TIE STATUS 
 
 EWS1NENGLAN
 

 
 THE STATUS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 JEWS IN ENGLAND, 
 
 FROM THE TIME OF THE NORMANS, 
 TO THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA, 
 
 IMPARTIALLY CONSIDERED: 
 
 COMPRISING AUTHENTIC NOTICES, 
 
 DEDUCED FROM HISTORICAL AND LEGAL RECORDS ; 
 
 AND INCLUDING 
 A SYNOPSIS, WITH COMMENTS, OF THE DEBATES 
 
 ON 
 
 THE JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL : 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES EGAN, ESQ. 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, 
 LATE FELL. COMM. OF TRIN. HALL, CAMB. 
 
 " Since the remainder of that mighty nation, which of old were elected a people peculiar, 
 are now by Him that first chose them dispersed over the face of the earth, and are become Hie 
 most politic of traders now extant, having by their industry cemented themselves into the prin- 
 cipal revenues and traffic of the universe ; it might not seem improper to examine how their 
 condition stood of old in this nation, and how the laws of this realm stand in reference to that 
 people at this day." De Jure Maritime et Navali. 
 
 " A right toleration ought to be extended unto all, since all equally plead conscience, of 
 which God alone is the judge." Arcana Imperil Detecta, Case LII. 
 
 LONDON : 
 R. HASTINGS, CAREY STREET, LINCOLN'S INN ; 
 
 GRANT AND BOLTON, GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN; 
 
 AND 
 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 MDCCCXLVIII.
 
 J. MALLETT, PRINTER, 
 
 WARDOUR STREET, 
 
 LONDON
 
 THE MOST NOBLE 
 THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, 
 
 LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL, 
 
 K.G. D.C.L. F.R.S. 
 
 A Statesman who has conferred inestimable benefits on his Country, 
 by the Wisdom of his Counsels, by his eloquent Advocacy of the purest 
 principles of Rational Freedom, and by his liberal Encouragement of 
 Literature and the Arts : 
 
 THIS WORK 
 
 13, 
 
 WITH HIS LORDSHIP'S KIND PERMISSION, 
 MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED 
 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR 
 
 S EULES* CHAMBERS, 
 
 CAREY STREET, 
 LINCOLN'S INN. 
 
 * ';
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 COMMENTATORS on the history of the Jews assert, 
 that a portion of the Jewish people had settled in 
 Britain as early as the first century of the Christian 
 era ; that an amicable alliance having existed, in the 
 days of Julius Caesar, between the Hebrews and Ro- 
 mans, " To aid each other in their wars with all their 
 hearts," the Jewish warriors accompanied the great 
 Roman Captain in his invasion of Britain, and settled 
 here under the Roman banner*. And, in support of 
 this allegation, it is further stated that "Augustus 
 Caesar set free, without any redemption money, every 
 man and woman of the Jewish race in all the countries 
 of his dominion ; to the east, as far as beyond the 
 Indian Sea ; and to the west, as far as beyond the 
 British territory, which is the country of Angleterre, 
 and which is designated England in the Lingua 
 Franca-^." 
 
 * The treaty between the Romans and Jews was graven in tables of brass, 
 and sent by the former to Jerusalem, as a memorial of peace and confederacy 
 between the two great nations ; and it is preserved iu the first bonk of Maccabees, 
 chap. viii. 
 
 t Rabbi D. Ganz's Chronicle, " The Branch of David." And in this country, 
 says Margoliout, the Jews record the event annually in their calendar in the fol- 
 lowing words : " Augustus's Edict in favour oj the Jews in England. C.jE. 15.' 
 
 B
 
 The venerable Bede (Eccles. Hist.J, Archbishop 
 Ecbright (Canonical Exeptiones), Ingulphus (Hist, of 
 CroyL), and other early writers, are also cited, to prove 
 that Jews were residing in Britain at the time of 
 the Saxon Heptarchy. A talented legal writer, how- 
 ever, has remarked that, " When the Jews first came 
 into this realm is not certainly related by any of the 
 historians of British or Saxon kings' reigns ;" and we 
 may add, that other writers have left us too scanty in- 
 formation on the history of this people, for us to as- 
 certain with accuracy the precise period of their original 
 arrival in England ; for while Spelman, Coke, and 
 other commentators, maintain that the settlement of 
 the Jews in Britain dates back to Edward the Confes- 
 sor's time, Prynne and other writers repudiate that 
 conjecture*. 
 
 It is remarkable, and not a little discreditable to 
 our early historians, that (with the exception of Thomas 
 De Wyke, Canon of St. Osney, A.D. 1263, who was 
 perhaps the best writer amongst the old chroniclers) 
 our historians, more particularly those of earlier date, 
 have done their best on most occasions to denigrate 
 and calumniate the Jewish character. 
 
 Indeed, the most zealous literary efforts appear to 
 have been formerly made, to stigmatise the Hebrews 
 as a class of people quite undeserving the protection 
 
 * In a modern publication, " The Laws and Ancient Institutions of England," 
 a law is cited, relative to Jews in Edward the Confessor's time, which seems to 
 support Spelman and Coke's opinion. Johnson, however, classes this ordinance 
 amongst " the supposed laws of Edward." (See Collect, of Eccles. Laws and 
 Canons, vol. i, MLXIV.)
 
 of the British Sovereign, unworthy of admission within 
 the pale of the British Constitution, and unworthy 
 even of the liberal or equitable consideration of the 
 British people. 
 
 The time, however, has at length arrived, when it 
 becomes of importance to consider, whether or not 
 facts sustain the allegations hitherto so generally pro- 
 mulgated against the Jews 1 And it is hoped that a 
 perusal of the following remarks will prove, that facts 
 do not so sustain the condemnatory statements hereto- 
 fore advanced against a people, regarding whom it 
 has most properly been asked, " What Nobility can 
 be greater than theirs? so many Patriarchs, and 
 Prophets, and Kings, do they number among their 
 forefathers ; and so many brave men, and men of di- 
 vine virtue, whose names are recorded in Heaven*." 
 
 * Vide Petrus Cunaeus, " De Republica Hebrceorum," cap. xviii. " It should 
 never be forgotten," says Dr. Adam Clarke, " that the greatest men that ever 
 flourished as kings, judges, magistrates, law-givers, heroes, and poets, were of 
 Jewish extraction; Isaiah was a Jew, so was Paul, and so was Jesus of Naza- 
 reth." (Com. on Isa. ch. 53.) And another learned English divine, Dr. Laun- 
 celot Addison, also observes, " This people, if any under heaven, may boldly glory 
 of their antiquity and nobleness of descent ; there being no nation who can prove 
 its pedigree by such clear and authentic heraldry as the Jews ; so that all other 
 nations must have recourse to the Jewish records to clear their genealogies and 
 attest their lineage."
 
 THE JEWS IN ENGLAND. 
 
 IT is proved, both by historical and legal testimony, 
 that at a very early period the Jews in England were 
 deemed worthy of the consideration of the British 
 Sovereign; accredited historians inform us, that 
 William the Conqueror brought the Jews from Roan 
 to England, and that they settled here under the protec- 
 tion and patronage of that king. (Antoninus' Chron. 
 Holinshed's Hist. Stow's Annals, Leland's Chron. Ba- 
 ker's Chron.) " Whereupon, in a short space, that 
 people so spread themselves," says Peck, " that, in all 
 the cities and other the best sort of towns in the king- 
 dom, they established their synagogues and openly 
 taught the doctrine of their Rabbins with great ex- 
 actness." (Peck's Annals.) And these statements are 
 also corroborated by legal writers of high authority. 
 
 William Rufus, of whom historians state that he 
 possessed a mind superior to the superstition and ig- 
 norance of his time, so far countenanced the Jews, as 
 to permit them to hold religious disputations with the 
 clergy concerning the true faith, and encouraged the 
 Israelites to bear themselves manfully throughout the 
 theological contest. (Malms. Hollinsh. Stow.) 
 
 Henry the Second, in the twenty-fourth year of his 
 reign, authorized the Jews to have a cemetery on the
 
 outside of every city where they dwelt, instead of 
 their former general burial ground, which was near 
 London*. We also find, that in the reign of Richard 
 the First " the rules and customs which prevailed in 
 the Court of Exchequer, during its adjudication on 
 matters concerning the Jewish people, were in con- 
 formity with the general customs of the Jews." (Mag. 
 Rot. 4. Ric. J.) And ordinances were also enacted 
 respecting the estates and property of the Jews, di- 
 recting that all debts owing to them, either on mort- 
 gage, or other securities, should be registered. 
 
 Notwithstanding the tyrannical exactions and per- 
 secutions inflicted on the Jews in the reign of King 
 John, it is nevertheless abundantly manifest that he 
 granted to the Hebrews many highly important pri- 
 vileges ; and it is a remarkable fact also, that the 
 earliest privilege conferred on the Jews by King John 
 conveyed a deferential acknowledgment of the Jewish 
 religion. In the first year of that monarch's reign 
 (A.D. 1199), authority was given to the Jewish people 
 to nominate the Chief Rabbi of England, and the 
 royal confirmation of the appointment is recorded in a 
 charter commencing as follows : " The King to all his 
 faithful, both to all the Jews and English, greeting. Be 
 it known that we have granted, and by our present 
 
 * It appears, by au ancient inquisition taken tempo Edw. 7, that St. John's 
 Hospital, at Oxford, was built on the site of the original cemetery of the Jews, to 
 whom another piece of land was granted in lieu thereof. (2 Rot. Inq. com. and 
 vill. Oxon. capt. an. 6 7 Edw. I, in Tur. Land.) And on the site of this very 
 hospital was built the present Magdalen College. (Wood's Hist, and Antiq. of 
 Oxford.)
 
 charter confirmed, to Jacob the Jew of London, Pres- 
 byter of the Jews, the jurisdiction of all the Jews 
 throughout England. " Joh. 1 2 die Julii, an. Reg. nostr. 
 primo.* 
 
 Again, in another charter, the same monarch af- 
 forded an additional proof of the worthiness of the 
 Jews, by granting to their chief Rabbi a safe conduct 
 through all his dominions, both at home and abroad ; this 
 charter being to the following effect : " John, by the 
 grace of God, &c. To all his faithful subjects to whom 
 these letters shall come, as well beyond as on this side 
 of the sea. You are commanded and enjoined, that 
 through whatever village or place our well-beloved and 
 familiar Jacob, the Presbyter of the Jews, may pass, 
 that you allow him and every thing belonging to him 
 to pass safely and freely, and that you make him com- 
 fortable ; and that you do not suffer any injury, 
 trouble, or violence, to be offered to him any more 
 than to ourselves ; and if any one should presume to 
 injure him in anywise, that you cause redress to be 
 made without delay." 
 
 Even in Magna Charta we find the Jews included, 
 inasmuch as the same clause of it which secures 
 Dower to widows whose husbands were indebted to 
 Jews, enacts also that, " in like manner, it shall be with 
 other persons than Jews." (Mag. Chart, xvn. John.) 
 So that the Jews were in important matters placed on 
 
 * In the ancient records the chief Rabbi is styled both Presbyter and Sacer- 
 dos. Selden (v. 6, p. 1088; and Lord Coke (2 List. p. 508; style the Jewish 
 Presbyter " High Priest," being of opinion that the authority of his Ecclesias- 
 tical office was fully admitted.
 
 8 
 
 a par with the rest of the community by the Great 
 Charter*. 
 
 By other charters of King John, it was enacted, 
 that all Jews might live freely and honorably within 
 the King's dominions, and hold lands, and have all their 
 privileges and customs, as they had enjoyed them in 
 the time of Henry the First : that if a Jew died, his 
 possessions should not be disturbed, provided he left an 
 heir to answer his liabilities ; that if disputes arose 
 between Jews themselves, they should be settled ac- 
 cording to their own laws ; that if a Christian should 
 have a plaint against a Jew, it should be tried by 
 jurors of the latter nation ; that it should be lawful 
 for Jews to buy anything offered for sale to them, ex- 
 cepting things belonging to the Church ; that a Jew 
 might lawfully sell a mortgage made to him, after 
 holding it a whole year and a day ; that Jews, wher- 
 ever located, might remove whither they pleased, with 
 all their goods, that no man should molest or detain 
 them, and that their goods should be as safely pro- 
 tected as those of the Sovereign: that the Jews 
 should be free of all customs, tolls, and modiations of 
 wines, as are the chattels of the King; that the Jews 
 should be kept protected and defended by all men, and 
 that any who violated the enactments made on their 
 
 * That the Great Charter was confirmed by a Parliament (although the fact 
 escaped the notice of our ancient historians, and has been doubted by some modern 
 writers), is evidenced by the report of a case determined Easter Term, 5th of 
 Henry the Third, A.D. 1221, where the Court held that Magna Charla was a 
 Stntute-
 
 behalf should be subject to the penalty of forfeiture. 
 And it was further provided, that, in cases where liti- 
 gation arose between a Christian and a Jew, and the 
 plaint was not supported by the testimony of two wit- 
 nesses, the Jew was allowed to discharge himself, " on 
 his own oath taken on his book ;" also, that " if a Jew 
 was summoned on any matter, even appertaining to the 
 Crown, he in like manner should be discharged on his 
 single oath taken on his roll*." And whenever it 
 happened that any persons having dealings with Jews 
 denied their deeds, or any controversy did arise upon 
 which there was any trial, the same was decided by a 
 jury, half of Christians and the other half of six Jewsf. 
 At this early period the Jews were entitled also to 
 rights quite as important, in some cases, as those pos- 
 sessed even at the present day by native-born subjects; 
 for it was ordered, that " if any Christian, indebted to 
 any Jew on mortgage or other security, paid not his 
 money at the day appointed, together with all the 
 interest, the Jew was entitled to sue forth letters of 
 process and obtain judgment, and thereupon extents 
 were sued forth, and the lands of the debtor were seized, 
 notwithstanding in whose hands soever they came after 
 the security was entered into," ( Fine, R, vi. Joh. m. 1 7, 
 ix Joh. m. 5.) And these judgments were assignable 
 to Christians, together with the extents upon them, 
 
 * i.e. The Pentateuch. 
 
 t Cart. IT, Joh 49. Charta Judae Angl. Charta 2, John 53. confirmatio 
 Judaeorum de libert. suis.
 
 10 
 
 and the assignee might vouch over the assignor to 
 warranty in such case*. 
 
 In the reign of Henry the Third, the office of Pres- 
 byter of all England was granted to Elyas L'Evesque, 
 a Jew of London, in the room of Aaron, with the ap- 
 pointment of a deputy, to act whenever the said Elyas 
 could not attend. (Cla. 21. H. 3. p. 1. m. 18.) King 
 Henry also granted the royal licence, or Conge d'elire, 
 authorizing the Society of Jews in England to select 
 whom they pleased for Rabbi (1 ActaRegia, p. 36); 
 and we likewise find that a grant was passed, temp. 
 Edw. I (A.D. 1281), acknowledging that the High 
 Priest or head of the Jews' synagogue in London was 
 confirmed by the King-f-. 
 
 That the Jews of England in ancient times were 
 considered qualified to hold real estates, is made quite 
 apparent by Bracton, a writer of the time of Henry 
 the Third, who distinctly states that the Jews are ca- 
 pable of purchasing land ; and, in defining to whom a 
 grant may be made, he says, " A grant may be made 
 as well to religious persons as to others to whom one 
 may grant, also to Jews as well as to Christians." 
 (Lib. n, cap. 5, s. 6.) And the same writer, treating 
 of warranty, also says, " If any one, either Christian or 
 
 " So likewise to the King," says Molloy, " they might assign over debts to 
 pay their taxes." 
 
 t It would appear that, in former days, the Jews of England were not less 
 conspicuous for their loyalty than are those of the present day ; and it is pleasing 
 also to notice the grateful sense entertained thereof by the Sovereign. Our his- 
 torians relate that Henry the Third, in return for services rendered to members of 
 his family by two Jew brothers, Cresseand Hagen, discharged them from all taxes 
 for five years. (Acta Regia, v. 1, p. 35.)
 
 11 
 
 Jew, be called to warranty who does not hold land by 
 which he may be distrained, the Sheriff shall be di- 
 rected to take his body ; because, in that case, land 
 cannot be taken in recompense. (Lib. v, cap. 6, s. 6.) 
 Bracton's opinion is corroborated also by various an- 
 cient records, distinctly shewing that Jews were allowed 
 to take real estate ; for in the 35th, Henry the Second 
 (A.D. 1189), a finalis concordia w T as acknowledged 
 before John, Bishop of Norwich, and Ranulphus De 
 Glanvil, the King's Chief Justice, and others, in the 
 King's Court, in a real action between William De 
 Curzun, plaintiff, and Jornet, a Jew of Norwich, terre- 
 tenant of a messuage with the appurtenances in Nor- 
 wich ; whereby the said William granted the said 
 messuage with the appurtenances to said Jornet, the 
 Jew, and his heirs, for the service of five shillings 
 yearly. 
 
 In the 9th of Richard the First, Anno 1199, a si- 
 milar final concord was acknowledged before Simon De 
 Pattershall and several others of the King's Justices, 
 in a cause between Philip, son of Walter, plaintiff, and 
 Jacob, a Jew, son of Samuel, of Northampton, terre- 
 tenant of a messuage with the appurtenances in North- 
 ampton ; whereby the said Philip granted the said 
 messuage with the appurtenances to hold to the said 
 Jacob and his heirs in fee and inheritance, on condition 
 of their paying fourteen-pence annually to the granter 
 and his heirs in full of all services. And in the 1 Oth 
 of King John, another final concord was acknowledged 
 before the same Simon De Pattershall and others of 
 the King's Justices, between Robert, of Norfolk, and
 
 12 
 
 his wife, and Isaac, the Jew, concerning a messuage 
 with the appurtenances in London ; whereby the said 
 Robert and his wife conveyed the said tenements to 
 Isaac and his heirs for ever. 
 
 In the 55th of Henry the Third, however, a sta- 
 tute was passed, prohibiting Jews from taking " free- 
 hold manors, lands, tenements, or rents, but never- 
 theless authorizing them to hold houses in cities, bo- 
 roughs, and towns. And, by a statute of Edward the 
 First, it was further declared that no Jews should have 
 power to alienate in fee any houses, rents, or tene- 
 ments, which they had already, or dispose of them, 
 without the King's consent ; but that they might pur- 
 chase houses and curtilages, and hold the same in 
 chief of the King, and take lands to farm, continuing 
 to farm them for fifteen years. (Statutum de Ju- 
 daismo.*) 
 
 From the facts just adduced, we think it is quite 
 apparent, that in very remote times the Jews in Eng- 
 land not only had the benefit of the law conceded to 
 
 * In the Parliamentary edition of the Statutes, this Act is classed 3rd, Edward 
 the First ; but Pryun says that it was enacted in the 4tb, Edward the First ; and 
 Coke considers it to have been a Law of the 18th, Edward the First. (Vide 
 Baring, on the Anc. S(ats.~) It may be observed, however, that although this 
 Statute, and also that of Henry the Third, are of a restrictive nature, yet they 
 furnish additional proofs that the Jews early settled in England were considered 
 entitled to higher privileges than other aliens, who were settled in this kingdom 
 even at a much later date ; for we find by Slat. 21, Henry the Eighth, cap. 16, 
 that " All strangers, not denizens, are prohibited from keeping a house, under cer- 
 tain penalties ;" and by the 33rd, Henry the Eighth, cap. 16, "All strangers, 
 except denizens, are precluded, under penalties therein specified, from taking a 
 lease of any house." Alien Acts, temp. Henry the Eighth.
 
 13 
 
 them in their monetary and commercial affairs, not 
 only had their religious manners and customs recog- 
 nized, and their priests respected by legal sanction, not 
 only were they permitted to hold and transfer land, 
 but were entitled also to claim trial by jury, and 
 deemed qualified likewise to discharge the important 
 duties of jurors: and it is worthy of especial remark, 
 that these privileges were legally enjoyed by the Jews 
 in times when all the Jews in England were aliens*. 
 
 It has been generally and confidently asserted by 
 English writers, that in the reign of Edward the First 
 an Act of Parliament was passed, decreeing the 
 banishment of all Jews from England; but, as no 
 such enactment has been found amongst the statutes 
 of the realm as no author, treating on the history of 
 the Jews, has even adduced a copy of the alleged en- 
 actment and as both English and Jewish writers have 
 stated very different and conflicting opinions as to the 
 cause of the departure of the Jews from England, we 
 are naturally led to enquire, whether their emigration 
 hence did not arise from causes quite different from 
 those hitherto affirmed. English writers maintain 
 that the grounds on which the Jews were banished 
 
 * The learned Selden, who perhaps investigated the history of the Hebrew- 
 people more deeply than any other English writer, states that, " By the ancient 
 law of England, the Jews had a right to claim a trial per medietatem lingua." 
 (Vide Baring, Obs. on the Anc. Stats, p. 147, and Dyer, 144.) The Statutes, 
 27th, Edward the Third, c. 8, and 28th, Edward the Third, c. 13, moreover ac- 
 corded that privilege to all aliens ; the former of these enacting that, if both 
 parties to the suit are aliens, the whole jury shall be aliens, (See Woodeson's 
 View of the Laws of England, Lect. xiv.)
 
 14 
 
 from England were for defacing or clipping the coin 
 of the realm, for usury, for forgery, and for crucifying 
 Christian infants. (Stow, Speed, Fox, Baker.) Jewish 
 writers, however, allege, that the departure of the He- 
 brew people may be traced to a refusal to change their 
 religion. (Ben. Virgo's Chron. Shaivet. Y. hudah*.) 
 
 In order therefore to arrive, if possible, at some 
 definite conclusion on this matter, we must here ex- 
 amine more minutely the history of the Jews in Eng- 
 land, and reluctantly revert to pages of our ancient 
 annals, which, alas ! are indelibly stained with evi- 
 dences of persecutions more unjust, more cruel and 
 sanguinary, than have been recorded in the annals of 
 any other Christian nation under heaven, except per- 
 haps the Spaniards and Portuguese. 
 
 With the opinions of those writers, who state that 
 the Jews took their departure from England about the 
 middle of Edward the First's reign, we are for our- 
 selves quite disposed to coincide ; but that their de- 
 parture was rendered compulsory by a statutory en- 
 actment, may well be deemed somewhat problematical. 
 
 It has been already shewn that the Jews were 
 
 * The Jewish historians do not all agree on this point, for Rabbi G'daliah 
 states that, " A.M. 5020, all the Jews in England were gathered together, mur- 
 dered, and cast into the sea." And the Hebrews of the present day insert in their 
 almanack that " Canute banished the Jews from England, A.T). 901 ;" but this 
 statement is obviously incorrect, inasmuch as Canute did not arrive in England 
 before the eleventh century. It may be observed, however, that it is not sur- 
 prising that the Hebrew records, respecting their people who sojourned here in 
 earlier times, should be found inaccurate, when we reflect that many of the accounts 
 of the English Jews must have perished with their possessors, during the numerous 
 persecutions and massacres to which they were subjected in this country.
 
 15 
 
 gifted with more important privileges than any other 
 class of aliens ; nevertheless it is fully manifest, also, 
 that they were frequently subjected to the tyrannous 
 exactions of the Norman Kings frequently subjected 
 to the harsh and brutal conduct of the Norman Barons 
 and frequently also to the wanton and violent ag- 
 gressions of that most intolerable of all tyrannies, a 
 ruthless and unrestrained populace. 
 
 Our historians relate that King Stephen, in the 
 fifth year of his reign, exacted 2,000 from the Jews 
 of London ; that Henry the Second extorted a sum of 
 60,000 from all the Jews resident in England ; and 
 that, in 1210, King John extorted from them 66,000 
 marks, to obtain which they were imprisoned and sub- 
 jected to various descriptions of bodily torture, the 
 majority of them having one eye torn out of the 
 socket. (Vide The Royal Treasury, or Hist. Acct. of 
 all Taxes from the Conquest, pp. 39, 83.) 
 
 Lord Coke states that the Crown exacted from the 
 Jews, in the short space of seven years viz. from the 
 50th of Henry the Third to the 2nd of Edward the 
 First, upwards of 400,000 ; and Stow informs us 
 that, in the 16th of Edward the First, all the Jews 
 throughout England were on the same night thrown 
 into prison, and only released on paying the King the 
 sum of 12,000*. 
 
 * We must, however, in justice to the memory of Edward the First, state 
 that he candidly left on record an acknowledgment that " Judaism was and had 
 been very profitable to him and to his ancestors." (Vide Statute de Jud&ismo.) 
 And this fact will perhaps account for the disinclination evinced by " the English 
 Justinian," and his royal predecessors, to part with such valuable visitors as the 
 Jews.
 
 16 
 
 Sir Walter Scott observes, " Except perhaps the 
 flying fish, there was no race existing on the earth, in 
 the air, or the waters, who were the objects of such an 
 unintermitting, general, and relentless persecution as 
 the Jews. Upon the slightest and most unreasonable 
 pretences, as well as upon accusations the most absurd 
 and groundless, their persons and property were ex- 
 posed to every turn of popular fury ; for Norman, 
 Saxon, Dane, and Briton, contended which should look 
 with the greatest detestation upon a people, whom it 
 was accounted a point of religion to hate, to revile, to de- 
 spise, to plunder, and to persecute. And," adds the 
 great northern Bard, " the Kings of the Norman race, 
 and the nobles who followed their example in all acts 
 of tyranny, maintained against this devoted people a 
 persecution of even a more regular, calculated, and 
 self-interested kind." 
 
 " The treatment which the Jews received in this 
 country," says Margoliout, " was of a nature more dis- 
 graceful than that they received in other parts of Europe ; 
 for while elsewhere, as in Spain and Germany, the 
 monarchs generally exerted themselves to repress the 
 hostility of the clergy and people, the English kings, 
 with hardly a single exception, manifested as perse- 
 cuting a spirit as any of their subjects " These state- 
 ments, we may observe, are but corroborative of the 
 accounts furnished by our earlier writers. At the co- 
 ronation of Richard the First, there appears to have 
 been an holocaust of the Hebrews ; for it is related that 
 " the populace fell upon the Jews who attended at this 
 coronation, and massacred them without mercy. The
 
 17 
 
 mob sought them out in every quarter of the city, 
 many took refuge in their habitations, and defended 
 themselves with great bravery ; but the rabble set fire 
 to their houses and burned them to the ground ;" and 
 " the priests," says Noorthouck, " applauded the 
 pious zeal which destroyed so many enemies to the 
 Christians." 
 
 Speed, in his History of Great Britain, says that 
 the coronation of Richard the First was most mag- 
 nificently performed at Westminster Abbey, and that 
 " the points of the oath which the King made to God 
 and the kingdome at the altar, upon the holy Evange- 
 lists, were these : That all the daies of his life hee 
 would bear peace, honour, and reverence to God ; and 
 that in the People unto him committed, he would ex- 
 ercise Right, Justice, and Equitie." And the historian 
 adds that this coronation " was hanseled and auspicated 
 with the blood of many Jewes." 
 
 The example set by the Londoners in attacking 
 and persecuting the Jews, was subsequently followed 
 by the people of Lynn, Norwich, Northampton, St. 
 Edmousbury, Stamford, Lincoln, Canterbury, Cam- 
 bridge, and Oxford. At York, in particular, the Jews 
 were plundered, their houses burned down, and whole 
 families of them murdered ; all classes of the in- 
 habitants of that city, including many of the nobles 
 and principal gentry, associating on the occasion with 
 the soldiery in this onslaught upon the remnant of 
 an unoffending, unarmed, and unprotected people. 
 Neither sex nor condition was spared ; the venerable, 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 the youthful, even helpless infants, were sacrificed 
 with the same unrelenting savageness. 
 
 " Mothers wild wept o'er each child, 
 
 In mangled state extended ; 
 And widows' cries to the midnight skies 
 
 With the maniac's hoarse-laugh blended. 
 A loud lament o'er the plains was sent, 
 
 A mingled voice of wailing 
 Hang loud and shrill from hill to hill, 
 
 Sore, sad, yet unavailing." 
 
 Our historians further recount, with reference to 
 the sanguinary scenes enacted at York, that, " No 
 sooner did the populace make an end of slaughtering 
 them, than many gentlemen of the province, who 
 being debtors to the Jews, and took therefore the more 
 active part in the carnage, repaired to the cathedral, 
 where their bonds were deposited, compelled the officer 
 to deliver up these securities, and burned them in the 
 church with great solemnity before the altar*." 
 
 We are informed likewise, that, in the reign of 
 Henry the Third, the Barons entered the City of Lon- 
 don, eager for plunder and athirst for Hood, raised an 
 uproar against the defenceless Jews, burned their syna- 
 gogue, plundered numbers of their people, killed (as 
 some writers assert) seven hundred of them, and left 
 
 * Holinshed, Walt. Hemingford, Gul. Newb. Knyghton, Higden, Tyrrel, 
 and Fabian, all record these sanguinary occurrences ; William, of Newberry, 
 speaking of these massacres, pays " the multitude slain was inestimable, or not to 
 be numbered." " And at that time,' 1 says Fox, " 1,500 Jews were massacred in 
 York alone ;" and the pious Martyrologist adds, " So that this year, which the 
 Jews took to be their jubilee, was to them a year of confusion." (Acts and Monu- 
 ments, vol. i, p. 305.)
 
 19 
 
 the rest to the tender mercies of the mob, who drove 
 them out of the City." (Stow's Annals.) All these 
 barbarities were perpetrated in times which we are 
 told were " the days of chivalry." Well then, indeed, 
 might the poet exclaim 
 
 " Let loose but power, and you will quickly see, 
 How wild a thing unbounded man will be." 
 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing statements of the 
 horrible cruelties inflicted by the English Christians 
 upon the Jews, yet many of our writers, in relating 
 these facts, have evinced a desire to make their readers 
 believe that the Jews in England were treated with 
 hospitality and humanity ; that their condition, in fact, 
 was one of the purest Christian toleration ; but, that 
 the Hebrew people having become too much enamoured 
 of their Elysium here, it required the force of a special 
 Act of Parliament to effect their ejectment from this 
 country. 
 
 One of our learned writers, who has treated most 
 elaborately of the Jews, concludes his commentary on 
 that people in the following words : " Thus these 
 people having, by their extraordinary usury, extortion, 
 and oppression, reduced themselves to be despicable and 
 then banished, and that by a people, too, with whom, if 
 they had continued in love and friendship, they in all 
 probability might have continued and flourished." 
 
 And such is the language which has been com- 
 monly used with reference to the Israelites by our for- 
 mer writers, who, while they have gloried in recounting 
 the hideous tortures inflicted upon that defenceless 
 
 c '2
 
 20 
 
 people, seek with parasitical baseness to make an 
 apology for the Christians, by falsely alleging that 
 those persecutions were caused by the demerits of the 
 Jews themselves. 
 
 Surely, after perusing the facts hereinbefore stated, 
 no one can for a moment doubt that the wretched 
 Jews of England must have entertained an ardent 
 desire to seek " a better land." Alas ! how frequently 
 must their lovely and virtuous daughters have ex- 
 claimed to their venerable fathers, like the persecuted 
 Rebecca, " Do not tarry, old man, in this land of blood- 
 shed and cruelty ; for less cruel are the cruelties of the 
 Moors to the race of Jacob than the cruelties of the 
 Nazarenes of England*." 
 
 It is quite unnecessary to adduce further evidence 
 to the point, that no Act of Parliament was required 
 for inducing the Jews to leave this kingdom-]-. The 
 fact is, that, in order to avoid the accumulated ex- 
 actions imposed on them by the Crown the torturous 
 cruelties inflicted by the Barons and the sanguinary 
 visitations to which they were liable from a brutal, 
 bigoted, and unrestrained populace, the Jews sought 
 and ultimately obtained permission peaceably to depart 
 the realm. And in this view of the matter we are 
 sustained by authoritative data; for there is ample 
 
 Sir Walter Scott. 
 
 t It may be here noticed that the Jewish people of old were sometimes obliged 
 to labour, in the proof that they were not expelled out of Egypt, but conducted 
 thence under the especial care of a powerful Providence and protection. See Dr. 
 Lardner's Disc. p. 35 ; Josephus' First Book against Appiun ; and Tacitus' 
 Hist. b. v.
 
 21 
 
 evidence to shew, not only that the Jews did solicit 
 leave to depart the realm, and that such permission 
 was at first denied to them, but that they were prohibited 
 from leaving England, withont licence, on pain of death, 
 In the reign of Henry the Third, the King having 
 ordered a heavy impost to be levied on the Jews, they 
 remonstrated against the numerous and unjust ex- 
 actions to which they were exposed* ; and several of 
 their principal men having been summoned before the 
 Royal Council, to answer for their default in not paying 
 the levy, they were threatened with imprisonment and 
 death, unless they supplied without delay the sum de- 
 manded of them. On that occasion, their Chief Rabbi, 
 Elias, boldly and eloquently addressed the Council on 
 behalf of his brethren, and supplicated their oppressors, 
 in the name of the God of Gentile and Jew, to permit 
 them to depart out of the kingdom ; but they would not. 
 The impressive address of this undaunted High Priest 
 is recorded by our historians, and commences as follows : 
 " Oh, noble lords, we see undoubtedly that our lord 
 the King purposeth to destroy us from under heaven. 
 We entreat, for God's sake, that he give us licence and 
 safe-conduct to depart out of his kingdom, that we 
 may seek a mansion in some other land, and under 
 a prince who bears some bowels of mercy and some 
 
 * Speed says that " Henry wrung great sums from the Jewes, from one of 
 whom hee had at times drawne 30,000 markes sterling, besides two hundredeth 
 markesin gold." (Hist, of GreatBrit. p. 625.J Matth. Paris, also, strongly in- 
 veighs against the profligacy and extortions of " this Dilapidator of the King- 
 dom" as he styles King Henry the Third.
 
 22 
 
 stability of truth and faithfulness ; and we will de- 
 part, never to return again, leaving our household stuff 
 and houses behind us. But how can he," boldly asked 
 this noble advocate, " spare us miserable Jews, ivho de- 
 stroys his own natural subjects?" Henry, however, 
 " like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear," would not 
 hearken to the voice of the oppressed ; but, although 
 the cry for justice passed unredressed, it did not pass 
 unnoticed ; for soon afterwards an Ordinance was pro- 
 mulged, forbidding all Jews from leaving England 
 without the King's licence*. 
 
 In the following year, another unjustifiable demand 
 having been made upon the Jews, they again addressed 
 the King, requesting leave to depart the realm, and so- 
 liciting safe conduct for the Hebrew people. The 
 memorial was as follows : " Sir King, we see thou 
 sparest neither Christians nor Jews, but studiest with 
 crafty excuses to impoverish all men. We have no 
 hope of respiration left us ; the usurers of the Pope 
 have supplanted us. Permit us to depart out of the 
 kingdom with safe-conduct, and we will seek for our- 
 selves such a mansion as we can, be it what it will." 
 On receiving this memorial, the Monarch "flew into 
 a passion, swore by the head of God that his debts 
 amounted to 300,000 marks," and exclaimed " there 
 is a necessity for me to have money, gotten from what 
 
 * Neither did the King allow this address of the Rabbi Elias to pass unre- 
 sented ; for he deposed the High Priest from his office, without alleging any 
 offence whatever against him. {Rot. Pal 41. Hen. Ill, /. 4. Tcstc Rege apud 
 Wodettokc, 20 die Julii.~)
 
 23 
 
 place soever, and by what means soever, and from 
 whomsoever*." 
 
 In the 7th of Edward the First, however, another 
 ordinance was passed relative to the Jews, enacting 
 that " No Jew shall walk or ride without a yellow 
 badge upon his outward garment; no Jew shall be 
 sworn upon the Evangelists ; and no Jew shall depart 
 England without licence , on pain of death^." 
 
 Ample testimony, therefore, has been adduced to 
 demonstrate, that the Jews frequently made most stre- 
 nuous though unsuccessful efforts to free themselves 
 from the snare of their oppressors, to escape from their 
 worse than Egyptian bondage, and also that their 
 departure from England was prohibited by special 
 enactments. 
 
 ' Matthew Paris and other historians state, that, in order to pursue in Eng- 
 land the trade of usury, the Pope used to employ certain Italian merchants called 
 Caorsini, a class of men who had made themselves so odious by their exactions, 
 that Dante in his Inferno has ranked them in wickedness with the inhabitants of 
 Sodom. The method resorted to by these Papal agents was as follows : If a party 
 wanted a sum of money for six months, the Italians would lend it him for three 
 months without interest, and covenant that they should receive 50 per cent, every 
 month after the sum had remained unpaid ; and this it was jesuistically contended 
 could not amount to usury. In the 36th of Henry the Third, it was ordered that 
 the Caorsini should be prosecuted ; but they pleaded that they were servants of and 
 employed by his Holiness the Pope. At this period, it would also appear that the 
 English people were as profitable to the Roman Pontiff as the Jews were to the 
 King ; " for, beside the thousand marks sterling which England paid every year to 
 the Pope, the clergy of this kingdom complained (in 1252) that the Court of Rome 
 drew away fifty thousand marks more, for the grant of benefices." (Whatlcy's 
 Acta Regia, vol. i, p. 29.) 
 
 t The regulation respecting the mode of giving testimony was but a just con- 
 cession to the religious feelings and principles of the Jews, and has ever since been 
 invariably held by our Judges (as will subsequently be shewn) to be the law of 
 England. (See p. 35.)
 
 24 
 
 That the Jews did leave England, about the 18th 
 year of Edward the First's reign, is evidenced by the 
 concurring testimony of numerous writers. 
 
 Up to the last moment, however, of the departure 
 of the refugee Israelites from England, we find the 
 same unchristian hatred, the same brutal barbarity, the 
 same fiendish malignity displayed towards the remnant 
 of this powerless people. 
 
 Lord Coke, in his second Institute, narrates, from 
 Holinshed and other celebrated English historians, the 
 concluding incident relative to the Hebrews who were 
 early resident in England. " Some of the wealthiest 
 of the Jews having embarked with their treasure in a 
 very large ship which they had hired, when the same 
 was under sail and got towards Queenborough, the 
 captain caused his men to cast anchor, and so ride at 
 the same, till the ship by ebbing of the tide remained 
 on the dry sand. The captain then wilily enticed the 
 Jews to walk out with him on land for recreation, and 
 when he found the tide coming in, he got back to the 
 ship, whither he was, by a preconcerted arrangement, 
 drawn by a cord. The Jews, not apprehending the 
 wile, had strayed along the sands far from the vessel ; 
 but at length perceiving their danger, they cried out to 
 the mariners for help ; but the captain told them to 
 cry to Moses, by whose aid their fathers passed through 
 the Red Sea, to help them out of the raging floods 
 which surrounded them. The Jews reiterated their 
 cries for assistance ; but the captain gave no succour, 
 so they were all swallowed up in the water. The 
 captain returned with the ship, told the King how he
 
 25 
 
 had acted in the matter, and had, as some state, both 
 thanks and rewards." And "Walter de Heming- 
 ford," says Hallam, " recounts this story with excessive 
 delight." (Middle Ages, v. ii, p. 453.) 
 
 Indeed, it is impossible to peruse the earlier records 
 of English history without a feeling of horror at the 
 recitals therein given respecting the barbarities com- 
 monly inflicted on the Jews ; and the human mind 
 recoils with disgust at the recollection, that such enor- 
 mities could ever have been perpetrated in a Christian 
 land. Happily, however, those dark days have passed 
 away; "those incompassionate times," as the great 
 Selden says, " when our laws were administered in 
 accordance with the dictates of prejudice and passion, 
 rather than sober judgment." 
 
 We shall now have the far greater pleasure and 
 satisfaction of noticing the treatment of this ancient 
 people in later and more enlightened times. For 
 nearly four centuries the Jews refrained from making 
 any attempt to re-establish themselves in England ; 
 and we do not find any notice of their presence 
 in this country from the 18th of Edward the First 
 (A.D. 1290) till shortly after the death of Charles 
 the First, when they solicited permission to resume 
 their residence in England. Monteth informs us, 
 that, during the Commonwealth, overtures were made 
 on behalf of the Hebrews to the Parliament and Coun- 
 cil of War, through the medium of two popular ad- 
 herents of the Parliamentarians ; the Jews offered to 
 pay for the privileges then sought by them the sum of 
 500,000 ; several debates took place on the subject ;
 
 26 
 
 but the ultimatum of the Puritans being 800,000, 
 consequently the negotiation was broken off. (Hist, 
 of Great Britain, p. 473, and Thurlce. Sta. Pap. v. n, 
 p. 652.) 
 
 On the elevation of Cromwell to the Protectorate, 
 another application was made on behalf of the Hebrew 
 people by the celebrated Menasseh Ben Israel*. This 
 eminent Rabbi, having been chosen by the Jews as 
 their negotiator, came over from Holland in the year 
 1655, and presented a memorial to Cromwell, com- 
 prising the following proposals : 
 
 1. That the Hebrew nation might be received 
 here, and protected from all wrongs equally as the 
 English. 
 
 2. That they might have public synagogues, to 
 observe their religion as they ought. 
 
 3. That they might have a burial-place out of the 
 town, without being molested by any respecting their 
 funerals. 
 
 4. That they might trade as freely in all sorts of 
 merchandize as other strangersf. 
 
 * During the 1 7th century, the Jews flourished in Holland; and their syna- 
 gogues at Amsterdam produced many distinguished men, of whom one of the most 
 celehrated was Manasseh Ben Israel, a person of Spanish descent, and of the 
 family of Abarhanel ; and so high was his reputation, while yet a youth, that at 
 the age of eighteen he was appointed to explain the Talmud in the great synagogue 
 at Amsterdam. 
 
 t The privilege of trading, it may be observed, is secured to all alien mer- 
 chants by the Great Charter, the 50th Article of which is as follows : " All 
 merchants, not prohibited by law, shall have safe and secure conduct to go out of 
 and to come into England, to stay there, and to pass as well by land as water ; to 
 buy aud sell by the ancient and allowed customs, without any evil tolls, except in
 
 21 
 
 5. That they might receive passports, or safe- 
 conducts, on taking an oath of fealty. 
 
 6. That matters of difference amongst the Jews 
 might be accorded and determined by the heads of the 
 synagogues, and others with them, amongst themselves. 
 
 7. That any laws made against the Jews, if any 
 such there were, might be repealed*. 
 
 With reference to this memorial, Cromwell appears 
 to have acted impartially and indeed liberally ; for 
 when the proposals were read, the Protector said they 
 should be taken into consideration ; " and thereupon 
 he summoned several divines and merchants, and also 
 some of the judges, to attend him and his privy coun- 
 cil, to declare their opinions on the matter." 
 
