year, while the expense of the present class of vessels, exclusive of the first cost of the brigs, (8,000l. each) but including the expense of a guardship, was 106,975l. making an increase, by the present plan, of upwards of 41,000l. This was a subject that he thought well deserving of the attention of a Government desirous to husband the resources of the country. THE JEWS.] Mr. R. Grant said, that in introducing the Motion of which he had already given notice, to the attention of the House, he should have preferred avoiding all particular observations, reserving to himself the right of making whatever remarks he pleased during the discussion of the question at some future stage; and this course he would have pursued, because he could not have anticipated that any difficulties would be thrown in the way of the Bill at that period, or any opposition offered to its further progress; but having understood that one or two hon. Members had announced their intention, as it undoubtedly was their right, to contest the measure in this its first stage, and other hon. Members having declared their design to suspend their opinions until they should have heard the reasons advanced on either side, he thought he had no option, but must, however reluctantly, trouble the House with an exposition of those points upon which he founded the belief, and indulged the hope, that his proposal would be entertained. He begged, however, to preface his observations upon the subject with an explanation of the nature of his connection with the cause he advocated. It was not only unsought and unforeseen, but altogether fortuitous. Understanding that some such question was in contemplation, he had been led to turn his attention to it -not without prejudices, which, however, calm reflection had completely dissipated and thus convinced of the justice and policy of the measure, he did not consider himself at liberty to decline the honourable office of conducting it, although it came from strange hands. He stated this, that his humble opinions might not lose their due weight, however small that might be, being, as they were, entirely the result of conviction. The question before the House he proposed to treat after the following manner: he would first state the law in regard to that class of British subjects on whose behalf he appeared: he would next declare the grounds upon which these persons complained of that state of the law, and why they considered themselves entitled to relief: then he would proceed to touch upon the means of affording that relief: and lastly, he would attempt to answer some objections by which he had been informed the measure was to be encountered. The division of his address would, then, be fourfold. The state of the law-the grounds of complaint against it -the remedy-and the objections to that remedy; and having touched upon these four topics, he should have put the House into full possession of all the considerations, views, and objects, which seemed to him necessary to guide its decision. Now, as to the state of the law, it would not be necessary, though it certainly would be curious, to enter into an historical deduction of it from the olden time. He would accordingly content himself with adverting to one or two facts. It was a matter notorious to all who had examined the question, that members of the Jewish communion were, at an early period of our history, domiciled in these realms. After the Conquest, there were, during the first three reigns, frequent persecutions of that unfortunate race, without any just causes of complaint against them; and indeed, for the period of a hundred and fifty years that followed, it was difficult to say whether they suffered more from the mad malignant fury of the populace, who were their avowed enemies, or from the cool rapacious tyranny of the sovereigns, who professed to be their protectors. The excesses committed against them by the people were urged on by the most incredible reports; such as their plotting against the Stateconspiring for the purpose of setting fire to the metropolis-crucifying Christian children, and so forth. And the fury of the people being excited and exasperated by these incredible reports, vented itself in excesses only less horrible than those crimes which were so falsely imputed to them. It was true, they were protected by the kings; but what was the nature of that protection? It was the same protection that these princes afforded the wild beasts in the royal forests. They were secured from general invasion; but it was only that they might be more effectually preyed on by their royal masters. At these periods, laws of the most odious nature (or royal edicts, which had then the effect of laws) were passed, with a view of extracting from the Jews, under the various titles of taxes, imposts, duties, and gifts, that wealth which these persons had acquired by means of their superior intelligence, their more extended connection with foreign parts, and their active and industrious habits. And these laws were enforced under circumstances of the most terrible and revolting cruelty, and by acts which fixed an indelible blot upon, and even left a stain on human nature he would not detain or disgust the House by entering into a recital of them he would content himself with quoting a passage from Matthew Paris. Although the language was figurative, it was yet so picturesque, that he preferred giving it untranslated. It referred to the conduct of one of our sovereigns, and declared, "Non solum excoriendo, sed eviscerando extorsit." In the reign of Henry 3rd certain ordinances were passed, denying those of the Jewish communion the right of holding or transferring land, and keeping them in all respects as serfs and villeins of the Crown, and likewise restricting their religious worship; for they were commanded to conduct their worship in so low a voice as not to be overheard by the neighbouring Christians. Next, in the reign of Edward 1st, was passed the statute de Judaismo. This conferred upon the Jews certain privileges, which, however, were more than counterbalanced by depriving them of the