his fitThere was no doubt that Jews hadness for civil rights, and that from a right to purchase land, and to the introduction of Jews no dandispose of it by sale or testament; ger could be dreaded, either to the and if there could be any doubt constitution or to Christianity. on this point, he would be perfectly According to them, to refuse the ready to support a bill declaratory present bill after repealing the Test of this right. No man could and Corporation acts, and more doubt that Christianity was a part especially after admitting Cathoof the law of England; not this lics, would be the most absurd form of Christianity or that, for and inexplicable of all contradicsects might differ ; but Christianity tions. In the latter case, the prinin some form was a part of the ciple of religious toleration had law of the land. This was to be been admitted, but its application borne in mind in legislating for in that instance, had been long those who were not Christians. With resisted on special circumstances. respect to the argument in favour Now the whole ofthe specialcircumof this measure, deduced from the stances which formed the leading emancipation of the Catholics, he grounds of objection in that case, would say, another experiment of were wanting in the present. Here, that kind should not be tried till was no foreign head-no divided the effects of the first had been allegiance,--no bulls ---no indulfully seen. If those who had ad- gences,--no priests exercising a vocated Catholic emancipation had despotic influenceovertheir flocks, supported it upon the principle --no agitation, -no violent adthat this measure should necessa- dresses, -no mobs disciplined with rily follow, that principle ought to almost all the regularity of men at have been openly avowed. The arms :--nothing of the kind exquestion in that case would then isted in the case of the Jews. be, “Will you put an end to all re- There was no ground here for as



serting, what was said in the ques- of the creditor over the debtortion of last year, that government of the benefactor over the benefitwould show its weakness by con- ted? Yet all this power a Jew ceding to clamour. In the case might now possess. He might be of the Jews, there was nothing but the greatest man in the city of long and silent suffering, and now London-might possess immense

they appeared before the legisla- influence on our Exchange, the ture, asking for relief in a calm Bank, and the India Company. and temperate tone. The history He might have the means of assistof the Jews in this country, with- ing foreign sovereigns, even those out one case of alleged guilt on hostile to this country. He might their part,-of any wrong inflicted be sent for to the congress of sovebythem,—was made up of a series reigns. Was not all this power ? of sufferings and tyrannical exac- If the possession of political power tions. Every Christian sect, Ca- in a Jew was dangerous to the state, tholic or Protestant, had each a he had already too much. Was set-off to make against the other, any disposed to deprive him of on account of religious perse- any of those sources, or touch the cution; but in this respect the wealth from which this influence Jews were different from them all. was derived ? If not, where was Against them no set-off of the kind the line to be drawn? In short, to could be made. The arguments, keep the Jew personally from a seat therefore, of those who opposed in parliament, in which, at the same this motion were utterly inconsist- time, it was admitted he might proent with those used in the ques- cure seats for others, was said tion of last year.

There the ob- to be depriving him of power. He jection was made to the claim of was to be debarred from obtaining the strong, here to that of the a fur gown in a corporation ; but weak,—there to the violent, here wasto retain all the influence which to the modest,—there to the pro- would enable him to govern the selytising, here to those who were corporation. The argument foundproud not to make proselytes. If ed on the supposition that Jews had such arguments were to be main- interests hostile to the states in tained, it would show that there which they lived—that English Jews was nothing which persecution had supplied Napoleon with money would not urge as a ground in to makewar upon ourselves-could its support. It was a repetition of not be used with any fairness. the language of the wolf to the Was it just to blame them for relamb. If unjust, it was no less maining Jews, when we refused to absurd, for though your object was make them English? If they had to prevent Jews from enjoying po- contributed to feed the power of Nalitical power, the substance of that poleon, it must not be forgotten, power they already had.

Civil that he was the only prince in Europe power did not consist only in fur who had begun to do them justice. gowns,

in maces, waxed parch- Was it not our code of disabling ments, and seals ? Was not know- laws that had driven them into his ledge power? Was not wealth ?- arms ? Centuries of persecutions did not the influence which large and harsh government had degradcapital gave, constitute power? ed a portion of the Jewish people Was it not found in the influence to the condition in which they now

were. Oppression and persecu- of the bill plumed themselves on tion had already destroyed, for the the circumstance that no petition most part, their moral tone of cha- had been presented against it-as racter, which might as easily be re- if the experience of last session stored by reviving their regard for had not taught the people of Brithe opinion of other men, and tain the uselessness of petitioning; throwing open to them, in common and general Gascoyne explained with ourselves, all those offices it by saying, that, so far as the to which the respect and esteem country knew of the measure, of their fellow-subjects would they were convinced that the exalt them.