 The puritan preachers to whom the Protector sent 
 letters, and who met, were Dr. Tuckney, Dr.Whitchoot, 
 Mr. Newcomen, Dr. Wilkinson, Mr. Row, Mr. P. Nye, 
 Mr. Carter, Mr. Caryll, Mr. Cudworth, Mr. Bridge, 
 Mr. Ben, of Dorchester, Mr. T. Goodwin, Mr. Jessey, 
 and Mr. Dyke, of Essex ; the merchants were Al- 
 derman Doblich, Lord Mayor of London, Alderman 
 Pack, late Lord Mayor, the two Sheriffs, Alderman 
 Tichburn, Mr. Cresset, of the Charter House, and Mr. 
 Kiffen ; and the judges were the Lord Chief Justice 
 
 time of war, and when they shall be of any nation at war with us. (Mag. Char. 
 xviii, Joh. ; ix, Henry III, S. 3 ; and see ix, Edw. Ill, c. 1 .) : and it may be 
 observed, also, that a similar clause is usually inserted in our international treaties 
 of commerce. By the new Alien Act, Htat. 11, Viet. cap. 20, power is given to 
 the Secretary of State to order aliens, in some cases, to depart the realm. 
 
 * It will be subsequently shewn that the learned Judges who attended the 
 Council declared there was no law in England against the Jews. (Vide p. 30.)
 
 28 
 
 Glynn, and the Lord Chief Baron Steel." The dis- 
 cussions which took place at this Council may not per- 
 haps prove uninteresting, as indicative of the feelings 
 of those times towards the Jews ; and on this account 
 we here recapitulate them. 
 
 Some of the speakers alleged That it was much 
 to be doubted, if the Jews should return, that many 
 would be seduced by them ; and though they heartily 
 desired the conversion of the Jews, yet they feared 
 greatly it would prove the subversion of many here, 
 because people at this time were so soon drawn aside 
 to new opinions. 
 
 To this the Lord Lawrence and General Lambert 
 replied That persons were now carried away with 
 the notion of further light, and of new discoveries of 
 Christ and the Gospel ; but were not like to be taken 
 with the Jewish religion, having nothing in that solemn 
 worship inviting, therefore the Jews were not so like 
 to seduce others. 
 
 Mr. Newcomen argued That the Jews dealing 
 chiefly in merchandize, the great trade they might 
 bring in would abate the prices of all foreign goods 
 imported, and advance the value of our native manu- 
 factures exported, to the great benefit of the nation ; 
 and, besides, might be a hopeful means to convert the 
 Jews to the Christian faith. 
 
 The Lord Chief Baron Steel gave a large account 
 from ancient records of the former state of the Jews in 
 England, and of their hard sufferings here in the 
 olden time ; likewise of William the Conqueror's 
 bringing them into England, and whose posterity, in-
 
 29 
 
 habiting in London and several other places here, were 
 
 falsely accused that they used to steal Christian children 
 
 and torture them ; which reports of them had often 
 
 occasioned great mischief and sufferings to befall them. 
 
 Mr. Nye and Mr. T. Goodwin were of opinion 
 
 That it was a duty to yield to the request of the Jews, 
 
 considering : 
 
 1. It is God's will that strangers and persons in 
 affliction should be courteously dealt with. 
 
 2. That special respect ought to be had to the 
 Jews, because their debtors we are (Rom. xv, 27), 
 and partake of this Messiah and promises, and sal- 
 vation, that was to the Jews as natural branches of 
 the olive tree. 
 
 3. Because we are brethren of the same father, 
 Abraham, they naturally after the flesh, we believers 
 after the spirit. 
 
 4. Because we believe these natural branches 
 shall return ; and it will be the glory of the Gentiles, 
 where they reside, to be kind to them. 
 
 5. That it might be very acceptable to God, if 
 favour were shewn to them. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Caryll said to the effect That though 
 the Jews were now under hardness of heart, yet we 
 need beware not to occasion their further hardening, 
 or of being instruments in punishing them. That the 
 good people of England did generally more believe 
 the promises of the calling of the Jews, and more ear- 
 nestly pray for it, than any other nation. That many 
 Protestants who were persecuted in the reign of Queen 
 Mary, and since had been kindly received as strangers
 
 30 
 
 in other countries ; and that we should the more pity 
 and harbour our fled strangers, especially persecuted 
 Jews. That the cruel injuries and inhumanities used 
 towards that nation (that intruded not, but were in- 
 vited into England) by our kings and government, 
 whereby multitudes of them were killed and drowned 
 in the Thames and the sea, &c., might still lie as a sin 
 upon this kingdom ; which our kindness to their sur- 
 vivors and successors may make some kind of amends 
 and satisfaction for. 
 
 The learned judges, Glynn and Steel, then delivered 
 their opinion, and said There was no law which forbid 
 the Jews' return into England ; and, therefore, they 
 might come upon terms and agreements. 
 
 But the merchants vehemently insisted upon it, 
 that the admission of the Jews would enrich foreigners 
 and impoverish the natives. 
 
 The Protector, having heard all their sentiments 
 on this affair, declared That he had no engagement 
 to the Jews but what the Scripture held forth ; and 
 that, since there was a promise of their conversion, 
 means must be used to that end which was the 
 preaching of the Gospel ; and that could not be had, 
 unless they were permitted to reside where the Gospel 
 was preached : that he had hoped by the preachers 
 summoned, to have had some clearing of the case, as 
 to matters of conscience ; but seeing these agreed not, 
 but were of different opinions, it was left more doubt- 
 ful to him and the council than before. And he hoped 
 he should do nothing here hastily or rashly ; and had 
 much need of all their prayers, that the Lord would
 
 31 
 
 direct them so as might be for his glory and the good 
 of the nation*." 
 
 Although the assembly continued fourteen days in 
 deliberation, it was dissolved without any definite de- 
 cision having been given respecting the memorial." 
 Vide " The Proceedings about the Jews in England, 
 Anno MDCLV." 
 
 As regards the precise time when the Jews were 
 re-established in England, there does not appear to be 
 any conclusive evidence. A modern and clever writer 
 on the Jews (Mr. Blunt) seems to doubt that their 
 return to England was sanctioned by Cromwell ; but 
 Dr. Chamberlayne, who lived during, and published 
 his work shortly after, the time of the Protectorate, 
 and who consequently was more likely than later 
 authors to have acquired correct information on the 
 subject, distinctly states that " the Jews were admitted 
 by the late usurper, and since continued^." 
 
 When we reflect, that the Jews are a people who 
 have always conferred benefits, by the exercise of their 
 industry and application of their wealth, upon any 
 state whatever in which they have been permitted 
 to reside that in all their sojournings they have 
 ever been mindful of the precept of their great 
 prophet, Jeremiah, " Seek ye the peace of the city 
 wherein ye dwell, and pray for it, for in the peace 
 
 * " At this debate," says Sir Paul Rycaut, who was present, " I never heard 
 in my life a man speak so well as Cromwell did on this occasion." (Spence's 
 dnecdotes, p. 77.) 
 
 t Vide Anglias, Notitia, p. 35. And Bishop Fleetwood, a very high authority, 
 testifies in his Chronicon Preciosum that " Chamberlayne's is an excellent book.' '
 
 32 
 
 thereof ye shall have peace*'' and when we also 
 reflect on the enlightened and statesman-like conduct 
 displayed by the Protector on the discussion of the 
 Jewish memorial, there are strong grounds for con- 
 cluding that the re-establishinent of the Hebrew 
 people in England was desired, rather than otherwise, 
 by so politic a ruler as Cromwell. And from a dis- 
 passionate review of the information furnished by our 
 writers on the subject, we incline to the conclusion, 
 that the re-establishment of the Jews in England really 
 took place during the Protectorate, and with the sanc- 
 tion of the Protectorf. 
 
 After the Restoration, however, we find unequi- 
 vocal proofs that the Jews had again taken up their 
 abode in England ; for Dr. Chamberlayne states, that 
 in London alone there were at that period " thirty or 
 forty families" (Angl. Not.), certainly no great number, 
 but enough to shew that they were then tolerated. 
 
 From the journals of the House of Commons we 
 learn, that early in the reign of Charles the Second an 
 
 * It is a maxim of the Rabbies, that, wherever the Jews reside, they should 
 strictly observe the laws of the government under which they live. Talmud. 
 Treat. Kama, fol. 113. 
 
 t Stronger evidence of the loyal and peaceful character of the Hebrew people 
 cannot perhaps be adduced, than the fact that most Jews are members of the an- 
 cient and honorable order of Free-Masons ; and a very marked proof of the esti- 
 mation in which the Jews are generally held, was recently afforded by the Grand 
 Lodge of England, which passed a resolution to exclude from their meetings all 
 Prussian Freemasons, in consequence of an order having been issued by the 
 Grand Lodge of Prussia to exclude from their assemblies Hebrew Masons. The 
 brethren of Prussia, however, promptly acknowledged the just reproof of the 
 brethren of England, by immediately rescinding an order which doubtless had 
 been passed without due deliberation. See some able articles on this subject in the 
 Freemasons' Quarterly Revieic for 184G and 1847.
 
 33 
 
 Order of the Lords of the Council was presented to the 
 lower House, recommending the consideration of mea- 
 sures relative to the Jews* ; and, in the year 1662, the 
 Jews had re-established their synagogue in London^. 
 
 Of such importance were the Jewish people con- 
 sidered in the year 1670, that a Committee of the 
 House of Commons, appointed to bring in a Bill to 
 prevent the growth of Popery, were directed to enquire 
 likewise into the number of Jews settled in the king- 
 dom the number of Jewish synagogues then esta- 
 blished and the terms upon which the Jews were 
 then located in England^ 
 
 In the reign of James the Second, the Jews were 
 exonerated from the payment of alien duty ; but in the 
 2nd of William the Third, a petition having been pre- 
 sented by the merchants of London, the Jews were 
 again subjected to that impost. 
 
 That a very considerable number of Jews had re- 
 settled in England towards the end of the seventeenth 
 century, is evidenced by the fact, that the loss supposed 
 to have been sustained by the revenue, owing to the 
 exemption of the Jews from alien duty, amounted to 
 10,000 per annum. 
 
 In Queen Anne's reign, a Statute was passed, en- 
 acting that "If the child of any Jewish parent is 
 converted to the Christian religion, upon application 
 to the Lord Chancellor, he may compel any such parent 
 
 * Journal of the H. of Com. 17th Dec. 1660. 
 
 t See Burnet's Hist., vol. 1, p. 71 ; and Ellis' Orig. Letter, vol. 4, p. 4. 
 
 J No report of this committee appears to have been published. 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 to give his child a maintenance in proportion to his 
 circumstances." (1, Ann. cap. 30.) 
 
 In the 13th, George the Second, an Act was passed, 
 to enable persons professing the Jewish religion, who 
 had resided seven years in the American colonies, to be 
 naturalized without receiving the sacrament. And in 
 the 26th, George the Second, an Act was passed, au- 
 thorizing the naturalization of foreign Jews without 
 their being compelled to take the sacrament ; but the 
 ancient rancour of the English people having been re- 
 suscitated (for political purposes, as it is said) against 
 the Jews, the legislature of that day succumbed to the 
 populace, and repealed the enactment. 
 
 Upon this event, a talented writer justly observes 
 '' The repeal of the Jewish Naturalization Act by the 
 Pelhams in 1745, the year after its enactment, is one 
 of the most painful incidents in our constitutional 
 history. It had been passed by considerable majorities 
 in both Houses, and with the full acquiescence of the 
 bishops ; and it was abrogated under the most shame- 
 less avowals of popular compulsion. In vain Lord 
 Temple pronounced the clamour to be disaffection 
 cloathed with superstition, and declared that the per- 
 secution of the Jews must lead to that of the Dis- 
 senters. (Edin. Rev. for 1847.) 
 
 A vast deal has been said and written, even in 
 modern times, to lead us to conclude that the religious 
 principles of the Jewish people have never been re- 
 cognized by the law of England ; and, on this account, 
 it may be well to glance here at the records of our
 
 35 
 
 judicial tribunals, with the view of ascertaining the 
 truth or fallacy of these statements. A very brief 
 reference to our law books will shew that the rights 
 and privileges granted to the Jews, at a remote period 
 of our history, have been fully recognized and con- 
 firmed, in later times, by some of the most eminent 
 English judges. In. the case of Robeley v. Langston, 
 (tempo, Charles the Second), " the witnesses produced 
 in the cause being chiefly Jews, the Lord Chief Jus- 
 tice Keeling swore them on the Pentateuch ; and the 
 correctness of the Chief Justice's law was affirmed, on 
 appeal, by the other judges." (2 Keble's Repts. p. 
 314.) In the 25th of the same reign, a foreign Jew 
 having brought an action of debt against a British 
 subject, and the defendant having pleaded that the 
 plaintiff was a Jew, the Court overruled the plea ; and 
 judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff. (Lilly's 
 Pract. Reg. v. 1, p. 3.) In Wells v. Williams, the 
 Court declared that, even before the time of Edward 
 the First, Jews might be sworn on the Pentateuch. 
 (2, Ld. Raymond, and 2, Stra. Repts.)* 
 
 Another strong proof of the judicial deference 
 paid to the religious customs of the Jews is recorded 
 in 2, Mod. Repts. p. 271, where it is stated that " On 
 the application of a plaintiff, the Court allowed the 
 venue to be changed from London to Middlesex, be- 
 cause all the sittings in London were on a Saturday ; 
 
 * We have shewn (p. 23) that in the 7th, Edward I. the Jews were expressly 
 exonerated from having an oath administered to them according to the Christian 
 form, i. e. on the Evangelists. 
 
 D2
 
 36 
 
 and it appeared that the most essential Witness in the 
 cause being a Jew, he could not conscientiously attend 
 Court on his Sabbath." In the case of Omychund v. 
 Barker ( 1, Atk.), it was likewise declared, by Lord 
 Chief Justice Willes, that " Long before Lord Coke's 
 time, and ever since, the Jews have been admitted as 
 witnesses*." And all our books on Equity Practice 
 also demonstrate that the answers in Chancery of Jews 
 are sworn on the Pentateuchf. Thus in Equity, as at 
 Law, the religious forms and tenets of the Jews have 
 been unhesitatingly admitted. 
 
 Nearly two centuries have elapsed since the He- 
 brew people returned to England. During that time, 
 their numbers greatly increased ; and it is estimated 
 that there are now in Great Britain 40,000 Jews, one 
 half at least of whom are native-born subjects of the 
 Crown of England. 
 
 But notwithstanding the high character which 
 the Jewish people have acquired in England for pro- 
 bity, industry, and loyalty, various illiberal objections 
 have been advanced against their just claims to parti- 
 cipate in common with their fellow-subjects in all the 
 privileges of our free Constitution. 
 
 Of late years, however, great efforts have been 
 made by the British People, to effect the removal of 
 those disabilities under which Englishmen, professing 
 the Jewish religion, labour ; and the first important 
 Parliamentary step to promote Jewish Emancipation 
 
 * In this case the evidence of the Gentoo was declared to be admissable by the 
 Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Justices, and the Chief Baron. 
 
 f See Wyat's Prac. Beg. Hind's Chan. Prac. Daniel, Smith, &c.
 
 37 
 
 was taken, in the year 1830, by that eminent states- 
 man, the late Mr. Huskisson. Various Petitions in 
 favour of the Jews were presented to the House of 
 Commons in the year 1830 ; and, on the presentation 
 of a petition from Liverpool, Mr. Huskisson spoke as 
 follows : " I wish to take this opportunity to express 
 the opinion which I have always held of the impolicy 
 and injustice of imposing civil disabilities on account 
 of religious opinions. I support the prayer of this 
 petition with all my heart, and express my entire and 
 cordial concurrence in the principle of the Bill about 
 to be brought in by the honorable member for Inver- 
 ness (Mr. R. Grant) on this subject. Individuals of 
 the persuasion of the petitioners have hitherto been 
 considered as cosmopolites, rather than as belonging 
 to any particular country. I trust that they will hence- 
 forth find a welcome home in Great Britain." 
 
 And subsequently this noble-minded senator said 
 " In the petition from the Bankers, Merchants, and 
 Inhabitants of Liverpool in favour of the emancipation 
 of the Jews, they state that the exclusion from civil 
 offices on account, of religious opinions, and the other 
 civil disabilities under which the Jews labour, are at 
 once opposed to the genuine and tolerant spirit of 
 Christianity and to the best interests of the State; 
 they therefore pray that the Bill now before the House 
 for the emancipation of the Jews may pass into a law. 
 The petition is signed by upwards of 2,000 persons, 
 comprising not only the Mayor of Liverpool and many 
 members of the Corporation, but also every banker, 
 and, indeed, every Merchant of weight and influence
 
 38 
 
 in that great and enlightened town. I am sure that 
 my honorable and gallant colleague will acknowledge 
 that he has never known any petition presented from 
 that town which has been more numerously and re- 
 spectably signed. It has attached to it the signatures 
 of several respectable clergymen of the Church of 
 England, and men of all parties have subscribed it. 
 There may be some exceptions ; but I believe that, 
 generally speaking, there is but one unanimous feeling 
 in the town of Liverpool, even among those most 
 attached to the established religion and church of this 
 country, in favour of Jewish emancipation. I trust 
 that, under such circumstances, this petition will have 
 due weight with the House*." 
 
 On the ensuing 5th of April (the Duke of Wel- 
 lington being then Prime Minister), Mr. Robert Grant 
 moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the civil 
 disabilities affecting British- born subjects professing 
 the Jewish religion, and this motion was carried by a 
 majority of 115 to 97. 
 
 Previously to the motion for the second reading, on 
 the 17th of May, 1830, Mr. Alexander Baring (the late 
 Lord Ashburton) presented a petition in favour of the 
 Bill, signed by 14,000 merchants, bankers, and traders 
 of the City of London ; but the second reading was 
 lost by a majority of 228 to 165. 
 
 Notwithstanding the defeat of Mr. Grant's Bill in 
 
 General Gaseoyne, the other Member for Liverpool, and who followed 
 Mr. Huskisson in opposition, stated, that he " had not known, for many years, any 
 petition presented from Liverpool more numerously or respectably signed."
 
 39 
 
 the House of Commons, Lord Bexley presented, on 
 the 14th of December, 1830, a petition to the House 
 of Lords in favour of the removal of Jewish dis- 
 abilities, expressing his cordial support of its prayer, 
 and signifying also his intention of introducing the 
 subject on some future occasion to their Lordships' 
 consideration. The exertions, however, both of Mr. 
 Grant and Lord Bexley, having been interrupted by 
 the fall of the Wellington Administration and the in- 
 troduction of the Reform. Bill, no further step was 
 taken in this matter until the 17th of April, 1833, 
 when Mr. Grant moved a resolution in Committee of 
 the whole House "That it is expedient to remove 
 all civil disabilities at present existing affecting her 
 Majesty's subjects of the Jewish religion, with the 
 like exceptions as are provided with reference to her 
 Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion." This motion was agreed to without a division, 
 and the Bill was ultimately carried in the House of 
 Commons, on the 22nd of July, by a majority of 189 
 to 52. On the 25th of July, the Bill was read a first 
 time in the House of Lords, on the motion of Lord 
 Bexley. On the 1st of August following, previously 
 to the second reading, numerous petitions were pre- 
 sented in its favour, including one signed by 7,000 
 inhabitants of Westminster, presented by the Duke of 
 Sussex*. His Royal Highness eloquently supported 
 Lord Bexley in the debate, as also did Lord Melbourne, 
 
 Not one petition was presented against the hill.
 
 40 
 
 the Lord Chancellor (Lyndhurst), the Archbishop of 
 Dublin, the Bishop of Chichester, and the Marquess 
 of Westminster. 
 
 On that occasion, the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 (Dr. Howley) expressed himself as follows: " I do not 
 feel harshly towards the Jewish nation. Hook on the 
 Jews as the most remarkable people on earth. Having 
 been separated in the beginning from the nations, they 
 shone forth in ancient times, like a light in the firma- 
 ment, proclaiming the attributes of the Creator, and 
 the hope of a Redeemer to a benighted world. Even 
 in their present state of depression, they retain their 
 original character as vouchers of divine truth ; they 
 bear a testimony irrefutable, because it is involuntary 
 to the faith of the Gospel ; attesting the truth of 
 the prophecies which relate to the mission of Christ by 
 their own misfortunes. In this light, I cannot but view 
 them with feelings of admiration and pity admiration 
 for the constancy with which, through all times, under 
 every vicissitude, they have adhered to their faith ; and 
 pity for their errors and their sufferings. I trust, how- 
 ever, that the time will arrive when the veil will drop 
 from their eyes when they will see the delusion 
 which has led them astray and will fly into the arms 
 of the Saviour, whom they have despised and rejected, 
 but which are ever open to receive them. I regard 
 them as brothers estranged for awhile from the family, 
 but eventually to be restored to the household of faith, 
 
 under the protection of one common Father 
 
 In fact, my Lords, the moral and social code of the 
 Jews, I apprehend to be the same as the moral and
 
 41 
 
 social code of the Christians. The Jews differ from 
 the Christians in point of religious belief ; but I ap- 
 prehend that every sound believing Jew every Jew 
 who is a member of his own communion adheres to 
 the same moral and social code as the Christians do." 
 His Grace, however, voted against the Bill. 
 
 The Primate of England was followed by the Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin (Dr. Whateley), who is justly con- 
 sidered one of the master-minds of the age, whether we 
 consider him as an orator, a scholar, or a theologian. 
 His Grace spoke as follows : " It is urged, that 
 persons who not only do not acknowledge, but who 
 renounce and deny and some say vilify the great 
 Author of the Christian religion, ought not to have any 
 voice in the legislature of a Christian country. On 
 this point arises a question, which I own I find it very 
 difficult to answer. The Legislature of this country 
 I mean the two Houses of Parliament is not confined 
 to what may be called the civil government the 
 imposing of burdens which all must bear, and the 
 enacting of laws which all must obey ; but it extends 
 to the government of the Established Church also, 
 even in matters purely ecclesiastical. It is, in fact, 
 at present the only ecclesiastical government, since 
 convocation has long been in a dormant state in Eng- 
 land ; and, in Ireland, does not even exist in that state. 
 Whoever, therefore, is admitted to a seat in the legis- 
 lature, is admitted to a share in the government, not 
 only of the State, but also of the Church ; and that, 
 not only in respect of its temporalities, but also of 
 purely ecclesiastical affairs. If, therefore, the question
 
 42 
 
 be asked, ' What right can a Jew have, under any 
 circumstances, to legislate for a Christian Church V I 
 know of no answer that can be given to that question 
 except by asking another : What right has a Roman 
 Catholic to legislate for a Protestant Church ; or a 
 Presbyterian for an Episcopal Church 1 What right, 
 in short, has any man to legislate, in ecclesiastical 
 matters, for any Church of which he is not a member ? 
 This anomaly appears to me to exist in all these cases 
 alike. The Jews, it is true, are much farther removed 
 from us than any sect of Christians ; but it does not 
 follow that they are more likely to make innovations 
 in our religious institutions. They never attempt 
 to make proselytes, nor to introduce into Christianity 
 any admixture of Judaism ; nor is it likely they would 
 attempt, in any way, to interfere with the doctrines or 
 institutions of any description of Christians. Christians, 
 on the contrary, of different persuasions, have often 
 interfered in the most violent manner with each other's 
 faith and worship. The Presbyterians did, we know, 
 at one time, when they gained the ascendancy in this 
 country, eject from every parish in England the Epis- 
 copalian clergy, and were, in turn, ejected by them ; 
 and I need not remind your Lordships of the many 
 and violent struggles between Roman Catholics and 
 Protestants in this, and in many other countries. In 
 fact, the nearer approach to each other in point of 
 faith between different denominations of Christians, 
 than between Christians and Jews, instead of dimi- 
 nishing, increases the risk of their endeavouring to 
 alter or to overthrow each other's religion. Although,
 
 43 
 
 therefore, I cannot in the abstract approve of Jews 
 being admitted to legislate for a Christian Church, or 
 of the ecclesiastical concerns of any Church being, in 
 any degree, under the control of such as are not mem- 
 bers of it, I cannot on that ground consent to with- 
 hold civil rights from the Jews, when Roman Catholics 
 and Dissenters have been admitted into Parliament ; 
 since, in the case of Jews, the anomaly is not greater, 
 and the danger is even less. The nearer any class of 
 men approach to ourselves in their faith, the more 
 likely they are to interfere with ours. If, indeed, an 
 erroneous faith be regarded in the light of a sin against 
 God, and if we were authorized to visit this sin with 
 civil disabilities, we might then look to the greater 
 difference in faith of the Jews, than of any Christians. 
 I trust I may dismiss, without argument, the notion of 
 our having a right to punish men on account of their 
 religious opinions, either with a view of forcing them 
 to renounce those opinions, or of inflicting retribution 
 on them for erroneous belief. Often as that principle 
 which is, in fact, that of persecution has by many 
 been implied in their practice, no one, I imagine, will 
 be found, in the present day, to defend it in the ab- 
 stract. If, indeed, we were to admit the principle of 
 punishing religious error, then, as I have said, the 
 greater error of the Jews might be consistently as- 
 signed as a reason for harsher and less indulgent treat- 
 ment of them, than of any sect of Christians ; but the 
 only ground which any one will distinctly avow as 
 authorising penalties and restrictions imposed on any 
 class of religionists, is that of self-protection to guard
 
 44 
 
 ourselves either against religious corruption, or against 
 some alarming civil danger. And in this point of view 
 looking to self-protection, and not to punishment 
 it is plain, that the nearer any persons approach to us in 
 religion, the greater the danger, when there is any to be 
 apprehended, of admitting them to an equality of rights 
 with ourselves. We know that the Roman Catholics 
 have persecuted the Protestants,and the Protestants, in 
 their turn, the Roman Catholics ; in short, we know 
 that the various sects of Christians have done much 
 more, in molesting each other's faith and worship, than 
 any Jews or Pagans have done against Christianity. 
 When, therefore, it is said, that although not an exclu- 
 sively Protestant, we have still an exclusively Christian 
 legislature, I cannot but confess that a Christian legis- 
 lature as such simply as Christian does not ne- 
 cessarily afford religious, or even personal security to a 
 Christian. The most merciless persecutions, we know, 
 have been (it is with shame and sorrow I speak it, but 
 it is notorious) those inflicted by Christians on each 
 other. From the mere circumstance therefore, of 
 being under a legislature exclusively Christian, I can 
 derive no security ; and, what is more, I am certain 
 that your Lordships think with me in this ; for there 
 is no one of us, professing Protestantism, who would 
 not prefer living in Turkey or Persia, where he would 
 be allowed, on paying a small tribute, the free exercise 
 of his religion, to living under an exclusively Christian 
 government in Spain or Portugal, or any country in 
 which the Inquisition was established. The mere cir- 
 cumstance, therefore, of our having a Christian legis-
 
 45 
 
 lature, is not of itself any ground of security. But, 
 on the other hand, there is not necessarily any danger, 
 or any incongruity, in persons of any religious per- 
 suasions, different from that of the Church of England, 
 legislating upon matters distinct from religion. If any 
 Jews are returned to Parliament, it must be by the 
 choice of a great majority of Christian constituents. 
 I own it does, therefore, appear to me to be a scandal, 
 rather on our own faith, to consider it so frail and 
 brittle as not to bear touching to proclaim that 
 Christianity is in danger unless the hands of Christians 
 are tied to preclude them from the election of Jews. 
 I am not discussing the question, whether Jews are the 
 fittest persons to be returned to Parliament ; but whe- 
 ther Christians should be left free as to that question, 
 or should be prevented from electing them if they think 
 fit. This Bill, it should be remembered, differs ma- 
 terially in this respect, from that by which the dis- 
 abilities of the Roman Catholics were removed ; be- 
 cause, by the latter, many persons, being already Peers, 
 were by that Bill at once admitted into Parliament. 
 That will not be the case in this instance ; because no 
 Jew can set foot in Parliament until he has been freely 
 elected by a Christian constituency." 
 
 His Grace voted for the Bill, which, however, was 
 lost by a majority of 50 : contents, 54 ; non contents, 
 104. 
 
 In 1835, the Attorney General, Sir John (now 
 Lord) Campbell, introduced into the House of Com- 
 mons the Sheriffs' Declaration Bill. 
 
 The Bill passed both Houses of Parliament with-
 
 46 
 
 out opposition, and received the royal assent, August 
 21, 1835. Since the passing of this measure, which 
 enables persons professing the Jewish religion to fill 
 the important office of Sheriff, English gentlemen of 
 the Jewish persuasion have been selected for Sheriffs 
 in various cities and counties ; and the impartial and 
 highly commendable manner in which these individuals 
 have discharged their duties, fully demonstrates the 
 wisdom evinced by the British legislature (however 
 tardily) in passing the enactment*. 
 
 In 1836, Mr. Spring Rice (now Lord Monteagle) 
 introduced a Bill similar to that brought forward by 
 Mr. Grant, for the removal of Jewish Civil Disabilities ; 
 on the 13th of June it was read for the first time ; and, 
 on the 10th of July, Mr. Alderman Thompson (a high 
 Conservative), who from its earliest stage gave his 
 strongest support to the measure, thus expressed him- 
 self : " I have the honor to present the petition of 
 burgesses and inhabitants of Sunderland, signed by 
 2,000 persons, praying that the Jewish Disabilities 
 Bill may pass into a Law. I beg to say, that I shall 
 most cordially support the Bill of the right honorable 
 gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have 
 already, on several occasions, supported the same 
 measure, and shall continue to do sof." The Bill was 
 carried in the House of Commons ; and was introduced 
 into the House of Lords, 19th of August, and read a 
 
 * Among gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion who have been elected Sheriffs, 
 we find the names of Sir Moses Montifiore, Bart, Mr. Salomons, and Baron 
 Meyer de Rothschild. 
 
 * Parliamentary Debates, H. of Com. 1836.
 
 47 
 
 first time ; but, owing to the lateness of the session, 
 the Marquess of Westminster deemed it advisable to 
 postpone its further progress. 
 
 In 1841, a " Bill for the relief of persons of the 
 Jewish religion elected to Municipal offices," was intro- 
 duced into the House of Commons by Mr. Divett, and 
 carried by a majority of 1 13 ; but this Bill, on its second 
 reading in the Lords, was ultimately lost. In 1 845, how- 
 ever, a similar Bill was introduced into the House of 
 Lords by the then Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst ; the 
 measure was warmly supported by His Royal Highness 
 the Duke of Cambridge, and unanimously carried. 
 
 In the House of Commons, Sir Robert Peel moved 
 the first reading of this Bill ; Lord John Russell 
 zealously advocated the justice of the measure ; it 
 passed without much opposition through the lower 
 House, and received the royal assent July 31st, 1845.* 
 
 In 1846 was passed the " Religious Opinions Re- 
 lief Bill," which enacted : " That all Her Ma- 
 jesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion, in respect 
 to their schools, places for religious worship, education, 
 and charitable purposes, and the property held there- 
 with, should be subject to the same laws as Her Ma- 
 jesty's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church 
 
 * All municipal offices were by the statute 8 & 9 Viet., cap. 52, thrown open 
 to English subjects professing the Jewish religion ; and the first Jew returned by 
 the City of London as a member of the Common Council was Mr. Benjamin 
 Samuel Phillips. Under the above Act, also, several other members of the Jewish 
 persuasion have been appointed Magistrates for their respective counties ; viz. 
 Baron Meyer de Rothschild, for Buckinghamshire ; Sir Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, 
 Bart., for Middlesex ; Sir Moses Montefiore, Bart., and Alderman David Salo- 
 mons, for Kent ; Mr. Joseph Montefiore, for Sussex ; Mr. Benjamin Cohen, for 
 Surrey ; and Mr. Emanuel Lonsada, for Devonshire.
 
 48 
 
 of England ;" and, also, " That there should be ex- 
 tended to them the protection of the laws against 
 the wilful, malicious, and contemptuous disturbance 
 of religious assemblies and teachers." Stat. 9 & 10 
 Viet. ca. 59. 
 
 At the General Parliamentary Election in the year 
 1847, the Citizens of London returned, (with three 
 other candidates,) Baron Lionel de Rothschild as one 
 of their representatives. 
 
 On that occasion, Nine Candidates sought the honor 
 of becoming representatives for the City of London ; 
 viz. 
 
 Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who was proposed by Mr. 
 JONES LOYD, and seconded by Mr. W. HAWES. 
 
 Mr. MASTERMAN, proposed by Mr. T. BARING, and 
 seconded by Mr. R. ELLICE. 
 
 Mr. PATTISON, proposed by Mr. W. H. PRESCOT, 
 and seconded by Mr. DILLON. 
 
 Mr. FRESHFIELD, proposed by Mr. T. WILSON, and 
 seconded by Sir C. MARSHALL. 
 
 Sir G. LARPENT, proposed by Mr. T. HAN KEY, and 
 seconded by Mr. W. G. HALL. 
 
 Alderman JOHNSON, proposed by Sir C. MARSHALL, 
 and seconded by Mr. Deputy BROWN. 
 
 Baron LIONEL DE ROTHSCHILD, proposed by Mr. P. 
 TAYLOR, and seconded by Mr. J. TRAVERS. 
 
 Mr. BEVAN, proposed by Mr. ABEL SMITH, and 
 seconded by Mr. J. BRADBURY. 
 
 Mr. PAYNE, proposed by Mr. J. P. HEELS, and 
 seconded by Mr. NELLOR.
 
 49 
 
 The number of votes given, as declared by the 
 Returning Officer, on the 30th of July, 1847, were: 
 For Lord John Russell 7,137. 
 
 Mr. Pattison 7,030. 
 
 Baron L. de Rothschild. . .6,792. 
 
 Mr. Masterman 6,722. 
 
 Sir G. Larpent 6,719. 
 
 Mr. Bevan 5,268. 
 
 Alderman Johnson 5,069. 
 
 Mr. Freshfield 4,704. 
 
 Mr. Payne 513. 
 
 The first four-named Candidates were, after a rigid 
 scrutiny, declared by the Returning Officer duly elected 
 the Parliamentary Representatives for the City of 
 London. 
 
 Notwithstanding the unquestionable legality of 
 Baron de Rothschild's return, yet, as all Members of 
 Parliament are required to take the oath of abjuration, 
 as that oath concludes with the words, " on the true 
 faith of a Christian ;" and further, as Baron de Roths- 
 child, being a member of the Jewish persuasion, could 
 not take the oath according to that form ; it has been 
 considered that he could not take his seat in the 
 House of Commons*. 
 
 * It is only just to state that the British Legislature has never collectively de- 
 cided that Jews cannot sit in Parliament : and as regards Baron de Rothschild's 
 case, it may be observed that, as yet, the honourable Member for London has not 
 claimed to take his seat in the House of Commons. His reason for pursuing this 
 course is said to be, in deference to a desire entertained to obtain if possible a 
 declaratory statute relative to the rights of the Jews, in order to prevent frivolous 
 or vexatious objections being taken in future to the Parliamentary election of any 
 member of the Hebrew persuasion. 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 To obviate this alleged difficulty, Lord John Rus- 
 sell, on the 16th of December, 1847, moved in the 
 House of Commons : " That the House should re- 
 solve itself into a Committee on the removal of the 
 Civil and Religious disabilities affecting Her Majesty's 
 Jewish Subjects." On that occasion, his Lordship 
 enunciated the following, amongst other reasons, in 
 support of the motion : 
 
 " I place the question upon this simple, but, I 
 think, solid ground that every Englishman is en- 
 titled to the honours and advantages which the British 
 Constitution gives. I state further, that religious 
 opinion, of itself, ought to be no disqualification for 
 the enjoyment of those rights. I found myself on a 
 declaration in one of the statutes of the law of Eng- 
 land, ' The laws of England are the birthright of the 
 people thereof.' I found myself on a declaration made 
 in the House of Lords, during the discussions on the 
 Conformity Bill, ' The Lords think that an English- 
 man cannot be reduced to a more unhappy condition, 
 than to be put by law ander an incapacity of serving his 
 prince and country ; and, therefore, nothing but a crime 
 of the most detestable nature ought to put him under 
 such a disability' I say, then, that on this ground, 
 unless something shall be proved to disqualify Jews, they 
 stand in the position of persons born in this country, 
 beanng all the burdens which are imposed on them, and 
 ready to serve their prince and their country in any ca- 
 pacity in which they may be called upon ; and that, 
 therefore, they are entitled to all the rights and privileges 
 enjoyed by their fellow-subjects. I state this with con-
 
 51 
 
 fidence ; and I will not attempt to ask your favour by 
 anything which I might urge in behalf of the merits 
 of the Jews. I think this is not a matter of favour 
 towards the Jews, but that, unless some strong ground 
 of disqualification be proved against them, it is a 
 matter of right. The common law of this country was 
 not framed in favour of Christianity, but for the pro- 
 tection of what was then the Established Church of the 
 realm. But in the course of time the Reformation 
 came ; various sects arose ; the Reformation was 
 triumphant, and the Church of England became a 
 Protestant Church. But heretics still continued to 
 be punished ; and, in the reign of Elizabeth even, 
 persons were sent to the flames on account of heresy. 
 In the course of time there arose a new distinc- 
 tion, a distinction founded, not upon religious belief, 
 but mainly upon political differences. The Roman 
 Catholics of that day, thinking that they had no 
 chance of supremacy under Elizabeth or James I, 
 entered into repeated conspiracies with a view to 
 change the succession of these realms. I am asking 
 your attention on this point, because it was at that 
 time that the words were introduced ' on the true 
 faith of a Christian.' In the time of Elizabeth it was 
 necessary that the oath of . allegiance should be taken 
 on the four Evangelists, which the Jews, a despised 
 and neglected race, could not take But I will beg to 
 read to you the preamble of an A ct which is the first 
 I can discover in which the words ' on the true faith 
 of a Christian' were introduced, the Act 3, James I, 
 c. 4, entitled ' An Act for the better Discovering and 
 
 E 2
 
 52 
 
 Repressing of Popish Recusants.' The preamble 
 states, 
 
 1 Forasmuch as it is found, by daily experience, that 
 many of His Majesty's subjects that adhere in their 
 hearts to the Popish religion, by the infection drawn 
 from thence, and by the wicked and devilish counsel of 
 Jesuits, Seminaries, and other like persons dangerous 
 to the Church and State, are so far perverted, in the 
 point of their loyalties and due allegiance unto the 
 King's Majesty and the Crown of England, as they 
 are ready to entertain and execute any treasonable 
 conspiracies and practices, as evidently appears by 
 that more than barbarous and horrible attempt to have 
 blown up with gunpowder the King, Queen, Prince, 
 Lords, and Commons, in the House of Parliament 
 assembled, tending to the utter subversion of the whole 
 State, lately undertaken, by the instigation of Jesuits 
 and Seminaries, and in advancement of their religion, 
 by their scholars, taught and instructed by them to 
 that purpose, which attempt by the only goodness of 
 Almighty God was discovered and defeated.' 
 
 "And Section 15 prescribes the oath of obedience: 
 ' I swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any 
 declaration or sentence of excommunication or depriv- 
 ation made or granted, or to be made or granted, by 
 the Pope or his successors, or by any authority derived 
 or pretended to be derived from him or his see, against 
 the said King, his heirs or successors, or any absolution 
 of the said subjects from their obedience, I will bear 
 faith and true allegiance to His Majesty, his heirs and 
 successors, and him and them will defend to the utter-
 
 53 
 
 most of my power against all conspiracies and attempts 
 whatsoever which shall be made against his or their 
 persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or colour 
 of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise, and 
 will do my best to disclose and make known unto His 
 Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and 
 traitorous conspiracies which I shall know or hear of 
 to be against him or any of them. And I do further 
 swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and 
 abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine 
 and position, that princes which be excommunicated, 
 or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered 
 by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do 
 believe, and in my conscience am resolved, that neither 
 the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath power 
 to absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which 
 I acknowledge, by good and full authority, to be law- 
 fully ministered unto me, and do renounce all pardons 
 and dispensations to the contrary. And all these 
 things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and 
 swear, according to these express words by me spoken, 
 and according to the plain and common sense and un- 
 derstanding of the same words, without any equivo- 
 cation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation what- 
 soever ; and I do make this recognition and acknow- 
 ledgment heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true 
 faith of a Christian.' 
 
 " In the seventh year of James I, another Act was 
 passed, by which Members of Parliament were re- 
 quired to take the oath of allegiance according to the 
 oath in 3 Jac. I, c. 4, s. 15, that is, 'upon the true
 
 54 
 
 faith of a Christian.' Now, this shows clearly what 
 the intention of Parliament was in inserting that de- 
 claration, 'on the true faith of a Christian.' It was 
 intended to meet the cases of those Eoman Catholics 
 who bore true allegiance to the Crown of this realm, 
 and to separate them from those who believed that 
 their prince might lawfully be deposed or murdered. 
 Therefore these words, ' on the true faith of a Christian,* 
 were intended, not to exclude either Jews or infidels, but 
 to give a greater sanction to the oath which the Roman 
 Catholic Christian took when he declared himself a faith- 
 ful and true subject of the Crown. 
 
 " Now, I think I can contend that the history of 
 this declaration shows, that it was intended only to 
 give a security that those who were Roman Catholics, 
 and who were admitted to office and to Parliament, 
 were not men who swerved from their allegiance ; and 
 that, being Christians, they were asked to make the 
 declaration * on the true faith of a Christian.' I have 
 stated this for the purpose of showing that the intro- 
 duction of these words, so far as any exclusion or dis- 
 qualification was in view, was founded upon political 
 differences. In the reign of Charles II the same 
 reasons prevailed. The Duke of York, and those who 
 were with him, wished to overturn the laws of the 
 country ; and therefore political reasons, and not re- 
 ligious belief, led to the continued obligation of the 
 same form of oath, and even to more exclusive tests. 
 But there was another class who were likewise ex- 
 cluded from office, though not from Parliament, I 
 mean the Protestant Dissenters. Were they excluded
 
 55 
 
 on the ground that they differed in religious belief 1 
 By no means. The ground of their exclusion was 
 most ably stated by Bishop Sherlock, then a young 
 man, in a pamphlet which he wrote in defence of the 
 Test and Corporation Acts. He declared that every 
 Member of Parliament ought to be well affected to 
 the Established Church of the realm ; and that it was 
 not enough for him to be well affected to the civil 
 institutions of the country, but that he must also be a 
 friend to the Church as established by law. This was 
 the ground on which the religious distinction was 
 based. It was based on the ground that disaffection 
 to the religious establishment of the country was dis- 
 affection to the state. 
 