practice of usury, which, in those times, meant the same thing as the taking of interest. In the 18th year of the reign of Edward 1st, by virtue of a royal edict, the Jews, to the number of 15,000, were expelled the kingdom; and this inhuman law was carried into effect, with every accompaniment of cruelty and scorn-with the confiscation of all their valuable property-with the infliction of the most galling personal suffering, and in several cases with the actual privation of life. It was well, though it was at the same time melancholy, to reflect that these dark and sanguinary stains were inflicted upon the brightest pages of English history, and those on which an Englishman was wont to dwell with greatest pleasure-the stirring days of the chivalrous Richard 1st, and those of the wise and enterprising Edward. But great as were the horrors perpetrated in these realms, they were more than equalled by the acts of contemporary sovereigns. They had already suffered in France under the iron rule of Philip Augustus; an ample counterpart for this was to be found in Germany; and then the storm rolled on towards Spain and Portugal, gathering force as it proceeded. So that from the first kingdom 150,000 Jews were driven by Ferdinand and Isabella, and the most shocking cruelties were unreluctantly perpetrated against miserable fugitives and their fellowreligionists by Emanuel, the otherwise enlightened and liberal monarch of Portugal. One hundred and fifty years elapsed after the Jews had been expelled from England before they again entered this kingdom. Having in vain negociated for their return with Cromwell, they were admitted by connivance during the reigns of the succeeding sovereigns. Under Charles 2nd and James 2nd they received letters of denization, which, although pressed, these monarchs refused to violate. Under William 3rd, however, the Alien-duty was imposed upon them, and in Queen Anne's time an Act was passed in the true spirit of the Anti-catholic code, compelling the Jewish parent to make provision for his child who should have become a Christian. In George 1st's reign an Act had been passed, to which, in the present instance, it was not necessary to allude. This allowed the naturalization of foreign Jews, and freed them from the Alien-duties; but here the question was not about foreign Jews, but about British-born subjects. He mentioned this to show there was no relation between the measure now proposed and that carried in the last century, which, however, he regretted to say, had, by the miserable pusillanimity of the Ministry, been repealed a few months after it was carried. No Act, he believed, had since been passed with the direct purpose of affecting the Jews. The Oath of Allegiance, passed in the reign of Elizabeth, contained nothing in its form or substance which was adverse to the feelings of these persons; but as it was required that it should be sworn to upon the Evangelists, it could not be taken by a Jew. Again, the Oath of Abjuration, which was intended to guard the kingdom against the return of the Stuarts, had nothing in it which they could not conscientiously take; but, unfortunately, at the conclusion of it, there was a formula which was to them an insuperable barrier; it was upon the faith of a Christian." Next came the Sacramental Test, imposed by the Corporation and Test Acts, which excluded them, as, previously to the Session before last it did Protestant Dissenters, from various rights and privileges. Well, the House was pleased to remove this restriction, but it was replaced by a test not to be applied subsequently, as the former was, but pre 66 viously and, worst of all, the Acts of that capital disabilities, imposed by the law Indemnity were at an end. Passing those of the country, always inflicted a hundredActs annually, relieved the Jews as well fold growth of evil in the shape of other as the Dissenters, from the consequences of disabilities, forming a sort of after-crop of not having taken the oaths. The new oppression through the agency of union Act compelled a man to swear upon the and local regulations. It was quite true faith of a Christian." Thus the three that this did not universally prevail hinges of exclusion (if he might use the throughout the country. In Exeter, Norword) were these:-The necessity of tak- wich, and other parts of the kingdom, ing the Oath of Allegiance upon the Jews might engage in all trades, and enjoy Evangelists the formula at the end of the the common privileges of citizens; but he Oath of Abjuration-and the new Test, regretted to state that in the great metro"on the faith of a Christian." Now there polis of the commercial world, they were was nothing in the body of these tests subjected to restrictions of the most onethat they would not adopt and subscribe; rous nature. They could not obtain the freeand he submitted to the House that the re- dom of the city. They could not exercise a restrictions imposed by them on the Jews tail trade-regulations, which, to the great were fortuitous, and did not arise from any mass of the members of the communion, desire of legislating against them. The were the most galling and the most opform of the first oath was made out before pressive. The Jews, in short, were nearthe re-admission of the Jews into this king- ly on the same footing as the Roman dom; the next Oath was framed when Catholics were last year; but the differthey were beneath political notice; and the ence was in favour of the previous situaOath was made, not to supply a test for tion of the Roman Catholics, and against those who were not Christians, but to bind the Jews. Such, then, being the princithose who were. Then, as to the new re- ples on which he claimed the attention of striction, it was suggested, not by that, but the House, and the state of the law to the by the other House, and that House would Jews, he should proceed to state the support him in the assertion that it was less grounds upon which he called for the rea deliberate act of legislation than a com- peal of these laws. He had first to state promise on the part of the Commons to that the number of the