House had no serious intention of On the division, the motion for passing it. On the second readintroducing the bill was carried bying, the usual topics in favour of a majority of eighteen, the num- the bill were enforced by sir Rober in its favour being 115, and bert Wilson, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. that against it ninety-seven. Be- Huskisson, lord John Russell, and fore the second reading came on, Mr. Brougham. Several memseveral petitions in favour of the bers declared against it, who bill were got up from London, Li- had voted for the Catholic bill, verpool, Leeds, and other places, such as lord Belgrave and lord and were gravely presented, as Darlington, and complained loudthings of moment, by the very ly of the use made of their vote on men, and to the very parliament, the former occasion to trick them who, a year before, had treated all into so contradictory a measure. petitions with contempt, because Mr. Secretary Peel (who, by the containing opinions different from death of his father, had become their own. One petition was from sir Robert Peel) would not go so Mr. Owen, who had openly de- far as to say that the bill would clared, at a public meeting, that unchristianize the legislature, and Christianity was an imposture. fling off Christianity altogether ; Mr. Calvert having observed, on the but its principle clearly was this occasion of presenting one of these that every form and ceremony petitions, that though he was favour- whatever, which gave an assurance able to the bill, it seemed to him a of an adherence to Christianity, great contradiction, to admit Jews, should be abolished; and all who while a large body of Christians, supported the bill must maintain, viz. Quakers, were excluded,-Mr. that every man, to whatever sect Brougham and Mr. Grant answer- he might belong, or if he belonged at once, that so it was; but the ed to no sect at all, would have a proper cure for this was, to include right to the same concession, though the Quakers too. This was con- he could give no affirmation which sistent: there was much more to would afford a security to the be said for the latter than for the state. That would be a very former; and the principle clearly important alteration in the usages enough was, that Christianity was and the customs of the couna word which never should be heard, try. Before the Dissenters were and a thing which never should be excluded, and before the Rothought of, within the walls of man Catholics were excluded, a Christian legislature. The friends the ceremonies and forms as to VOL. LXXII.


admission to office implied, from admit Atheists and Infidels; and the earliest periods of our his- he asked, what was the mode of tory, a belief in the doctrines of affirmation adapted to them prior Christianity. If this bill passed, to their entering office ? Such for the first time would that prin- must be the legitimate consequence ciple be abandoned; and before of the bill. Again, this departhat abandonment took place, ture from what had been so long he required to know what was the recognised, would be accompaurgent necessity for a departure nied with no practical good ; it from a principle which had exist- would practically leave the Jew ed before the exclusion of the where he was. That had been Dissenters and the Roman Catho- tried, and it had been found in lics, and which was in force from vain to set legislative declarations the earliest period of the official of eligibility against public opiinstitutions of the country. The nion. In the United States, Jews case which had been made out, in had been admissible to office for a work written by a respectable the last forty years; in the NetherJew, for the abandonment of this lands, for fifteen years; and in principle, was this,--that there France, for fifteen years; yet, in all were residing in this country 27,000 that time, only one or two cases Jews who were natural-born sub- had been cited, of office held by jects of his Majesty. Of the 27,000, Jews. The very circumstance of about 20,000 resided in London; Jews having been eligible to power so that there were, according to for fifteen years in the Netherthat work, only 7,000 Jews who lands and France, and for forty resided out of London. For the years in the United States, without relief of these 27,000, parliament ever acquiring a seat in the legiswas asked to abandon a principle lature of either country,—one havso long acted upon. If the prin- ing filled a judicial post, and anciple of the bill were adopted, it other having been mayor of New would place Infidels on the same York,--that circumstance alone footing as Protestants; and if was a convincing proof that it was that principle were recognised, the owing to the peculiar situation of House should be prepared for its the Jewish people, not to incaparevolting the feelings of the coun- citating laws, that their practical try. id, that every man

exclusion existed. But even if the ought to be permitted to worship principle were right, he objected God as he liked. Then it follow to the mode in which this bill ed, from this principle, that it was brought it forward. Why should a matter of indifference whether the House confine it to he worshipped God or not. It was class? Why not legislate for all ? urged, that no man should be re- If all had the right which was sponsible for his religious senti- now contended for, there should ments to the state. Then Atheists be no disqualification whatever on and Infidels were not to be re- account of religion. At present there sponsible. Let those who thought were three classes of Christian subso, then, be prepared with their jects of his Majesty admissible to test. If he adopted the princi- ofhce and to the legislature-Prople of this bill, he was bound to tesant Dissenters, Roman Catho

It was


lics, and members of the Church of greater, force to the Quakers. England. But were no Christians He knew no tenet of the Quakers excluded on account of religious which incapacitated them. It objections ? What was thought was fair, then, that he should of the Quakers, and on what

see the whole principle applied at ground was it, that a bill was not once; and if every class of

perbrought in for their relief? Was sons were to be admitted, let the it through fear of alarming the question be at once fairly discussreligious feelings of the country ? ed, and not on separate measures. If this bill were passed, other bills To the motion for the second must come, and was it wise, year reading of the bill, general Gasafter year, to disturb the country coyne had moved as an amendby the introduction of these sepa- ment, that it should be read a serate bills, instead of a general ad-cond time, that day six months. mission to granting power? There On the division, the amendment was no one ground on which the was carried by a majority of 228 Jews were sought to be relieved, over 165, and the bill was lost. that did not apply with equal, nay

« VorigeDoorgaan »