 Thus, when the ground of a political disqualifi- 
 cation was taken as a reason for exclusion from Par- 
 liament or office, it was either on the score of the 
 Roman Catholics failing in their allegiance to the 
 King, or, in the case of the Dissenters, that they were 
 so averse to the ecclesiastical constitution of these 
 realms, that the Church could not be secure unless 
 they were excluded from office. But, whatever these 
 reasons might be, in the years 1828 and 1829 we re- 
 moved all those disabilities. Parliament declared, in 
 its wisdom, that the Roman Catholics should no longer 
 be subjected to the imputation to which they had been 
 exposed that of disaffection to their Sovereign ; and 
 that they were as well qualified as any other persons 
 to hold office, with the exception of some offices con- 
 nected with the ecclesiastical constitution of the king- 
 dom. Parliament declared, likewise, that the Pro-
 
 56 
 
 testant Dissenters should not be subject to the dis- 
 qualification which excluded from corporations and 
 from office (for they were before eligible to Parlia- 
 ment), because disaffection to the Church Establish- 
 ment was no sufficient ground for depriving them of 
 the honours and rewards which were the right of every 
 subject of these realms. I submit, then, to the House, 
 that wha.t is called the Christian character of our con- 
 stitution, if it ever had any existence at all, has only 
 existed from the years 1828 and 1829. Previous to 
 the first of those years, your constitution excluded 
 certain persons from Parliament ; but it was on the 
 ground of their political and civil disability to perform 
 the duties of good subjects and citizens. Thus poli- 
 tical disability was attached to political disaffection, 
 supposed to exist in Protestant Dissenters and Roman 
 Catholics, and not to mere difference of faith. More- 
 over, it is clear, from the words in the oath of abjur- 
 ation, that they were introduced, not for the purpose 
 of exclusion, but for the purpose of giving a superior 
 sanction to that declaration. If it had been intended 
 to exclude the Jews from Parliament, on the ground that 
 their erroneous faith ought to deprive them of the cha- 
 racter of British subjects, there would have been intro- 
 duced into that oath some declaration like that against 
 the doctrine of tran substantiation, such as a declaration 
 of a belief in the New Testament. You admit that 
 there are no direct words of exclusion ; but you leave 
 exclusion to be inferred, from the words which were 
 introduced to give superior solemnity and sanction to 
 the oath.
 
 57 
 
 One ground which has been stated for the exclu- 
 sion of the Jews is, that they are a separate nation. 
 But the Jews themselves utterly deny this allegation. 
 They say that they are not attached to any foreign 
 State ; and that, as the Jews in France are French 
 subjects, those of England are English subjects; and 
 that they are ready to do their duty, as all good subjects 
 should do, either in time of war or of peace. Again I 
 say, if they are aliens, to what country do they belong ] 
 An alien is one who has another king and another 
 country, to whom his allegiance is owing ; and there- 
 fore he cannot pay perfect obedience to the laws of the 
 state in which he lives, and is subject to some necessary 
 disabilities. But those Jews who have lived in this 
 country for a century, or a century and a half who 
 have in England their property, their wives and their 
 families to what other king or country can they resort 
 in order to pay their allegiance? To none whatever. 
 It is obvious to all the world that their attachment is 
 to England, and to no other country. 
 
 " But we have been told also, that there is a very 
 solemn denunciation in the Prophecies, which would 
 prevent our granting to the Jews the rights which 
 they claim. It is obvious, that if such be the meaning 
 of the prophecies, it is not for us to decide what should 
 be done ; but that Providence will accomplish by its 
 own means its own purposes. But I would ask where 
 it is that those who use this argument would draw the 
 line 1 I have told you that in France they hold all 
 offices to which Frenchmen are admitted, and that 
 more than one member of the Chambers have been of
 
 58 
 
 the Jewish persuasion. Even in this country we have 
 much relaxed the rigour of our enactments respecting 
 them. A Jew has been a Magistrate ; a Jew has been 
 a Sheriff. By a late statute, which was introduced by 
 the right honorable Member for Tamworth, Jews may 
 hold offices in corporations ; and it was but the other day 
 that a Jew was admitted to the office of Alderman in the 
 corporation of the City of London. I ask you, what 
 right or business have you to interpret a Prophecy, so 
 as to draw tjie line between an Alderman and a Com- 
 missioner of Customs between the Justice of the 
 Peace and a person having a right to sit in Parliament ? 
 What enables you or authorises you to say where the 
 line intended by the Prophecies should be drawn 1 and 
 how can you take upon yourselves to draw the limits 
 of the line the Almighty intended to mark out "? It 
 would be indeed to 
 
 " Strike from his hand the balaiice and the rod, 
 Rejudge his justice be the God of God !" 
 
 I trust that no such presumption will fall to our lot- 
 that we shall do that which we think our dut yto 
 our fellow countrymen, and the best for the country 
 according to our imperfect reason, and rest in pious and 
 humble confidence that the Almighty will accomplish 
 his purpose by means best known to his wisdom. 
 
 " But, Sir, there is that which I can hardly call an 
 argument, but which operates more against those whose 
 cause I have undertaken, perhaps, than any other thing. 
 There is a popular prejudice against the name of the 
 Jew, founded upon various circumstances to which I
 
 59 
 
 need not allude founded upon what I think a mis- 
 taken view of Sacred Writ, and the dislike and distrust 
 there are on the part of men of a different religion. 
 But that popular prejudice which induced the Admin- 
 istration of 1753, after passing an Act for the natural- 
 ization of the Jews, to come down in a hurry, in the 
 next year, for the purpose of repealing it, has, I believe, 
 very greatly died away. That it has subsided in this 
 metropolis, I have with my own eyes a proof; because 
 a gentleman in the City of London, well known in that 
 city by his extensive transactions, by his wealth, his 
 charity and liberality, was elected for that city by 
 nearly 7,000 votes at the last general election. I quote 
 that as a proof that this House would not be safe in 
 saying ' Very charitable is our opinion : we are 
 liberal : we intend well to our Jewish fellow subjects : 
 but there is such a prejudice amongst the people 
 against them, that it would not be safe to legislate in 
 their favor.' I warn honorable gentlemen not to rely 
 upon that feeling. I believe that the People are to 
 the full as enlightened as the Members of this House. 
 1 believe that the general opinion, and the right and 
 true opinion as 1 conceive it to be, is, that religious opi- 
 nions ought not to bring with them any penalty or 
 punishment. I believe that that is the right and true 
 opinion, overbearing any prejudice that may have existed 
 against the Jews. 
 
 I have now, Sir, stated to you the reasons why I 
 think that the objections which have been made against 
 the admission of the Jews are futile and unfounded. 
 If I am asked, what are the prevailing reasons for the
 
 60 
 
 motion that I propose, I appeal in the first place to 
 the Constitution of these Realms. I appeal to that 
 Constitution which is intended to give to every man those 
 rewards, that honor, that estimation, to which his cha- 
 ter and talents may entitle him. I appeal to that Con- 
 stitution which is the enemy of restriction or disqua- 
 lification ; to that Constitution which, by the abroga- 
 tion of the laws existing a few years ago, has put an 
 end even to those cases of exception which our ances- 
 tors thought, upon the ground of imminent danger to 
 to the State and Church, they were justified in impos- 
 ing. I ask you, in the name of that Constitution, to 
 take away this last remnant of religious persecution, 
 to show that you were not influenced by numbers or 
 terrors which might make that which was an act of 
 political justice, an act of political necessity. I ask 
 you, in the name of that Constitution, to admit the 
 Jews to all the privileges, to all the rights, of which 
 those who are not excluded from them are so justly 
 proud ; and, let me tell you, that you cannot judge of 
 the feelings of those who are excluded by the number 
 of those who might wish for seats in Parliament, or 
 who might aspire to hold ofiice under the Crown. 
 Many a man who would not seek for either, who would 
 be content to pass his days in obscurity, and would 
 wish for no other advantages than those of a private 
 life, still feels the galling degradation, the brand that 
 is imposed upon him, when he is told that men of all 
 other classes men of the Established Church, Pro- 
 testant Dissenters, and Roman Catholics may all 
 enter within these walls, may all enjoy those advan-
 
 61 
 
 tages, but that he belongs to a sect which by the law 
 and constitution is proscribed and degraded. But I 
 would make a still higher appeal. I would make an 
 appeal to the principles of that Christianity which has 
 so long been the law of the land. I appeal to you, 
 then, in the name of that Religion which is a Religion 
 of Charity and Love, to ' do unto others as you would 
 they should do unto you.' I ask you why it is, that, 
 when we are taught by examples and parables that we 
 ought to love our neighbours, it is not Priests or Le- 
 vites who are singled out as instances for our approba- 
 tion and admiration, but it is one of a proscribed sect 
 one who belonged to what was then the refuse and 
 the scum of all nations \ I ask why it is that we are 
 taught that all men are brothers that there is no part 
 of the human race, however divided from us by feeling 
 or colour, that ought to be separated from us, but that 
 all belong to the family of man, and ought to be loved 
 as brothers ? I ask you, therefore, in the name of that 
 Constitution which is the Constitution of Freedom, of 
 Liberty, and of Justice I ask you, in the name of that 
 Religion which is the Religion of Peace and Good-will 
 toivards men, to agree to this motion" 
 
 The noble Lord then moved, " That the House 
 should resolve itself into a Committee on the removal 
 of the civil and political Disabilities affecting Her 
 Majesty's Jewish Subjects," and resumed his seat amid 
 loud and long-continued cheers. 
 
 The limits of this work will not admit of our in- 
 serting at length the various other able speeches 
 delivered subsequently to the Premier's admirable
 
 62 * 
 
 oration ; but as the debate was one of the most import- 
 ant Parliamentary discussions which has perhaps taken 
 place in modern times, we give here a precis of the 
 chief arguments adduced by the supporters and the 
 opponents of the measure. 
 
 Sir R. H. Inglis said, he had never been so much alarmed at the 
 introduction of this measure as he was now, when it was introduced 
 by the first Minister of the Crown. He did not dispute the merits 
 of the Jews, but he was not inclined to place them in Parliament merely 
 because they were amiable and respectable citizens. Mr. Macauley 
 insisted that privation was punishment. He denied it : for would 
 any man say that the Legislature punished those who enjoyed not 
 the elective franchise, or those who were not qualified to sit in Par- 
 liament ? The question was not one between Christians and Jews, 
 but between Christians and non-Christians. Now, England for 
 years past had not only had a constitution, but also a Christian con- 
 stitution, and he defied Lord J. Russell to produce a single instance 
 in which the oath of office had not always been taken upon some 
 Christian symbol. It might be true that David Hume and Edward 
 Gibbon, as infidels, would not have scrupled to take at the table the 
 declaration now required by law ; but was that a sufficient argument 
 for blotting out of our Statute Book a solemn declaration that our 
 first duty, as legislators, was to discharge, our duties as Christian 
 men ! A Jew could not listen to our form of prayer, in which we 
 called upon Christ to have mercy upon us, without either committing 
 an awful blasphemy, or going through a deliberate mockery of 
 religion. He would not withhold these concessions from the Jews on 
 account of the smallness of their numbers, if he could believe them 
 just : but, as he did not think them so, he thought he had a right to 
 ask whether it was either right or expedient to make them to 20,000 
 or 30,000 or 40,000 persons, at the risk of exasperating 3,000,000 
 or 4,000,000 ? He had called the last bill introduced on this sub- 
 ject a bill to enable Mr. Salomons to become an alderman of London, 
 and he called this bill a bill to enable the Baron L. de Rothschild to
 
 become a member of Parliament. He then proceeded to show that 
 the Jews were a separate nation, with a separate creed, and for that 
 purpose read a letter from a Jewish rabbi, and an extract from the 
 speech of John Duke of Bedford against the Jew bill of 1753. He 
 called upon the House, by every consideration of interest and duty, 
 to pause before it changed the Christian constitution of the Legisla- 
 ture, and before it hazarded the confidence of the people in the 
 Christian institutions of the empire. (Hear, hear !) 
 
 Mr. Fox supported the motion, because he saw no feature of 
 exclusiveness either in the English constitution, or in the genius of 
 Christianity. Sir Robert Inglis had remarked, that exclusion was 
 not punishment ; but that remark was scarcely applicable to any 
 class which perceived and appreciated, and yet did not enjoy all the 
 rights of citizenship. The question really before the House at that 
 moment was, the partial disfranchisement of the City of London ; 
 for, by the present anomalous state of tlie law, it was deprived of its 
 due share in the representation, and was undergoing a punishment 
 in not having its due share in the formation of those laws in whose 
 proper administration it was so much interested. (Hear.) It was, 
 therefore, in the same position in which it would be, had a bill of pains 
 and penalties been brought in against it for selecting Baron de Roths- 
 child as its representative. He asked whether it was likely that the 
 city of London, which had made such a choice, would retract it ! The 
 city would do no such thing ; and he believed that if the House per- 
 sisted in that form of oath by which the exclusion of the Baron de 
 Rothschild was effected, it would stir up a most formidable agitation. 
 Against the argument that the Jews regarded themselves as a separate 
 nation, he adduced the example of the many Jews who had perished 
 in the ranks of the Prussian army at Waterloo, fighting against Na- 
 poleon, who had proclaimed himself the friend of their race. He then 
 recommended the emancipation of the Jews, first because they were a 
 non-proselytizing people, and next, because their Bible was ours, their 
 saints and patriarchs were ours, and their laws were placed on the 
 tables suspended over the altars of our churches. They were, there- 
 fore, the people who ought to have come first and foremost, instead 
 of last, within the pale of the British constitution. (Hear, hear!)
 
 64* 
 
 Lord Ashley observed, that on this question there was no inter- 
 mediate feeling in the country ; for it was either a feeling of indiffer- 
 ence, or of the deepest interest. (Hear, hear !) The prejudices of 
 the present day against the Jews had no connexion with the personal 
 hatred once directed against them on account of their crucifixion of our 
 Saviour, nor even with those prejudices which existed in 1753. The 
 Jew held a higher place now in the opinion of society ; and the ob- 
 jections against his admission into Parliament did not rest on such 
 half-forgotten recollections, but on the adherence of the people of 
 England to a principle which he hoped they would never surrender. 
 His opposition to this measure was not founded on any selfish or 
 persecuting motive, but on a principle of religious truth. He con- 
 tended, that religion had a great deal to do with politics that the 
 House knew that fact and that it proved it by every one of its 
 daily actions. (Hear, hear !) The House was now called upon to 
 break down all the barriers which prevented Jews from sitting in 
 Parliament. No advantage would be gained by such an enactment 
 no compensation would be afforded for the great shock which it 
 would occasion to thousands of honest and conscientious Christians. 
 Lord John Russell rested his case upon justice. Dr. Arnold whose 
 words he quoted denied that the Jews had any claim to emancipa- 
 tion on that ground, and his Lordship had not ventured to say a word 
 in refutation of that denial. The present was altogether a question of 
 principle. It was a Legislative declaration, that for all the purposes 
 of public government, of making laws, and of administering public 
 affairs, Christianity was altogether needless. To such a doctrine 
 he could not assent, even for a single hour. If the Jews had been 
 already in Parliament, he would not have proposed to turn them out ; 
 but it was a widely different question to propose to bring them in, 
 and to repeal, for their introduction, an oath which was a declaration 
 of Christianity on the part of the Legislature. The noble Lord said, 
 he disclaimed any antipathy to the Jews, and concluded his address 
 with a glowing description of the knowledge, intelligence, literature, 
 and perseverance of the Jews of the present age ; both in this country, 
 and other countries of Europe. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, after an allusion to the course his colleague had
 
 ' 65 
 
 taken, said he Mt bound to inquire whether there were any grounds 
 for the disqualifications which distinguished the Jews from any other 
 classes of the community. Lord Ashley, in that part of his speech 
 in which he had exposed the existing misapprehensions as to the 
 Jews, and in which he had described their excellent capacity for 
 public business of every kind, had greatly enhanced the force of the 
 arguments by which the admission of Jews into Parliament was 
 recommended. He then passed on to the question of religion. 
 Having shown that we had contended first for a Church Parlia- 
 ment, and then for a Protestant Parliament, in both of which con- 
 tests we had been defeated by the course of events, or he should 
 rather say by the providential superintendence of God over the 
 world, he said that, according to Lord Ashley, we had now come to 
 the stage in which we must stand up for a Christian Parliament. 
 This measure did not make a severance between politics and reli- 
 gion, it only amounted to a declaration that there was no necessity 
 for excluding a Jew, as such, from an assembly in which every man 
 felt sure that a vast and overwhelming majority of its members 
 would always be Christian. It was too late for us to say that this 
 measure was un-Christian, and would call down upon us the venge- 
 ance of Heaven. He had opposed the last law for the removal of 
 Jewish disabilities ; but when he did so, he foresaw that if we gave 
 the Jews municipal, magisterial, and executive functions, we could 
 not refuse him legislative functions any longer. The Jew was 
 refused entrance into that House because he would then be a maker 
 of the laws ; but who made the maker of the laws ? The constitu- 
 encies ; and into those constituencies you had admitted the Jew. 
 Now were the constituencies Christian constituencies? If they were, 
 was it probable that the Parliament would cease to be a Christian 
 Parliament ? He concluded by stating, that if we admitted the Jews 
 into Parliament, prejudice might be awakened for a while, but that 
 the good sense of the people would soon allay it, and we should have 
 the consolation of knowing that, in a case of difficulty, we had yielded 
 to a sense of justice, and by so doing had not disparaged our religion, 
 or lowered Christianity, but had rather elevated both in all reflect- 
 ing and well-regulated minds. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 F
 
 66 
 
 Mr. G. Bankes vindicated the arguments of Lord Ashley, and 
 expressed his horror at the possibility of seeing a Jew Premier in 
 Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Romilly contended the admission of Jews into Parliament 
 was simply an act of justice. The admission of Roman Catholics 
 into the House had not impaired the Protestant character of the 
 Legislature, but had, on the contrary, increased its efficacy. So, the 
 admission of the Jews would not impair the Christian character of 
 the House, or do injury to Christianity. (Hear.) 
 
 Mr. Goulburn urged, that we must resist this motion if we in- 
 tended to carry out the objects of a Christian Legislature. Two 
 tests had hitherto been provided by the Legislature before any man 
 could be admitted into it. One was the oath of allegiance, the other 
 was his sworn avowal of his belief in Christianity. The City of 
 London had thought fit to say that the Baron de Rothschild, who 
 would not submit to the latter of these tests, should take his seat in 
 the Legislature as its representative. Now, if that claim were ad- 
 mitted, how soon might the City return a foreign merchant who 
 would refuse the other test, the oath of allegiance ? 
 
 Mr. Plumptre said, that this was simply a question whether 
 they, as a Christian Legislature, believing Christ to be their only 
 Saviour and Redeemer, and having continually to consider subjects 
 affecting the honour and glory of that Saviour, would invite among 
 them into that house men who looked upon him as an impostor. 
 The honourable Member was understood to say that he intended no 
 insult to the Jews in asserting that they were unfit to legislate or 
 interfere in the affairs of a Christian nation, and as he deemed the 
 question to be one of principle and not of expediency he should vote 
 against the motion of the noble Lord, and against the Bill when it 
 was introduced. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli observed, that both Lord John Russell and Lord 
 Ashley had considered this measure as a question of principle. 
 With the former it was a principle of religious liberty ; with the 
 latter a principle of religious truth. The former had adopted a 
 principle which in this country was comparatively a novel one, and 
 upon which his Lordship, from his descent and his own personal
 
 67 
 
 exertions in its behalf, must ever be expected to look with respect. 
 The Jewish race were men who acknowledged the same God and 
 admitted the same revelation with ourselves, and to whom we were 
 indebted for much of our human civilization and almost all our 
 divine knowledge. They professed a true, if not the true, religion. 
 If they did not believe all that Christians did, Christians believed 
 all that they did. As far, then, as the religion of the Bible could 
 be a sanction for conduct, Parliament had, in the religion of the Jew, 
 the best sanction in the world for their good conduct, save that of its 
 own Christianity. It was said, however, that the admission of the 
 Jew into Parliament would de-Christianize the nation, and would 
 enable persons of any religion, Pagan or Mahometan, to come 
 amongst us. Now, this question of the Jew ought not to be mixed 
 up with that of other religions. The Jew should be admitted from 
 his near affinity to the Christian. Was that denied ? Then he 
 would ask, where was your Christianity except in his Judaism ? 
 He should be admitted, too, because you are a Christian community 
 and a Christian assembly. If you had been a Druidical assembly, 
 you might have rejected him on the ground that his race were few 
 in number and you knew nothing of his religion. Bat a Christian 
 assembly could not urge such a plea and were placed in regard to a 
 Jew in a very different position from that in which it stood either to 
 the Pagan, the Hindoo, or the Mussulman. Besides, the Jew had 
 no interest in opposing the Christian church. He concluded with an 
 eloquent panegyric on the high qualifications of the Jews in all ages, 
 and insisted that the house ought to perform this great act of national 
 justice, and to discard the dark superstitions of the darkest ages, 
 which were influencing themselves and their constituents to oppose 
 it. 
 
 Sir T. Acland replied with great warmth to Mr. Gladstone and 
 Mr. Disraeli, and reminded the House that Mr. Hume had often told 
 it that religion had nothing to do with legislation and that the less 
 legislation had to do with religion, the better. He denied the justice 
 of that principle and showed that it was never recognized by Queen 
 Elizabeth, William III., or any of our greatest princes. He there- 
 fore called upon the House to beware how it broke asunder the ties 
 
 F 2
 
 68 
 
 which bound together religion and legislation, and to reflect on the 
 awful consequences which might arise from such a violation of sound 
 principle and ancient custom. (Hear.) 
 
 Mr. Law insisted that this measure, which involved the question 
 whether religious tests should any longer be administered to Members 
 of Parliament before their admission into that House, struck at the 
 vitals of our Christian nationality and was an infringement of the 
 Christian character of our Legislature. He admitted that religious 
 liberty was a principle of the constitution, but it was one of those 
 principles in which individual rights must be limited like all other 
 rights in special cases. He reminded the House that the admission 
 of every Jew into Parliament would displace a Christian and would 
 make room for an infidel or an atheist. (Hear.) He then entered 
 into a very elaborate refutation of the various arguments urged 
 by Lord John Russell last night, and based it, for the most part, on 
 the dogmas laid down in the last number of the Quarterly Review. 
 He reminded Lord John Russell that the Government which had 
 passed the bill for the naturalization of the Jews in 1752 had been 
 compelled to repeal it in the next year, and warned him that if a 
 similar reaction should take place now, which was not improbable, 
 the people might demand something more than the repeal of this 
 measure, supposing that it should be carried. He then attacked Mr. 
 Gladstone with weapons borrowed from the same armoury from which 
 he had drawn his missiles against Lord John Russell, asserting that 
 the conscience of that gentleman might well be pricked, after all he 
 had said and written to the University of Oxford, at seeing the word 
 " Christianity " withdrawn from the portals of the constitution. 
 Taking leave of Mr. Gladstone with the passing remark, that his 
 speech was a striking illustration of Talleyrand's saying, that lan- 
 guage was given to man to conceal his thoughts, he next ventured to 
 break a lance with Mr. Disraeli, whose nation of contented Jews in 
 China, eager to support the established religion of that country, he 
 treated with no slight ridicule. He then returned to his original 
 denunciations of this measure, which he considered as more subversive 
 of the best interests of this country than any measure ever yet 
 proposed to Parliament. It might obtain the approbation of both
 
 69 
 
 Houses of the Legislature. The hour of victory might give 
 Ministers the pleasures of triumph ; but the hour of retribution 
 would come, and they might depend upon it that the people of 
 England would not aquiesce in the measures of the Legislature if it 
 ceased to be wholly or professedly Christian. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 The Earl of Arundel and Surrey supported the measure on the 
 general grounds of religious freedom and religious truth. He was 
 not old enough to have suffered himself from the Roman Catholic 
 disabilities ; but he well remembered the strong feelings of indignation 
 which his father and his grandfather experienced owing to their 
 having been excluded by them from Parliament. It was therefore 
 not wonderful that he should sympathize with the Jews who were 
 suffering under the same galling exclusion. 
 
 Mr. A. Hope opposed the measure, on the ground that there was 
 no pre-eminence or super-excellence in the Jewish race which would 
 justify the house in relaxing the " fag ends" of those oaths which 
 were necessary to be taken before any member could take his seat 
 in Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Newdegate followed on the same side, but contended, that in 
 .opposing the emancipation of the Jews he was not influenced, as 
 Mr. Disraeli supposed, by any remnant of the " dark superstitions 
 of the darkest ages." The admission of every infidel and atheist in 
 Parliament was inevitable if we once admitted the Jews, who knew 
 most of the divine revelation given to us, and who nevertheless had 
 rejected it. He then controverted the arguments of Mr. Gladstone 
 and censured him in very strong language for voting in favour of a 
 measure of which he clearly foresaw the difficulties. If it had been 
 known in the University of Oxford, that Mr. Gladstone entertained 
 his present sentiments, and intended to vote against the principle for 
 which he had formerly voted, he never would have enjoyed the high 
 honour which had recently been conferred upon him by that uni- 
 versity. 
 
 Lord Morpeth adopted the principle that, when the state required 
 from any class of citizens the performance of any acts or the payment 
 of any duties which the claim of citizenship imposed, no difference 
 of creed which did not lead to practices injurious to the community
 
 70 
 
 should operate as an exclusion from any right, dignity, or privilege 
 within its gift. On that principle he supported this measure, which 
 he reminded Sir B. Inglis was not intended to emancipate Parsees 
 and Hindoos, hut was confined simply to the removal of Jewish 
 disabilities. Not that he shrank from following out the principle of 
 equality before the law to its fullest extent, from any fear of an 
 irruption of Parsee candidates into Great Britain or their acceptance 
 by a British constituency. He then applied himself to a consideration 
 of the motives of opposition to this measure both in the house and 
 in the country motives which in his opinion were founded on 
 religious views alone. He then denied that Lord J. Russell had 
 ever asserted that religion had nothing to do with politics ; on the 
 contrary, his Lordship had distinctly declared that religion ought to 
 pervade and influence everything we did. He said, however, that 
 the security of Christianity would not be impaired by the admission 
 of Jews into Parliament, and he Lord Morpeth was of the same 
 opinion ; and for this among other reasons, that if the religion of 
 the first Christians was not endangered by their taking service in 
 Caesar's household, so neither would our religion be endangered by the 
 admission of a few Jews into our senate. The Jews were now in 
 the possession of all the privileges of citizens in France, and never 
 had there been more vital piety in the Roman Catholic and Protestant 
 population of that country than at the present moment. He called 
 upon the house to treat the Jews with similar kindness, tenderness, 
 and justice, and to consider them in their scattered and fallen state 
 like the trunk blighted by the lightning, sanctified by the very stroke 
 which had caused its ruin. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr. Home Drummond was not actuated in opposing this measure 
 by any of the old prejudices or unworthy feelings against the Jews, 
 whom he admired almost as much as Mr. Disraeli did. Sooner or 
 later, he was afraid that it must be carried ; for if the house threw 
 Mr. Rothschild back upon the constituency of London, we should 
 have a recurrence of similar contests between the house and that 
 constituency as had formerly taken place between it and the electors 
 oi Middlesex in the time and in the case of Mr. Wilkes. Formerly 
 gold was extracted from the Jew by the thumbscrew ; now it was
 
 71 
 
 extorted by the more efficient process of a contested election. He 
 admitted that this measure, if carried, would be the triumph of 
 Liberalism ; but, what was Liberalism ? The antagonist of religion. 
 Liberalism was that which set a man free from all obligation to God 
 which left him at liberty to make out of his own imagination his 
 own God and which led him to despise the dogmas of the church 
 which told him there was no truth but that which it taught. He 
 would not venture to read the denunciations of the prophecies ; but 
 he would remind Lord J. Russell there was such a thing denounced 
 in scripture as national apostasy. He hoped that we might still 
 say in Parliament that we were Christians ; but if this measure 
 passed we could no longer say so. He concluded by declaring that 
 he would not give his consent to a measure which would enact from 
 this time forward that no man should pronounce in that house the 
 name or recognize the authority of Christ. 
 
 Lord G. Bentinck said, that he should be slinking from his 
 duty if he did nothing more than register his vote in favour of this 
 measure. It was with deep pain he felt himself called upon to 
 separate himself from his friends, and to inflict what might perhaps 
 prove an injury to his party ; but he was actuated by a solemn 
 sense of duty, to which all other considerations must give way. He 
 had supported, along with the friends of Mr. Canning, the first 
 motion which the whigs had made on this subject in 1833, and the 
 conduct of the Jews since that time had not been such as to justify him 
 in rescinding, in 1847, the vote in favour of the Jews which he had 
 given in 1833. If he could bring himself to believe that by voting 
 in favour of this measure he was either impairing Christianity or 
 un-Christianizing Parliament, he would be the last man to vote in 
 favour of raising the Jews to a political equality with the rest of 
 their fellow subjects. He reminded the house that when the bill 
 for the repeal of Tests and Corporation Acts was passed in the 
 Commons, it was passed in such a shape as would have at once 
 enabled Jews to become members of the Legislature, and that it 
 was not till the bill reached the House of Lords, that the words " on 
 the true faith of a Christian " were inserted in the declaration which 
 was thenceforward to be taken by all candidates for admission into
 
 12 
 
 office and into Parliament. When the bill was returned to the 
 House of Commons, the regret was universal that those words, had 
 been inserted. No one then saw any danger in the omission of those 
 words nor did any person defend their insertion on the ground that 
 they would exclude Jews from the Legislature. But where, he would 
 ask, was the danger of admitting Jews into the Legislature ? They 
 must be returned by a Christian constituency, and if they were 
 to attempt to make laws destructive of Christianity and pro- 
 moting Judaism, they would have little chance, when they laid 
 down their trust asj members of Parliament, of having it again 
 restored to them. Besides, the danger itself was almost visionary ; 
 for there was no spirit of proselytsm in the Jewish religion. He 
 then asked how the house could refuse the Jews the measure of 
 justice now proposed to be awarded to them, after it had rendered 
 them capable of filling all magisterial and municipal offices ? A 
 Jew might now be elected Lord Mayor of London. Acting in that 
 capacity, he might become a member of the Privy Council ; for there 
 was nothing said in the oath of a Privy Councillor about the 
 " true faith of a Christian." If then he could qualify himself 
 under the existing law to become a Privy Councillor, why should 
 he be prevented from becoming also a member of the Senate? 
 (Hear, hear.) He then adverted to the arguments of Mr. Goulburn, 
 and observed that that gentleman had formerly opposed the admission 
 of Roman Catholics into Parliament on precisely the same grounds 
 upon which he now opposed the admission of the Jews. But when 
 Mr. O'Connel was returned for the county of Clare, and knocked at 
 the door of the House for admission with millions at his back, Mr. 
 Goulburn was a Member of the Cabinet which shrunk from the contest, 
 and which subsequently conceded all the privileges which they asked. 
 (Hear.) He hoped that it would not be necessary for Mr. Goulburn 
 to undergo once more the same process of resistance at one time and 
 humiliation at another in the case of the Jews. He reminded the 
 House that shortly before the crucifixion of our Lord and Saviour, 
 Jesus Christ had implored his Divine Parent to forgive the Jews, 
 because they knew not what they were doing. We were now within 
 eight days of the nativity of our Lord ; and we should be wretched
 
 73 
 
 imitators of his divine example if we should withold from the Jews 
 the privileges which they were now claiming. 
 
 Mr. O'Gorman Mahon, in reply to Mr. Home Drummond, denied 
 that Liberalism was the absence of virtue, piety, and religion ; it 
 was the absence of all religious acrimony and intolerance it was 
 the absence of persecution and sectarian bigotry it was the absence 
 of all those selfish and vindictive feelings which denied to man the 
 right of worshipping God as he pleased (Hear, hear.) He coin- 
 cided in the propriety and justice of the proposition of Lord John 
 Russell namely, that from the present hour everything like a 
 disqualification consequent on conscientious belief should be removed 
 from the statute book. He called on the House to reflect that fear 
 had extorted for the Roman Catholics of Ireland that boon which 
 justice required that they should now grant to the native born Jews 
 of this country. (Hear.) It had been said when the Roman . 
 Catholics were first admitted into Parliament, that they would un- 
 Protestantize the empire. Some 20 or 30 had since been admitted, 
 and the country was as Protestant as ever. Had they any just 
 grounds, then, for expecting that four or five Jews admitted into 
 Parliament would un-Christianize that body ? 
 
 Lord John Russell said, that his principal reason for addressing 
 the house at present was to explain to Mr. Gladstone the precise 
 nature of the measure which he was about to propose in the com- 
 mittee. His resolution would be in the following terms : " That 
 it is expedient to remove all civil disabilities at present existing 
 affecting Her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish religion, with the like 
 exceptions as are provided for Her Majesty's subjects professing 
 the Roman Catholic religion." The bill, which he should afterwards 
 found upon that resolution, would be couched in the same terms as 
 that introduced by Sir R. GRANT in 1833. His Lordship then 
 entered into a refutation of a report to which Mr. Law's speech was 
 calculated to give confirmation that his ^Lord John Russell's) 
 recent election for the City London had been carried by means of 
 his association with the Baron Rothschild, and that he had in conse- 
 quence proposed this measure to bring the Baron into Parliament.
 
 74 
 
 His Lordship entered into a detail of facts, and shewed that there 
 was not even a shadow of foundation for these allegations. 
 
 The house then divided, when the numbers were for the motion 
 
 Ayes- .... 253 
 
 Noes .... .... 186 
 
 Majority .... 67 
 
 On the 7th of February, 1848, the Order of the 
 Day for the Second Heading of the Jewish Disabili- 
 ties Bill having been read, 
 
 Mr. Stafford moved, as an amendment, that it he read a second 
 time that day six months. The last of three great questions respect- 
 ing religion must now be answered by the House in the affirmative 
 or negative. The first was " should we persecute ?" by which he 
 understood, " should we fine, imprison, and execute P" That had 
 already been answered in the negative. The next was, having 
 ceased to persecute, having given to all sects tolerance and con- 
 nivance, should we consent to allow them to exercise the adminis- 
 tration of the laws which we had ourselves passed P That had been 
 answered in the affirmative, and, as he thought, wisely. The last 
 question which the House had then to answer was, should we admit 
 them to legislate for us, and to assist us in the enactment of laws for 
 the protection of Christianity ? It was no answer to those who ob- 
 jected to such admission, to say, that we first struggled for a 
 Catholic, and then for a Protestant, and that we were now struggling 
 for a Christian Parliament ; for the two first struggles were only 
 struggles of degree, but the last struggle is a struggle of kind. He 
 called upon the House, when it had removed what was now called 
 " the last remnant of persecution," and when it had passed this bill, 
 and had admitted the Jews into Parliament, to determine what it 
 would do with its ordinary forms. Its ordinary forms required that 
 those who wished to secure their seats should write their names on 
 printed cards which had only two words printed on them, " At 
 prayers." A blank was left for the name of the Member. Now,
 
 75 
 
 could the name of Lionel de Rothschild ever fill up that blank ? If 
 it could, then the sooner such an absurdity was removed the better ; 
 but if it could not, would not Lionel de Rothschild have a right to 
 say, " You told me, when I was elected a member of Parliament, 
 that religion had nothing to do with politics ; why, then, do you call 
 upon me to assist in the worship of one whom I deem an impostor ?" 
 (Hear.) Again, it had been said that we placed the Jewish decalogue 
 over our altars, and therefore we might safely admit the Jews into 
 the Legislature. But that observation led him to another ; we had 
 changed the day of the Sabbath, and had compelled the Jew to shut 
 his shop for traffic both on his Sabbath, and on our own. Now, it 
 appeared to him to be a greater hardship to compel the Jews to close 
 their shops for fifty-two days in the year, than to exclude them from 
 Parliament. How then could it be justly urged, that this Bill 
 would remove " the last remnant of persecution," when you would 
 still compel the Jews to close their shops for traffic for two months 
 in the year, and that, too, in honour of one whom they declared to 
 be an impostor ? The question, then, came to this " Was the 
 House prepared to give up Sunday ?" He then adverted, but as he 
 said, with deep pain, to another question which had been asked in 
 the course of this debate. It had been asked what was the great 
 difference between the Christian and the Jew ? His answer was 
 this A Jewish peasant had changed the religion of the world. 
 When he was brought before the tribunals of his country, his country- 
 men exclaimed, that they would not have him as King to reign over 
 them. Since that time a cry had gone up to Heaven from country 
 after country, " We will have this man to reign over us ! We ac- 
 cept the immense array of prophecy as the proof of his glorious god- 
 head. Strong in his rule we will live, and strong in his faith we 
 hope to die." There was, therefore a difference, immutable and 
 eternal, between those who looked on the Cross of Christ as the pu- 
 nishment of a malefactor, and those who looked upon it as the best hope 
 of happiness here, and the only hope of happiness hereafter. (Hear.) 
 Lord Burleigh seconded the amendment, because it appeared to 
 him that this Bill enacted that, if a man had money enough, and 
 influence enough to become a Member of Parliament, it was no
 
 76 
 
 matter whether he was a Christian or not. If it were passed, every 
 form of the constitution which gave us assurance of Christianity 
 must be abolished. 
 
 Mr. W. P. Wood supported the Bill on religious, far more than 
 on political grounds ; for he considered it essential that we should 
 forthwith abolish those laws which attached disgrace to the Legisla- 
 ture of England, and reflected it upon the Church of England, which 
 he believed to be the best form of Christianity. Religious opinions 
 should not be used as a qualification or a disqualification for political 
 offices ; for he undertook to show that it was very far from being 
 the principle of the Christian religion to mingle itself with the poli- 
 tical administration of affairs. From the earliest times Christianity 
 had kept itself distinct from politics ; and it was only coincident with 
 the corruptions which crept into it, that the Church was found in 
 union with the State. There was no positive precept to be found in 
 Divine Writ for the union of the Church and State, and the absence 
 of such a precept following on the theocracy of the Jews, was a clear 
 proof that no such union was intended. He then entered into an 
 able historical disquisition, to prove that it was not till the reign of 
 Theodosius that any question had arisen as to the interference of the 
 State with religion, and contended, upon the authority of Protestant 
 divines, that it was not till then that the corruptions of religion were 
 introduced. (Hear, hear.) Then arose that system of persecution 
 which crept into Europe, and which afterwards was adopted by our 
 ancestors, not founded on the truths of Christianity, but on Papal 
 decrees and rescripts. (Hear, hear.) He then proceeded to deny 
 that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, so 
 far as regarded the question then before the House. None of the 
 statutes which applied to heretics applied to the Jews, and thus 
 the dicta, that " Christianity was part and parcel of the English 
 Law," could not be justly applied so as to deprive the Jews of 
 civil rights and privileges. (Hear, hear.) He then examined 
 the position of Lord Coke, that the Jews were aliens, and joined 
 with Lord Chief Justice Willes in holding it up to ridicule and 
 contempt. He showed that in all the early Acts of Parliament, im- 
 posing tests and qualifications, the case of the Jews was casus
 
 77 
 
 omissus, and that it was not till an act passed at the close of the 
 reign of Charles II, they were excluded from any civil privileges. 
 We had admitted the Jews to exercise parliamentary privileges in 
 Jamaica and in Canada, and if we had thereby un-Christianized those 
 colonies, how was it that the Imperial Parliament had sat quiet and 
 allowed it to be done ? It was a mere play on words to talk of a 
 " Christian " Legislature, and a " Christian " country ; and the 
 epithet " Christian " was used in a different sense in each phrase. 
 The Legislature might be called Christian at present, for none but 
 Christians were now members of it ; but the country was not 
 Christian in the same sense, for many persons, not Christians, now 
 lived in it. He wished the House, when so much was said about 
 Christians, to act upon Christian principles ; and the first Christian 
 principle was, to do to others as you would have others do to you. 
 It was on that principle he supported this Bill. We allowed the 
 Jews to intermarry with us we compelled them to fill municipal 
 offices we forced them to pay taxes and he contended that it was 
 gross, monstrous, and un-Christian to make use of the Jews for our 
 purposes, and not to admit them to all the privileges of the State. 
 It was a mistake to suppose that we should facilitate the diffusion 
 of Christianity by the exclusion of the Jews. If we wished to con- 
 vert the Jews, we ought to place them on a position of equality with 
 ourselves. Conversion must be produced by influence on their 
 reason and their minds ; for, as Lactantius had told Theodosius, 
 conversion was a matter beyond all others voluntary, for a man 
 could not be forced to belief, though he might be forced to become a 
 dissembler. The Almighty, for his own wise purposes, had left a 
 veil over the hearts of the Jews, blinding them to the prophecies 
 which were clear to us ; we ought not to deepen their blindness by sur- 
 rounding them with the mists of human prejudice. He then noticed 
 Mr. Stafford's argument, that if this Bill were passed, it would be 
 necessary to alter the mode of keeping seats in that House, and 
 expressed his surprise that a gentleman of his good sense could em- 
 ploy an argument so ludicrous on a theme so solemn. It had been 
 said, that if the Bill were passed, the Christianity of the House 
 would be destroyed, and infidel and Mussulman would be capable of
 
 78 
 
 taking their seats within it. Now, what was the Christianity of the 
 House ? He could not tell for it was rather negative than positive. 
 Besides, would it be wise, with our immense empire in the East 
 Indies, to lay it down as an unalterable rule, that on no condition 
 should a native of that country, professing either the Hindoo or the 
 Mahometan religion, ever be clothed with a representative character ? 
 The last Charter of the East India Company had declared no native 
 of India to be incapable of holding any office, however high, within 
 its limits. At this moment the Governor-General might be a 
 Mahometan, and the Members of the Council might be Mahometans 
 too ; and yet we were not said to have un-Christianized our Govern- 
 ment of India by such an enactment. He concluded by calling on 
 the House to follow the example which it had already set in India, 
 and by imploring them, as Christians, to act upon Christian prin- 
 ciples, and to give emancipation to their Jewish fellow-subjects. 
 