Jews in the Metroavoid the risk of losing an important be- polis amounted to about 20,000. Accounts nefit. All that excluded Jews from the differed much respecting the number of ordinary privileges of British subjects were them in the empire, but they might be those formula he had stated. He would estimated at from 30 to 40,000. This calnow state the general nature of these dis- culation would embrace all the United abilities, as given in a clever pamphlet. Kingdom. He, in the next place, begged They could not hold any office civil or mi- the House to observe, that as a sect the litary; they could not be schoolmasters or Jews were know by the whole world ushers; they could not be serjeants at law, to be the most ancient. Their religious barristers, solicitors, pleaders, conveyancers, and political principles were upon record— attorneys, or clerks; they could not be their habits were recognised as peaceable Members of Parliament, nor could they and industrious; and as subjects, they vote for return of Members, if any body were proved by the experience of ages to chose to enforce the Oath; and, finally, be less stained than any other by the crimes they were excluded from all corporation of treason to the Monarch or the State. offices. Some doubts, too, had been started Such were the persons who thus suffered, if the statute de Judaismo was not still in and who now claimed justice and mercy at force, excluding them from the right of their hands. They lived usefully and holding or transferring lands, and leaving peacefully under the Constitution; but all their religious worship without protection. it had of grace, of favour, of privilege, or These were certainly debateable grounds; protection, was denied to them, while they but even so, nobody could doubt the right had to groan under all that remained in it of the House to confirm that which was of what was illiberal and oppressive. He doubtful, and, consequently, he had been wished to observe too, that the effect of induced to mention these in addition to Catholic Emancipation had been, to aggratheir notorious grievances. He might also vate the evils under which they suffered. remark-and a memorable instance of the He could mention one case in which it had truth of this assertion was afforded in the been peculiarly oppressive, in which a discussion of a Bill carried last Session-young man, prepared to be called to the bar, was disqualified by the effects of that generally to the House the nature of the very Act of Toleration which had confer- measure he proposed for the relief of those red such inestimable blessings upon others. persons. He would next address himself Now, when the peculiar pressure of dis- to the objections raised against it; and, in abling laws on one class of the community doing so, he must implore the indulgence was the result of the removal of disabili- of the House, when he said, that not a ties from another, the severity and unfair- single objection should be brought forness of the infliction was quite clear; and ward by him, excepting such as he had having said this, he felt he had exhausted all either heard in that House, or understood, that could be said upon the subject. The in private conversation were to be advanced Jews affirmed that, by paying taxes, they in opposition to the measure. This he contributed to the support of the State, thought it necessary to say, lest on the one and that by their wealth they added to its side he might be suspected of betraying opulence; and in return, they called upon the cause he professed to advocate, by conthe House for that which hitherto the le- juring up new and formidable obstacles in gislature had denied them-an admission its way; or, on the other hand, of evoking to the rights and privileges of the British mere phantoms of argument and opposition, Constitution. These being the nature and that he might reap the vain honour of extent of the disabilities under which these having laid them with a trifling exertion persons laboured, and the grounds on which of his power. Having premised this, he they asked for relief, he came next to speak would proceed to observe, that the princiof the means of relief, and he would say pal objections were of a nature scarcely fit shortly, that as the Catholic Code afforded for popular discussion. They touched upon a perfect precedent of the disabilities com- considerations so high, and so sacred, that mon to the Roman Catholics and the Jews, he was embarrassed; but he could not altoin the years before last, so did the removal gether pass them by in silence, lest he of those disabilities, as regarded the former, might be presumed to admit the correctfurnish a glorious precedent of the mode in ness of the arguments founded on them, which relief might be extended to the though he could not debate upon them latter. The House might put them upon with the freedom admitted in other topics. the same footing with the Roman Catholics The objections were three-fold; and there since the passing of the Act. And for this was also a sort of preliminary objection special reason, that since Catholic Emanci- which contended against altering the law pation was likely to induce a judicial deci- which had resulted from the wisdom of sion, they should give the Jews the benefit our ancestors; saying that, surely we of that judicial decision, which would, in all should not hastily make any innovation on probability previously take place in the case a state of things thus time-honoured, and of the Roman Catholics. The Emancipatory thence insidiously wishing to deduce that Act pronounced by the country would, he an- it should not be rendered susceptible of any ticipated, be followed, as in the case of Ca- change whatsoever. His hon. friend in tholic Emancipation, by the removal of all his observation upon this subject, had wishcorporation restrictions, even in the Metro-ed the House to abandon the principle of polis. And here he could not avoid remarking that it was a strange thing that the City of London, great and wealthy as it was, should withhold that right of citizenship from the Jews which was conceded by Rome-by Pagan and Christian Rome, in its most high and palmy state. But he certainly did hail it as an auspicious event that, notwithstanding the hostility displayed upon all occasions by the City of London to these persons-its anxiety to exclude them from all Corporation offices -to impose upon them the alien duties, and to prevent their naturalization in the country-that yet he had great reason to believe he should that night have the cordial support of the four Members for this great Metropolis. He had now stated the Legislation of the two last years, but it was rather to be hoped that it would follow up that principle to its proper extent, and place the Jews on such a footing as would enable them freely to enjoy their political and civil rights. There were some persons who thought that the Jews ought to be admitted to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights, with some qualifications, one of which was, that they were not to be admitted within the walls of the British Parliament. These propositions of partial or more extended admission were advocated by those who stated and brought them forward, on the grounds of the established law of the country, and the wisdom of our forefathers. But whether they appealed to the one or the other for examples of the principle of mixed ad- | among us, no more than we would allow mission and exclusion, merely on account the professed enemies of our civil estaof religious differences, he denied that any blishments to come and live amongst us, such precedent was to be found. He de- it is an argument that goes a great nied that there was any instance of deal to far-not only Christianity, but any sect of Christian separatists (except Christianity as professed and practised the Catholics might be so considered) who by the Church of England, is a part of our had been admitted to the free exercise of establishment; will any Gentleman say all the common rights of subjects, and yet that we ought not to allow any person to excluded from seats in Parliament, and live amongst us that will not in every from the enjoyment of civil privileges. In all punctillio conform to the profession and the laws which had been framed on these sub- practice of the Church of England? jects our forefathers had carefully avoided Surely, Sir, I am not to look upon every mixture of civil disabilities and political ex- man as my enemy who differs from me in clusion with personal rights. In the first opinion upon any point of religion. This place there were the members of the church, would be a most unchristian way of thinkwho enjoyed all the benefits of the Consti- ing; therefore I must think that the Jews tution; then there were the orthodox Pro- are in much the same case with the distestant Dissenters who enjoyed equal free- senters from the Church of England.” dom with the Churchmen, and were ad- Such had been the liberal sentiments of the missible to Parliament; then there were man who was then the Ministerial leader heterodox Protestant Dissenters, and they of that House. Such sentiments he (Mr. too were admissible to Parliament, and R. Grant) had heard with pleasure from many of them had seats there, but they the lips of Mr. Pelham's present successor were not admissible to office, and were in that office, the right hon. Gentleman denied the exercise of their worship; (Mr. Secretary Peel) whose absence and and then there were Quakers who were its cause he now so much regretted* not admissible to Parliament nor to office, but who, he trusted would, on some and who were denied civil rights, inas- future discussion of this question, remuch as they were not permitted to give peat those sentiments which had already evidence in Courts of Justice, as they gained him so much credit among men of would not take an oath; and lastly, there enlightened and generous minds. At no were the Catholics, who had perfect free- period could it be shewn that our laws had dom of worship, but were excluded from supported one form of Christianity and had office and from Parliament. Such had not opposed another: then how could they been the state of our laws, thus exhibiting collect that those laws had supported both every variety of disability and of privilege; these contrary forms against a third? The but it seemed that by some miracle the laws had been such as he had described till Jews had escaped from both those situa- they came to the reign of William 3rd-, tions, which were, however, now pressed when there was a nearer approach to that against them on the grounds of the expe- system for which Gentlemen now conrience of past time and the wisdom of our tended; but in that day there was no colancestors. This question had been argued lection of Statutes supporting general on other grounds. It must be given up on Christianity as part of the law of the land; precedent; but then it was said that our in- they supported Christianity, indeed, but it stitutions were based upon the Christian re- was the Christianity of the Church Esta ligion, and that in our statutes every one blishment, which condemned the Catholic who professed Christianity was advantage- as meditating treason, and the Unitarian ously distinguished from all those who de- as uttering blasphemy. But if it were nied its divinity and truth. With respect said, that because the laws were found to to our institutions, that argument had been support some one part of Christianity it urged in the year 1753 against the project supported the whole, he denied the asserfor the naturalization of the Jews, and it tion, and maintained that he was entitled had then been nobly answered by Mr. Pel- to reverse the argument, and then employ ham, who thus applied himself to its consideration: "As to what has been said, Sir, about Christianity being part of our establishment, and that we ought not to allow the professed enemies of our ecclesiastical establishment to come and live *The cause alluded to by Mr. Grant, was the illness of Mr. Peel's father, whose death on the 3rd of May, raised this Gentleman to the dignity of a Baronet and after that period he appears in our pages as Sir Robert Peel. |