 Mr. B. Cochrane could not understand what Mr. Wood meant by 
 asserting that the Christianity of the Legislature was merely 
 negative. He differed from Mr. Wood, too, when he laid it down 
 that Christianity was not part and parcel of the law of England. 
 He paid a high compliment to the benevolence and charity of the 
 Baron de Rothschild, which had been exhibited in the brightest 
 light during the recent distress in Ireland, and assured him and his 
 fellow -religionists that he did not resist their claims from any feel- 
 ing of dislike towards them, but from principle. He felt, however, 
 that if the House should pass this Bill, it must go much further, and 
 that it could never stop until it provided payment, as was done in 
 France, for the ministers of the Jewish religion. He considered the 
 apathy with which this Bill had been received in the country as no 
 source of congratulation, but as a very terrible sign of the corruption 
 of the times. 
 
 Mr. B. M. Milnes contended, that the man who felt that he was 
 oppressed, was the sole judge of what was persecution, and therefore 
 he could not even allow Mr. Stafford, with all his benevolent feelings, 
 to set himself up exclusively as the judge of what the Jews con- 
 sidered persecution He thought that the Government would have 
 taken awiser course, if, instead of bringing in this Bill, it had adopted
 
 79 
 
 the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Criminal Law, and 
 had introduced one general form of oath or affirmation for entry 
 upon all public duties and offices. Still, as the citizens of London 
 had shown their disapprobation of the present state of the law by 
 electing Mr. de Rothschild as their representative, he should gladly 
 give his assent to this measure. He reminded the House that its 
 decision of that night would have a great effect upon other countries. 
 In Prussia, the Jews had been admitted to all civil rights, but had 
 been excluded from Parliamentary privileges by a mere majority of 
 three. In this turning point of their destiny, it was important for 
 us to throw our moral weight into the scale of that balance in which 
 their liberty was at this moment trembling. 
 
 Lord Mahon explained the grounds on which he had formerly 
 voted, and on which he should again vote against this Bill. The 
 Christian character of the House could not be gainsaid, and the good 
 conduct of the Jews was no reason for divesting it of that character. 
 If this Bill were passed, every creed would be capable of admission 
 within the walls of Parliament ; and it was therefore important that 
 we should not give way now, lest we should be compelled to give way 
 altogether. He then entered into an attempted refutation of the 
 pamphlet which the Archbishop of Dublin has just published on this 
 subject, concluding it with a declaration of his opinion, that the 
 enactment of Jewish emancipation would lower the tone of religious 
 opinion in England, and would impair the belief of the people in the 
 religious character of Parliament. 
 
 Sir W. Molesworth asked the opponents of this Bill what sub- 
 stitute they intended to propose for it, in case it was rejected. Par- 
 liament must either adopt this Bill and allow Mr. Rothschild to take 
 his seat, or it must pass a Bill declaring that the election of any 
 man who did not profess the Christian religion must be null and 
 void in future. He contended that a Jew, being a native born sub- 
 ject of this realm, was capable of being elected a Member of Parlia- 
 ment ; and being elected, was legally bound, and could be compelled 
 to serve even against his will. Now, every Member was liable to 
 serve on Election Committees The name of Mr. Rothschild was 
 already on Panel No. 4, and as he was not disqualified to serve on
 
 80 
 
 Election Committees, sooner or later he must be so appointed. He 
 would either attend, or he would not, when he received his summons. 
 If he did not attend, he would be taken into custody by the Serjeant- 
 at-Arms, and punished accordingly. If he did attend, he would be 
 called upon to take three oaths before he took his seat the Oath of 
 Allegiance, the Oath of Supremacy, and the Oath of Abjuration. 
 Mr. Rothschild had no objection to take the two first oaths, but ob- 
 jected to the last, as it was to be taken " on the true faith of a 
 Christian." Now, by the Act of the 1st of George 1st, the House 
 had no power to declare a seat vacant because a Member refused to 
 take the Oath of Abjuration ; for the penalties of that Act only 
 attached to a Member voting, but not to a Member taking his seat. 
 The law was certainly anomalous but such was the fact. It might 
 be that the House had the power to expel Mr. Rothschild, with 
 reason or without it ; but since it had established a tribunal for the 
 trial of elections, it had never expelled any Member except he had 
 been guilty of some grave and grievous offence. He thought that 
 the House would not expel Mr. Rothschild under such circum- 
 stances ; but if it did, the act of expulsion would not prevent Mr. 
 Rothschild from being re-elected. There was, therefore a dilemma, 
 from which the House could not escape without an Act of Parlia- 
 ment He then entered upon a general argument in favour of 
 Jewish emancipation, and in the course of his remarks delivered 
 himself of an eloquent declamation upon the mischievous and injurious 
 effects of persecution. The policy of England was the policy of the 
 world. Twice within the last few years we had deserved the grati- 
 tude of mankind first by abolishing slavery, and next by abolishing 
 the restrictions on commercial intercourse. To these triumphs of 
 human liberty and free commerce be exhorted the House now to add 
 the triumph of religious freedom. 
 
 Mr. Walpole contended that the reasons for admitting the Jew, 
 who laboured under no practical grievance, into Parliament, did not 
 predominate over those urged for excluding him from it. The 
 Legislature must be Christian in order that the laws might be enacted 
 and the church governed on principles peculiarly Christian. (Hear.) 
 This country always had been Christian ; Christianity was a funda-
 
 81 
 
 mental law of it as a state ; and a fundamental law ought not to be 
 altered, unless a majority of the people called for, and unless the 
 Legislature itself approved, its alteration. In grappling with the 
 speech of Mr. Wood, he entered into several legal details, to prove 
 that from the time of the Conquest downwards it had always been 
 considered to be an undeniable axiom that Christianity was part and 
 parcel of the law of England. He insisted that sufficient reason 
 had not been given for the changes which was now proposed to be 
 made in the law. He denied that, because we had given the Jews the 
 elective franchise, we ought also to give them the right of being 
 elected ; and instanced the case of the clergy, who could elect legis- 
 lators, yet could not themselves be elected. The Jew was of a 
 separate creed and interest ; he was not a citizen of this country, but 
 of the world ; he had no land which he could call his own, save the 
 land of promise ; and how could it be argued that he ought to be 
 admitted within the walls of Parliament, which even a naturalized 
 alien could not enter ? He next adverted to the argument that the 
 constitution of England was an expansive constitution, and that the 
 Jew ought therefore to be embraced within its folds ; and, in reply, 
 said that though Catholics and Dissenters were admitted into Par- 
 liament, we were not divested thereby of our character as a Christian 
 people. He had no feeling of dislike to the Jews ; but, convinced as 
 he was that Christianity was so united with the State that they 
 could not safely be severed, he should abstain from giving his assent 
 to any measure calculated to weaken that union which had contributed 
 so materially to our temporal prosperity and to our moral elevation. 
 Mr. Sheil said, that the speech of Mr. Walpole would have been 
 as apposite to the measure introduced by Sir Robert Peel, in 1829, 
 as it was to the measure then before the House ; for his arguments 
 were as applicable to the exclusion of Unitarians, Independents, 
 Baptists, and Roman Catholics from the House, as they were to the 
 exclusion of the Jews. He compared the case of the Jews with that 
 of the Roman Catholics when they were excluded from Parliament, 
 and asked, why the Jews, who were but few and unorganized, were 
 still to be under a ban ? Of what was it that the opponents of this
 
 82 
 
 Bill were afraid ? Did they fear for the Church ? It might be in 
 danger from 7,000,000 of Catholics and 3,000,000 of methodists ; but 
 surely it could not be in danger from 40,000 Jews. (Hear.) It might 
 have something to fear from without, and from its spurious Popery 
 within ; but from the unproselytizing spirit of Judaism it had nothing, 
 and could have nothing to fear. But then the House would be un- 
 Christianized. (Hear.) Would it ? (Hear.) The Christianity of Par- 
 liament depended on the Christianity of the country ; and the belief in 
 Christ was fixed in the faith and inseparably entwined with the affec- 
 tions of the inhabitants of these islands. Their Christianity was as 
 stable as the two islands in which they had their being ; and it was his 
 firm conviction that as long as Parliament the mighty mirror of the 
 people remains untarnished, so long would their religion be reflected 
 within those walls. He then travelled over the old arguments in 
 support of this Bill from the infidelity of Hume, Gibbon, and Boling- 
 broke, and, after dwelling upon them with great eloquence for some 
 time, defied his opponents to find in the New Testament any text or 
 doctrine in favour of the position that penalties may be imposed for 
 the diffusion of heavenly truth. It was in spite of persecution of 
 the most various and excruciating character, that the Christian re- 
 ligion had conquered the passions and prejudices of the Pagan world ; 
 and was it to be maintained in its present triumphant condition by 
 an instrumentality diametrically opposite to that by which it was 
 established ? In Catholic Belgium and in Catholic France all re- 
 ligious distinctions had for some time past been abandoned ; and he 
 called upon Protestant England to follow their Christian example. 
 He then proceeded to maintain, in very eloquent language, that 
 these disabilities were not only injurious to Christianity,but were also 
 most detrimental in creating obstacles to the conversion of the Jew 
 to the true faith ; for they infixed a stigma upon the convert, and led 
 to the suspicion that his conformity to the established religion of the 
 country was not a sincere but an interested conformity. In conclusion, 
 this brilliant orator said : But not only are the disqualifications of 
 the Jew inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion, but those 
 disabilities impede the progress of Christian truth. They prevent the
 
 83 
 
 conversion of the Jew, and produce effects diametrically opposite to 
 what is intended. The disabilities of the Jew are sufficiently vex- 
 atious to make conversion be regarded as a synonym with apostacy. 
 The fetters by which the Jew is bound, though apparently light, 
 are strong enough to fasten him down and make it a matter of dis- 
 discredit that he should desert his creed. Nothing effectual will be 
 done for the extinction of Judaism till you yourselves have began, 
 by making restitution of his birthright to every Englishman by 
 whom the Jewish religion is professed. I know the notion is en- 
 tertained by some that there is no such thing as an English, or a 
 Spanish, or an Italian Jew, that a Jew is a Jew and nothing else, 
 that his nationality is engrossed by the country of his hopes and 
 of his recollections, and that the house of Jacob must remain for 
 ever in a state of degradation. When his name and race were 
 branded and oppressed in the midst of a captivity worse than the 
 captivity of old, it is not wonderful that on the banks of the Seine 
 or the Thames, as with his fathers by the rivers of Babylon, the 
 psalm of the exile should speak comfort to his heart. But in pro- 
 portion as you have mitigated the law against the Jew, his devotion 
 to the land of his birth has been revived. British feeling has taken 
 root in the heart of the Jew, and nothing remains but that you 
 should remove the obstacles which still exist to its development. 
 Emancipate the Jew, abolish all distinction between him and the 
 Christian ! His exultations and his sorrows will be the same as 
 yours, his heart will beat with the same enthusiasm at English 
 victory, and, if there be need, his life-blood will be poured out for 
 his country with the same prodigality as yours. (Great cheering.) 
 Mr. Newdegate addressed the House in favour of the amend- 
 ment, and, in the course of his observations, travelled over the same 
 ground as had been previously taken by his predecessors in the 
 debate. The only novelty which he introduced into it was his 
 assertion, that to his knowledge the wealth of one distinguished Jew 
 had been liberally lavished to obtain petitions in favor of the Bill. 
 The first offer was Is. 6d. for every 100 signatures, but that would 
 not do ; the next offer was 3s. for every 100 signatures, but that like- 
 wise would not do ; and the conclusion was, that the petitions were 
 
 G 2
 
 84 
 
 tilled up with signatures at 5s. a 100. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) 
 He mentioned this fact to the House in order that the House might 
 deal with it as seemed expedient. 
 The debate was then adjourned. 
 
 On the llth of February, 1848, the adjourned 
 Debate on the Second Reading of the Jewish Dis- 
 abilities Bill was resumed. 
 
 Mr. C. Pearson said he supported the measure on the broad prin- 
 ciple of religious liberty. He particularly referred to the speech of 
 Sir R. Inglis, and argued, in opposition to that Hon. Baronet, that 
 the eligibility of Jews to sit in Parliament was not contrary to the 
 Constitutional rights of the country, was not inconsistent with the 
 feelings of the people and was not inconsistent with sound Christian 
 principles. He also broke a lance with Mr. S. Walpole, whose speech 
 of Monday night he submitted to a rigorous examination. As a citizen 
 of London, he complained of the injustice and injury inflicted on his 
 fellow-citizens by the exclusion of Baron Rothschild, who was not 
 disqualified by any Statute from bis seat in that House as their 
 representative. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Lord Drumlanrig opposed the Bill on Christian grounds, and 
 complained that the efforts made by the Press to procure the Eman- 
 cipation of the Jews had not been marked by any desire to search 
 after truth. Admiration of the conduct of the Electors of London 
 (said his Lordship) must be mixed with surprise and curiosity. It 
 was a question which suggested itself for consideration, how they 
 had done so much, and yet so little ; how, with their spirit in favour 
 of the Jews, they had contented themselves with electing one Jew 
 only, and not four ? There was great moderation in that. With a 
 splendid contempt of appearances, they chose only the richest Jew. 
 It had been stated by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. 
 Drummond), in the course of the debate on the Currency, that in 
 this country they were unfortunately actuated by a love of money, 
 which was highly discreditable ! and he (Lord Drumlanrig) was
 
 85 
 
 not surprised to find, in this election, a living proof of the hon. gen- 
 tleman's statement. If any such thing was suspected, it was not 
 one member only who had been led to conclude that such was the 
 case. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr. W. Cowper considered it a matter of Christian duty to sup- 
 port this Bill. To restore the persecuted, vilified, and despised 
 Jew to his proper position in society and the Constitution, appeared 
 to him to be a logical and necessary sequence of the many measures 
 which had been taken, of late years, to remove all civil and religious 
 disqualifications. Already there were in the House six Members 
 who had Jewish blood in their veins, and he believed that every one 
 of them, and especially that distinguished member who had spoken 
 so eloquently of the glories of his race (Mr. D'Israeli), had as ardent 
 a feeling of British nationality as any Christian Member within its 
 walls. There was, therefore, no reason for the exclusion of other 
 Jews, or, if there was, the burden of proof lay upon those who sup- 
 ported that exclusion. We should not lose the exclusive title of 
 Christians by admitting Jews into Parliament ; for, as Christianity 
 was not given by Act of Parliament, so neither by Act of Parliament 
 could it be taken away. 
 
 Mr. Seymer could not concur in the principles laid down by 
 Lord John Russell in propounding this Bill, for his Lordship himself 
 was not prepared to carry them out to their full extent. This very 
 measure, if carried out, would leave the edifice of what was called 
 religious toleration still incomplete ; and he was quite sure that Lord 
 John Russell was not the man who would complete it ; for, if he did, 
 he must repeal the fundamental law of the Constitution, that the 
 Sovereign must be a Protestant. He treated very lightly the injus- 
 tice inflicted on the citizens of London by the exclusion of Mr. 
 Rothschild. The citizens of London had elected Mr. Rothschild on 
 speculation. They had drawn a bill at a venture on the Lords and 
 Commons, in hopes that Parliament would accept it ; but he be- 
 lieved that they were now in the situation of those merchants of the 
 City, who, in the heyday of railway speculation, had taken shares 
 in Railway Companies, and who were now reluctant to pay up the 
 remaining calls. The remaining calls which the citizens of London
 
 86 
 
 would have to pay up, if this Bill were accepted, would be the ad- 
 mission of Hindoos and Mahometans into Parliament, and he did 
 not think that they were prepared to pay up such calls. 
 
 Mr. Horsman considered that one great fallacy pervaded the 
 speeches of all the opponents of this Bill, and particularly the speech 
 of Mr. Walpole, who had stated that we were not discussing a ques- 
 tion of religious freedom, but that we were intending to alter, by 
 this Bill, that maxim of law which declared Christianity to be part 
 and parcel of the Law of England. Now that argument meant 
 this that, in order to guard Christianity, we had excluded the Jews 
 by Statute, and that we now meant to repeal that Statute. Now 
 there was no such Statute in the Statute Book, and therefore we had 
 no such Statute to repeal. He then examined the argument, that we 
 should un-Christianize the Parliament and injure the Church, if 
 we admitted Jews within its walls. Now that argument showed 
 great want of caution and knowledge on the part of those who urged 
 it. At present, Jews could be members of vestries ; as such, they 
 could fill parochial offices, and could in many places elect vicars. 
 As proprietors of advowsons, they could appoint ministers to per- 
 form religious worship in your parish churches. Now, he asked the 
 opponents of this Bill to explain how it was that Christianity was 
 trenched upon, when you admitted the Jew to political power, but 
 that it was not protected when you gave them absolute power to in- 
 terfere in the administration of the Church ? The old cry, that the 
 Church was in danger, was now given up ; but the new cry was, 
 that Christianity was in danger from the passing of this measure. 
 Now, would it make one Christian the less, or one Jew the more ? It 
 did not give the Jew the right to sit in Parliament ; it only gave the 
 Christian the right to elect him. What had Christianity to fear from a 
 contact with Judaism ? What had the Church to fear from the Syna- 
 gogue P Did Jews strive to make Christians Jews ; or did we strive, 
 and not unsuccessfully, to make Jews Christians ? He asked Mr. 
 Walpole, and especially Sir R. Inglis, on whom he passed an elo- 
 quent eulogium, which excited the sympathy of the whole House, to 
 answer those questions. He also asked Sir R. Inglis, whose whole 
 life had been spent in proclaiming the weakness of his religion, and
 
 87 
 
 its probable downfall, whether he was doing honour to his own reli- 
 gious principles in proclaiming, that the cause of his Church was 
 always in fear, and its safety always in flight ? He (Mr. Horsman) 
 entertained no such feeling ; and he should support this Bill, be- 
 cause he had faith in the essential attributes of Christianity, and 
 would not allow them to be injured by disparaging the influence of 
 religious truth, and by exaggerating the importance of carnal rites. 
 
 Mr. Spooner complained that the speech of Mr. Horsman was a 
 most extraordinary misrepresentation of the views entertained by 
 those who opposed this measure. How did Mr. Horsman reconcile 
 his first proposition, that the Legislature must be governed in all its 
 transactions by religion, with his recommendation to pass this Bill, 
 which made religion a matter of indifference, and which would 
 enable a Hindoo or Mahometan to take his seat in the House ? He 
 then replied, not only to many of the speeches previously delivered 
 in the course of the debate, but also to Mr. Macauley's celebrated 
 article in the Edinburgh Review in favour of Jewish Emancipation. 
 He read that gentleman a severe lecture for having compared 
 Christian government to Christian cobblery, and in the course of his 
 remarks animadverted with some pointedness on the absence of 
 Lord John Russell and his colleagues from the discussion on this 
 Bill, which was one of their own bantlings. 
 
 Mr. Cockburn conceded to the opponents of this Bill, that if the 
 introduction of Jews into Parliament was dangerous, either to the 
 State or to the Church, their opposition was perfectly justifiable ; 
 but he denied their premises, and called upon them, as they refused 
 to 40,000 of their fellow subjects the ordinary rights of Englishmen, 
 to prove its truth. He contended, that, from the beginning of time 
 to the present hour, we had never had one single law, either direct 
 or indirect, in the Constitution, or in the Statute Book, which had 
 for its object the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament. Their ex- 
 clusion was not the result of Legislative design, but of Legislative 
 accident, as he proved by historical reference to the various Acts im- 
 posing the oaths of Supremacy, Abjuration, and Allegiance, which 
 were one and all directed against either the Roman Catholics, or 
 the adherents of the fallen dynasty of the Stuarts, and not against
 
 88 
 
 the Jews. There was, however, a still greater anomaly in our 
 Legislature, of which he thought that they had reason to complain. 
 When we found it right to admit the Roman Catholics into that 
 Parliament from which we had excluded them for two centuries, we 
 re-modelled the oaths which the Roman Catholics had to take ; we 
 relaxed them so far as regarded the Roman Catholics, but we main- 
 tained them in more than former severity so far as regarded those 
 against whom they were not originally directed. 
 
 He was surprised to hear a lawyer (Mr. Walpole) assert that 
 a Jew was not a subject of the realm, and was no better than 
 a naturalized alien. What right had any person to characterise 
 in such terms men who were born in this island, whose families 
 had been settled here for two centuries, and who were loyal 
 to the Sovereign, and ready to make all the sacrifices that any 
 of their fellow-countrymen were ready to make in defence of 
 the State ? They were British-born subjects, and, as such, en- 
 titled to all the rights incidental to other citizens. There was 
 nothing in their religion leading to the dangers of which their oppo- 
 nents were so much afraid. Those dangers must be either political 
 or religious. Now, not one iota of political danger from the Jews 
 had been suggested in the course of the debate ; and political 
 wisdom suggested, that in the concession of political privileges to 
 the Jews, we had gone either too far, or not far enough. As to reli- 
 gious danger, it must be a positive, substantial, tangible mischief to 
 the Christian religion, not a vague and obscure apprehension, to 
 justify the further exclusion of the Jew. Had any such mischief 
 been proved in the course of this debate ? Quite the reverse ; and 
 even if such danger were to occur, the remedy would always be in 
 the hands of a Christian people. Other countries, as religious as 
 ourselves, had made this experiment for instance, Holland, Belgium, 
 and America. He trusted that we should make it too, and that it 
 would be followed in our case, as it had been in theirs, by the bene- 
 ficial result of reconciling to our institutions a well-conducted and 
 industrious population. 
 
 Mr. G. Bankes contended, that the exclusion of the Jews from 
 Parliament was no dishonour to them ; for, if it were, the whole
 
 89 
 
 clergy of the Church were dishonoured too ; for, by an Act of Par- 
 liament passed within the memory of living men, they had been de- 
 clared incapable of sitting in Parliament. Referring to the speech 
 of Mr. Cockburn, he observed, that the admission of the Jews into 
 Parliament would be productive of danger to the Church, both from 
 the schism which it would create within, and from the increased 
 power of attack which it would give to its enemies without. He 
 considered that there was great danger in placing in political power 
 those who were hostile to the religion of the country ; and such being 
 his opinion, he should give his decided opposition to this Bill. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel observed, that it was with great reluctance that 
 he had given a silent vote on the first reading of this measure ; 
 but his unwillingness to prevent the House from coming to a prac- 
 tical conclusion before the recess had induced him then to be silent. 
 He now intended to state the reasons which had induced him to 
 come to a conclusion at variance with his first impression, and which 
 placed him in painful collision with many of those friends with 
 whom he had hitherto invariably acted. He had given the subject 
 the maturest consideration, and he would now state the reasons 
 which induced him to vote for the proposition of Lord John Russell. 
 No part of his resolution was founded on his belief that religion had 
 nothing to do with Government. He was impressed with the solemn 
 conviction, that the precepts and spirit of Christianity should influ- 
 ence our Legislation, and that if our Legislation were at variance 
 with them, we could not expect a blessing upon it. The conclusion 
 to which he had come had been less influenced by political ex- 
 pediency, than by religious obligation. There was, between the 
 tenets of the Jew and the Christian, a marked distinction ; and no 
 concurrence as to the historical accuracy and Divine character of 
 the Old Testament could reconcile that discordance. If he had a 
 mission to punish religious error, it would be his duty to punish the 
 Jew ; but he had no such mission. If the Jews had committed an 
 inexpiable error 2,000 years ago, even if he could prove the 
 descent of existing Jews from those who then offended, he had no 
 commission to punish the children for the sins of the father, not 
 merely to the third and fourth, but also to the three hundredth
 
 90 
 
 and four hundredth generation. "Vengeance is mine, saith the 
 Lord, and I will repay." Having then no such mission, he pro- 
 ceeded to argue, that for religious error the House had no right to 
 inflict any penalty. Now, civil disabilities partook of the nature of 
 a penalty. He admitted, that if you could show that the religious 
 error of the Jew made him unworthy of civil privileges, you had a 
 right to disqualify him ; but the assumption of unworthiness you 
 must prove, and the onus of rejecting the claim of the Jew, as a 
 British subject, to all the privileges of British subjects, rested on 
 those who rejected it. His claim was not answered by any partial 
 concessions ; on the contrary, the responsibility of withholding the 
 remainder from him was still the same, if, indeed, it were not con- 
 siderably aggravated. He then referred to the speech of Lord 
 Ashley on the first reading of the Bill, and to his quotation from 
 the writings of Dr. Arnold, to whose authority he opposed that of 
 Lord Bacon, who had maintained that the right of a natural-born 
 subject was complete and entire, and that he was entitled to all 
 civil privileges. Now the British Jew was a natural-born subject, 
 and therefore, having a clear inchoate right to every distinction, 
 civil and political, attainable by any other British subject, it was 
 for Lord Ashley to show what cause there was for precluding him 
 from them. It had been stated in the course of the debate, that 
 there was no harm in the exclusion of the Jew, because the copy- 
 holder was excluded from some of the privileges of the freeholder, 
 and because the minor was excluded from the privileges of the 
 adult ; and likewise that there was a wide difference between the 
 elective franchise and the right of legislation. He looked upon both 
 assertions as mere fallacies. The nature of the two exclusions 
 alluded to was very different from the exclusion of the Jew from 
 Parliament. The Jew, be it remarked, if he were a copyholder or 
 a minor, was liable to the same exclusion as other copyholders ; but 
 he was also liable to the further exclusion of being incapacitated to 
 sit in Parliament. Besides, many of these exclusions were voluntary 
 as in the case of the clergy, and others were only temporary, as in 
 the case of the minor ; but the Jew was disqualified on account of his 
 religious opinions, which were not temporary, nor, in one sense of
 
 91 
 
 the word, voluntary. So far as the political conduct of the Jews was 
 concerned, the tenor of the present debate had clearly shown that 
 the exclusion of the Jew, on that account, was quite impossible. 
 On the score of industry, talent, property, and loyalty, he was 
 clearly entitled to the same consideration as any other subject of 
 the British Crown. Two reasons, to which some weight had been 
 attached, had been urged against his admission into Parliament. 
 One, that we had had for the last 200 years a recognition of the 
 Christian faith as a necessary qualification for legislation ; and the 
 other, that if we struck that recognition from the Statute Book, it 
 would imply, on our part, an indifference to our religious faith. 
 Both objections appeared to him to resolve themselves into one ; and 
 that led him to the consideration of the various oaths which regu- 
 lated the admission of Members into Parliament. On a deep con- 
 sideration of the subject, he had come to the conclusion, that the 
 popular impression of the object for which the words " on the true 
 faith of a Christian " had been introduced into the oath now taken 
 at the table was an erroneous one. He then entered into an 
 historical disquisition, for the purpose of showing that they were not 
 inserted for the purpose of excluding any person, much less Jews, 
 from legislation, but for the purpose of securing the allegiance of the 
 professors of Christianity. 
 
 It had been said, however, that though we had ceased to be a 
 Catholic and to be a Protestant Parliament, we had not yet ceased to 
 be a Christian Parliament. The Jew had a right to reply to that 
 argument, by stating that all the tests which excluded him were 
 framed for the purpose, not of excluding him, but of excluding pro- 
 fessing Christians ; and that if all professing Christians were now 
 reconciled with each other, the tests to which they were formerly 
 liable should be done away with altogether ; and in that case he 
 would be entitled to take his seat along with those professing Chris- 
 tians. But was not the very allegation that we were bound together 
 by the common bond of Christianity an exclusion in itself? and was 
 it, in point of fact, consistent with truth ? He would not dispute 
 that Parliament had been summoned together for the purpose of 
 consulting on the affairs of the Church, and providing for the security
 
 92 
 
 of the Anglican Church ; but surely the Jew had a right to say, 
 " I am as entitled to give advice as to the Church of England as the 
 Quaker ; I pay tithes to the Church, which he does not, and I have 
 no objection, as he has, to the principle and practice of war." He 
 might also say, " The Unitarian is admitted into your walls, and yet 
 he differs from you on a point of faith as essential as that of the 
 divinity of Jesus Christ." He might then ask why you had taken 
 from the Jew the privilege which you had not taken from the Qua- 
 ker ? and he might add that, " so little value do you attach to ' the 
 true faith of a Christian,' that you did not administer an oath con- 
 taining those words either to the Quaker, the Separtist, or the Mo- 
 ravian." It appeared to him that the present position of the Jew 
 in this country was not sufficiently understood either within or with- 
 out the walls of that House. The Jew was now admissible by law 
 almost to the very highest offices in this country. Such being the 
 case, the question arose, whether we could hope to' exclude him per- 
 manently from Parliament, when he was entitled to hold every exe- 
 cutive office under the crown, save those from which the indirect 
 operation of the Privy Councillor's oath might exclude him. He 
 thought that we could not. He believed the Church, from the dis- 
 position which it had recently shown to make salutary reforms within 
 itself, was now stronger than it had been at any former period of 
 our history ; its strength was not dependent on one or two stray 
 votes in that House, but had its roots in the piety and affection of 
 the people ; and it was an injustice and disparagement of its power 
 to represent its safety as dependent upon the exclusion of Mr. Roths- 
 child. Nay, more ; he would say that if it were not for the dissen- 
 sions now raging within it, it would be stronger now, after all religious 
 disabilities were relaxed, than ever it had been under the strictest 
 operation of the Act of Conformity. He rejoiced at being enabled to 
 come to the conclusion that he should not endanger either the Con- 
 stitution or the Church, by removing, as Lord John Russell proposed, 
 the disabilities of the Jews ; and he rejoiced the more, because he 
 felt that if ever there was a race of men to whom every Christian 
 country owed reparation for the infliction of cruel wrongs and 
 savage persecution, it was the Jews. He defied any man to read,
 
 93 
 
 without shuddering, the description of those persecutions in the 
 early historians of our own country who were not Jews, but Chris- 
 tian Ecclesiastics. He quoted from Mr. Hume and Mr. Sharon 
 Turner's History of England descriptions of them, which were 
 perfectly appalling. Could we even be surprised, if, after being 
 pressed down so long by persecution in this land, in the midst 
 of their sufferings they had remembered Jerusalem ? But he 
 was happy to say that there was no degradation among the 
 Jews ; in point of charity, benevolence, industry, talent, and 
 wealth, they were on an equality with the rest of their fellow- 
 subjects ; and that being the case, it was his object to relieve 
 them from all future exclusion. He had another object in support- 
 ing this Bill. The Jews in many countries were still an oppressed 
 race. They were oppressed in Poland. In Syria they had been 
 exposed within the last few years to a sanguinary persecution. Ap- 
 peals in their favour to the Governments of those countries would, 
 on future occasions, be more favourably received, if it could be said 
 that the prejudices against the Jews once felt in England were en- 
 tirely removed. The authority of the British Parliament would 
 exercise jurisdiction over regions far beyond its sway. No foreign 
 power would hereafter justify its cruelty by our example. That 
 example would be a balm to foreign Jews in the midst of their suffer- 
 ings, and would find imitators in other realms. We should thus 
 not only rescue British Jews from disability, but should also rescue 
 foreign Jews from degradation and persecution in every climate 
 under heaven. For these reasons, because he believed it to be in 
 conformity with the enlightened spirit of the British Constitution, 
 because he rejoiced in the opportunity of making reparation for the 
 great injuries which we had inflicted, because the Jews had fairly earned 
 the indulgence which we were about to give them, by their forbearance, 
 fidelity, and loyalty under heavy wrongs, and above all, because he 
 was not indifferent to religion, but proud of belonging to a Christian 
 people and a Christian Legislature, he would perform an act which 
 was in strict conformity with the spirit and injunctions of the 
 Christian religion. The Rt. Hon. Baronet concluded his able address, 
 amid loud and long- continued cheering, by saying that he gave his 
 most cordial support to the Bill.
 
 94 
 
 Lord D. Stuart, amid the loudest interruptions, denied the charge 
 brought by Mr. Newdegate against Mr. Rothschild of having ex- 
 pended a large sum of money in getting up petitions in favour of 
 this measure. 
 
 Mr. Newdegate, amid similar interruptions, reiterated the charge. 
 The House then divided, when the numbers were 
 
 For the second reading 277 
 
 Against it.. 204 
 
 Majority in its favour 73 
 
 On the 4th of May, 1848, Lord John Russell 
 moved the Third Reading of the Bill. 
 
 Sir F. Thesiger strenuously opposed the measure, and moved 
 that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. 
 
 Mr. Trelawny, Mr. Westhead, and Mr. C. Lewis warmly sup- 
 ported, and Mr. W. F. Campbell, Mr. F. Scott, and Mr. A. Raphael 
 as vigorously opposed the Bill. 
 
 Mr. Brotherton said, he supported the measure as an act of 
 national justice, and because he believed the people of England were 
 in favour of it ; there had been 300,000 petitioners for the Bill, and 
 not a fifth part of that number against it. He expressed his 
 surprise that Mr. A. Raphael (who only twenty years ago was not 
 himself entitled to sit in the House of Commons) should now so 
 testify his gratitude for the boon conferred on him, by exercising the 
 power which he had so recently acquired to exclude from Parliament 
 a portion of his fellow-subjects. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr. G. Robinson followed on the same side. 
 
 Mr. Napier stated, as he said, with simplicity, the reasons which 
 induced him to vote against the third reading of this Bill. Hitherto 
 England had always sanctioned a national religion ; but if it admitted 
 Jews into Parliament, there was an end at once to our acknowledg- 
 ment of the true faith of Christians. 
 
 Mr. R. Palmer gave his support to the Bill on Christian as well 
 as on political grounds, and replied in a very argumentative and 
 eloquent manner to the speech of Mr. Napier.
 
 95 
 
 Lord Mahon said he obeyed his own conscientious conviction in 
 voting against this measure. As a matter of principle, Jews ought 
 not to be permitted to legislate for a Christian community like our 
 own ; for if they were, it might become necessary to separate the 
 Church from the State. 
 
 Sir R. Inglis observed, that as he had opposed the first intro- 
 duction of this Bill, he would avail himself of this, the last stage 
 in it, to state that a further consideration of the subject had only 
 deepened his conviction of its inexpediency. He then attempted to 
 refute the speech of Mr. R. Palmer, whom he accused of having 
 propounded some latitudinarian theories which greatly disappointed 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Gaskel regretted that this measure had excited the hostility 
 of a party in this country distinguished by its loyalty, its intelligence, 
 and its deep religious feeling ; but as he was convinced that no 
 danger would arise from the removal of those disabilities, he must 
 differ from many of the friends with whom he usually acted, and 
 give his cordial support to the measure which they so bitterly de- 
 nounced. He could not believe that this country would cease to be 
 a Christian nation because a few Jews were admitted to seats in 
 the Legislature. The Bill was rather a Bill for the removal of a 
 stigma than for the grant of political privileges. 
 
 Mr. Newdegate insisted that the passing of this Bill would lead 
 to a severance of the connexion between the Church and the State, 
 and reminded Lord John Russell that the severance of that con- 
 nexion in France had led to the recent abolition of the French 
 monarchy. 
 
 Mr. C. S. Fortescue supported the Bill in a maiden speech of 
 very considerable promise. 
 
 Lord John Russell, in a brief reply, answered the various 
 objections which had been made to his Bill in the course of the 
 present debate. He wished to disabuse the public mind of a false 
 impression which had been created in the first debate on this subject, 
 and which still appeared to exist in the minds of several Members. 
 It was no part of his argument that religion had nothing to do with 
 politics, or that Christianity should be kept out of sight in the
 
 96 
 
 discussions of that House. His opinion was directly the reverse ; 
 for he held that Christianity was the source of the most enlightened 
 laws which modern legislation had produced. What he had main- 
 tained was, that you could not by special declarations, or words 
 introduced at the fag end of an oath, or by the formalities of a 
 statute, obtain either a religious spirit or a general acknowledg- 
 ment of Christianity. His Lordship then repeated his former 
 arguments on this subject, and eloquently contended that it was 
 contrary not only to the spirit of the British Constitution, but also 
 to that of Christianity, to keep up religious exclusions, and to de- 
 prive men of political franchises on account of their religious opinions. 
 The House then divided, when the numbers were 
 For the amendment . . . . 173 
 Against it 234 
 
 Majority for the Third Reading . . 61 
 The Bill was then read a third time and passed. 
 
 Division on the Third Reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill, 
 House of Commons, May 4M, 1848. 
 
 Abdy, T. N. 
 Adair, H. E. 
 Aglionby, H. A. 
 Alcock, T. 
 Alison, Hon. Colonel 
 Armstrong, R. B. 
 Arundel and Surrey, Earl 
 Bagshaw, J. 
 Baines, M. T. 
 Baring, Rt. Hn. Sir F. T. 
 Baring, Hon. W. B. 
 Barnard, E. G. 
 Bellew, R. M. 
 Berkeley, Hon. Captain 
 Berkeley, Hon. H. F. 
 Bernal, R. 
 Birch, Sir T. B. 
 Blewitt, Reginald J. 
 Bouverie, Hon. Ed. P. 
 Bowring, Dr. 
 Boyle, Hon. Colonel 
 Brand, T. 
 Bright, J. 
 
 AYES. 
 
 Brockman, E. D. 
 Brotherton, J. 
 Brown, W. 
 Browne, R. D. 
 Bunbury, E. H. 
 Busfeild, W. 
 Buxton, Sir E. N. 
 Cardwell, E. 
 Carter, J. B. 
 Caulfield, J. M. 
 Cavendish, Hon. Chas. C. 
 Cavendish, W. G. 
 Cayley, E. S. 
 Cholmeley, Sir M. 
 Clay, J. 
 Clay, Sir W. 
 Clements, Hon. C. S. 
 Clifford, H. M. 
 Cobden, R. 
 Cockburn, A. J. E. 
 Coke, Hon. E. K. 
 Colebrooke, Sir T. E. 
 Collins, W. 
 
 Cowper, Hon. Win. F. 
 Craig, W. G. 
 Crawford, W. Sharman 
 Cubitt, William 
 Dalrymple, Captain 
 Davie, Sir H. R. F. 
 Dawson, Hon. T. V. 
 Denison, W. J. 
 Denison, J. E. 
 D'Enycourt, Rt. Hn C. T. 
 Disraeli, B. 
 Divett, Edward 
 Duff, G. S. 
 Dnke, Sir James 
 Duncan, Viscount 
 Duncan, G. 
 Dundas, Admiral 
 Dundas, Sir D. 
 Ebrington, Viscount 
 Ellice, Rt. Hon. Edward 
 Elliot, Hon. J. E. 
 Evans, Sir De L. 
 Evans, J,
 
 97 
 
 Evans, W. 
 
 Ewart, W. 
 
 Fergus, J. 
 
 Ferguson, Sir R. A. 
 
 Fitzroy, Hon. H. 
 
 Fitzwilliam, Hon. G. W. 
 
 Foley, J. H. H. 
 
 Fordyce, A. D. 
 
 Forster, M. 
 
 Fortescue, C. 
 
 Fox, R. M. 
 
 Fox, W. J. 
 
 Freestun, Colonel 
 
 French. F. 
 
 Gardner, R. 
 
 Gaskell, J. M 
 
 Gibson, Rt. Hon. T. M. 
 
 Gladstone, Rt. Hn.W. E. 
 
 Glyn, G. C. 
 
 Graham, Rt. Hon. Sir Js. 
 
 Granger, T, C. 
 
 Greene, J. 
 
 Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. 
 
 Grey, R. W. 
 
 Grosvenor, Lord R. 
 
 Hanmer, Sir J. 
 
 Hardcastle, J. A. 
 
 Hastie, A. 
 
 Hawes, B. 
 
 Hay, Lord J. 
 
 Hayter, W. G. 
 
 Headlam, T. E 
 
 Heathcoat, J. 
 
 Henry, A. 
 
 Herbert, H. A. 
 
 Hey wood, J. 
 
 Hindley, C. 
 
 Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. Sir J. 
 
 Hogg, Sir J. W. 
 
 Howard, Hon. C. W. G. 
 
 Howard, Hon. J. K. 
 
 Hume, J. 
 
 Humphrey, Alderman 
 
 Hutt, W. 
 
 Jackson, W. 
 
 Jervis, Sir J 
 
 Johnstone, Sir J. 
 
 Keppel, Hon. G. T. 
 
 Ker, R. 
 
 Kershaw, J. 
 
 King, Hon. P. J. L. 
 
 Labouchere, Rt. Hon. H. 
 
 Langston, J. H. 
 
 Lascelles, Hon. W. S. 
 
 Lennard, T. B. 
 
 Lewis, G. C. 
 
 Lincoln, Earl of 
 
 Loch, J. 
 
 Scholefield, W. 
 
 Locke, J. 
 
 Scrope, G. P. 
 
 Lushington, C. 
 
 Seymour, Lord 
 
 Macnamara, Major 
 
 Shafto, R. D. 
 
 Me Gregor, J. 
 
 Sheil, Rt. Hon. R. L. 
 
 Mahon, The O' Gorman 
 
 Shelburne, Earl of 
 
 Maitland, T. 
 
 Smith, Rt. Hon. R. V. 
 
 Mangles, R. D. 
 
 Smith, J. A. 
 
 Martin, S. 
 
 Smith, J. B. 
 
 Matheson, Colonel 
 
 Somerville, Rt. Hoii. Sir 
 
 Maule, Rt. Hon. F. 
 
 W. M. 
 
 Melgund, Viscount 
 
 Stanley, Hon. E. J. 
 
 Mitchell, T. A. 
 
 Stansfield, W. R. 
 
 Moffatt, G. 
 
 Stauuton, Sir G. T. 
 
 Monsell, W. 
 
 Strickland, Sir G. 
 
 Morpeth, Viscount 
 
 Stuart, Lord D. 
 
 Morison, Gen 
 
 Sullivan, M. 
 
 Morris, D. 
 
 Talbot, C. R. M. 
 
 Mowatt, F. 
 
 Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant 
 
 Mulgrave, Earl of 
 
 Tancrecl, H. W. 
 
 Norreys, Lord 
 
 Thicknesse. R. A- 
 
 O'Brien, Sir L. 
 
 Thompson, Coionel 
 
 O'Connell, M. J. 
 
 Thompson, G. 
 
 O'Connor, F. 
 
 Thornely, T. 
 
 Ogle, S. C. H. 
 
 Tollemache, Hon. F. J . 
 
 Oswald, A. 
 
 Towneley, C. 
 
 Owen, Sir J. 
 
 Towneley, J. 
 
 Paget, Lord A 
 
 Towneley, R. G 
 
 Paget, Lord C. 
 
 Townshend, Capt. 
 
 Paget, Lord G. 
 
 Trelawney, J. S. 
 
 Palmer, R. 
 
 Turner, E. 
 
 Palmerston, Viscount 
 
 Verney, Sir H. 
 
 Parker, J. 
 
 Villiers, Hon. C. 
 
 Pattison, J. 
 
 Vivian, J. H. 
 
 Pechell, Captain 
 
 Wakley, T. 
 
 Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R. 
 
 Wall, C. B. 
 
 Perfect, R. 
 
 Walmsley, Sir J. 
 
 Peto, S. M. 
 
 Walter, J. 
 
 Phillips, Sir G. R. 
 
 Ward, H. G. 
 
 Pigott, F. 
 
 Watkins, Colonel L. 
 
 Pilkington, J. 
 
 Westhead, J. P. 
 
 Pinney, W. 
 
 Wilcox, B. M'Ghie 
 
 Power, N. 
 
 Williams, J. 
 
 Powlett, Lord W. 
 
 Wilson, J. 
 
 Price, Sir R. 
 
 Wilson M. 
 
 Pusey, P. 
 
 Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir C. 
 
 Rawdon, Colonel 
 
 Wood, W. P. 
 
 Ricardo, J. L. 
 
 Wortley, Rt. Hon. J. S. 
 
 Ricardo, O. 
 
 Wrightson, W. B. 
 
 Rice, E. R. 
 
 Wjld, J. 
 
 Rich, H. 
 
 Wyvill, M. 
 
 Robinson, O. R. 
 
 Yorke, H. G. R. 
 
 Romilly, J. 
 
 
 Russell, Rt. Hn. Lord J. 
 
 TELLERS. 
 
 Russell, F. C. H. 
 
 Tufnell, H. 
 
 Rutherfurd, A. 
 
 Hill, Lord Marcus 
 
 Saiidars, G. 
 
 
 11
 
 98 
 
 
 NOES. 
 
 
 Acland, Sir T. D. 
 
 Egerton, W. T. 
 
 Maxwell, Hon. J. P. 
 
 Alexander, N. 
 
 Estcourt, J, B. B. 
 
 Meux, Sir H. 
 
 Alford, Viscount 
 
 Farnham, E. B. 
 
 Miles, P. W- S. 
 
 Arkwricht, G. 
 
 Farrer, J. 
 
 Miles, W. 
 
 Bagot, Hon. W. 
 
 Fellowes, E. 
 
 Moore, G. H. 
 
 Bailey, J. 
 
 Filmer, Sir E. 
 
 Morgan, O. 
 
 Bailey, J. Jun. 
 
 Floyer, J. 
 
 Napier, J. 
 
 Baldock, E. H. 
 
 Forbes, W. 
 
 Neeld, J. 
 
 Bankes, G. 
 
 Forester, Hon. G. C. W. 
 
 Newdegate, (5. N. 
 
 Bateson, T. 
 
 Fox, S. W. L. 
 
 Newry & Morne, Viscount 
 
 Beckett, W. 
 
 Frewen, C. H. 
 
 Ossulston, Lord 
 
 Bentinck, Lord H. 
 
 Fuller, A. E. 
 
 Packe, C. W. 
 
 Beresford, W. 
 
 Goddard, A. L. 
 
 Palmer, R. 
 
 Bernard, Viscount 
 
 Godson, R. 
 
 Patten, J. W. 
 
 Blackstoue, W. S. 
 
 Gooch, E. S. 
 
 Peel, Colonel 
 
 Blakemore, R. 
 
 Gordon, Adm. 
 
 Plowden, W. H. C. 
 
 Blandford, Marquis of 
 
 Gore, W. O. 
 
 Powell, Colonel 
 
 Boldero, H. G. 
 
 Goring, C. 
 
 Prime, R. 
 
 Boiling, W. 
 
 Granby, Marquis of 
 
 Raphael, A. 
 
 Bourke, R. S. 
 
 Greene, T. 
 
 Reid, Colonel 
 
 Bowles, Admiral 
 
 Gwyn, H. 
 
 Rendlesham, Lord 
 
 Brams<on, T. W. 
 
 Haggitt, F, R. 
 
 Richards, R. 
 
 Bremridge, R. 
 
 Hale, R. B. 
 
 Rolleston, Colonel 
 
 Brisco, M. 
 
 Halford, Sir H. 
 
 Ruiferd, F. 
 
 Broadley, H. 
 
 Hall, Colonel 
 
 Rushout, Captain 
 
 Brooke, Lord 
 
 Halsey, T. P. 
 
 Scott, Hon. F. 
 
 Buck, L. W. 
 
 Hamilton, G. A. 
 
 Seymer, H. K. 
 
 Buller, Sir J. Y. 
 
 Harris, Hon. Captain 
 
 Shirley, E. J. 
 
 Burghley, Lord 
 
 Hayes, Sir E. 
 
 Sibthorp, Colonel 
 
 Burrell, Sir C. M. 
 
 Heald, J. 
 
 Simeon, J. 
 
 B urroughes, H . N 
 
 Heathcote, Sir W. 
 
 Smyth, Sir H. 
 
 Cabbell, B. B. 
 
 Henley, J- W. 
 
 Somerset, Captain 
 
 Campbell, Ron W. F. 
 
 Hildyard, R. C. 
 
 Somerton, Viscount 
 
 Carew, W. H. P. 
 
 Hildyard, T. B. T. 
 
 Spooner, R. 
 
 Chichester, Lord J. 
 
 Hodgson, W. N. 
 
 Stafford, A. 
 
 Christopher, R. A. 
 
 Hood, Sir A. 
 
 Stephenson, R. 
 
 Christy, S. 
 
 Hope, Sir J. 
 
 Stuart, H. 
 
 Clive, H. B. 
 
 Hope, A. 
 
 Stuart, J. 
 
 Cobbold, J. C. 
 
 Hornby, J. 
 
 Sturt, H. G. 
 
 Cochrane, A D. 
 
 Hotham, Lord 
 
 Thornhill, G. 
 
 Cocks, T. S 
 
 Ingestre, Viscount 
 
 Tollemache, J. 
 
 Codrington, Sir W. 
 
 Jollifle, Sir W. G. H. 
 
 Trevor, Hon. G. R. 
 
 Coles, H. B. 
 
 Jones, Captain 
 
 Turner, G. J. 
 
 Colvile, C. R. 
 
 Kerrison, Sir E 
 
 Villiers, Viscount 
 
 Corry, Rt Hon. H. L. 
 
 Knightley, Sir C. 
 
 Villiers, Hon. F. W. C. 
 
 Cotton, Hon. W. H. S. 
 
 Knox, Colonel 
 
 Vyse, R. H. R. H. 
 
 Courtenay. Lord 
 
 Law, Hon C. E. 
 
 Waddington, H. S. 
 
 Cripps, W. 
 
 Leslie, C. P. 
 
 Walpole, S. H. 
 
 Currie, H. 
 
 Lindsay, Hon. Colonel 
 
 Walsh, Sir J. B. 
 
 Davies, D. A. S- 
 
 Lowther, H. 
 
 Welby, G. E. 
 
 Dod, J. W. 
 
 Lygon, Hon. Gen. 
 
 Wellesley, Lord C. 
 
 Douro, Marquis of 
 
 Mackenzie, W. F. 
 
 Whitmore, T. C. 
 
 Drumlanrig, Viscount 
 
 Macnaghten, Sir E. 
 
 Williams, T. P. 
 
 Drummond, H. 
 
 Mahon, Viscount 
 
 Willoughby, Sir H. 
 
 Duncombe, Hon. A. 
 
 Mandcville, Viscount 
 
 Worcester, Marquis of 
 
 Duncombe, Hon. O. 
 
 Manners, Lord C. S. 
 
 
 Duncuft, J. 
 
 Manners, Lord G. 
 
 TELLERS. 
 
 Du Pre, C. G 
 
 March, Earl of 
 
 Thesiger, Sir F 
 
 Egerton, Sir P. 
 
 Maunsell, T. P. 
 
 Inglis, Sir R. H.
 
 99 
 
 On the 5th of May, 1848, the Bill was brought up 
 to the House of Lords, and, on the motion of the 
 Marquess of Lansdowne, was read a first time. 
 
 On the 25th of May, 1848, the order of the day 
 having been read, the Marquess of Lansdowne moved 
 the second reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill ; 
 and having observed that the motion had been delayed 
 for some time, not from any indifference to the import- 
 ance of the subject, but in order to meet the conve- 
 nience of any Members of their Lordships' House 
 justly entitled to take a part in the discussion, and 
 observing, also, that he introduced the question as one 
 not so much of general political or party interest, 
 founded on precedent or expediency, or fraught with 
 any magnitude of dangers or apprehensions, but as 
 one rather suggested by the still small voice of reason 
 and justice, his Lordship then proceeded : 
 
 " My Lords, in the outset of the observations with 
 which I shall feel it necessary as briefly as possible to 
 trouble your Lordships, I think I cannot do better than 
 call your attention to the state of the law upon this 
 subject. It is always convenient, as well as important, 
 when we are about to make, or to consider the propriety 
 of making, any change, that we should well understand 
 what is that state of the law which it is proposed to 
 alter. My Lords, you are not called upon to make any 
 change in the constitutional law of the country. That 
 constitutional law prescribes no disabilities whatever. 
 It has been the characteristic of the constitution from 
 its best times, and I trust will continue to be its dis- 
 tinguishing feature, that it abhors exclusion, it rejects 
 
 H 2
 
 100 
 
 disability, it requires those who propose exclusion and 
 disability to make good the grounds on which they 
 make such a proposition. (Hear, hear.) For a long 
 period of English history there was no exclusion what- 
 ever. Take your great constitutional acts, take your 
 great constitutional proceedings from the very birth of 
 that constitution -from Magna Charta downwards; 
 and you will jind no enactment disqualifying any of the 
 King's liege subjects from being elected or appointed to 
 the stations which they were capable of filing. But the 
 time did come, when, not with the character of a per- 
 manent act, not with any pretence to make it a universal 
 and permanent law, but for temporary causes and for 
 temporary purposes, it was thought fit to enact tem- 
 porary exclusions. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth 
 the first of these exclusions took place, and certain 
 oaths were prescribed, which persons eligible to office 
 or eligible to Parliament were required to take. Sub- 
 sequently, in the 1th year of His Majesty King James 
 I, it was thought fit to introduce an Act of Parliament 
 which prescribed an oath and declaration ; and here it 
 is to be observed that, not avowedly, not with any mention 
 of the Jews, not ivith any reference to the situation in 
 which either they or any persons assumed not to be 
 Christians were placed in England, but for another dis- 
 tinct, specific, and, on the face of the Act of Parliament, 
 avowed purpose, namely to put down Popish recusants, 
 an Act was passed in which these words were introduced, 
 the effect of which for the first time but, as I shall show, 
 not uniformly since was to exclude pet sons of the Jeirixh 
 persuasion from Parliament and from office.
 
 101 
 
 " That Act was passed under these circumstances : 
 Machinations had been recently discovered of a most 
 portentous and alarming character, conspiracies which 
 had for their object the subversion of the throne and 
 religion of these realms. It was immediately after the 
 Gunpowder Plot, when discoveries were made, in many 
 of which persons of the Roman Catholic religion were 
 implicated ; and it was known, at least it was imputed, 
 to certain persons of the Roman Catholic faith at that 
 time, that they were not easily bound by any common 
 oath ; and it was, therefore, deemed desirable to frame 
 such an Act of Parliament as should practically exclude 
 them prescribing an oath which would not admit of 
 equivocation, and by which they would be ineligible 
 to any office, unless they were prepared to swear in 
 unequivocal terms their adherence to the Protestant 
 throne and constitution of this country. For this pur- 
 pose, without any mention of the Jews, without any 
 allusion to such persons, those words were introduced 
 which no one can doubt were intended as a filter or 
 mesh, through which no equivocation could pass, and 
 which should effectually exclude persons, not because 
 they were bad religionists, but bad subjects of the 
 realm. That was the ground on which the Act passed. 
 This Act lived through the civil war ; but, after the 
 Revolution, the very first thing that Parliament did, 
 upon the establishment of King William and Queen 
 Mary on the throne, was to consider the subject of oaths; 
 and the result of that consideration was, that the oaths 
 prescribed were, in the language of the Act, ' hereby 
 repealed, abrogated, and made void.' That is to say,
 
 102 
 
 the oaths, including that particular security which, it is 
 contended by some persons, is a principle of the Con- 
 stitution, calculated to exclude the Jews, were upon 
 full consideration, in^the very best time of our consti- 
 tution, distinctly and in terms annulled and made void, 
 not by accident, not at a time when either political 
 party or the Church slept ; not in the heat of the 
 moment whem men's minds were diverted from the 
 matter before them, and led to acquiesce in that which 
 is dangerous, from the absence of the precaution and 
 vigilance which point out where danger is ; but, on 
 the contrary, at a time when every constitutional and 
 religious question was carefully weighed and balanced 
 when there was a great difference of political opinion 
 when there was a great difference of ecclesiastical 
 opinion when the differences between what was called 
 the High Church and Low Church were at their ut- 
 most heat upon due deliberation, Parliament came to 
 the resolution that these oaths should be abrogated ; 
 and it occurred to nobody to state or think that, if those 
 oaths were abrogated, certain persons not professing 
 the Christian religion would get into Parliament. Such 
 an apprehension was not stated, because such an ap- 
 prehension was not felt. 
 
 " For thirteen years, and those eminently and by 
 distinction if any distinction can be made years in 
 which the principles of the constitution were most 
 weighed and most valued Jews were admissible to 
 Parliament. Undoubtedly this did not continue ; but 
 why did it not continue 1 Thirteen years afterwards, 
 at the close of the reign of King William, and just
 
 103 
 
 before the commencement of that of Queen Anne, at 
 a very critical moment, it was thought expedient to 
 revive the oath of abjuration. But let me ask those 
 who look at the history of those times, is there the 
 least vestige of an intention either to exclude Jews or 
 any others, except Roman Catholic recusants and non- 
 jurors ? At that moment, the name of the Pretender 
 being recognized in France, and Louis XIV then in 
 the zenith of his power, and ready to promote by in- 
 trigue the interests of the Pretender in this country, it 
 was thought, not unnaturally, to be a period when they 
 should revive the oath of abjuration, for the purpose 
 of excluding Roman Catholics from seats in this and 
 the other House of Parliament ; and that being the 
 object an object precisely analogous to what was held 
 in view at the time the Act of James I was passed, 
 what could be more natural than to recur to that very 
 temporary Act, and introduce the same words to ex- 
 clude Roman Catholics'? Accordingly, these very 
 words were carefully copied and inserted in the Act ; 
 and thus we find the words revived, prescribing an 
 oath, " on the true faith of a Christian." 
 
 " Upon that ground, and upon no other the acci- 
 dental introduction of words of this description, 
 certain persons, particularly Jews, though not in name, 
 were excluded from seats in Parliament. 
 
 " Such was the state of things till a very recent 
 period, when, it will be in the recollection of all your 
 Lordships, a petition was presented, I think in 1830, 
 from the Jews resident in the metropolis, complaining 
 of their exclusion, after your Lordships had admitted
 
 104 
 
 the Roman Catholics and others, removing all impedi- 
 ments that stood in their way by the prescription of 
 oaths and particular declarations they were required 
 to take. That petition met with a favorable consi- 
 deration ; and a bill was brought into the other House 
 of Parliament by certainly one of the most able, ex- 
 cellent, and religious men I ever knew, the late Sir 
 Robert Grant. (Hear, hear.) That bill did not go 
 through the other House of Parliament ; but it was 
 very favorably received at first. Two divisions took 
 place upon it; in one the majority was for, in the 
 other against the bill ; but, in both these divisions, I 
 find among the supporters of that bill the names of 
 persons eminent for their attachment to religion and 
 their great constitutional knowledge among others, I 
 find the name of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stan- 
 ley), who was then a member of the other House of 
 Parliament. That bill was lost in the Commons. It 
 was again introduced in the following session, and then 
 it passed by a considerable majority in the other House 
 of Parliament. It came up to this House, and was 
 introduced by a noble Lord, who I regret is not now 
 present, owing to his advanced years and infirmities 
 a nobleman whose high character entitled him to take 
 a lead in questions of this nature, and whose eminent 
 personal religion gave great weight to his advocacy of 
 such a measure I mean Lord Bexley. (Hear.) He 
 moved the bill in this Plouse, but it was lost. I have 
 now, my Lords, stated what has passed on this question 
 up to the present time. This bill is again sent up to your 
 Lordships, having been carried in the other House of
 
 105 
 
 Parliament by three successive and considerable ma- 
 jorities. Why, then, my Lords, I think I have at least 
 made out a case for your Lordships giving a serious 
 attention to this subject, and for your well considering 
 whether you ought not to adopt a measure repeatedly 
 brought before you, with the sanction of such names, 
 the support of such authority, and the concurrence of 
 so many circumstances in the state of the world, which 
 should induce you to give a favourable consideration to 
 any practicable removal of any existing disability 
 whenever you can with safety. I say you are called 
 upon I must add, you will be called upon again and 
 again to take this particular course. (Hear, hear.) 
 This, then, leads me to consider what are the objections 
 to the present Bill ; and great as I think the weight to 
 be attached to any objection based on religious feeling, 
 before dealing with what may be called considerations 
 of expediency, I will not pass over the opinion enter- 
 tained more, I believe, by petitioners to your Lordships' 
 House against the Bill, than by your Lordships who 
 are about to vote upon it that this is a religious 
 question. (Hear, hear.) I contend that it is not so. 
 I contend that there is no precept of religion, no 
 declaration of the revealed will of God, that can in 
 the slightest degree preclude your Lordships from 
 taking, as you are about to take, a view of this question 
 with reference to its being dangerous, or free from 
 danger, or from settling this important question by 
 agreeing to this measure. (Hear, hear.) Not only 
 do I say there is no such precept because if I could 
 see any such precept, I believe honestly, far from
 
 106 
 
 moving the second reading of this Bill, I should be the 
 first to leave such a measure unnoticed on your table, 
 if I did not myself move your Lordships immediately 
 and distinctly to reject it ; but there being no such 
 declaration of the Divine will it being, on the contra- 
 ry, manifest that, from the very beginning, Christianity 
 had the character of adapting itself to existing insti- 
 tutions, although not of a Christian character, dis- 
 claiming every sort of interference, finding its strength, 
 and recommending itself by the very fact that it did 
 not interfere with political questions or political au- 
 thorities, I ask your Lordships who this people are, 
 whom, I contend, we are not required by any precept 
 of religion to refuse to admit to a participation in civil 
 and political privileges ? 
 
 " I have said that the Christian religion has made 
 its conquests, not by any exclusions not by forcible 
 means not by Acts of Parliament, but by the con- 
 viction that it was Divine by the exhibition of its 
 virtues by the gentleness and benevolence of its 
 teachings by the holy and peaceful influences which 
 it has exercised on all who came within its reach. I 
 said, who are those people that we are called upon to 
 exclude from the advantages possessed by Christians ? 
 Are they people with whom we Christians have no 
 relations'? Are they people, again I ask, between 
 whom and Christianity there are no important relations 
 in a religious sense, although they themselves are not 
 Christians 1 Can we, my Lords, forget the connection 
 between them and the religion in which we believe ? 
 (Hear, hear.) Can it be forgotten that theirs is a
 
 107 
 
 nation whose religious laws you have adopted a nation 
 which for years and centuries has been the means of 
 laying the foundation of your religion a nation which 
 for years and centuries have been favoured by the 
 Almighty that their religion has been the means of 
 preserving, in the midst of superstition, barbarism, and 
 idolatry, the knowledge of the Eternal and that God 
 has walked before that people with a pillar of fire, 
 guiding their progress, teaching them to avoid the 
 delusions and snares with which they were surrounded, 
 and enabling them to hand down that state of things 
 to posterity, upon which state of things your religion 
 is based and founded? (Hear.) Is it necessary for 
 me to remind your Lordships that the commandments 
 of that religion, the laws of that people, are your laws 
 and your commandments, engraven on the stones that 
 are set above the altars of your religion, and engraven 
 on the hearts of the congregations that worship at 
 those altars'? (Hear, hear.) Is this a people, then, 
 whom you are entitled to despise as unfit and inad- 
 missible to the rights of fellow-subjects, according to 
 their ability to exercise those rights ? On the con- 
 trary, they have filled an important situation in history; 
 and we are bound to recognise them. 
 
 " Formerly, indeed, it might be said of the Jews : 
 
 ' Insula, dives opurn, Priami dura regna manebant :' 
 
 Though I fear we Christians must add : 
 
 ' Nunc tantum sinus et static malefida carinis. ' 
 
 " Nevertheless, they are entitled to our best con- 
 sideration. And, when I am told that there is no
 
 108 
 
 relation between this people and ourselves that we 
 have no relations out of the pale of pure Christianity, 
 I must take leave to dispute such a proposition as 
 affecting a race so eminently distinguished for a 
 brotherly love, that might be called a Christian love, 
 for good feeling and humanity, and for the practice of 
 charity and benevolence. (Hear, hear.) But the 
 other day, I found, in a sermon by one of the most 
 eloquent divines ever heard in this country, a passage 
 remarkably applicable, in which the preacher was sum- 
 ming up a comparative view of Christian virtues as 
 opposed to Pagan virtues ; and I will beg your Lord- 
 ships to hear but a very few lines. 
 
 The noble Marquess here read a passage from a 
 sermon preached by the Rev. Robert Hall, which was 
 to the following effect : 
 
 " c That one of the most distinguishing characteris- 
 tics of Christianity, as compared with the wisdom and 
 humanity of Pagan philosophy, was, that the com- 
 passionate consideration for the poor inculcated by the 
 former, formed no part of the lessons taught by the 
 latter. It never thought of the blessedness of him 
 who considereth the poor ; that you might have tra- 
 versed the Roman empire in the zenith of its power, 
 and while you met with monuments of pride and tro- 
 phies of war, not one asylum of the poor was to be 
 seen ; but that it remained for the religion, whose basis 
 was humanity, and whose element was devotion, to 
 proclaim to the world 
 
 ' Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.' 
 
 " That description of Pagan virtue, as distinguished
 
 109 
 
 from Christian virtue, could not apply to the Jews. 
 Have they not distinguished themselves by mercy, and 
 charity, and benevolence "? Have they not exhibited 
 those attributes described by Mr. Hall as character- 
 izing Christian virtue in contradistinction to Pagan 
 virtue ? They are charitable, humane, and generous, 
 supporting numerous hospitals and benevolent insti- 
 tutions ; and if I be told that they are indebted to 
 Christianity, and, though not Christians, have imbibed 
 the virtues of Christianity, to that I reply that if they 
 have so imbibed the virtues of Christianity, it would 
 be gross injustice not to concede to them the merit of 
 those virtues which they exhibit, even if they have 
 imbibed them from any source whatever. These, I 
 maintain, are persons specially entitled to your Lord- 
 ships' attention ; and their claims are of a nature 
 which deserve our greatest consideration. My Lords, 
 I have shewn that they are not precluded from ob- 
 taining these political rights by any claims for the 
 interests of religion. It is not any just regard for the 
 interests of religion that prevents us from giving to 
 them the political rights to which they are entitled. 
 Where, then, is the danger to the Constitution, if we 
 accede to their claims "? Where is the danger to 
 Christianity, if we admit them to an equality of politi- 
 cal privileges with Christians 1 
 
 " It has been alleged, that if you pass this measure, 
 and Jews are admitted to seats in the Legislature, you 
 will no longer be a Christian Parliament. My Lords, 
 I deny it. (Hear.) You will be still a Christian 
 Parliament, in the same sense that everybody may be
 
 110 
 
 so called, considered with reference to that which is its 
 general character and tendency. To enable anybody 
 or anything to obtain a particular character, and for 
 all useful purposes, it is not necessary that every par- 
 ticular of which it is composed should be homoge- 
 neous. You might as well say that the very standard 
 which regulates your commercial transactions should 
 not be called gold, because it contains certain other 
 portions of matter which are not gold. Yet the gold 
 so commingled or alloyed is the standard of value ; it 
 is gold to all intents and purposes of utility ; its objects 
 and usefulness are not impaired. How then can any 
 person argue that the introduction of the Jews would 
 so alter the character and tendency which the Parlia- 
 ment of this country always had, and I trust always 
 will preserve, namely, to support and maintain, not 
 only the existence, but the predominance of the 
 Christian religion \ I never was able to discover why, 
 when a person was enabled to act in concurrence with 
 a large body of other persons infinitely superior to 
 himself in station and numbers, he should be con- 
 sidered more dangerous than while he exists only as a 
 unit in a multitude, or in a separate and independent 
 position. You have already, my Lords, placed the 
 Jews in that independent position ; and what use have 
 they made of it \ You have placed them in positions 
 where they could be mischievous, if they were so in- 
 clined; arid what harm have they inflicted on the 
 Constitution ? A Jew can be a High Sheriff, a Jury- 
 man, a Magistrate ; nay, more, he can be empowered 
 to appoint, aye, and to swear in constables; and, during
 
 Ill 
 
 the recent disturbance, at least two wards in the me- 
 tropolis were under the magisterial charge of Jews ; 
 and what evil has come of those powers which you 
 have conferred upon them 1 Suppose a Jew were to 
 be brought to trial for High Treason ; if a Jewish High- 
 Sheriff had the selection of the Jury, it may be said 
 that he might possibly use his influence to save that 
 dangerous character ; but, my Lords, we do not think 
 such an occurrence is probable we do not fear it ; 
 and even the bare possibility of such a coincidence is 
 no argument against a measure like this. A Jew may 
 be Sheriff, Magistrate, or Juror, at present ; but it is 
 said, that the admission of two or three Jews into Par- 
 liament, in an assembly so numerous, will have a 
 serious effect upon the Christian character of the 
 Legislature. Now, in my opinion, my Lords, it is 
 more dangerous to admit many classes of professing 
 Christians, than those two or three Jews. I say pro- 
 fessing Christians, and I may add, persons believing 
 themselves Christians. You will find Acts of the most 
 objectionable character receiving the sanction of such 
 persons ; and I think that persons of that description 
 are infinitely more dangerous to a Christian Legisla- 
 ture, because they wear the garb of Christians, than if 
 they came openly in another avowed character. (Hear, 
 hear.) I will not multiply instances. You have 
 throughout Europe instances of Jews admitted to, and 
 Jews excluded from, participation in Legislation ; and 
 I cannot see the difference as regards the safety of the 
 Christian religion. In the last war in which Holland 
 was engaged, many of the officers and men were Jews;
 
 112 
 
 but did any one, therefore, say that the army of Hol- 
 land was not a Christian, but an infidel army ? No 
 one ever put forth such an assertion. You are acting 
 with the grossest inconsistency. In many parts of her 
 Majesty's dominions, Jews are at this moment sitting 
 as members of the Legislature by the authority of the 
 law. In Jamaica, or in Canada, a Jew may be a Re- 
 presentative in the Legislature ; and by this day's 
 post I have received a newspaper from Ceylon, which 
 states that a Jew is a member of the Legislature of 
 that island. Yet the bishops are safe in those colonies ; 
 and the religion of each colony is not affected by the 
 fact that a Jew may be a member of the Legislature. 
 Notwithstanding this, it is still thought by some, that 
 to admit the Jews would be to contaminate the cha- 
 racter of the Christian assembly into which they 
 entered. 
 
 " All who have a fair claim to political rights 
 should be allowed to possess them; and, as I have 
 already observed, Christianity does not preclude them. 
 
 " My Lords, I am unwilling to detain your Lord- 
 ships longer ; but I will beg of you to look back at 
 the true character of that religion which you profess, 
 and of the law under which you live. I will beg of 
 you to recollect that that religion was humble 
 and lowly in its birth and origin that its Divine 
 Founder, in most emphatic and, solemn words, says 
 ' My kingdom is not of this world ;' and that, by favor 
 of Divine Providence, our religion, not by force and 
 violence, but by gentleness, benignity, and persuasion, 
 has extended its empire, and brought the nations of
 
 113 
 
 the earth under the shadow of its authority. And I 
 ask you, if that be the principle which presided over 
 the birth of that religion and hallowed its progress, 
 shall we now, in the maturity of its strength and 
 power, refuse to admit within the pale of that Consti- 
 tution, in which Christianity has been and ever must 
 be the predominant portion, a body of persons who 
 can show a fair claim as useful Citizens and as faithful 
 Subjects for admission. J believe that none should be 
 excluded from the pale of the Constitution, unless dis- 
 qualified in a political sense ; I think I have shown that 
 none have ever so been ; and I therefore have great 
 pleasure in moving the second reading of this Bill, 
 believing as I do that it will add strength to the Con- 
 stitution, instead of imparting weakness ; though be- 
 lieving, also, that the existence of the Constitution of 
 this country is bound up with the predominance of 
 Christianity a predominance , however , which does not 
 require for its support that we should exclude the Jews 
 from those rights to which they are entitled by the fun- 
 damental rules of the Constitution rules which were 
 never suspended, unless by temporary Acts passed for 
 temporary purposes." (Hear, hear.) 
 
 The Earl of Elletiborough said, My Lords, I move that this Bill 
 be read a second time this day six months. In doing so, I must 
 say that I never recollect an instance of a measure being submitted 
 to the Legislature, in which the smallness of the object bore so 
 little proportion to the magnitude of the sacrifice by which it is to 
 be obtained. The principle which this measure would proclaim, 
 namely, that, whatever be the religion of a man, he would be en- 
 titled to be a member of Parliament, is destructive of the most im- 
 
 I
 
 114 
 
 portant principles of the constitution. The Established Church is 
 the creature of the State ; but Christianity is part and parcel of the 
 Common Law of the land, identified with, and inseparable from, the 
 State, and I foresee political dangers in this measure, arising from 
 the national and social character of the Jews, who are citizens of 
 he world, rather than citizens of England. It is quite true that 
 they are not aliens, that they do not owe allegiance to another 
 country ; but there are no people in the world who can transfer 
 themselves to another country with the same facilities as the Jews. 
 I take a most serious and, I think, not an exaggerated view of the 
 great danger now impending on this country in its foreign and do- 
 mestic concerns. It is impossible for me not to feel that we are in 
 a great crisis of the fate of this country. It is impossible, from what 
 we have witnessed, and what we now witness, not to come to this 
 conclusion. We ourselves have had a warning in famine, a warn- 
 ing in general distress, a warning in pestilence, a warning in the 
 divisions among our people, still threatening the dismemberment of the 
 empire. When we look around us we see nations convulsed ; the most 
 ancient and powerful dynasty in Europe crushed in one day ; the 
 great empire of Austria broken to pieces, like the potter's vessel ; 
 we see the disruption of some of the most ancient combinations of 
 territory ; the formations of new combinations of territory ; nor 
 have we the slightest power, reasoning from the past, to calculate 
 in the smallest degree on the action, the policy, or the strength of 
 the several new States which are rising out of the deep in which 
 everything ancient has been absorbed. We see all the great land- 
 marks of nations displaced ; we see upon the Continent society itself 
 shaken to its centre ; we see the wildest schemes for its re-construc- 
 tion by men who, without the smallest reference to the experience 
 of the past, seem to think they have all wisdom for the future go- 
 vernment of mankind. How long are we to remain, separated only 
 by a narrow channel, untouched by the contamination of these evils ? 
 I trust your Lordships will apply yourselves to the only path by 
 which the country can be saved ; that regarding all the great prin- 
 ciples on which the happiness of nations rests in all times, you will 
 forego legislating for private purposes ; that, whatever the temporary
 
 115 
 
 interests of men or governments, you will take a large view of 
 public affairs ; and, above all, that you will not deprive yourselves 
 of all right to Heavenly aid, by decreeing this night the desecration 
 of Parliament, and the destruction of the exclusive Christian 
 character of the British Legislature. 
 
 The Duke of Cambridge said he entertained the very highest 
 respect for many individuals of the Jewish persuasion, and willingly 
 bore testimony to their benevolence and liberality. As the Presi- 
 dent of the Jewish Hospital, he was of course brought into commu- 
 nication with many members of the Jewish persuasion, and referred 
 particularly to one eminent individual (Sir Moses Montefiore), who 
 went to Jerusalem, and made great sacrifices for the protection of 
 his Jewish brethren, as one of those for whom he felt very great 
 respect. He had never hesitated to assist the Jews in obtaining 
 privileges which he thought could be safely conceded to them ; but 
 according to his conscientious opinion, as long as this country was a 
 Christian country, it was impossible to admit Jews to sit in the 
 Legislature. 
 
 Yiscount Canning said the cause which the noble Earl (Ellen- 
 borough) had espoused so warmly, owed the greater part of its 
 strength to the appeal he made to their Lordships' feelings, rather 
 than to their calm and dispassionate judgment. The doors of the 
 Legislature had been opened to the Catholics, who considered their 
 faith a heresy, and to the Dissenters, who considered it credulity 
 and superstition, and he believed he should be guilty of a political 
 injustice, if he refused admission to the Jews. If it were alleged 
 that the Jews were only trafficers and barterers, he would reply, 
 that unless they could assert that, as a nation, they had never had a 
 share in putting the Jews beyond the pale of society, it would be 
 safer, and fairer, and more just, to refrain from pressing that argu- 
 ment. Allusion had been made to the public opinion entertained on 
 this question out of doors. He would not discuss the relative 
 number or amount of the petitions for or against this Bill, although 
 a fair estimate of these petitions would not be unfavourable to the 
 friends of the present measure. Nearly 100 years ago, a measure T)f 
 concession had been granted to the Jews ; but no sooner had the laW 
 
 i 2
 
 116 
 
 been passed, than there arose from one end of the country to the 
 other a feeling of alarm, and the Duke of Newcastle, the Minister 
 of that day, immediately went down to Parliament and proposed 
 that the law should be repealed. But this Bill had been six months 
 before Parliament ; it had not been hastily pushed forward ; it had 
 been deliberately discussed in the other House, and time had not 
 been wanting for the opponents of it in the country to express their 
 opinions. Certainly, within the last few days, a number of petitions 
 had been presented against it, though he did not know that they 
 more than counterbalanced those that had been presented in favour 
 of it ; but of public meetings, or that which went to public agitation 
 on the subject, they had not heard one word. (Hear, hear !) There 
 must be some explanation for that difference in public opinion, as 
 compared with what it was in 1753, and he asked what it was ? It 
 had been freely said, that Baron Rothschild owed his election for the 
 city of London to the influence of his purse. He knew not whether 
 that was true or not : but he doubted whether any opponent of the 
 measure would be bold enough to ascribe to that gentleman influ- 
 ence sufficient to bribe silence or indifference to this subject. Was 
 it then that there was a greater indifference to religion and to 
 Christianity in general, or that the Established Church had a less 
 strong hold on the affections of the people now than in the last 
 century ? Quite the reverse. (Hear.)' What, then, was the ex- 
 planation ? He believed it to be this, that, with the increase of 
 population and intelligence in this country, a class of the community 
 differing from us in their religious opinions, and who a hundred 
 years ago either had no existence, or were a small body, had sprung 
 up into social and political importance, and that that had attracted 
 the attention of all persons to the question whether it was just, ex- 
 pedient, or wise, for any class who would otherwise be entitled to 
 their fair share of civic government and authority to be excluded 
 from it. The course of legislation during the last twenty years had 
 had the effect of confirming that feeling on the part of the people, by 
 proving that religious tests and exclusion might be with safety and 
 advantage relaxed ; and he believed that those were the opinions 
 not only of the Dissenting classes, which had benefited by such
 
 117 
 
 relaxation, but were also the growing opinions of Churchmen them- 
 selves. (Hear, hear.) He believed that all classes were agreed, or 
 nearly so, that truth had little to fear in collision with error, but 
 that it had more to fear from being fenced in by factitious props and 
 aids. (Hear, hear.) He had nothing more to add, than to thank 
 their Lordships for the patience with which they had listened to the 
 few observations he had made, and to state that since he had had 
 the honour of sitting in that House, he had never given a vote with 
 a stronger conviction of the justice and wise policy of any measure, 
 than he cherished with respect to the^Bill now before their Lordships. 
 
 The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Bird Sumner) said, he 
 founded his objections to the Bill upon the inherent and peculiar 
 character of the Jews in relation to Christianity, and because the 
 measure was contemplated with conscientious dislike and dread by a 
 large class of persons whom he regarded as the most valuable mem- 
 bers of the community, and who considered it a sort of insult to the 
 religion which they reverenced and honoured. 
 
 The Earl of Winchilsea said, he retained the warmest feelings 
 of Christian charity towards the members of the Jewish persuasion, 
 but they were a distinct and peculiar people, bearing their nationality 
 of character in whatever part of the world they were dispersed. He 
 was prepared to grant the Jews every toleration that was consistent 
 with the maintenance of Christianity, but he could not admit them 
 into Parliament. And he begged to tell the bench of Bishops, that 
 if the Bill passed, the result would be, that within a year not one 
 of their right reverend body would have a seat in the House. 
 (Cheers from the Opposition.) 
 
 The Duke of Argyll said he was anxious to say a few words in 
 explanation of the vote he meant to give upon this Bill ; and as 
 upon this, the first occasion he had had the honour of addressing 
 their Lordships, the subject was of more than usual importance 
 a subject which divided the feelings, he believed, even more than the 
 opinions of wise and good men, he trusted their Lordships would 
 accept that as an additional claim upon that courtesy and indulgence 
 which their Lordships were always ready to extend to those who 
 addressed them for the first time. (Hear, hear.) He was not
 
 118 
 
 ashamed to confess that in considering this subject and his own duty 
 in regard to it, he had experienced feelings of difficulty and doubt ; 
 but, after the best consideration he had been able to give it, he had 
 come to the resolution to vote for the second reading of the Bill. 
 He should do so, however, with feelings and opinions materially 
 different from those which had, sometimes at least, been stated in 
 support of the measure. The noble Earl who spoke second in the 
 debate (the Earl of Ellenborough), whose address seemed to produce 
 a lively impression on some of their Lordships, among other argu- 
 ments said that the Jews were a nation within a nation, implying 
 that they were something like aliens aliens at least in their affec- 
 tions and habits. The noble Lord who spoke after him (Viscount 
 Canning) had said that if Jews were really aliens in character and 
 habits, we ourselves had been somewhat to blame for this, and their 
 Lordships would surely acknowledge the force of that argument. 
 (Hear.) During many hundred years they had been exposed to 
 every sort of disability. We had prevented them from holding 
 landed property, and from engaging in those other employments 
 which were open to other classes of Her Majesty's subjects. But, 
 besides this argument, there appeared to him to be another, worthy 
 of notice. If there was no other objection to the admission of the 
 Jews than that they were a nation within a nation if there was 
 no other objection to them than that they were so foreign in respect 
 to this country that they were unable or incapacitated to represent 
 the feelings of the people, was that any reason for the Legislature 
 interposing to prevent each constituency from judging for themselves 
 on this point ? (Hear, hear.) This argument had struck him very 
 forcibly, and had had a great effect on his own determination. It 
 might be true that the Jews were aliens ; it might be true that they 
 would soon, in the fulfilment of prophecy, be still more aliens God 
 grant that it might be so but so long as they lived in this country, 
 so far as political disabilities were concerned, he must contend that 
 each constituency was the best judge of the qualities of its own 
 candidates. (Hear, hear.) There was another argument which 
 had been used in the course of the debate. It had been alluded to 
 by the right rev. prelate who spoke some little time ago (the Arch-
 
 119 
 
 bishop of Canterbury), who contended that the admission of the 
 Jews intp Parliament would be attended with danger to the Church 
 over which he so eminently presided. Now, so far as hostility to 
 our ecclesiastical institutions was concerned, he (the Duke of Argyll) 
 put it to their Lordships whether they had one tithe of the danger 
 to fear from the Jew as from the Dissenter ? (Hear, hear.) And 
 if the apprehension of danger to our ecclesiastical institutions had 
 not prevented the Legislature from introducing into Parliament 
 Members of various denominations of hostile religious bodies, surely 
 that could form no argument against the admission of the Jews ? 
 (Hear, hear.) There was but one argument, in truth, which had 
 any force, and that was the religious argument which had been 
 almost entirely dwelt upon by the noble Earl who had moved the 
 rejection of the Bill the argument that Christianity was part of 
 the law and constitution of this country ; and that it was an anomaly, 
 if not a sin, for any man who was not a Christian to be admitted 
 into the Legislature of this country. Now, he confessed that, in his 
 opinion, that vague and nominal Christianity which they possessed 
 in their character of legislators was not very much worth. (Hear.) 
 But there was one field in which they might labour for the preser- 
 vation of Christianity. They could use their best endeavours to 
 heal the divisions among themselves, which more than any other 
 cause operated to banish from the discussions in that and the other 
 House of Parliament every question, every argument, and every 
 topic which bore at all upon religion. (Hear.) Their Lordships 
 would do him the justice to believe that he had not risen upon that 
 occasion under any idea that anything he could say, that any argu- 
 ment he could urge would have any influence upon their Lordships 
 or the vote of a single Member of that House ; but if their Lord- 
 ships could not separate their votes from the confession that 
 Christianity had nothing to do with the legislation of the country, 
 he did not wish he could not wish, that any Member would vote in 
 favour of the Bill. But there was a large and a wide field in which, 
 as he had said, they could use their best endeavours for the preser- 
 vation of Christianity ; and he felt that this measure would offer no 
 impediment to their proceeding in that direction. (Hear, hear.)
 
 120 
 
 The Bishop of St. David's said, he had been anxious to rise 
 immediately after the right rev. prelate (the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury) had addressed the House ; but he must say that he did not 
 now regret that it had fallen to his lot to follow, rather than precede, 
 the noble Earl who then addressed the House (the Earl of Winchil- 
 sea). He was glad that he had not spoken before he had listened 
 to the denunciations which that noble Earl had thought proper to 
 throw out. It had been his fate on previous occasions to accept 
 similar challenges thrown out by the noble Earl. He must confess 
 he was not at all alive to the danger which he had threatened. He 
 did not know to what extent it might be in the noble Earl's power 
 to verify his own predictions ; but he would say, in the language of 
 an infinitely greater man, on a much more momentous occasion, 
 " The Lord's will be done ; I must do my duty." He should content 
 himself with a single preliminary remark. If it were supposed 
 that his vote on the present occasion must be governed by one which 
 he had given several years ago, when a similar subject was brought 
 under discussion, although he had never looked back on that vote, 
 which happened to be the first he had the honour to give in their 
 Lordship's House, with any feelings of regret, still he wished it 
 understood that he did not consider himself as bound in the slightest 
 degree by the course which he had then thought it his duty to pur- 
 sue. As he was not prepared to admit that by the vote he 
 then gave he had pledged himself to take a step further in the same 
 direction, so he would apply the same principle with respect to those 
 who adopted an opposite conclusion from that at which he had 
 arrived. As he conceived it right that they should not be fettered 
 in their deliberations, so it gave him very sincere pleasure to observe 
 that their Lordships were called on to act under no undue bias or 
 external pressure which could prevent them from exercising their 
 judgments with the most perfect freedom on the present question. 
 The sense of the country, so far as expressed by the petitions laid 
 on the table of their Lordships' House, had been expressed in a 
 manner which removed the possibility of an appeal to any motive 
 of a questionable nature. It had been asserted rashly, or at all 
 events without the possibility of verifying the assertion, that this
 
 121 
 
 measure proceeded from indifference to religion in those who pro- 
 posed and supported it. Were they to assume that such was the 
 case, the results presented to their observation would indeed be very 
 singular ; looking at the various places throughout the country from 
 which petitions had emanated, they should be obliged to suppose 
 that the spirit of religion was very unequally diffused over the 
 surface of the land ; that it was at the boiling point in some con- 
 gregations, while it was at the freezing point in others. He felt no 
 kind of confidence in the indications of such a religious thermometer 
 as that. He thought it was not building on mere surmise to say, 
 he saw the class of persons for whose relief this measure was 
 proposed had not yet ceased to be objects of a very general, 
 hereditary, unreasoning dislike among sections of the community. 
 From what had happened in past times, it was morally impossible 
 that such should not be the case. Looking at the persecution and 
 oppression which that people had suffered in past ages, it was 
 absolutely certain that, as such a state of things passed away, it 
 must have left very deep traces in the habits and modes of thinking 
 which prevailed among the people of this country. He did not 
 presume to state whether any of their Lordships were influenced 
 by such prejudices. All he ventured to say was this, that if it were 
 the case that not one of their Lordships had been affected by it, 
 then he must acknowledge he was the most prejudiced person in 
 their Lordships' House ; for he acknowledged that he had a difficulty 
 iu this matter, which, however, he had felt it his duty to resist, and 
 he would have been sorry if he had allowed it to have any weight 
 so as to overcome his conviction in favour of the conclusion to which 
 he had come. He made this remark not so much for its own sake 
 as for the sake of a consideration of much greater import. Much 
 as the subject had been debated, both in print and verbally, he did 
 not conceive that due attention had been paid to this most important 
 point. They were in the habit of hearing it assumed, without any 
 contradiction, that it belonged to the very essence of the Jewish 
 religion to entertain feelings of the utmost aversion and abhorrence 
 towards that person whom they, as Christians, regarded as the object 
 of supreme love and veneration. That opinion, their Lordships
 
 122 
 
 would recollect, was the main point put forward in a petition 
 presented by a noble Earl opposite, proceeding from the General 
 Assembly of the Church of Scotland. That assertion had been the 
 strongest argument on which the adversaries of this measure had 
 grounded their opinions. It was adverted to by the most rev. 
 prelate who had spoken on the present occasion. It had been put 
 forward, as their Lordships would remember, by that most rev. 
 prelate's predecessor, as the main ground on which he felt it im- 
 possible to consent to any such measure as that now proposed. 
 With the most sincere feeling of respect towards those who were of 
 that opinion, he must be permitted to say that he did not believe 
 there was any adequate foundation for that argument. Feelings of 
 bitterness most probably did prevail among persons of the Jewish 
 nation ; but he wished to draw their Lordships' attention to this most 
 important point whether that feeling or doctrine was essentially 
 connected with the Jewish religion or not, whether it was of its 
 essence, or simply an accident ; such feeling or doctrine might be 
 separated from the Jewish religion, so that the one might exist, as 
 it had existed, and probably did exist, without the other. He should 
 mention a few reasons which strongly inclined him to adopt that 
 view. First, supposing such a feeling existed, the actual prevalence 
 of the feeling might most easily be accounted for. It was nothing 
 but the natural and inevitable consequence of those ages of fierce 
 and furious controversy, and those of persecution and oppression, 
 through which it had been the lot of the Jewish people to pass. 
 However divided such an opinion might originally have been from 
 their religion, it was but natural that under such circumstances it 
 should have grown up. But the question was whether it was held 
 among them as essential to their orthodoxy ? He knew no reason 
 which could be alleged for thinking so, but one. He might be told 
 that the Jews denied the claim of our Saviour to the divine character ; 
 but where, in this respect, was the difference between the case of 
 the Jews and that of the Unitarians ? Was it not equally rue of 
 the Unitarian that he denied that which we conceived to be accord- 
 ing to the plain sense of Scripture, as the undoubted assertion of 
 that Divine Person with regard to his own character ? He only
 
 123 
 
 desired to place the Jews in this respect on the same footing as the 
 Unitarians, whom they had already admitted. 
 
 He was aware that it might be thought inconclusive reasoning 
 to argue for the adoption of a measure from a thing established ; 
 and therefore he came to another consideration, which had weighed 
 most with his own mind in determining what course he should pur- 
 sue on this question. He found a Jewish writer, in speaking of our 
 blessed Lord, described him as the victim of a cabal and of popular 
 outcry, raised under the influence of the Jewish priests and rulers, 
 and condemned to an unjust punishment, He found in the writings 
 of a Jewish philosopher, who was also most devotedly attached to 
 the principles of his religion, our blessed Lord Christ spoken of as 
 one who had asserted the claims of spiritual religion in opposition 
 to the formality and hypocrisy which prevailed in high places. He 
 found that Jewish philosopher assuming the possibility that the Jews 
 might become Christians, and still remain as much as ever bound by 
 the Mosaic law. All this surely justified the inference that the 
 opinion in question was not an essential article of Jewish orthodoxy. 
 It did not appear to him that the present question depended at all 
 on the correctness or incorrectness of the views on which he had 
 animadverted. Had it not been for the discussion which the sub- 
 ject had undergone, and the variety of arguments which had been 
 raised, he certainly should have thought the question before their 
 Lordships one of the simplest and plainest that could be submitted 
 to their consideration. This measure was a measure of relief; it 
 was a measure for removing disabilities imposed upon a class of Her 
 Majesty's subjects. It was, therefore, a measure of that kind 
 which was entitled to their Lordships' favour ; and if they were 
 called on to reject it, he apprehended that it must be on some very 
 plain, clear, and solid grounds that in such a case they would not 
 be contented with any high, airy speculations, which they all knew 
 might be easily thrown in with a show of substance and solidity, 
 disguised in the form of ingenious sophistry or of eloquent declama- 
 tion. Their Lordships had already been reminded that a great 
 constituency had made choice of a Jew as their representative, and 
 that the House of Commons had declared its willingness to remove 
 the only bar which prevented the voice of that constituency from
 
 124 
 
 being ratified and carried into effect. It remained now, therefore, 
 for their Lordships to say whether they would tell that constituency 
 that they should not have the representative of their choice, and the 
 House of Commons that they should not acknowledge that choice as 
 they desired. If such a measure were to he rejected, some strong 
 ground of expediency must exist for taking such a course ; there 
 must be some plea of inconvenience or danger. But when he in- 
 quired what was that inconvenience or danger, he was really almost 
 at a loss to imagine how either should be apprehended. They had 
 been told that adopting this measure was inconsistent with Chris- 
 tianity. They were told it was a measure dangerous, and which 
 might possibly be ruinous, to the interests of the Church. When 
 they were told that they ought to reject the measure on the former 
 ground, he should like to know in what consisted the danger to 
 Christianity. Was it because it belonged to the conscience of the 
 Legislature to regulate the Christian religion, that the state had 
 power over the doctrines of their religion ; or was it that there 
 existed any ground for apprehension lest, under the influence which 
 might be introduced into the Legislature by this Bill, Christianity 
 might be proscribed and persecuted ? Such notions only needed to 
 be mentioned for their Lordships immediately to repudiate and reject 
 them ; and he conceived that such danger never for a moment could 
 be seriously apprehended. But it certainly had been ^intimated that 
 they would be exposing Christianity to the danger, if not of injury, 
 at least of insult. Could it really be imagined that persons intro- 
 duced under the operation of this measure into the House of Com- 
 mons would be so indifferent to the feelings of those around them, 
 and also to the feelings of the constituencies whom they represented, 
 that they would be willing, if an opportunity presented itself, to offer 
 insult to the Christian religion ? There was another ground of ob- 
 jection which he would be loath to touch upon, though it was one on 
 which 'the noble Lord had dwelt with considerable emphasis, 
 namely, the danger to which they were exposing themselves in that 
 noble Lord's opinion by showing a mark of respect to a people 
 whom he said they ought to consider as remaining monuments of 
 Divine wrath. 
 
 One might be disposed to treat such views with ridicule, were it
 
 125 
 
 not for the risk lest a portion of that feeling with which the argu- 
 ment was regarded might by possibility be transferred to the 
 sacred subjects on which it touched. If there were punishment in 
 store, it might rather be for the crimes of which this nation had 
 been guilty in times past against the ancestors of this people, than 
 for any indulgence which might be given them. He was sure they 
 had incurred heavy guilt in times past ; he was not so sure that the 
 debt had been duly acquitted. Then danger, it was said, threatened 
 the Church of England from this measure. The question was, 
 whether there was any new danger introduced by this Bill which 
 did not exist before ? He did not see that any new danger would 
 be introduced by this measure. He would not, however, dwell upon 
 this point. He had read a great many speeches and pamphlets on 
 the opposite side of this question, but he had never read one with- 
 out seeing the assertion that this was a question as much of 
 expediency as of principle. Now he was far from underrating the 
 importance of principle ; but he must say, that if he were to estimate 
 the value of principle by the sort of arguments with which its name 
 had been connected in the course of the discussions on this measure, 
 he should be inclined to think that principle must be something op- 
 posed to reason and experience ; and if it was a thing of such a 
 nature, that the more one was ignorant of the facts relating to a 
 measure, the more likely he was to lay hold of the principle, then, 
 most certainly, in the present case, he should say that principle did 
 lie all on the other side of the question. But he could not attribute 
 the dignity of principle to any of the arguments which he had seen 
 used in opposition to this measure. With the utmost respect for the 
 persons who had used them, he could not consider them as anything 
 more than a tissue of ingenious sophisms and fallacies. Some of 
 these, indeed, they had heard in the course of that debate, and he 
 had no doubt they would hear a great many more. They had heard, 
 for example, that this was a Bill which tended to un-Christianize 
 the Legislature. Now, how often had it been observed, and how 
 little had it been controverted, that the Legislature, after this mea- 
 sure was passed and carried into operation, would remain Christian, 
 exactly to the same extent and precisely in the same proportion as
 
 126 
 
 the country was Christian. (Hear.) They were not now for the 
 first time un-Christianizing the Legislature. That was done some 
 two hundred years ago ; and he would ask their Lordships to re- 
 member by whom that was done. Perhaps they would permit him 
 here to mention an anecdote that some of their Lordships might not 
 be familiar with one resting on the testimony of an eye-witness, 
 Sir Paul Ricaut, and which was related in " Spence's Anecdotes of 
 Books and Men." It was there mentioned, that a meeting took 
 place between the Protector and a body of the clergy of London, 
 whom he had called together to deliberate on the question as to 
 who had the right of building a synagogue in London. It was 
 stated that on that occasion the clergy inveighed against the Jews 
 as a cruel and accursed race ; but he asked them, in the first place, 
 whether they did not hold the belief that the Jews were one day to 
 be brought within the pale of the Christian Church ? and, in the 
 next, whether they did not think it was the duty of every Christian 
 to promote that good end by all the means in his power ? As might 
 be supposed, the clergy answered both questions in the affirmative, 
 and then he proceeded to ask if there was not a greater likelihood of 
 such an object being attained, if the Jews were brought into a 
 country where they would have the advantage of seeing the Christian 
 religion professed and practised in its purest form, than if they were 
 suffered to remain in other countries where it was disfigured by 
 numberless corruptions. It was added, that " he silenced the 
 clergy." (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to say that there would be 
 a dissimilar effect at this day with respect to this measure, nor did 
 he quote the anecdote with such a view ; but to point out to their 
 Lordships how little it could have entered into the mind of that 
 great man, that by the measure he was then desirous to introduce 
 though he must have known that he was about to settle in this 
 country a body of persons who would remain to all time a con- 
 stituent part of its population notwithstanding that, how little it 
 entered into his mind to suppose that he was taking a step that 
 would have the effect of un-Christianizing the Legislature. If it was 
 said that he did not give them all the privileges of Englishmen, all 
 he would reply was, that, considering the difficulty he had in inducing
 
 127 
 
 the clergy, and he might add, the merchants, to take the step that 
 he proposed to them, it was morally impossible that the other ques- 
 tion could have been concluded, and he therefore left it to posterity. 
 But it was said, that when we admitted to the Legislature persons 
 who did not profess the same religion with ourselves, we, to that 
 extent, weakened the religious influence of the Legislature, and 
 lessened the security on which the best interests of the community 
 so much depended. He admitted that there could be no such 
 security as that which rested on religious principle ; and it had been 
 argued, that this religious principle must be wanting in the Jew. 
 Now no one could deny the importance of religion to the exercise of 
 social duties. No one denied the influence of religion over a man's 
 views of morality, and consequently over his practice. No doubt 
 persons professing different kinds of religion from that we embraced 
 for example, the Jews might take some views of morality different 
 from those taken by a Christian ; there might be a variance of view 
 on many points ; but after all that, would there not be a large 
 common ground on which no difference would exist between the one 
 and the other. Was it possible to contend that a conscientious Jew 
 would be prevented by his religion from doing his duty towards the 
 public in the capacity of a legislator ? Was it possible to draw so 
 fine a distinction as to say that the motives of that man with regard 
 to public duty would be influenced by his religion in a way different 
 from a Christian ? Equally sophistical was all that had been said 
 about this measure being an innovation upon the constitution of the 
 country, because Christianity was held to be part and parcel of the 
 constitution of the country. He would ask, what principle of 
 Christianity in the constitution of the country it was that this mea- 
 sure was opposed to ? He admitted that the old principle of 
 the British constitution was one of absolute and exclusive intoler- 
 ance. It not only proscribed and excluded from all places of 
 authority and trust the Jew and the infidel, but likewise the heretic 
 and the schismatic. But he need not say that that exclusive prin- 
 ciple had been first relaxed, and then wholly discarded. It was not 
 consistent with fact, with the actual state of the case, to represent 
 this measure as an innovation. If anything was clear as regarded
 
 128 
 
 this question, it was, that the barrier which now happened to oppose 
 the admission of the Jews into the Legislature was the creature of 
 mere accident. That barrier was not raised for the Jew, but was 
 destined for another and a totally different party ; and it now re- 
 mained for the Legislature to decide whether that ought to remain 
 to the exclusion of the Jews which was not intended for them. 
 (Hear, hear.J If they rejected this measure, then they would be 
 making the innovation, and they would be the parties who were 
 really introducing a new principle into the constitution. (Hear, hear.) 
 Another branch of this subject was that which related to the Jewish 
 nationality. It had been said, using the language of Dr. Arnold, 
 that a Jew had no more right to legislate for England, than a 
 lodger had to take part in managing the affairs of the house in which 
 he was harboured. This opinion of Dr. Arnold had evidently been 
 formed on the analogy of the Greek and Roman States, rather than 
 on a view of the actual circumstances of this country. He thought 
 he had been misled by a comparison that it was not unnatural to 
 draw betwixt the condition of the Jews in this country, and those 
 persons who stood in a somewhat similar relation to the ancient 
 States he had named. But another cause, operating still more 
 strongly, had led Dr. Arnold's mind to the conclusion at which he 
 had arrived, viz. the extreme opinions held by him with regard to 
 the identification of Church and State. He thought that the ad- 
 mission of the Jews to the Legislature was inconsistent with this, his 
 favorite theory ; and to that source his political opinions on this sub- 
 ject might, he believed, be most distinctly traced. But not only was 
 the origin of that opinion founded on a view of the subject to which 
 their Lordships were not likely to subscribe, but it was carried to a 
 length to which they would be still less prepared to go. He 
 thought it would be no injustice if the Government of this country 
 were to do to the Jews as the Spanish Government did with regard 
 both to Jews and Morescoes, viz. to transport the whole mass of 
 them to some other country ; but an opinion derived from such an 
 origin, and leading to such counsels, was not likely to have the 
 weight that otherwise it might have derived from the name of so 
 great and venerated a man. In the same way it had been asserted
 
 129 
 
 that not only was the Jew an alien in the country, but that he was 
 not capable of any of the ties that bound an Englishman to his 
 home ; that his home must always be in a foreign land, and that his 
 heart must always be towards the birthplace of his race the land 
 of Palestine, He believed there could be no doubt that the Jews 
 ever lived in hope that, as a people, they would yet return to their 
 country ; but how this hope was in the mean time to prevent their 
 discharging their duties aright in their adopted country, and exerting 
 themselves to promote the interests of that country in the same way 
 as any other citizens, he could not comprehend. It was inferred that 
 no Jew, as such no truly religious Jew could ever desire to be the 
 object of this measure. It had been said, that, as a body, the Jews 
 were indifferent to the measure, and that they did not regard it as a 
 boon ; but if they were indifferent to it, it could only be on precisely 
 the same principle, and in consequence of the same kind of religious 
 associations, which they well knew prevented many men from taking 
 an active part in public life, and who applied to their own case the 
 language of the Apostle " Here we have no continuing city, but we 
 seek one to come." Take away the religion of the Jew, and he 
 should like to know what ground of opposition there was to this 
 Bill. It was clear that, but for the difference of religion, a complete 
 fusion of the Jews would have taken place with the people of other 
 countries. It would, he believed, have been the same with the Jews 
 as with the refugees who came to this country from the Continent 
 after the Reformation. He hoped that, notwithstanding the denun- 
 ciations of the noble Lord who had addressed the House from the 
 opposite benches, we should long continue to enjoy the constitution 
 which this country had enjoyed, even although the Jews should be 
 admitted to Parliament. Although he had taken such an interest in 
 this question as had induced him to prolong his remarks to perhaps 
 an excessive length, he confessed he was not disposed to look for- 
 ward to the result of this discussion with very great anxiety. He 
 was a believer in the power of truth and justice (Hear, hear), and 
 he was firmly convinced, that, in passing this measure, their Lord- 
 ships would not only consult the interests of justice, but would also 
 not impair the principles of the Christian religion, and would not 
 
 K
 
 130 
 
 retard its final triumph. He believed, on the contrary, that by 
 giving their assent to this Bill they would hasten the period when 
 the veil would be taken away from the eyes of the Jewish people. 
 By rejecting such measures, they would only weaken and impair 
 the dignity of the Christian religion, and prevent for a brief period 
 the accomplishment of its great mission, that of promoting the glory 
 of God, by diffusing peace and good-will among men. (Hear, hear.) 
 The Bishop of Oxford said, that, in rising to address their Lord- 
 ships upon this important subject, he felt in common with many 
 others who, like him, were about to vote against the progress of this 
 Bill, that he was filling a somewhat invidious position, by assuming 
 the appearance of refusing to his fellow-citizens a right to which it 
 was assumed they were entitled. The noble Marquis who moved 
 the second reading of the Bill told their Lordships that he moved 
 it as a right to which this portion of Her Majesty's subjects were 
 entitled. There was something painful in even seeming to stand in 
 the way of any rights belonging to any one of Her Majesty's 
 subjects ; but there was something more than this in the question 
 under consideration. If the Jews had a right to be admitted into 
 Parliament he should be prepared to do right, and, without regard 
 to ulterior consequences, to throw them at once to the winds. But 
 he contended that they had no such right. (Hear, hear, from the 
 Opposition.) The right of admission to office was, strictly speaking, 
 no right at all ; a seat in the Legislature was given as a trust to 
 those whom the nation at large believed would exercise it best for 
 the interests, not of themselves alone, but of the community at 
 large. The Jews of England, or their ancestors, had come to 
 sojourn amongst us upon condition that they should not have political 
 privileges ; and, as far as he could understand, Jewish representatives 
 were not necessary to any constituency in England, Scotland, or 
 Ireland. No doubt there might have been in certain cases certain 
 advantages derivable from the election of Jewish representatives. 
 Far be it from him, however, to say that he knew any such instanc e. 
 He professed to have no knowledge of those " secrets of the prison - 
 house." (Hear, from a noble Lord on the Treasury Bench.) He 
 repeated, for the information of the noble Marquess (Clanricarde)
 
 131 
 
 that though he knew nothing about the secrets of the late election 
 for the city of London (hear, hear), yet that he was not without 
 some knowledge of the public history of that transaction. (Loud 
 cheers.) It was pretty well known that it was because the Prime 
 Minister at the head of the Government, finding himself hard put to 
 it for his election, thought it convenient, in order to secure his success, 
 to connect himself with a firm where one of the partners found the 
 capital and the other the character. (Hear, hear.) Declarations 
 in favour" of removing Jewish disabilities might, under such circum- 
 stances, have been found exceedingly convenient. (Hear, hear.) 
 He was quite free to admit that there might be, and doubtless there 
 were, English constituencies which, influenced by peculiar reasons, 
 very earnestly desired that a bill of this nature should pass into a 
 law. He wished to remind their Lordships that Christianity was 
 not a cold philosophy, but a heartfelt love and affection for the Son 
 of God, the Saviour of the world, in whom it placed its hope and 
 trust of eternal salvation ; but between the Christian and the Jew 
 there was a gulf as wide as eternity itself. If their Lordships 
 passed the Bill, they would take the foundation from religion, and 
 they would send a shock quivering through every institution of this 
 country, which would not cease until it shivered them all into frag- 
 ments. He besought their Lordships to think and pause he 
 besought them not to pass the Bill he besought them to beware, 
 lest, under the influence of kindly frailty, they did that which would 
 lead sooner or later to the separation of Church and State. 
 
 The Earl of St. Germans said, with all deference for the right 
 rev. prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), he should express his dissent 
 from his arguments and the conclusions to which he had come. 
 The degrees of citizenship spoken of by the right rev. prelate were 
 distinctions known to the Roman law, but not recognised by the law 
 of England. In England, all natural-born subjects were entitled to 
 the same legal rights. The Bill did not propose to give a certain 
 number of seats in Parliament to Jews, but to enable Christian 
 constituencies to elect Jews as their representatives if they thought 
 fit. It was true the Jews had been a separate and distinct nation, 
 and that they also believed the day would come when their nationality 
 
 K2
 
 132 
 
 would be restored. But that day was not distinctly named, and 
 the promise had no effect upon their feelings towards the country to 
 which they at present belonged. In the United States, in France, 
 in Holland, and in various other countries, they enjoyed the rights 
 of citizenship ; and, as the noble Marquess had told them, in Canada, 
 Jamaica, and other British Colonies, the Jews were Members of the 
 Legislature. There was, therefore, no reason for asserting that they 
 were incapable of taking an interest in the affairs of the State to 
 which they were subject, or of being useful legislators. As to the 
 argument, that Parliament was bound to distinguish between re- 
 ligious truth and error, it had been already disposed of by a very 
 right rev. prelate, whose absence he regretted (the Archbishop of 
 Dublin) ; and his noble friend (Viscount Canning) had stated, with 
 great truth, that when they admitted to seats in the Legislature 
 persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet refused such 
 a privilege to the Jews, they were guilty of inconsistency. The allu- 
 sion of the right rev. prelate to the affair of the election for the City of 
 London was totally irrelevant*. But as to his argument relative to 
 the connexion between Church and State, he entirely agreed in the 
 sentiments expressed by him. No man could regret more than he (the 
 Earl of St. Germans) the dissolution of that connexion. But he differed 
 with the right rev. prelate as to the fear of such a consequence being the 
 necessary effect of the present Bill. The right rev. prelate, in fact, 
 expected to happen, in consequence of its passing, that which he (the 
 Earl of St. Germans) feared would be. rather the result of its rejection. 
 
 * It is proper to notice here that the Bishop of Oxford, previously to the closing 
 of the dehate, begged permission to explain some remark which fell from his 
 Lordship during his speech ; his Lordship said, " he was very sorry that he 
 had been led, in the warmth of debate, to use an expression which had borne 
 as it seemed an appearance of malice ; but he really never meant any malice 
 whatever. The expression had been brought out suddenly, by an expression 
 used by the noble Marquess, by a word which had fallen from him. He took the 
 most public opportunity of saying, that he never entertained the smallest idea 
 that the noble Lord, the first Lord of the Treasury, had been privy to any bribery 
 whatever, or that any other noble Lord, Member of the Government or otherwise, 
 had been so ; and he now begged leave to withdraw the words altogether." 
 See Hansard's Par/. Deb. vol. xcvin, p. 1405.
 
 133 
 
 For if they refused that privilege to the Jews to which they had a 
 right, merely because it would tend to weaken the connexion between 
 Church and State, those who supported the Bill would be apt to say, 
 that if that connexion were the only obstacle, it should be dissolved. 
 There was no fear of opposition to the Church from the Jews. There 
 was no idea on their parts of destroying the Church, and raising the 
 synagogue on its ruins. There was far more danger to the Church 
 from other Christian communities who were already admitted into 
 Parliament. It was said, this is a Christian country, and that its 
 Legislature ought to be Christian. Make the Jews eligible to seats 
 in Parliament, and the number of Jews in Parliament would bear 
 as small a proportion to the whole number of Members, as the 
 number of Jews in this country to the whole population. The 
 Legislature would still be as much a Christian Legislature, as this 
 country was a Christian country. It was admitted on all hands 
 that the Jews were a loyal, peaceable, and industrious body ; and 
 therefore he saw no reason why their civil rights should be withheld 
 from them. The Jews were, he believed, an eminently charitable 
 people, and their poor bore a very small proportion to their general 
 numbers. As a body, they had never been suspected of conspiring 
 against the State in any country in which they resided ; and he 
 trusted their Lordships would, by passing the Bill, sweep away the 
 last remnant of a barbarous system of legislation. 
 
 The Earl of Eglintoun said, he considered the present question 
 to be one rather of religious principle, than one involving matter of 
 great political interest. It was for the sake of that religion which 
 he revered, and that Saviour whom he worshipped, that he was 
 prepared to give his opposition to the Bill. However excellent 
 might be the lives and characters of the persons professing the 
 Jewish religion, however peaceful and generous they might be in 
 their social relations, and however useful they might be in their 
 private capacity, he did not think it was for the good of this country 
 that those who were aliens to it, that those who were always looking 
 forward to a return to the land of which they had been deprived by 
 the judgment of Heaven, and who called themselves a chosen race 
 and a separate people should participate in the duties of Legislation
 
 134 
 
 in a Christian country. It was true that the Jews believed in 
 Moses and the Prophets ; they had the same revelations, the same 
 commandments, and the same Bible ; but they denied that which 
 crowned all their revelations they denied the mission of our Saviour ; 
 and he (the Earl of Eglintoun) for one would never consent to 
 admit those who believed that the sacrifice on Calvary was made 
 in vain. The question was one, not only interesting to Protestants, 
 but to the whole Christian community ; and it was no argument, 
 because they had committed one error if the admission of So- 
 cinians or Unitarians were an error that they should therefore 
 commit another. He besought the House, in the utmost sincerity 
 of heart, to pause well before they assented to the present measure, 
 and to remember that they were legislating in the sight of the 
 living God, and that they would have to answer for every act they 
 did to the God whose name it was now proposed to strike out as 
 unnecessary. 
 
 Lord Lyttleton sadi, he considered that it was quite necessary 
 that they should endeavour to frame to their minds what was the 
 precise meaning of the word " Christian." He must assume, for 
 the purpose of the argument, that Socinians or Unitarians were not 
 Christians. The Socinians denied the doctrine of atonement, but 
 the Socinians and the Unitarians had been admitted. If it were 
 admitted that the course was wrong, no one had proposed to disturb 
 the arrangement if any person did make such a proposition, he 
 would be ready to meet them upon that question ; but he did not 
 believe that they could stop here. 
 
 The Earl of Harrowby said that they had been told by his 
 noble friend who had just sat down, and by other noble Lords, 
 that whilst they admitted Socinians they could not exclude the 
 Jews ; he could not agree to that inference, for they did not, in 
 fact, admit Socinians as Socinians, but as Dissenters, who took the 
 oath on the faith of a Christian. He could not venture to un- 
 Christianize Parliament ; and, as he feared that this measure would 
 have that effect, and would also tend to lower the tone of that great 
 Assembly, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill. 
 
 The Earl of Yarborough said, he had looked at the question with
 
 135 
 
 great anxiety ; but the more he looked at it, the more thoroughly 
 convinced was he that he was only doing his duty as a Christian, 
 and preventing persecution, by voting for the admission of the Jews. 
 If a person wished to get into Parliament, he must feel himself per- 
 secuted if he were prevented from doing so by his religious opinions. 
 He felt, then, that if he opposed this on religious grounds, he should 
 not be discharging his duty as a Christian ; and he thought it was 
 but just, that if a Jew were selected by a constituency, and there 
 was no civil or political objection to him, he should be permitted to 
 take his seat. 
 
 The Earl of Desart said, their Lordships must wish to preserve 
 the Christian character of that Assembly ; but if Jews were admitted 
 into Parliament, and were sincere in their religious opinions, they 
 must be anxious to destroy all Christian institutions. He received 
 them with every feeling of hospitality; but it did not follow that they 
 should be admitted to any part in the management of our household. 
 This was the only country that was not yet stained with anarchy, 
 and this was not the time to give up our reliance on that Power 
 which had preserved us amidst all the violence that had occurred 
 elsewhere. 
 
 The Earl of Ellesmere said, if he could believe that this Bill 
 would create an indifference towards religion, still more if it would 
 un-Christianize the Legislature, no inducement should prevail upon 
 him to support it ; but he could not believe that such a consequence 
 would result from admitting a few Jews into Parliament. 
 
 What would be the result if this measure were to pass ? That 
 a small number of persons of wealth and character, and acquire- 
 ments, of a particular religion, might obtain seats in Parliament. 
 If their Lordships considered who the parties were who were to be 
 participators of the privilege sought, they would see that there was 
 far less danger and far less inconvenience to be apprehended to the 
 Church of England from the Jews, than from many Christian sub- 
 stitutes in the Lower House of Parliament. He had heard of 
 denunciations of that Church from the conventicle, but he had never 
 heard of any from the synagogue. And why did their Lordships 
 admit any class of Christian Dissenters to the Legislature P Was
 
 136 
 
 it from any liking on the part of their Lordships to the doctrines 
 entertained by those persons ? No ! It was because some of them 
 considered it no longer just, and others no longer safe, to exclude 
 from the common defence of the great interest of the nation those 
 who had so large a share in them that it was no longer right or 
 safe to treat as aliens in the land those who, by their numbers, 
 their rank, and their possessions, were rooted to the soil. Had the 
 Jew in times of danger ever sheltered himself under the character 
 of an Alien ? On the contrary, was it not the fact, that in the wars 
 against Napoleon they had fought side by side with their Christian 
 brethren for the emancipation of Europe ? He had also understood 
 that in our Canadian colonies, when the standard of England was 
 reluctantly upheld by many Christians, the Jews had rendered good 
 service in behalf of this country. The success of this motion would 
 shew that the British Legislature did not consider the Jewish nation 
 as fit subjects for persecution or degradation in any shape. He gave 
 the motion his humble support, because he thought it safe to the 
 religious and political interests of the country, and just to the Jews, 
 to give them a share in the making of those laws which they had 
 obeyed so cheerfully, and in some respects administered so well. 
 
 Lord Stanley said, he could have been well satisfied to leave 
 the decision of this question upon the able speech of the right reve- 
 rend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, but he felt it imperative not to 
 give a silent vote while any possible argument remained unstated. 
 
 Until a very recent period, previous to the time of Elizabeth, this 
 country was not only exclusive on the ground of religious belief, but 
 the uniformity of religious belief was secured by far more stringent 
 laws than the refusal of a seat in the Legislature. At that period, 
 so far from the Jew having a right to a seat in the Legislature, he 
 had no right to set his foot on British soil. (Hear, hear.) It was 
 quite true that the terms of the statute were addressed to the only 
 class of Non-conformists in those days, viz. Popish recusants, and 
 had nothing whatever to do with Jews. But it was said, that in 
 the time of William and Mary, the statute was abrogated for 13 
 years, and that during that period there was no obstacle to the .lew 
 being in Parliament It was quite true there was no form of oath,
 
 137 
 
 " on the true faith of a Christian," during 13 years; but it was also 
 true that, during those 13 years, there were no means by which the 
 Jew could obtain letters of naturalization, which was a first prelimi- 
 nary to his obtaining a seat. 
 
 Lord Campbell. It was not needed, if he were born in England. 
 Lord Stanley. Well, suppose he had been born in this country, 
 where was his power to hold freehold property, and where was his 
 freehold qualification for a seat in Parliament ? Was there not an 
 oath, too, administered on the New Testament ? And, although 
 these absolute impediments existed, the noble Marquis told them, 
 that, because for 13 years the words "on the true faith of a Chris- 
 tian" were removed, the Jews might have then sat in Parliament ; a 
 circumstance which it was absolutely impossible to conceive ; be- 
 cause, as had already been said that night, if a Jew had presumed to 
 offer himself as a candidate for any city, town, borough, or county in 
 England, he might have got through his first sentence, but he would 
 not have got through a second. (Hear.) He would not detain their 
 Lordships, however, by entering on the historical points of the discus- 
 sion ; but what he did lay stress upon, was this in which he entirely 
 concurred with the right rev. Prelate that a seat in Parliament was 
 not a right to which every person was entitled, but a privilege which 
 the State conferred upon those persons who were properly qualified. 
 Then came the question, what were the proper qualifications for a 
 legislator in a Christian country ? If it were true, indeed, that it 
 was an inherent right to which every British subject was entitled, 
 then, he asked, what became of the pecuniary qualification the law 
 which required that Members should be a certain age and the 
 right to exclude women ? (Hear, hear.) With the exception of 
 the right rev. Prelates, who, be it observed, held seats in that 
 house because it was a Christian assembly (Cheers) with that 
 exception, every clergyman in the Church became debarred from a 
 seat in that House. (Hear, hear.) And why did these exclusions 
 exist ? Because they supposed that women and minors, and persons 
 who had not the required property qualification, were not qualified 
 for the task of legislation. He admitted that the property qualifi- 
 cation was an arbitrary one ; but it was assumed that persons who
 
 138 
 
 had such qualifications had a stake in the country, and were likely 
 to have received an education that would enable them to give a free, 
 independent, and deliberate and conscientious verdict in respect to 
 the affairs of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) But suppose the right were 
 inherent in every British subject, this restriction was manifestly 
 unjust ; and yet no one disputed the right of the Legislature to 
 affix that qualification. He would ask, then, was it not even still 
 more fitting that they should demand the further qualification of a 
 profession of Christianity from the representatives of a Christian 
 assembly in a Christian country? A sincere Jew must desire to 
 see our religion trodden in the dust. He did not speak of mere 
 nominal Jews or Christians, whose religious opinions were like their 
 garments, which they could take off and on at their pleasure, but in 
 which their heart, judgment, and conscience had no part ; but he 
 spoke of the sincere followers of the law of Moses. He admitted that 
 Judaism and Christianity had much in common. He admitted that 
 the " law was our schoolmaster ;" but he begged their Lordships to 
 remember that it was " our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." 
 (Hear, hear.) But while he admitted the many divine precepts of 
 the Mosaic law, which were held in common with Jews and Chris- 
 tians, he could not forget that of all crimes that was capable of being 
 committed, that of attempting to put any created being upon the 
 footing of the one indivisible God was the one which was visited 
 with the greatest severity by the Jews. The Jew, therefore, must 
 believe either that He whom we worship is, in truth, one with 
 God as himself God is one of the persons of the adorable and 
 blessed Trinity, or that he is a convicted malefactor, who was justly 
 condemned by the laws of his offended country. (Hear, hear.) He 
 (Lord Stanley) looked with veneration on the long history and the 
 high literary character of the Jews ; he regarded them with interest 
 as the ancient repositories of a portion of the Word of Truth ; he 
 believed that many among them, particularly the educated Jews, 
 were conscientious, charitable, well-disposed, and loyal ; but he 
 could not consent to place the Jew, with respect to his religious 
 belief or social condition, either upon the footing of any denomi- 
 nation of Christian, or upon the footing of any other British subject.
 
 139 
 
 It was said the opponents of the measure had cut the ground 
 of argument beneath their feet by the admission of various deno- 
 minations. The noble Lord had spoken of " the ambiguity of 
 Christianity itself," and the right rev. Prelate had alluded to the 
 subject in terms which he had heard with surprise. He did not 
 understand the Unitarian's reading of Scripture. But if they were 
 to tell him he was not a Christian, he would at once repudiate that 
 imputation ; he would say, that he looked on Christ as a Teacher 
 sent from God, and that he received the Gospel as the Word of God, 
 and placed in them his belief and his hopes of salvation. When the 
 question was raised with respect to the Roman Catholics years ago, 
 he remembered an appeal made on their behalf in the other House 
 of Parliament : " True it is, that on minor points, and some cf 
 them not unimportant, they differ from you, they superadd to what 
 you believe, they put glosses on Scripture which you will not 
 receive, but reject as fond things vainly imagined ; yet remember 
 that the Protestant and the Catholic, when they go to fight for the 
 same country, go with the same belief in the same Saviour, and 
 the same confidence in the same God. They go with the same 
 belief in all the fundamental principles of their religion ; and if it 
 be the will of God that there and then they and you should die 
 together, they hope for forgiveness for their sins ; they hope their 
 souls will rise to immortality through the same Gospel and the same 
 Redeemer." These were sentiments in which every denomination of 
 Christians concurred. The noble Marquis referred to a vote he 
 (Lord Stanley) had given in 1830, for the removal of Jewish dis- 
 abilities. Because that was a Bill for the removal of Jewish dis- 
 abilities, and this was a Bill for the removal of Jewish disabilities, 
 therefore the noble Marquis thought he had made out his case. But 
 the noble Marquis did not state that no Jew could possess landed 
 property, could act as a magistrate, could take part in the pro- 
 ceedings of municipal councils, or in the administration of the most 
 ordinary transactions of social life. He (Lord Stanley) voted for 
 the second reading of that Bill. The noble Marquis might have 
 traced him to 1833 or 1834, when he gave a cordial vote for the 
 Bill introduced by his noble and learned friend, then Lord Chan- 
 cellor (Lord Brougham), for the removal of all the remaining
 
 140 
 
 disabilities of the Jews, so far as their civil and social condition was 
 concerned. But it was distinctly admitted at the time that the 
 concession of all those social and civil rights could not give any 
 ground for claiming admission to the Legislature. 
 
 The Marquess of Lansdowne. I alluded to the first Bill 
 Lord Stanley. The noble Lord seemed to have examined the 
 matter very accurately. He would take the noble Lord's word for 
 it. But he drew a distinction between enabling the Jew to act 
 under the law and enabling him to take part in making the law. 
 If he were a conscientious Jew, his conscience would give him a bias 
 in legislation to what was not only hostile to the established church, 
 but to the interests of Christianity. Then it had been argued that 
 the right of giving the Jew admission to Parliament should reside 
 in the constituencies ; and allusion had been made to the return for 
 the City of London. He (Lord Stanley) did not admit that on all 
 occasions constituencies were the best judges as to who were fit 
 representatives ; but still less could he recognize the right of any 
 constituency to fly in the face of the law and elect a person dis- 
 qualified by law (Hear, hear) and then, on the fact of their elec- 
 tion of a person so disqualified, to insist that the judgment of Par- 
 liament should be overruled. (Cheers.) The argument founded on 
 the election in the City of London was one rather against than for 
 the measure. If the City of London had elected a pauper, a minor, 
 or a female, would it have been tolerated that the pauper, the minor, 
 or the female should claim a right to sit in Parliament because elec- 
 ted by the City of London, each constituency knowing what was 
 best for its own interests ? and Parliament must therefore alter its 
 whole course of legislation. The argument could not hold for a 
 moment. Practically, the Jews in this country were not of this 
 country, but of a nation apart. They were temporarily resident 
 within this country, entitled to hospitality and protection, but having 
 no special British interest any more than any special German or 
 French interests. They had the interest of the Jews, they had 
 not British interests ; above all, they had not Christian interest. 
 Supposing the individual, whom the City of London had returned 
 had desired to exchange his title as a foreign baron for that 
 of an English baron. Neither in name, nor in title, nor in un-
 
 141 
 
 divided interest, was Baron Rothschild to be considered a 
 British subject ; and, with all respect to that gentleman, his 
 introduction there would considerably interfere with the deliberations 
 in their Lordships' House. Were they not permitted to speak in 
 strong terms of their adherence to their natural religion, of their 
 determination to uphold the Christian institutions of this country ? 
 What a contradiction in terms to uphold the Christian character 
 of the Legislature, and yet admit a person to whom any word said 
 in its favour was a direct affront and offence. He (Lord Stanley) 
 apprehended no immediate danger from the admission of three or 
 four, five or six Jews into the other House of Parliament. God for- 
 bid they should see them there. (Hear, hear, and a laugh). But 
 a small minority might turn the scale in favour of a minister ; he 
 would feel bound to acknowledge the service. On the other hand, 
 what great object would be gained by admitting two or three rich 
 Jews into a Legislature which for centuries had laboured to maintain 
 the Christian religion ? The question their Lordships had to solve 
 was, whether they would preserve the Christian character of that 
 and the other House of Parliament ? If they decided in the nega- 
 tive, a deep and painful effect would be produced on the minds of 
 the people, and, above all, on the minds of the soundest, most 
 reflecting, and most religious portion of the community. They 
 would alienate the hearts of the people from the Legislature, and 
 destroy that confidence which the country placed in the deliberations 
 of the Houses of Parliament as at present constituted. He rejoiced 
 to learn from the speech of the noble Marquess that he had no con- 
 siderable apprehensions as to the result. The noble Marquess had 
 thought it right to warn the House that the Bill would be brought 
 forward again and again. He (Lord Stanley) hailed that as an 
 indication that the decision of that night would not be in favour of 
 the Bill, that again and again it would be submitted to the consi- 
 deration of their Lordships, and that again and again they would 
 reject the Bill. (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Lord Brougham had to express the great satisfaction which he 
 felt in common with all their Lordships at the temperate, and, gene- 
 rally speaking, though not without exception, the fair, candid, and
 
 142 
 
 charitable spirit which had prevailed throughout the debate. No 
 personal matter had, generally speaking, been mixed up with it ; 
 nothing slanderous or offensive had, generally speaking, been intro- 
 duced. So far he concurred with the noble Lord in commending the 
 spirit which had prevailed in that debate ; and so far, therefore, the 
 more deeply did he lament that the debate should not have closed 
 without a great and glaring exception, the more glaring and the 
 more to be deplored because it proceeded from the bench of right 
 reverend Prelates. It was not reserved for the most rev. Prelate, 
 who showed himself a worthy representative of the established 
 church, at the head of which he had recently and most properly 
 been placed, and who had declared his views with feelings of charity, 
 forbearance, and meekness, truly becoming a Christian divine, and 
 a Prelate at the head of the Christian Established Church. But 
 when the right rev. Prelate followed on the same bench, then 
 were their Lordships' fated, and, as for reasons, personal as well as 
 hereditary, he had himself felt it most deeply, then was he doomed 
 to suffer from the departure of that tone of Christian charity, meek- 
 ness, and forbearance with which all others had treated a question 
 of mixed religious and political controversy ; then it was they were 
 told of slanders which had prevailed in public, and not privately, 
 and which it was said they might learn from the public prints. (No, 
 no). That was not all. But a partnership had been formed to 
 which the introduction of this measure into the other House of 
 Parliament by the Prime Minister was ascribed. It was slander- 
 ously said; and, if a Prelate had not said it, he should have said 
 it was false. (Laughter and cheers). When the reverse of 
 the truth was stated as the truth, when that which was 
 groundless was said, when that which was utterly without foun- 
 dation was imputed, then he was entitled to say it was a 
 slander-monger that thus attacked, and that the slander was false. 
 The fact was this and he challenged denial it was not true 
 that this Bill originated in a job with the City of London. It was 
 not true that Lord John Russell owed his election to Baron Roths- 
 child. It was not true, but the contrary, that he was under obliga- 
 tions to Baron Rothschild. (Hear, hear). But it was true, and
 
 143 
 
 his written letter remained to prove it, that he refused at first to be 
 
 a party to this election. And on what grounds P Because of a 
 
 contest. And what caused the contest ? The standing of Baron 
 
 Rothschild. (Hear, hear). So that, instead of being under any 
 
 obligation to Baron Rothschild and the Jews, he was injured by the 
 
 Baron being brought forward (laughter) ; and it was only in 
 
 deference to the strongly expressed opinion of his friends in the 
 
 City that he withdrew his refusal, and consented to be a party to 
 
 this election. It had been said for slander had no end, and 
 
 though they put it down, and endeavoured to destroy it, it was ever 
 
 at " its dirty work again", it had been said that it was through 
 
 Baron Rothschild that Lord John Russell got at the head of the 
 
 poll. (Laughter). He would say, if it was so, that Christian 
 
 charity, and Christian loving-kindness to our neighbour was never 
 
 exceeded by that shown by this Baron Rothschild (a laugh) ; for he 
 
 was not satisfied with having got Lord John in, but he got him 
 
 above the Baron himself. Nay, the Baron, the suicidal Baron 
 
 (laughter), who saw nothing in this contest but the interest of Lord 
 
 John, pushed him to the top of the poll, while he placed himself 
 
 last but one on the poll of his friends. (Laughter). Now, he 
 
 meant to bring no accusation against his right rev. friend of 
 
 being actuated by any malignant feeling in this matter. He was 
 
 led by that which was the cause of many things being said 
 
 the love of an epigram and a cheer to tell them of the delusion 
 
 under which they laboured as to the cause of Lord John being at 
 
 the head of the poll. (A laugh.) But now as to the question 
 
 before the House. He never thought the worse of any question on 
 
 account of such occurrences as these. He did not think the worse 
 
 of the abolition of slavery by the Provisional Government, because 
 
 that Provisional Government thought fit to pass that provisional 
 
 measure to get popularity with the anti-slavery party. Even so, 
 
 however interested, however impure might have been the origin of 
 
 this measure, he would think nothing the worse of the measure 
 
 itself. At the same time he must declare that there was no law 
 
 to disqualify the Jew from sitting in Parliament. They had 
 
 been going on the whole evening, on both sides, arguing as if
 
 144 
 
 the law of the land was that the Jew should not sit in Parlia- 
 ment, and that it excluded him to show that it was a Chris- 
 tian Parliament. There was not the shadow of such 'a law. 
 There was not even a declaration required from the Jew that he 
 was a Christian. Before taking his seat he would be required to 
 abjure the right of the Pretender, to declare his belief that the heirs 
 of the Electress Sophia were entitled to the throne, and to swear 
 allegiance to the Queen ; and, having done so, to add that he swore 
 " on the true faith of a Christian." But that was not calling on him 
 to declare he was a Christian. He was not asked to swear to the 
 truth of certain words and doctrines, but simply to make a declara- 
 tion, such as he had described, in a particular form of words. Then 
 came the argument, with which he would not say they were 
 nauseated, but of which they had had enough, that if they passed 
 this Bill, the Legislature would be unchristanized ; and they were 
 asked on this ground to reject the Bill. Now he need not say to 
 their Lordships that they were not yet come to the point of being 
 unchristianized ; but what was become of the House of Commons ? 
 Why they were unchristianized already. (Laughter). Would the 
 Commons come to the bar of that House by message, or in any 
 other way, and by their words, acts, or desires, pretend to call 
 themselves a Christian assembly ? (A laugh). He did not know 
 what would become of them, but assuredly it was not to be denied 
 that we had a motley sort of Legislation, half infidel, half Christian. 
 (Laughter). Of Her Majesty, he would only say, might God long 
 preserve her in her Christian character to reign over a tolerant 
 and enlightened people. As for the Ministry, they were undoubtedly 
 nearly as unchristian as the Commons. (Laughter). So that he 
 was afraid they must stand before the world as half Christian, half 
 Pagan a Pagan House of Commons, and a perfectly Christian 
 House of Lords. (Laughter.) He saw little use, therefore, of so 
 much argument about unchristianizing the Legislature. He must 
 observe that the present state of the law was very clumsily adapted 
 to the purposes of keeping a Christian Legislature. One would 
 think that the way to keep the Legislature Christians was to admit 
 nobody into it but those who were Christians. But the test which
 
 145 
 
 was employed for this object had the fault and incurable frailty of 
 all tests, that it kept out the honest man and let in the knave. For 
 the man who would swallow an oath because he had an object to 
 gain, the doors of the Christian Parliament flew open ; and while 
 the Jew was excluded, the follower of Juggernaut himself was 
 admitted. But then, the right rev. Prelate said that the moment 
 a Jew was admitted into Parliament, nothing must be said in favour 
 of Christianity in the House of Commons. Why, one would think 
 that the experience of the last nineteen years had been entirely 
 thrown away on the right rev. Prelate. Had there been nothing 
 said in favour of a Protestant establishment in the House of Com- 
 mons since Catholic emancipation was granted ? Why he had himself 
 not only spoken against the Catholic clergy, when he thought their 
 conduct deserved it, but even against the dogmas of the Catholic 
 Church, and he had never heard that any offence had been taken at 
 this freedom of speech. A greater chimera was never imagined 
 than the notion, that because Jews were admitted into Parliament, 
 Members of it were bound to abstain from all freedom of speech in 
 favour of Christianity. He was most anxious that the Church 
 should not be severed from the State ; for he thought such a sepa- 
 ration would be mischievous to the Church and to the State also. 
 But could it be supposed that there was any risk incurred of such a 
 severance in consequence of the admission of a Jew or two into 
 Parliament ? He was convinced that no more safe or politic course 
 could be taken, than to open the doors of the constitution to all. 
 Even as the law at present stood, there was more than one Jew a 
 member of the bar, and he might become Lord Chancellor. 
 
 There was no office whatever which a Jew might not fill in 
 Parliament. It was the doctrine of our law and constitution, that 
 all the rights of the subject, and all the privileges of the subject, and 
 all the enjoyments of the subject, and all the prerogatives of the 
 subject, and all tlie powers of the subject, ought to be accessible to 
 all subjects who were not debarred by personal disabilities ; and 
 that no one was to be debarred from them by the personal 
 disability of happening to have a conscience to which he ap- 
 pealed in matters of the high importance of religious faith. Did
 
 146 
 
 he, in saying this, consider that it was of no importance that Parlia- 
 ment should henceforth be a Christian body ? Did he consider that 
 the Christian character of the Legislature was a matter of indiffer- 
 ence? No such thing. He declared that Parliament had been 
 Christian and would continue to be Christian, notwithstanding it 
 meted out justice to the Jews, just as it had remained Christian 
 after having done justice to the Dissenters and the Roman Catholics. 
 This was propounded to him as a measure which he felt bound to 
 support, in consistency with the principles which he had ever enter- 
 tained. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 The Marquess of Lansdowne replied : He had not misrepre- 
 sented the noble Lord (Stanley) when he said that he had voted for 
 a Bill for the admission of the Jews. He voted for such a Bill in 
 1830, that Bill distinctly relating to seats in Parliament, as well 
 as to other privileges, and he had not accompanied that vote with 
 any intimation of a wish to see that provision altered in Committee ; 
 but he now saw cause for changing his opinions. With reference to 
 the statement which he made as to the rights of the Jews, the right 
 rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) had misunderstood his meaning. 
 What he stated was, that the Jew, as well as every other subject 
 of the Queen, when he became Her subject, had a right to be 
 eligible to Parliament, if there was no sufficient reason shown 
 to the contrary. And although the right rev. Prelate made light 
 of the injury done to constituencies by the refusal of the House to 
 receive the person whom they had chosen, he could assure him it 
 was no slight grievance : the exercise of the right was one of those 
 constitutional privileges which were dear to the people of this 
 country, and had been the subject of controversy which had raised 
 a flame from one end of the country to the other. He need not 
 refer him to the Middlesex election; in that case the House of 
 Commons were obliged to rescind the resolution by which they had 
 endeavoured, for a quarter of a century, to deprive the country of 
 this privilege. With reference to the London election, he could 
 assure the House that not one shilling of the expenses of Lord John 
 Russell in that election were paid out of any other pocket than that 
 of Lord J. Russell ; and that it was the anxious desire of his noble
 
 147 
 
 friend, during that election, to keep himself entirely separate from 
 Baron Rothschild. In contending for the civil rights of his fellow- 
 subjects, the last consideration of his noble friend, the Member for 
 the City of London, would be one for his own personal advantage. 
 The whole history of his life bore him out in that assertion ; and it 
 would be well, if every person in that House, or elsewhere, would 
 imitate his example. And the proof of the approval he had gained 
 by his consistent efforts, was to be found in the fact of his election 
 by the Citizens of London, who had conferred on him the greatest 
 honor which it was in their power to bestow. 
 
 Their Lordships then divided ; the numbers were 
 
 Content : Present 96 
 
 Proxies 32 
 
 -128 
 
 Non-Content : Present 125 
 
 Proxies 38 
 
 -163 
 
 Majority against the Bill 35 
 
 Division on the Second Reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill, 
 
 House of Lords, May %5th, 1848. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Lord Chancellor 
 
 MARQUESSES. 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Archbishop of York 
 
 Ormonde 
 
 Burligton 
 
 DUKES. 
 
 Westminster 
 
 Camperdown 
 
 Norfolk 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Liverpool 
 
 St. Alban's 
 
 Fortescue 
 
 Granville 
 
 Leeds 
 
 Spencer 
 
 Yarborough 
 
 Cleveland 
 
 Shrewsbury 
 
 Leicester 
 
 Argyll 
 
 Huntingdon 
 
 Zetland 
 
 Roxburgh 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 Auckland 
 
 Leinster 
 
 Essex 
 
 Fitzhardinge 
 
 MARQUESSES. 
 
 Scarborough 
 
 Stratford 
 
 Lansdowne 
 
 Fitzwilliam 
 
 Bruce 
 
 Anglesey 
 
 Charlemont 
 
 Besborough 
 
 Hertford 
 
 Craven 
 
 Rosebery 
 
 Breadalbane 
 
 Chichester 
 
 Fingal 
 
 Londonderry 
 
 Grey 
 
 Sefton 
 
 Donegal 
 
 Minto 
 
 Ellesmere 
 
 Sligo 
 
 St. Germans 
 
 Kenmare 
 
 Clanricarde 
 
 Morley 
 
 Glasgow 
 
 
 
 L2
 
 148 
 
 VISCOUNTS. 
 
 BARONS. 
 
 Bolingbroke 
 
 Arundel 
 
 Exmouth 
 
 Byron 
 
 Canning 
 
 Montfort 
 
 Hardinge 
 
 Foley 
 
 BISHOPS. 
 
 Suffield 
 
 St. David's 
 
 Lyttelton 
 
 Worcester 
 
 Wodehouse 
 
 Manchester 
 
 Erskine 
 
 Hereford 
 
 Manners 
 
 BARONS. 
 
 Wharncliffe 
 
 Hastings 
 
 Brougham 
 
 Dacre 
 
 Kinnaird 
 
 Camoys 
 
 Poltimore 
 
 Beaumont 
 
 Dinorben 
 
 Vaux 
 
 Denman 
 
 Say and Sele 
 
 
 
 PROXIES. 
 
 DUKES 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Somerset 
 
 Gosford 
 
 Brandon 
 
 Cowper 
 
 Devonshire 
 
 Cork 
 
 Sutherland 
 
 Kingston 
 
 Grafton 
 
 VISCOUNTS. 
 
 MARQUESSES. 
 
 Melbourne 
 
 Westmeath 
 
 Falkland 
 
 Normanby 
 
 BARONS. 
 
 Headfort 
 
 Stourton 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Lovatt 
 
 Derby 
 
 Dunalley 
 
 Thanet 
 
 Wenlock 
 
 
 NON-COXTENTS. 
 
 ARCHBISHOPS. 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Canterbury 
 
 Eglintoun 
 
 Armagh 
 
 Aylesford 
 
 DUKES 
 
 Bandon 
 
 Wellington 
 
 Bathurst 
 
 Athol 
 
 Beauchftmp 
 
 Beaufort 
 
 Brownlow 
 
 Buccleuch 
 
 Cardigan 
 
 Montrose 
 
 Cadogan 
 
 Manchester 
 
 Cathcart 
 
 Newcastle 
 
 Cawdor 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 Charleville 
 
 Richmond 
 
 Clanwilliam 
 
 Buckingham 
 
 Devon 
 
 MARQUESSES. 
 
 Dartmouth 
 
 Camden 
 
 Delawarr 
 
 Cholmondeley 
 
 Desart 
 
 Exeter 
 
 Digby 
 
 Downshire 
 
 Ellenborough 
 
 Drogheda 
 
 Effingham 
 
 Salisbury 
 
 Erne 
 
 Winchester 
 
 Falmouth 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Clare 
 
 Abergavenny 
 
 Limerick 
 
 Aberdeen 
 
 Glengall 
 
 BARONS. 
 
 Portman 
 
 De Mauley 
 
 Wrottesley 
 
 Sudeley 
 
 Stuart de Decies 
 
 Leigh 
 
 Colborne 
 
 Dunfermline 
 
 Monteagle 
 
 Keane 
 
 Campbell 
 
 Vivian 
 
 Cremorne 
 
 Milford 
 
 Eddisbury 
 
 BARONS. 
 Abercromhy 
 Acheson 
 
 Howard de Walden 
 Glenelg 
 Carew 
 Cloncurry 
 Hatherton 
 Mostyn 
 Monson 
 
 Stanley of Alderley 
 Dormer 
 Oriel 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Hardwicke 
 
 Harrowby 
 
 Harewood 
 
 Kinnoul 
 
 Howe 
 
 Jersey 
 
 Lonsdale 
 
 Egmont 
 
 Lucan 
 
 Malmesbury 
 
 Mansfield 
 
 Manvers 
 
 Mountcashel 
 
 Munster 
 
 Nelson 
 
 Pomfret 
 
 Powis 
 
 Galloway 
 
 Selkirk 
 
 Verulam 
 
 Wilton 
 
 Waldegrave 
 
 Winchilsea 
 
 Romney
 
 149 
 
 VISCOUNTS. 
 
 BISHOPS. 
 
 BARONS. 
 
 Combermere 
 
 Salisbury 
 
 Forester 
 
 Hereford 
 
 Winchester 
 
 Godolphin 
 
 Hill 
 
 BARONS. 
 
 Gray 
 
 Maynard 
 
 Abinger 
 
 Hawarden 
 
 Strangford 
 
 Bayning 
 
 Kenyon 
 
 Sidmouth 
 
 Bolton 
 
 Lilford 
 
 BISHOPS. 
 
 Boston 
 
 Middleton 
 
 Bangor 
 
 Braybrooke 
 
 Polwarth 
 
 Bath and Wells 
 
 Crewe 
 
 Rayleigh 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 Castlemaine 
 
 Redesdale 
 
 Chichester 
 
 Churchill 
 
 Rollo 
 
 Ely 
 
 Clinton 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 Exeter 
 
 Colchester 
 
 Sydney 
 
 Gloucester 
 
 Crofton 
 
 Skelmersdale 
 
 Lichfield 
 
 De Tabley 
 
 Sondes 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 De Ros 
 
 Southampton 
 
 Llandaff 
 
 Delamere 
 
 Stanley 
 
 Oxford 
 Rochester 
 
 Farnham 
 Fevershara 
 
 Templemore 
 Tenterden 
 
 
 
 Wynford 
 
 PROXIES. 
 
 DUKE. 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 BARONS. 
 
 Rutland 
 
 Orford 
 
 Colville 
 
 MARQUKSS. 
 
 Abingdon 
 
 Sherborne 
 
 Ely 
 
 Guildford 
 
 Sinclair 
 
 EARLS. 
 
 Onslow 
 
 Saltoun 
 
 Mayo 
 
 Courtowu 
 
 Northwick 
 
 Beverley 
 
 Pembroke 
 
 De Saumerez 
 
 Morton 
 
 Denbigh 
 
 St. John 
 
 Airlie 
 
 VISCOUNTS. 
 
 Grantley 
 
 Caledon 
 
 Strathallan 
 
 Blayney 
 
 Stanhope 
 
 Beresford 
 
 Rivers 
 
 Leven 
 
 O'Neill 
 
 Carteret 
 
 Somers 
 
 BISHOPS. 
 
 De Lisle 
 
 Warwick 
 
 London 
 
 
 Chesterfield 
 
 Ripon 
 
 
 Shannon 
 
 
 
 PAIRS FOR THE NIGHT. 
 
 Earl of Sandwich 
 Earl of Haddington 
 Marquess of Ailsa 
 Earl of Lauderdale 
 Earl of Shaftesbury 
 Lord Clonbrook 
 Earl of Ranfurley 
 Duke of Cambridge 
 Earl of Orkney 
 Earl of Eldon 
 Viscount Lake 
 Earl of Enniskillen 
 Earl of Rosslyn 
 Marquess of Ailesbury 
 Earl of Longford 
 
 Lord Elphinstone 
 
 Lord Carrington 
 
 Lord Willoughby de Eresby 
 
 Lord Belhaven 
 
 Lord Beauvale 
 
 Lord Rossmore 
 
 Lord De Freyne 
 
 Lord Stafford 
 
 Duke of Bedford 
 
 Lord Talbot de Malahide 
 
 Bishop of Durham 
 
 Earl of Radnor 
 
 Earl of Lovelace 
 
 Lord Langdale 
 
 Viscount Exmouth
 
 150 
 
 It will be seen, from the foregoing summary of the 
 Debates on the Jewish Disabilities Bill, that many 
 objections urged against the right of our Jewish fellow- 
 subjects to participate in the privileges of the British 
 Constitution were ably answered in both Houses of 
 Parliament by several of the noble and honorable 
 Members who supported Lord John Russell's measure. 
 
 As there are some objections, however, which were 
 brought more prominently forward by the opponents 
 of the Jews, and which have not been so fully 
 answered as might be desired, we may, now that the 
 Bill has been rejected by the House of Lords, dis- 
 passionately review those objections. 
 
 1 . It has been said that " the name Jew shews 
 that all Jews are of a distinct and peculiar nation or 
 country." 
 
 2. That " all Jews, like Turks and Infidels, are 
 perpetual enemies of Christians." 
 
 3. That " all Jews are aliens." 
 
 4. That " all Jews are serfs or bond-men of the 
 Sovereign." 
 
 5. That " the Jews have no fixed residence in any 
 Christian country; but, relying on the Prophecies, 
 live in expectation of ultimately returning to Jerusa- 
 lem. 
 
 That some of these opinions are false and ground- 
 less, while others of them are at least doubtful and 
 uncertain, is clearly demonstrable. 
 
 1 It has been said that the Jews are a distinct or 
 peculiar nation ; but the truth is (as Mr. G. C. Lewis 
 justly observed), that " They merely form a separate
 
 151 
 
 iace*." Molloy says " A Jew is a name of profession 
 and not of country." (De Jure Maritime, p. 282, 
 Joseph Scaliger ex quo Casaubon, adv. Baron, p. 191.) 
 And that there were Jews of Antioch, Cyprus, Gyrene, 
 and various other places, we learn from the writings 
 of many eminent men : indeed the Gospels themselves 
 inform us that "there were dwelling at Jerusalem 
 Jews, devout men, out of every nation under Heaven." 
 (Acts, chap. IT. v. 5.) 
 
 2. We have high authority, also, to prove that 
 Jews ought not to be regarded in the light of per- 
 petual enemies of the Christians. Lord Keeper 
 Lyttleton says " Turks and Infidels are not perpetui 
 inimici, nor is there a particular enmity between them 
 and us; but this is a common error founded on a 
 groundless opinion ; for though there be a difference 
 between our religion and theirs, that does not oblige 
 us to be enemies to their persons ; they are the 
 creatures of God, and of the same kind as we are, and 
 it would be a sin in us to hurt them." fLord K. 
 Lyttletoris Reading on the 27, E. 3. 17. MS.) And 
 in a case which occurred. 36th, Charles the Second, 
 being an action brought by a Jew against a Christian, 
 the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was a Jew, and 
 that all Jews were perpetual enemies of the King and 
 our religion ; but the Court overruled the plea in 
 favor of the plaintiff. (Lilly's Pract. Reg. v. n, p. 4j\) 
 
 * Speech of Mr. G. C. Lewis on the Jewish Disabilities Bill. {Part. Deb. 
 House of Commons, May 4t/i, 1848.) 
 
 t " A work of great authority, and can he relied on." C/i. Justice Willes.
 
 152 
 
 3. That all Jews are not aliens, is equally evident. 
 Lord Coke has defined an alien to be " one born in a 
 strange country, and out of the ligeance of the Sove- 
 reign." (1 Co. Litt. sec. 198. 7 Co. 18, Calvin's case.) 
 Another great legal commentator, Blackstone, has de- 
 clared a similar opinion. (1 Comm. 374.) Professor 
 Wooddeson distinctly lays it down, that "the issue 
 of an alien, born within the realm, are accounted 
 natural subjects." ( View of the Laws of England, 
 vol. i, p. 386.) And the Statute 11 and 12, Wm, III, 
 cap. 6, enacts, in most comprehensive terms, that 
 " natural-born subjects may derive a title to lands by 
 descent through their parents, or any other ancestor or 
 ancestors, either lineal or collateral, though such ances- 
 tors were aliens*" It is quite manifest, therefore, that, 
 according to the present law of England, members of 
 the Jewish persuasion, who are natural-born subjects 
 of the Crown of England, may inherit and hold land : 
 foreign Jews, however, are in this country on the same 
 footing as aliens ; and cannot, unless naturalized, hold 
 land against the Sovereign (see Foudron v. Cowdry, 
 3 Mylne and Keen's Ch. Repts. 385) ; although such 
 persons may hold personal estate. In the case of De 
 Hourmelin v. Shelton, that eminent Equity Judge, 
 Lord Langdale, said " Aliens may take land, although 
 they cannot hold it against the Sovereign ; and it has 
 been considered to be in conformity with the policy of 
 
 * This Act, as well as some others, seems to have been totally overlooked by 
 the opponents of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.
 
 153 
 
 the law that aliens should be interested in the English 
 Stocks or Funds." (Vide I Sevan's Reports in the 
 Rolls Court, tempo Ld. Langdale, p. 91*.) The erudite 
 judgment of Lord Langdale decided in this case that, 
 " where real estate is vested in trustees by a testator 
 and directed to be sold, the legatees, although aliens, 
 will be held entitled to their share of the purchase 
 money." (See also the judgment of his Lordship in 
 the more recent case of Masters v. the Marquis de 
 Croismaire, Rolls Court, 12th of June, 1848.) Con- 
 sequently the Jews of the present day, who are the 
 children or grand-children of natural-born English 
 subjects, cannot be deemed aliens. 
 
 4. It is asserted that anciently all Jews in Eng- 
 land were villeins or bond-men that they and all 
 that belonged to them were the King's and that the 
 Jews of the present day should be considered as hold- 
 ing a similar position ; but this opinion is likewise 
 erroneous. We admit that in former days a great 
 portion of the English people were not more free than 
 serfs ; for it is generally agreed by historical and legal 
 writers that more than half the lands of England 
 were anciently held in villenage, and the greater part 
 of the inhabitants were consequently in a state of 
 
 * The Court of Chancery also possesses authority over the property which 
 foreigners have in the English Funds, and will exercise control over it, although 
 the owners are out of the jurisdiction of the Court. (Vide Atkyn's Cas. in 
 Chancery, p. 18.)
 
 154 
 
 vassalage* ; -and it is clear that this condition existed 
 down to a late period ; for in the reign of Henry the 
 Eighth (A.D. 1514) we find that this king manumitted 
 two of his villeins, who were native subjects born in 
 Cornwall; and in Rymer there is a commission of 
 Queen Elizabeth ( A.D. 1574) to Lord Burghley and 
 Sir Walter Mildmay, for enquiring into the lands, 
 tenements, goods and chattels of all Her Majesty's 
 bond-men and bond-women in Corn wall, Devon, Somer- 
 setshire, and Gloucester, such as were by blood in a 
 slavish condition, by being born in any of Her Ma- 
 jesty's manors, and to compound with all or any such 
 bond-men or bond-women for their freedomf. A 
 villein could acquire no property either in lands or 
 goods. A villein could not be vouched or be a wit- 
 nessj ; and villeins were not protected by Magna 
 Charta ; nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur, 
 8$c. was cautiously expressed to exclude the poor 
 villein: for, as Lord Coke tells us, the lord may beat 
 his villein, and if it be even without cause, he cannot 
 have any remedy or redress . Hence it would appear 
 that in remote times serfdom appertained to the 
 native-born subjects of England, and not to aliens. 
 In the earlier times, all the Jews in England were 
 
 * Glanville, Bracton, Spelman. 
 
 t Barrington's Obs. on Stat. 1, Richard II. 
 
 J Glanville, Bracton, Viner's Abr. v. xxu, p. 67. 
 
 In the 15th year of Richard II, the Barons petitioned the King that " No 
 villeyn should send bis son to school ;" to which the King gave the proper answer 
 of s'avuera, which is a denial. (See Harrington on the Ancient Statutes, p. 190.)
 
 155 
 
 aliens ; and we have already shewn that Jews could 
 purchase and convey land could appear as witnesses 
 act as jurors and were even recognized as creditors 
 by Magna Charta; consequently their condition was not 
 that of villeins. And surely it cannot be maintained 
 that, because the Jews were in barbarous times sub- 
 jected to great extortions on the part of the Crown, 
 we should consider they were bond-men ; for history 
 but too fully testifies that our early Sovereigns op- 
 pressed, according to their royal pleasure, their own 
 subjects, as well as the subjects of foreign Princes. 
 
 King John, says our historians, devoured the re- 
 venues of the Church, the peers, and the poor together. 
 When the monks of Canterbury had displeased him 
 about the election of their Archbishop, he made that 
 a pretext for seizing on all their goods and converting 
 them to his own use ; and presently after this, upon 
 the like displeasure, he deputed many bishopricks, 
 abbeys, and priories into the hands of lay-men, and 
 confiscated all their revenues*. Whenever, too, the 
 Barons murmured at his exactions, he required from 
 them as proofs of their allegiance the surrender of 
 their children as hostages ; and in the ancient Rolls 
 there are documents proving that these young nobles 
 were compelled to wait as menials at Windsor and 
 Winchester, and serve the Queen at her meals ; some 
 of these noble children were also placed in confine- 
 ment and starved to death ; which acts clearly prove 
 
 Baker's Chron.
 
 156 
 
 
 
 that in those times Sovereigns considered all their sub- 
 jects and all that belonged to them to be positively 
 their property* ; and without multiplying instances of 
 this kind, we may observe generally that many of our 
 early princes treated their subjects in a similar man- 
 nerf. It is, therefore, not surprising (to use the 
 language of Rabbi Elias) that those Princes, who 
 destroyed their own natural subjects, would not spare 
 the Jews ; but yet this affords no argument whatever 
 in support of the assertion that the Jews in England 
 were serfs or bond-men. 
 
 5. It appears evident from the interpretations put 
 on the Prophecies by the most erudite commentators, 
 that the idea alleged to be entertained by the Jews 
 respecting their eventual return to Jerusalem, is far 
 too doubtful for any Christian to advance as an argu- 
 ment against the admission of our Jewish fellow-sub- 
 jects to the full enjoyment of their temporal rights. 
 
 In the book of Genesis (chap. XLIX, v. 10) it is 
 written that " The sceptre shall not depart from 
 Judah, nor a law given from between his feet, until 
 Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the 
 people be." Upon this Prophecy, the learned Bishop 
 Patrick says " Wagenseil, after the examination of 
 every particular word in the verse, thus sums up the 
 sense of it The royal power and authority which 
 shall be established in the posterity of Judah, shall not 
 
 * Strickland's Queens of England, vol. n. 
 
 t " The confirmation of Magna Charta by Edward I was occasioned by his 
 having rifled all the monasteries in that year." (CanvJ. Aug. Norm. p. 165.)
 
 157 
 
 be taken from them until the coming of the Messiah ; 
 but when He is come, there shall be no distinction 
 between the Jews and other nations who shall be 
 obedient to the Messiah. And after that, the posterity 
 of Judah shall have neither king nor ruler of their 
 own." (See Confut. Carm. R. Lipman, p. 29.) And 
 another learned ecclesiastical commentator and dig- 
 nitary of our Church remarks, that " We so find this 
 verse interpreted in the Jerusalem Targum^ as well as 
 in the Targums of Rabbi Jonathan Ben Uzziel, and of 
 Onkelos, than which there is not better authority 
 among any of the Jewish writers." (Bishop Clayton's 
 " Enquiry into the time of the Coming of the Messiah 
 and the Restoration of the Jews" p. 89*.) 
 
 Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, who also deeply investigated 
 this subject, says " Some imagine that, upon their 
 general conversion to the Christian faith, the Jews 
 will be established again in the land of Judea, and 
 that Jerusalem, with its temples, will be rebuilt with 
 great splendour and magnificence ; but that supposition 
 is liable to many difficulties and objectionsf. The 
 
 * The word Targum signifies an Interpretation ; and these works are so 
 called, from being a collection of those interpretations, which were given to the 
 Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible by the most learned Doctors or Rabbins of the 
 Jewish nation. The two most famous Targums that have come down to our times 
 are those of Jonathan and Onkelos. It is supposed that R. Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 
 who was bred in the school of Hillel, lived under the reign of Herod the Great ; 
 and that the Targum of Onkelos is the older of the two. And, according to the 
 opinion of some Rabbins, the reason why Jonathan paraphrased only the Pro- 
 phets, was because that Onkelos had executed his Targum on Pentateuch with so 
 much success as to render any further paraphrase needless. 
 
 t See the sentiments of Origen, Chrysostom, and others, in Grotius upon 
 Luke xxi, 24 ; and Eusebe's on Psalm 105, al. 106, p. 690. (Edit. Muntf.)
 
 158 
 
 Gospel revelation does not encourage such a state of 
 things; moreover, our Lord plainly declared that all 
 distinctions of place should cease under the Gospel ; 
 and that worship would no longer be peculiarly ac- 
 ceptable at Jerusalem or any other city." ( Vide Dr. 
 Lardners " Christian Religion confirmed by the Estate 
 of the Jews") 
 
 Now, as the structure of the Christian faith is 
 founded on the veracity of the Jewish Scriptures, it is 
 incumbentupon all those who call themselves Christians, 
 to uphold their own system, rather than assist (as too 
 frequently has been the case) in circulating erroneous 
 opinions which may be entertained on this subject by 
 others than Christians. In the debate on the Jewish 
 Disabilities Bill, it was said that " the marvellous, the 
 miraculous peculiarity of the Jewish race, was, that 
 they looked forward to the time when they should be 
 called together by God, and when their religion should 
 be the religion of the whole world*." But assuredly 
 that is not the construction put upon the Prophecies 
 even by the Jewish interpreters themselves, if we may 
 believe our own authorities, the Targums : neither 
 is it the construction put upon the prophetical portions 
 of the sacred writings, as regards their restoration to 
 God's favour, by the Jewish writers of the Talmudf . 
 In that part of the Talmud entitled Shanedrim, section 
 
 * Speech of Sir F. Thesiger. (Par/. Deb. House of Commons, May 4tA, 1848.) 
 t The word Talmud signifies the same thing as Doctrine or Discipline ; and 
 therefore the work which goes under this title contains a collection of all the 
 traditions of the Jews, which relate either to their Doctrine or Discipline,
 
 159 
 
 Helec, Rabbi Abba declares, that the city mentioned 
 in JEzekiel, ch. XLYIII, v. 30, ought to be spiritually 
 understood of that city which is in the presence of God : 
 and the Gloss of -K. Solomon saith that the city men- 
 tioned towards the end of Ezekiel is to be understood 
 of that Jerusalem which is above*. 
 
 Our own Christian commentators, guided by the 
 light of the New Testament, with still greater fulness 
 demonstrate the views of the Hebrew Rabbins on the 
 restoration of the Jews. " Under the Gospel," says 
 that profound Hebraist, Dr. Lightfoot, " there is no 
 distinction of Jew and Gentile ;" and the same learned 
 Divine, in commenting on the words of St. Luke, 
 chap, xxi, v. 24, " And Jerusalem shall be trodden 
 down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles 
 shall be fufilled," says, " Not that Jerusalem should 
 be built again when the fulness of the Gentiles is come 
 in ; for how often does the Gospel gainsay such dis- 
 tinctiveness and peculiarity \ " 
 
 In another place, the same erudite writer observes 
 " The calling of the Jews shall be in the places of 
 their residence among Christians, and their calling shall 
 not cause them to change place ; but condition : and 
 multitudes of those places of the Old Testament that 
 are applied to the people of the Jews, and their earthly 
 prosperity, do purposely intend the Church of the Gen- 
 tiles and their spiritual happinessf." Fleury observes 
 " The heritage which Christ purchased with his blood 
 
 * See Bevelations, chap. xxi. 
 t Lightfcol's Works, vol. I.
 
 160 
 
 is his Church collected from all nations, and the land 
 which he promised is the heavenly country*" And 
 Fuller, in his " Pisgaah Sight of Palestine" says : 
 " More probable, therefore, is it, that the Jews shall not 
 come back to their land, but their land shall come 
 back to them ; I mean those several places in Europe, 
 Asia, and Africa, wherein they reside, shall on their 
 conversion become as comfortable unto them as ever 
 the land of Canaan was to their ancestors." The in- 
 ference therefore to be drawn from those passages and 
 opinions, is not that the Jewish religion should become 
 the religion of the whole world, but that when the rest 
 or the greater portion of the world has become converted 
 to Christianity, " when the fullness of the Gentiles is 
 come in," then the Jews also will become converts to 
 Christianity, " and so all Israel shall be saved." Rom. 
 xi, v. 26. " The words of Rom. ch. xi, v. 26, are so 
 plainly positive," says Heylin, " that they need no 
 commentary ; or if they did, we have the general con- 
 sent of the ancients, besides the constant current of 
 modern writers, who cherish the glad hope of the 
 conversion of the Jews to the Gospel which the Apostle 
 there doth aim at Origin, Athanasius, Hierome, 
 Augustine, Chrysostome, for the primitive times : Beda 
 and Hugo Cardinalis, in the times succeeding ; Gorram 
 and Thomas Aquinas, for those of Rome : Calvin, Beza, 
 Bullinger, and Peter Martyr, for the Reformed 
 
 * In this sense the celebrated philosopher, Lock, also seems to have understood 
 the words of St. Paul ; for he says: " And so Israel shall be converted to the 
 Christian faith, and the whole nation become the people of God."
 
 161 
 
 Churches, and divers others of great note, so expound 
 that text*." 
 
 We are not unaware that, from a tradition to be 
 found in the Talmud, under the head Rosch Haschana> 
 some Jewish authorities are of opinion that the coming 
 of the Messiah would take place six thousand years after 
 the creation of the world ; and indeed some Christian 
 Divines, from the interpretation they put upon the 
 vision of Daniel, chap, vu, have entertained a 
 similar opinion respecting the coming of the Messiah 
 in his state of exaltation and glory ; but who of mortals 
 can venture to say how near at hand the time may be, 
 when the Prophecies foreshadowing the restoration of 
 the Jews shall be fulfilled "? That knowledge is one of 
 the counsels of God, which is not to be pene- 
 trated into by man : "it is not for you to know the times 
 or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own 
 power," was the saying of our Lord himself. Acts, ch. 
 i, v. 7. One thing is quite certain : as the course of 
 time must bring us nearer to the termination of our 
 worldly existence, the time when u all Israel shall be 
 saved " must now be nearer by many ages than when 
 those Prophecies were first announced ; for " the world 
 hath lost its youth," saith Esdras, " and the times begin 
 to wax oldf." 
 
 * Heylin's Cosmographia, p. 763; aud see Dr. "Willet's "De general! et 
 novissima judseorum vocatione." 
 
 f " The History of Prophecy," says Lord Bacon, "consists of two relatives, 
 the prophecy and the accomplishment ; whence the nature of it requires that every 
 scripture prophecy be compared with the event, through all the ages of the world, 
 for the better confirmation of the faith, and the better information of the church 
 
 M
 
 162 
 
 That the veil which obscures the spiritual vision of 
 the Hebrews will ultimately be removed, and that the 
 darkness which enshrouds them will be eventually 
 turned to marvellous light, the Scriptures give us the 
 strongest grounds for confident hope and expectation ; 
 He, whose counsels of old are faithfulness and truth, 
 hath spoken it, that " He will destroy the vail that 
 is spread over all nations, will wipe away tears from 
 off all faces ; and the rebuke of his people shall he 
 take away from off all the earth." The promises 
 respecting the restoration of the Jews to Divine favour, 
 declared in Holy Writ, are both numerous and re- 
 markable ; but, in our humble opinion, one of the most 
 striking (but one of those promises which does not 
 seem to have been heretofore adverted to, as applying 
 more particularly to their conversion in Christian 
 lands) is that afforded by the Prophet Zechariah, 
 chap, x " I will strengthen the house of Judah, and 
 I will save the house of Joseph ; for I have mercy 
 upon them ; and they shall be as though I had not 
 cast them off; For I am the Lord their God, and will 
 hear them." "And I will sent) them among the 
 people; and they shall remember me in far countries ; 
 and they shall live with their children, and turn 
 
 with regard to the interpretation of prophecy not yet fulfilled. But here we must 
 allow the latitude which is peculiar aiid familiar to divine prophecies ; which have 
 their completion not only at stated times, but in succession, as participating of the 
 nature of their author, with whom a thousand years are but as one day, and 
 therefore not fulfilled punctually at once, but have a growing accomplishment 
 through many ages ; though the height or fullness of them may refer to a single 
 age or moment " (De Aug mentis Scientiurum.)
 
 163 
 
 again" " And I will strengthen them in the Lord; 
 and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith 
 the Lord" And on these passages commentators are 
 of opinion that " God speaks here, not of himself, 
 but concerning Christ." 
 
 When, indeed, we contemplate the great spread of 
 the Gospel which has of late years taken place 
 throughout almost all lands, when we reflect that the 
 Word of God has found admission into nations the 
 most remote, and the gates of which were, until within 
 a few years, almost hermetically sealed against its in- 
 troduction (as China, for instance, and Japan), who 
 can say how near we may be to that time when the 
 fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, and when all 
 Israel shall be saved. To speculate concerning the 
 manner in which the Jews shall be converted (says a 
 talented writer), and to be minutely particular as to 
 every circumstance which will accompany their return, 
 is unwarranted alike by reason and by revelation, and 
 tends to throw discredit on the Scriptures, by mixing 
 such sick man's dreams with the oracles of truth. But 
 every active exertion in favour of either the temporal or 
 spiritual condition of the Jews is truly Christian, and is 
 according to the mind of the Apostles. Douglas's 
 Advancement of Society and Knowledge in Religion, 
 p. 160. Religion cannot flourish (says another 
 able writer) where religious liberty is not enjoyed. 
 The want of religious liberty, in nearly all countries of 
 the world, is the grand hindrance of the propagation 
 of the Gospel at this day. Memoirs of Dr. Bogue by 
 
 M 2
 
 164 
 
 Dr. Bennett, p. 169 ; and see Bishop Jeremy Taylor 
 on Toleration. " From all these things we may learn," 
 says Dr. A. Clarke, that " the Church which tolerates, 
 encourages, and practises persecution, under the pretence 
 of concern for the purity of the faith, and zeal for God's 
 glory, is not the Church of Christ ; and that no man 
 can be of such Church, without endangering his salva- 
 tion. Let it ever be the glory of the Protestant Church, 
 and especially of the Church of England, that it dis- 
 countenances and abhors all persecution on a religious 
 account; and that it has diffused the same benign 
 temper through that State with which it is associated." 
 The opinions, therefore, of both Jewish and Christian 
 Commentators shew there are strong grounds for con- 
 cluding that the return of the Jews to Jerusalem of 
 old is an erroneous idea; the Jerusalem to which 
 they will be gathered being, most probably, the New 
 Jerusalem which John saw " that great city, the Holy 
 Jerusalem." Rev. xxi. 23. Again, when we reflect 
 that the Jews scattered throughout the nations are 
 resident chiefly in Christian lands, and that in Christian 
 lands most of their children are born, surely we may 
 indulge a hope that the conversion of the Jews will, 
 as our ablest Commentators infer, take place in those 
 Christian countries wherein they may have settled. 
 And assuredly we should not cling to that narrow- 
 minded and unchristian policy which would induce 
 us to deprive our Jewish fellow-subjects of a just par- 
 ticipation in those immunities of citizenship which 
 we ourselves, under our free Constitution, so happily
 
 165 
 
 enjoy. Should we not, on the contrary, seriously 
 consider whether, by withholding from the Jews things 
 temporal, we may not be retarding their acquisition of 
 things spiritual ? Who can tell whether there may 
 not be Hebrews amongst us who believe in, although 
 they make no open confession of, the truth of the 
 Gospel 1 for is there not reason to conclude that at an 
 early period of Christianity there were some who be- 
 lieved, although they did not avow their belief 1 ?* 
 England stands confessedly pre-eminent amongst the 
 nations of the earth for the zealous and successful 
 exertions which she has made, not only in establishing 
 and sustaining the Christian religion in all its apostolic 
 purity at home, but also for extending its benign influ- 
 ence abroad, by the diffusion of the Holy Scriptures ; 
 and how additionally favoured would she prove, should 
 she ultimately be found to be one of those "far 
 countries" where the Jews shall remember the Lord, 
 where they shall live with their Christian children, 
 turn again to their God, and walk up and down in 
 his name I- We may further observe, that there are 
 others, also, among the opponents of the Jews, who 
 allege, that on account of the ancient disobedience of 
 that nation, we moderns should punish their children's 
 children ; but surely, even if the offended King of 
 
 * " Nevertheless, among the chief Rulers also, many believed on Him ; but 
 because of the Pharisees, they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of 
 the synagogue." (John, chap. xil. v. 42.) 
 
 t " They forget a main point of the Church's glory," says Dr. Leighton, 
 " that do not daily pray for the conversion of the Jews." Archbishop Leighton's 
 Sermon on Isaiah, chap. LX. v. 1.
 
 166 
 
 Heaven hath declared that he would visit the iniquity 
 of the fathers upon the children to the third and 
 fourth generation, the feeble, unauthorised creature 
 has no right to express even a desire to visit, with a 
 severity more unbending than the wrath of God him- 
 self, the sins of gone-by generations on their latest 
 descendants to the end of time itself, forgetting that 
 our Heavenly Father has promised that " he will not 
 always chide, nor will he keep his anger for ever." 
 For such a course of severity we most assuredly have 
 no warrant ; as the Scriptures, on the contrary, strongly 
 inculcate line upon line, and precept upon precept 
 throughout charity and good-will towards all men, 
 to the entire exclusion of revenge. " Avenge not 
 yourselves," says St. Paul, (Rom. xn. 19.) " but 
 rather give place unto wrath ; for it is written, 
 vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord." 
 That we are expressly forbidden to condemn one 
 another in spiritual matters, is unreservedly declared 
 in the 14th chapter of the same Epistle, where the 
 Apostle is rebuking the zealously-exclusive spirit of 
 some of the Roman converts : " Who art thou that 
 judgest another man's servant ? To his own master 
 he standeth or falleth." Again, the same Apostle, 
 with all his desire to preach Christ and Him crucified, 
 is yet forced to acknowledge the high position which 
 the Jews held in God's favour, and their consequent 
 title to high respect from the nations, so different from 
 the obloquy and oppression under which they have 
 suffered in modern times. St. Paul opens the third 
 chapter of the above epistle with the following very
 
 167 
 
 remarkable words : " What advantage then hath the 
 Jew, or what profit is there of circumcision I Much 
 every way, because that unto them were committed' 
 the oracles of God." And again, at the ninth verse 
 " What then? are we better than they'? No, in no 
 wise : for we have before proved both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, that they are all under sin." All of which goes 
 to demonstrate, that Gentile converts or Christians, 
 like ourselves, are in nowise better or superior to those 
 people who, in ancient times, enjoyed the high honour 
 of being in charge of the oracles of God ; but rather 
 that they possess great advantages every way, and are 
 at least, as the most ancient and highly favoured of 
 God's people, fully entitled to the respect and sympathy 
 of those who profess pure and reformed Christianity. 
 It was, indeed, the inscrutable will of God that the 
 Jews should be scattered over the earth, and their 
 temple and city destroyed, as our Saviour had predicted, 
 many years before the event ; but in no part of the 
 Sacred Writings has it been said that this ancient 
 people should not be received kindly by other nations, 
 protected from wrong, or admitted as subjects; nay, 
 on the contrary, the inference is, that they should be 
 received, and suffered to dwell in peace amongst the 
 strangers, possessing property, intermarrying, and par- 
 ticipating in the rights of citizenship. And on this 
 point we have the express testimony of Jeremiah : 
 " Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, 
 unto all that are carried away captives from Jerusalem 
 unto Babylon. Build ye houses, and dwell in them; 
 and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them : Take
 
 168 
 
 ye wives, and beget sons and daughters ; and take 
 wives for your sons, and give your daughters to hus- 
 "bands, that they may bear sons and daughters ; that 
 ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And 
 seek the peace of the city, and pray unto the Lord for 
 it : for in the peace thereof ye shall have peace*." 
 
 The most accredited authorities inform us, that, 
 from the earliest times, the Jews were not only kindly 
 received into, and protected and honoured by, many of 
 the most celebrated civilized nations, but that they 
 were also allowed to acquire property, and enjoy the 
 same privileges as the native-born subjects of the 
 States into which they were admitted. That they 
 were treated with deference under the Assyrian and 
 Persian empires, appears from the cases of Jehoiachin, 
 and many more in Babylon (Jer. chap. LII.); and 
 Daniel, Mordecai, and others, as we learn from the 
 books of Daniel and Esther. In Babylon and Media, 
 Alexander permitted them to observe their own laws 
 and customs. In acknowledgment of the services 
 they had done him against the Egyptians, he made 
 them free of the City of Alexandria, granting them all 
 
 Oue of the questions submitted to the celebrated Sanhedrim, assembled at 
 Pari? in the year 1806, was, " Can a Jewess marry a Christian, and a Jew a 
 Christian woman P" and the answer given was " The Law does not say that a 
 Jewess cannot marry a Christian, nor a Jew a Christian woman." (Vide Tama's 
 Transactions of the Paris Sanhedrim, p. 155.) We find a very early instance of 
 the marriages of Hebrews with others than persons of their own nation and belief, 
 in the cases of Joseph, who in Egypt married Asenah ; and Moses, who married 
 Zipporah, the Midian. And it is stated in an ably conducted and (as regards all 
 matters relative to the interest of the Jewish people) authoritative publication, 
 that " At Hesse-Cassel, the Chamber of Deputies accepted a motion of the 
 Deputy Pfeiffer, by which intermarriges betu'en Jews and Christians are 
 granted." (See The Jewish Chronicle, vol. iv. p. 645.)
 
 169 
 
 manner of privileges in common with the Greeks them- 
 selves, and allowed them to call themselves Macedo- 
 nians. (Josephus, book n. ch. 18.) 
 
 The kings who succeeded Alexander, as Seleucus, 
 and many of the Ptolemies, followed the same liberal 
 course. (Vide Prideaux, book vin.) And Josephus, 
 speaking of Ptolemy Soter, states that " he carried 
 away a great many captives out of the mountainous 
 part of Judea, from about Jerusalem and Samaria, 
 which he transported into Egypt ; and as he knew that 
 the Jews (proved by their fidelity to Darius) were 
 most faithful in the observance of oaths and covenants, 
 he distributed many of them into garrisons and places of 
 trust, on their oath of fidelity to him, granting them also 
 immunities and privileges in Alexandria, in common 
 with the citizens of Macedonia" The Eomans likewise 
 held the Jews in high consideration, and on many 
 of them conferred the honor of knighthood ; and by 
 the Kings of Asia also they were greatly esteemed 
 and honoured, both for their good faith, and skill in 
 military matters : for Josephus further informs us, 
 that Seleucus Nicator made them citizens in all the 
 cities he built in Asia, and in the Lower Syria, and 
 even in the metropolis of Antioch, and invested them 
 with privileges equal to those enjoyed by the Macedonians 
 and Greeks. It appears also, that, even in more recent 
 times, Jews have been received and protected by Gen- 
 tile nations. The Venetians, then the most commer- 
 cial State extant, received them with kindness ; and 
 on the occasion of their having been abused and ill- 
 treated, owing to the circulation of one of those false
 
 170 
 
 reports so frequently promulgated against them by 
 " the bigots of the iron time," the Doge and Senate 
 made a memorable and creditable decree for their 
 future protection.* 
 
 And the Tuscan Princes (those unequalled judges 
 and patrons of the arts and of commerce) not only 
 naturalized them, and empowered them to pur- 
 chase estates, but even granted them the rights of 
 franchise, and the benefits of Courts of Judicature, and 
 it was in consequence of those prudential concessions 
 to the Jews, that Leghorn flourished and became the 
 most prosperous commercial city in all Italy, j 1 
 
 That the Jews sought and obtained a refuge in 
 Poland, at a very remote period, is shewn by the 
 writings of Grabowski, Vincent Kadlubek, Stanislas 
 Hugo, and Carmoly. In that country they were also 
 hospitably received and protected, and the Polish 
 Princes conferred on them many important privileges ; 
 and we likewise find it testified by letters patent of 
 the thirteenth century (A. D. 1203 and 1207) that 
 the Jews could then hold landed property, for those 
 ordinances recognize them as possessors of villages by 
 hereditary right. In 1264, Boleslas, Prince of Great 
 Poland, granted various privileges to the Israelites, 
 
 * This Decree, endorsed Data in nostro Ducali Palativ, Die Aprilis Indi- 
 caiione 8, 1475, is amongst the Archives of the Pretorial Chancery at Padua, 
 Roll. 118, Reg. M. 
 
 t Article XXIX of the Privileges granted to the Jews by the Grand Duke 
 of Tuscany (Ferdinand I), A. D. 1593, is as follows: " fi'e grant you all 
 privileges, power, and favours, that our Christian subjects of the cities of 
 Florence and Pisa enjiiy."
 
 171 
 
 and those immunities were afterwards increased by 
 Casimer the Great.* " It was owing to the wise laws 
 of this great Prince, over the execution of which he 
 carefully watched, that the Jews, decimated as they 
 were in Germany, and persecuted throughout the 
 whole of Europe, came to seek an asylum on the bor- 
 ders of the Vistula. There they founded colonies and 
 cities, established factories, and enriched themselves, at 
 the same time enriching the country. It was the Jews 
 exclusively who occupied themselves with the establish- 
 ment of manufactories, and the carrying on of all trades, 
 jinding both the money and the raw materials. 
 
 This was the period when the Jews established 
 immense storehouses, called 'Kazimierz,' from the name 
 of their royal benefactor ; and of which the ruins are 
 yet to be seen between Cracovy and Lublin. The 
 stupendous building at Cracovy, which bears the name 
 of ' Sukiennica,' because there cloth was manufactured 
 for the whole kingdom, claims the admiration of the 
 traveller for its magnificence, and bears testimony to 
 the noble generosity of the wise kingj-. 
 
 And Czacki asserts, that the capital requisite for 
 the erection of seventy towns, which Casimir founded, 
 was furnished to him by Polish and foreign Jews. 
 " During this worthy monarch's reign," says the same 
 writer, " the Christians did not despise the Jews ; 
 they all prospered under the protective wing of liberty, 
 
 * This Prince was surnamed the Great, not more for his military exploits 
 than for his great love of peace ; his magnificence in founding churches and 
 hospitals ; and rendering to every one impartial justice. 
 
 t Vide Hollaenderski's " Lcs Israelites le Polognc."
 
 172 
 
 they praised and thanked their Creator, the Christian 
 in his church, and the Jew in his synagogue, for the 
 happiness they enjoyed of living in the same country, 
 and being ruled by the same justice.* " 
 
 In France, also, the Jews enjoyed many privileges, 
 particularly the right of purchasing land. By an 
 ordinance of Henry II (1550), they were declared 
 capable of purchasing, inheriting, and enjoying, in 
 that Sovereign's dominions, real estates, come de vrais 
 Regnicoles et Sujets du Roy. In 1574, Henry III, 
 in 1656, Louis XIV, and in 1723 and 1728, Louis 
 XV, renewed and confirmed these privileges, and also 
 exempted the Jews from procuring patents of naturali- 
 zation ; and, through this politic course, Bourdeaux, 
 the chief residence of the Israelites, became one of the 
 most important commercial ports in the French do- 
 minions. 
 
 In Holland, Belgium, and America indeed, in 
 almost all civilized States the Jews, as we have before 
 observed, have been not only permitted to reside, 
 but have also enjoyed many important immunities. 
 In fact, in whatever countries the Jews have been 
 encouraged to settle, and have been kindly treated, 
 their residence has tended to improve commerce ; 
 and, on the other hand, we apprehend there would 
 be but little difficulty in shewing, that every country 
 wherein they have been cruelly treated, subsequently 
 suffered the severest visitations verifying, as it were, 
 the words of Zechariah, that " he who toucheth them, 
 toucheth the apple of his eye." 
 
 * Czachi's Dissertation on the Jews, " Rozprawa o Zydach."
 
 173 
 
 We have already shewn that in England the 
 Jews have had, from the most remote period, greater privi- 
 leges conferred on them than any other class of strangers ; 
 and, however much ordinary readers may differ on the 
 point, it will be admitted at all events by every sound 
 lawyer, that Jews, the liege-subjects of the British 
 Sovereign, are capable of purchasing, inheriting, and 
 conveying real as well as personal estate. 
 
 Throughout the recent Debates on the Jewish 
 Disabilities' Bill, it was acknowledged that the native- 
 born Jews of England may become solicitors, magis- 
 trates, sheriffs, aldermen, mayors, barristers, and re- 
 corders ; so, also, they may be plaintiffs or defendants 
 at law or in equity are qualified to act as jurors 
 and consequently deemed competent, by the Law of 
 England, to decide questions affecting the interests, 
 liberties, or even the lives, of their fellow-subjects, 
 or questions affecting the rights and prerogatives 
 of the Crown and are likewise entitled to vote at 
 vestries, and present to advowsons.* In addition 
 to these important privileges, Jews may exercise the 
 right of franchise, and freely give their votes for Par- 
 liamentary representatives; nay, they may even be 
 
 * In Edenborough \. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor 
 Eldon was of opinion, that Jews were entitled to vote in the election of a Vicar, 
 although Roman Catholics were not. And at the next election, votes were 
 admitted or rejected, in accordance with the opinion of that great Judge. (Vide 
 Russell's Chancery Reports, vol. n, p. 111). And in Israel \. Simmonds, which 
 was an Action respecting a Jewish Synagogue, it was objected for the defendant, 
 that such an establishment was altogether unlawful ; but Lord Chief Justice 
 Tenterden held, that a Synagogue was a lawful religious establishment, and 
 overruled the objection. (See 2 Startcie, p. 356.)
 
 174 
 
 themselves elected Members of Parliament, there being 
 no ordinance, statute, or legal decision to the contrary. 
 In the face of all this, and notwithstanding all these 
 conceded privileges, so clearly given by the laws and 
 constitution of England to the native- born Jews, it is 
 still argued, that a British subject, because he happens 
 to be of the Jewish persuasion, cannot take his seat in 
 our Legislature. It will naturally be asked how is 
 this ? The answer is, that as the Oath of Abjuration 
 is directed to be taken by all Members of Parliament, 
 as that Oath concludes with the words " on the true 
 faith of a Christian," and as these words cannot be 
 subscribed to by a Member of the Jewish persuasion, 
 and cannot be omitted in administering the oath con- 
 sequently no Jew can be admitted into Parliament. 
 We consider, however, that this opinion is erroneous, 
 and that the specific words might, with great propriety, 
 be omitted, in administering the oath to a Jew, and 
 for the following reasons : " The concluding words 
 of the Oath of Abjuration, " on the true faith of a 
 Christian," are but formal words, and should be 
 adapted to the religious persuasion of the party taking 
 the oath ; the rule in such cases being, that the party 
 taking the Oath is to be sworn according to his own 
 manner, form, and religious belief (subscribing of 
 course to the substance of the oath), and that words 
 which are repugnant to his religious tenets may be 
 omitted. On this point there are many high autho- 
 rities to be found amongst the Jurisperitii. 
 
 " The absurdity is manifest," says Puffendorf, " of 
 swearing by any thing which we do not look upon as
 
 175 
 
 Divine ;" and again, when speaking of the formal part 
 of an oath, he says : " That part of the form in oaths 
 under which God is invoked as a witness, or as an 
 avenger, is to be accommodated to the religious persua- 
 sion which the swearer entertains of God ; it being vain 
 and insignificant to compel a man to swear by a God 
 whom he doth not believe, and therefore doth not 
 revere. No one, indeed, thinks himself bound to the 
 Divine Majesty in any other words, or under any other 
 titles, than what are agreeable to the doctrines of 
 his own religion ; which, in his judgment, is the only 
 true mode of worship." And to show that accepting 
 an oath in such a form does not implicate the con- 
 science of a party requiring or adminstering it, the same 
 eminent Legist says : " Yet, when a person requiring 
 an oath from another, accepts it under a form agree- 
 able to that worship which the swearer holds for true, 
 and he himself for false, he cannot in the least be 
 said thereby to approve of that worship. Thus, a 
 Christian, when he admits of the oath of a Jew, doth 
 on no account subscribe to his opinion." Puffendorfs 
 Law of Nature and Nations, Book iv. 
 
 Here we have the opinion of one of the most 
 learned and famous civilians ; and this opinion has 
 met the concurrence of the most celebrated theologians 
 and lawyers of modern times. That eminent Divine, 
 Dr. Saunderson, in his Lectures delivered to the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford, on the Nature and Obligation of 
 Oaths, says, "It is a grievous sin unduly to exact an oath 
 of another. And he certainly unduly exacts an oath, 
 who urges by authority or induces another to take an
 
 176 
 
 oath which he knows to be contrary to the dictates of his 
 conscience" Lord Hardwicke said, " It has been the 
 wisdom of all nations to administer such oaths as are 
 agreeable to the notion of the persons taking the oath, 
 and this does not at all affect the conscience of the 
 person administering, nor does it in any respect adopt 
 such religion." 1 Atk- Cha. Cas. p. 50. 
 
 And another eminent Judge (Chief Baron Smith), 
 when treating of the legal competency of parties with 
 reference to their religious belief, observes "A 
 Gentoo's belief possessing the requisites to create 
 competency, he accordingly is permitted to be 
 sworn. But God forbid that we should not shrink 
 from the impiety of swearing him on the Gospels. A 
 Mahometan believes in God; in an hereafter of 
 reward and punishment ; and in the sanction of an 
 oath ; he may be sworn, but not upon the Gospels ; 
 conformably, therefore, to the position of Lord Mans- 
 field, that " persons not of the Christian persuasion 
 are to be sworn according to their own form." (1 Atk. 
 32.) The tenor of a Moor's oath in Spain was, " As 
 he hoped to be saved by the contents of the Koran* ; " 
 and in the case of Fachina v. Sabine, it was held at 
 the Council, in the presence of the two Chief Justices, 
 that a Turk might give evidence, and ought to be 
 sworn on the Koran, f 
 
 Judaism approximates much more closely than 
 Mahomedanism to Christian Truth ; " for the Jew ac- 
 
 Selden, torn. ir. p. 1470. 
 
 t Strange's Reports, 1104. Morgan's Case, Leach, 59, 64.
 
 177 
 
 knowledges the same Jehovah, the great I AM, whom 
 we ourselves adore; he looks for the triumphant 
 coming of a Messiah as we do also : but, blind to the 
 Prophecies, he comprehends not the promises of an 
 all-sufficient atonement therein announced. One of 
 this persuasion, accordingly, may not be sworn upon 
 the Gospels; for to adjure the God of the New 
 Testament would be an act of Christian worship, 
 and a dereliction of the Jewish faith. The law does 
 not require orthodoxy, as a sine qua non, for the ad- 
 mission of testimony to be given tactis Evangiliis. On 
 the contrary, theory will admit, and a sound discretion 
 of practice may require, considerable indulgence and 
 laxity in this respect.*" 
 
 Why is not a Turk permitted to be sworn on the 
 Gospels ? " Because," says Sir Matthew Hale, " he 
 possibly might think himself under no obligation, if 
 so sworn." (2 Pleas of the Crown, 279.) And, " it 
 would be absurd," observed Lord Chief Justice 
 Willes, " for one to swear according to the Christian 
 oath, which he does not believe ; and therefore, out of 
 necessity, he must be allowed to swear according _to 
 his own notion of an oath." (1 Atk. 46.) 
 
 Similar opinions were entertained and acted upon 
 by the Judges in the case of Lopez v. Nunnes, (cited 1 
 Atk.) ; for the Commission which issued out of the 
 
 * " Tracts on Legal and other Subjects," by the late Chief Baron Sir W. C. 
 Smith, Bart. 
 
 N
 
 178 
 
 Exchequer directed that if any of the parties were 
 Jews, they should be sworn supra Vetus Testamentum 
 only. Indeed it is obvious, that no Christian magis- 
 trate can, with safety to his own conscience, ad- 
 minister an oath to any person contrary to such per- 
 son's religious belief; for the sin would be as heinous 
 on the party administering the oath, as on the party 
 taking the obligation : no mistaken sense of duty 
 could justify any officer administering an oath under 
 such circumstances ; " for what is a man profited, if 
 he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own 
 soulT* 
 
 Such are the principles which have been acted on 
 by the most civilized nations, and by our own more 
 particularly, as regards the Jews. We have already 
 shewn that as early as the reigns of Richard the First 
 and King John, as well as in subsequent reigns, 
 whenever a Jew was permitted to take an oath, he 
 was allowed to do so according to his own religious 
 form and belief. And we have high legal authority 
 also to show, that the Jews from the earliest period 
 were not only sworn on the Old Testament, but that 
 such formal words of the oath, as were not in accordance 
 with their religious persuasion, were actually omitted, 
 and other words substituted, in administering the oath 
 
 * Our Judicial Records fally prove that the learned Judges of the Law 
 and Equity Courts, have invariably deferred to the religious tenet's of the parties 
 to whom oaths have been administered, and surely there is no valid reason for 
 pursuing a different course in administering Oaths to Members of Parliament.
 
 179 
 
 to members of the Jewish persuasion. Selden, an 
 unquestionable authority on all matters relating to the 
 laws and customs of the Jews, recites, from a Roll in the 
 Tower, that " In the 9th of Edward the First (A. D. 
 1281), a release or acquittance was tried before the 
 Sheriff at Norwich, by a Jury of six citizens of the city 
 of Norwich, and six Jews, and found to have been the 
 deed of one Genta, a Jewess of Gloucester : and similar 
 trials are there also recorded in the cases of one Eustace 
 of Peckham, in Kent, of Salomon Bensalomon, in 
 Hampshire, and divers others: whereby it also seems 
 that the Jews of the Jury were charged by oath taken 
 upon the Books of Moses, and by the name of the 
 God of Israel, and with formal additions of words 
 which the Jews use, as Christians do upon the 
 Evangelists." And Rabbi Moses Mikotzi, who 
 lived previously (tempo Henry 3rd), says that this 
 was the usual form of oath then taken by his 
 countrymen.* 
 
 We have proof also, much more recently, that ob- 
 jectionable words in an oath may be varied, or totally 
 omitted, as appears from the decision given by Lord 
 Chancellor Hardwicke, in Ramkissenseat v. Barker. 
 In that case, the application was to empower Com- 
 
 * From a judicial precedent yet remaining of Constantine Porphyrogennetus, 
 who lived much earlier than Mikotzi.it would seem that the Jews, in swearing, 
 held the Books of Moses in their arms, and used various other ceremonies on 
 taking au oath.
 
 180 
 
 missioners in the East Indies to take the answer of a 
 defendant, and that the words " Corporal " and " upon 
 the Holy Evangelist " might be left out, and that 
 some other proper words agreeable to the circum- 
 stances of the case (the defendant not being a Christian) 
 might be inserted in their room" 
 
 Lord Hardwicke said, " the general rule is, that all 
 persons who believe in a God are capable of an oath ; 
 and what is universally understood by an oath is, 
 that the person who takes it imprecates the ven- 
 geance of God upon him, if the oath he takes is false. 
 It has been on this principle that the Judges admit 
 the Jews who believe a God to swear upon the Old 
 Testament" And Lord Hale very justly observes, 
 " that it is a wise rule in the kingdom of Spain that a 
 heathen should be sworn upon what he thinks is 
 the most sacred part of his religion. If a Jew should 
 be indicted for perjury, and it is laid in the indict- 
 ment that he swore face's sacro-sanctis Dei Evange- 
 liis ; yet, according to Hale, the word evangeliis 
 in the indictment may be answered by the Old 
 Testament, which is the evangelium of the Jews. 
 
 o 
 
 And, in order to remove the difficulties in this case, 
 / shall direct that the words fc upon the Holy 
 Evangelists ' may be left out.*" 
 
 But, notwithstanding all these authorities, it has 
 been said that no case can be adduced where words 
 
 1 Atk. p. 20.
 
 181 
 
 have been omitted in administering a test oath. Such, 
 however, is not the fact ; for a precedent on that point 
 is to be found in our Parliamentary annals. 
 
 The celebrated Sir Edward Coke (having been 
 returned Member of Parliament for Norfolk) was se- 
 lected by the Crown as Sheriff of Buckinghamshire. 
 On the oath of a Sheriff having been tendered to him 
 by the Privy Council, the great lawyer refused to take 
 the obligation, on the ground that it contained objec- 
 tionable words, viz. " to destroy and eradicate all 
 heresies ;" such an obligation, he maintained, no Bri- 
 tish subject could be compelled to take, it being con- 
 trary to his conscientious principles ; and the Council, 
 admitting the force and justice of his reasons, ad- 
 ministered the oath, omitting the objectionable words. 
 Sir Edward Coke's Case, Par I. Hist. 
 
 We have now shown that all the objections ad- 
 vanced against the admission of British-born Jews into 
 Parliament are refutable by indisputable precedents. 
 It seems, however, that the time has not yet arrived 
 when the stumbling-block shall be taken away from 
 before our brethren of the elder branch ; nevertheless, 
 the period is not far distant when every obstacle shall 
 be removed which now precludes our Jewish fellow- 
 subjects from fully enjoying, in common with our- 
 selves, all civil and political rights. 
 
 In conclusion, it is hoped that we may be con- 
 sidered to have proved, by our observations, that 
 ancient English usage, prior to the latter Plantagenets, 
 does not authorize the prejudices still prevailing 
 against the Hebrew nation in certain quarters, and
 
 182 
 
 among certain political parties ; that they are op- 
 posed also by the opinions of the soundest lawyers, 
 from the earliest date to the present day, and that 
 they are so nearly exploded, that the most enlightened 
 men of all parties are uniting to carry a measure which 
 is only a mere matter of justice to a limited but influ- 
 ential class of society, a measure which opposed and 
 battled against as it may be must still in a short 
 time become the law of this country. It is no false 
 liberality that supports the just claims of the Jews, no 
 political partizanship, no mighty sectional interest. 
 The cause depends for support on its own intrinsic 
 justice and truthfulness ; -and we are confident, that 
 if the justice and truthfulness of the claim had not 
 been apparent to such great statesmen as Lords Har- 
 ding, Bexley, Wharncliffe, &c., Sir Robert Peel, Mr. 
 Gladstone, Mr. D 'Israeli, and Lord George Bentinck, 
 not to mention those eminent Statesmen on what is 
 termed the liberal side of each House, the result would 
 not have been as it now is. The future destinies of 
 the Jews in England may now be said to be virtually 
 settled ; the Bill for the removal of Jewish Disabilities 
 will unquestionably be brought again, and at no 
 remote period, under the consideration of the Legisla- 
 ture, and it doubtless will eventually become the law 
 of the land : for it has been well said by one who was 
 justly considered a sound lawyer and a sage politician, 
 that " It is an observation proved by a great number 
 of precedents, that never any good Bill was pre- 
 ferred, or good motion made in Parliament, whereof 
 any memorial was made in the Journal-book or
 
 183 
 
 otherwise, though sometime it succeeded not at the 
 first, yet hath it never died, but at one time or other 
 hath taken effect : And this should be a great en- 
 couragement to worthy and industrious attempts*" 
 
 * Vide Lord Coke's 4th Institute. 
 
 THE END.
 
 OTHER WORKS BY CHARLES EGAN, ESQ. 
 
 I. 
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON THE NEW FRENCH LAW RELATIVE 
 TO PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS. With the Statutes now 
 in force relating to Patents in Great Britain, Ireland, and the 
 Colonies. Price 5*. 
 
 " The work is one which ought to be attentively studied ; and whoever does 
 study it, must agree with the writer, who, in his final remarks" says 
 
 " ' We cannot conclude without reverting to the liberal encouragement ex- 
 tended to the emanations of genius in foreign nations, which fully appears when 
 contrasted with that restrictive policy vouchsafed to inventors in the British do- 
 minions. Indeed we are inclined to doubt the soundness of that fiscal regulation 
 which places so withering a check on the exertions of ingenious minds as that in- 
 flicted by exacting from the talented and enterprising sums so enormous as those 
 enumerated in the foregoing evidence, quoted from a report of the parliamentary 
 committee. In the words of an able writer, ' It is to be feared that many valuable 
 inventions never see the light, owing to the present patent laws in this country. 
 The most inventive men are not always the most opulent. It is no uncommon 
 thing for a person to spend many years, and perhaps his all, in maturing an in- 
 vention which may fully answer his expectations ; and after he has brought 
 it thus far, he must make up his mind either to publish it and lei others reap the 
 benefits, or to conceal, and probably consign it to oblivion. There is no alterna- 
 tive, if he be unable to raise 500 or 600, which go principally into the pockets 
 of official people, who do nothing for it, and who do not need it.' Thus it is a 
 lamentable fact, that the very laws intended for the protection of inventions have, 
 in too many instances, quite the contrary effect Nevertheless, let us hope that 
 the day is not distant when the wisdom of the legislature will fully manifest itself 
 by more liberally protecting, than heretofore, the issues and effusions of British 
 genius ; and there is little doubt, considering the present extraordinary progress 
 of scientific attainments, that if the cost of obtaining patents was reduced, the 
 number of grants annually taken out, would be increased fourfold.' " The Dublin 
 Pilot. 
 
 lt A very able work on the Patent Laws." Opinion of (he Attorney General, 
 Sir Wiiliam IV. Foiled. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE LAW OF EXTRADITION, 
 
 Comprising the Treaties between England and Foreign Nations for 
 the mutual surrender of Persons fugitive from Justice, with the 
 Statutes and decisions relative thereto. Price 2s. 6</. 
 
 " This lucid little treatise should be in the hands of business men of all coun- 
 tries." Colonial Magazine. 
 
 " Mr. Egan has entitled himself to the thanks of the Profession for this pub- 
 lication, in which the entire subject is handled with much research and acumen." 
 The Law Times. 
 
 " A work which I have perused with great interest " Baron Platt. 
 
 " A subject which the recent Treaties have made of practical importance." 
 Baron Park. 
 
 " A useful digest of all available information on the subject." The Wesl- 
 mintter and Foreign Review. 
 
 " This work should be in the library of every Lawyer, and on the desk of 
 every Merchant." The Dublin Pilot. 
 
 " Upon the law on this subject, Mr. Egan has collected a vast quantity of
 
 WORKS BY CHARLES EGAN, ESQ. 185 
 
 information, which he has judiciously arranged in a comparatively small compass. 
 He has added reflections and suggestions of his own, which deserve great con- 
 sideration." The Court Journal. 
 
 " There is not in the empire a commercial or monied man who is not con- 
 cerned in this Extradition question." The Catholic Magazine. 
 
 " To commercial countries in particular, the Law of Extradition is of the 
 first importance, and this writer displays a masterly knowledge of his subject, and 
 in a short compass condenses the erudition of the highest authorities on Interna- 
 tional Law." Douglas Jen-old's Weekly Neivspaper. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE LAW RELATIVE TO BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETIES, 
 With Notes and Comments. Price 2s. 
 
 " It is expedient to afford encouragement and protection to such Societies, and 
 the property obtained therewith." Statute 6 and 7, William IV, cap. 32. 
 
 " Mr. Egan's purpose in the manual before us has been to lay before the 
 reader, in popular language, so that all may understand, the provisions of the 
 Acts for the regulation of Building Societies, with the legal decisions which have 
 arisen upon the most important points. He has accomplished his task with 
 ability, and produced a hand-book of the law which will be found serviceable to 
 all parties interested in Bsnefit Building Societies.'' The Law Times. 
 
 '' This book ought to he in the possession of every one- of that now very numerous 
 and rapidly increasing class for whom it has been written. The remarks upon 
 minors becoming Members of Building Societies upon the duties and responsi- 
 bilities of Solicitors and the suggestions upon Assurance, are worthy of the 
 deepest consideration." The Assurance Gazette. 
 
 " A useful manual for all parties interested in the associations to which it re- 
 fers." The Journal of Commerce. 
 
 "A work such as AJr. Egan has produced is extremely opportune. In a 
 limited compass he conveys all the requisite information appertaining to the sub- 
 ject." The Morning Herald. 
 
 " Over the doubts that have arisen on various clauses of the Building Societies 
 Act, the Author has thrown much light as regards the purchase (under the Act) 
 of Copyhold as well as Freehold property ; Stamp Duties affecting Mortgages, 
 Insurances, and other important points." The Shipping Gazette. 
 
 " Every important point connected with the law of those beneficial societies is 
 commented upon anJ clearly denned. The exemption from the operation of the 
 income tax, which it was thought these societies enjoyed under the 5th and Gth of 
 Vic. c. 35 sec. 88, is shown to be a fallacy, the case of ' Caigell t;. The Durham 
 Building Society,' being definite on that point. The right of the holders of the 
 houses of Building Societies to vote at parliamentary elections is shown to have 
 been confirmed by the Court of Common Pleas, notwithstanding it was contended 
 that these societies came within purview of an act (the 7th and 8th Win. Ill, c. 
 25, sec. 7) against unduly multiplying votes. In fact, every instruction is given 
 by the author on any dubious section, which makes this book important as a 
 work of reference to those persons who are in any way connected with Building 
 Societies." The Mark Lane Express. 
 
 " An excellent guide, well indexed, so that by a glance through the several 
 heads, one can find at once the law in reference to any particular point apper- 
 taining to Building Societies." Catholic Magazine. 
 
 " A book which should be in the hands of every person connected with Build- 
 ing Societies, whether as Solicitor, Secretary, Manager, or as ordinary Member." 
 The National. 
 
 " This writer's opinions have become authorities on the matters he undertakes 
 to treat of; and there is much intrinsic merit and ability displayed in this work. 
 Among other conflicting points here handled is the one, whether Building Societies 
 can safely accept of Copyhold property as a security from their Members ? Both 
 Mr. Brodie and Mr. J. Tidd Pratt say they cannot safely do so ; Mr. Egan'e
 
 186 WORKS BY CHARLES EGAN, ESQ. 
 
 opinion however is otherwise ; and he supports it with great apparent success. 
 This book ought to be known by all connected with those Societies. The Weekly 
 Times. 
 
 " A cheap and portable edition of the Acts regulating Benefit Building So- 
 cieties." The Builder. 
 
 " Mr. Egan has digested and elucidated the different Acts of Parliament and 
 decisions of the Judges as applying to such prudential unions. These societies 
 are springing up in many of our colonies, and when we consider the vast number 
 of persons who are daily becoming more and more interested in Building Societies, 
 the necessity for such a condensed legal treatise is the more apparent. What 
 adds to the value of this book is, that there is an excellent and very full index, 
 which facilitates prompt reference." The Colonial Magazine. 
 
 REMARKS ON BUILDING SOCIETIES, 
 AND THE INTERESTS OF THE INDUSTRIOUS CLASSES 
 
 AS CONECTED THEREWITH. 
 
 Entertaining a high opinion of the value of these associations, we have given 
 our humble, but zealous assistance towards the realisation of objects so desirable 
 as those contemplated by the legislature, in passing the " Act for the Regulation 
 of Building Societies ;" and the following remarks, which were delivered at a 
 meeting of one of these metropolitan societies, lately held in the hall of the Free- 
 masons* Tavern, London, appear so worthy of extended dissemination through the 
 press, that we transfer them to our columns : 
 
 " In the absence of the president of the society (Sir B. Hall, Bart.) C. Egan, 
 Esq. was called to the chair. After the preliminary business of the evening had 
 been gone through, he addressed the meeting and dwelt on the utility of forming 
 societies of this kind. The learned gentleman observed, that the necessity for, 
 and the advantages derivable from, the establishment of these associations, were 
 so obvious, as not to require lengthened comment ; they were morally and socially 
 beneficial, because they tended to engender provident and economical habits among 
 the middle and humbler classes ; enabled them to obtain property, and to partici- 
 pate in many other advantages acquirable in a wealthy and well-regulated state. 
 Various associations had been formed from time to time, to effect the abolition of 
 grievances ; but what grievance, he would ask, was more general, more urgent, 
 more galling (Hear, hear) than that of being permanently liable to the payment 
 of high, exorbitant, oppressive rents? Take the case of the humble and indus- 
 trious man, who, after having duly discharged his tenural obligations for years, 
 has been overtaken by disease or other calamity, his rent being in arrear, he is 
 summarily driven from his tenement, his wife and children are cast, houseless and 
 homeless, on' the wide world, " doomed in scanty poverty to roam," and himself 
 probably incarcerated in a prison, for the non-payment of the law-expenses at- 
 tendant upon his contumelious ejectment. These associations prove a safeguard 
 against such disasters ; they enable the prudent man, by the payment of a small 
 sum periodically, to secure for himself the sole possession of a property, and fre- 
 quently for a less sum than he would have had to pay in the same time for the 
 rent of a temporary holding ; enable him to obtain possession of property on 
 which he could raise money with facility in cases of emergency ; and which pro- 
 perty, if unencumbered, might, in the event of his death, afford a provision for his 
 mourning widow and sorrowing orphans. To leaseholders also, are not these 
 associations of vital import? Is it not of great moment to such parties, paying 
 a heavy rental, either generally or in shape of ground -rents, that they should ac- 
 quire the unrestricted dominion over that property which they hold under a limited 
 demise ? The advantage?, therefore, of being enabled, by a prudent and economic 
 course, to obtain the sole ownership of property, of raising money upon it, or of 
 leaving it as a provision for their families, must be too apparent to the minds of all 
 thinking men to require any depth of argument to demonstrate. When we add 
 to these the additional advantage, the glorious privilege of being entitled to exer- 
 cise the right of franchise, to have a voice in the choice of those legislative repre- 
 sentatives who are to make the laws by which all classes of society are to be 
 governed, no mau can doubt the value of the immunities derivable from a parti-
 
 WORKS PUBLISHED BY R. HASTINGS. 187 
 
 cipation in the benefits of these associations. (Hear, hear.) Those advan- 
 tages, great and desirable though they be, cannot be secured without the exer- 
 cise of prudence and vigilance on the part of the members themselves. Prudence, 
 in selecting individuals of character and known worth as their directors ; and 
 persons of ability and probity as their managers, referees, and other officers. 
 Vigilance, in not voting away their funds incautiously, and taking care, when so 
 voted, that they are not deflected from their legitimate purposes. The ameliora- 
 tion of the condition, and the general improvement of the industrial classes, are 
 dictated alike by prudence as well as benevolence ; and therefore it is not surpris- 
 ing to find, that in this enlightened age, in this, one of the most civilized nations in 
 the world, a wise and paternal government have, by a special enactment (the Stat. 
 6 and 7 Win. IV. cap. 32), held out an inducement to the industrious and the 
 prudent to acquire the possession of property suitable to their respective condi- 
 tions, and which enactment also affords them a legal protection for the enjoyment 
 of that property, when so acquired." (Cheers.) Monmouthshire Merlin. 
 
 THE FOLLOWING WORKS ALSO ARE PUBLISHED BY 
 
 E. HASTINGS, 
 
 LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER, 
 
 13, CAREY STREET, LINCOLN'S INN. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE LAW STUDENT'S FIRST BOOK, 
 
 Being chiefly an Abridgment of those portions of BLACKSTONE'S 
 COMMENTARIES which have not become obsolete ; incorporating the 
 alterations in the Law down to the present time. By the Editors of 
 "TiiE LAW STUDENT'S MAGAZINE," in one thick volume, 8vo. 
 in boards. -Price 15s. 
 
 " This work is especially adapted for the young articled Clerk desirous of 
 obtaining an elementary knowledge of the various branches of the Law. It 
 treats of all the subjects contained in the valuable Commentaries of Blackstone, 
 Stephen, and Stewart; aud, in addition to embracing the revised portions of 
 Blackstone which remain law to this day, the publication also comprises the 
 numerous additions made thereto by recent Statutes many portions of the ori- 
 ginal texts, as Bankruptcy, Insolvency, summary proceedings before Magistrates, 
 &c. having been from the extent of late alterations, entirely re-written. One 
 chief and desirable aim of this Work is, to present to the young Student a com- 
 pendious statement of the Law as it exists at present ; and in such a moderate 
 compass as will enable the legal Tyro to make himself master of the work in two 
 or three months, and qualify him to peruse in extenso, and with facility and per- 
 manent advantage, Blackstone, Stephen, or Stewart. When the ' Law Student's 
 First Book' has been thoroughly understood, the future studies of the student 
 will be comparatively easy ; and even the advanced student will find this work of 
 great assistance, in recalling to his recollection in a brief space the chief subjects 
 of Blackstone, Stephen, Stewart, and other able Commentators on English Law. 
 Most of the Statutes of the present Session (11 and 12 Victoria) are embodied 
 in the work, particularly those important Acts relating to the administration of 
 Criminal Justice, Poor Law Procedure, &c."
 
 188 WORKS PUBLISHED BY R. HASTINGS. 
 
 II. 
 
 LITTLETON'S TENURES. 
 
 With Notes explanatory of the Text of Littleton, and showing 
 the recent Alterations in the Law, with Index, &c. 8vo. boards. 
 Price Ss. 
 
 .* This is the only Edition of the Celebrated " TENURES" of Littleton, 
 with E^vplanatory Notes to each Section, and may therefore be justly called the 
 Students' Edition. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW, 
 
 Treating of Forms of Actions ; Parties, to Actions ; Limitations of 
 Actions ; Notice of Action, and other proceedings preliminary to 
 Action ; Persons and Things considered as Subjects of Actions 
 at Law. With Index, Table of Cases, &c. Svo. boards. 
 Price 12*. 6rf. 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMON LAW, 
 
 Embracing the ordinary Proceedings in Actions commenced by Writ 
 of- Summons ; also the Proceedings in Replevin, Ejectment, Ar- 
 bitration, and Attachment, &c. With Index, &c. Svo. boards. 
 Price 13s. 6</. 
 
 V. 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY. 
 
 This work treats of the General Jurisdiction of the Courts of Equity, 
 &c. The Country Articled Clerk in particular will find this a 
 cheap and very useful book. With Index, &c. Svo. boards. 
 Price 13*. 6d. 
 
 From the facilities afforded by the recent Postal Regulations, R. HASTINGS 
 is enabled to transmit throughout the kingdom any of his publications, prc-paid, 
 on receipt of a Post Office Order for the amount imprinted. 
 
 J. MAM.ETT, PRINTER, WARDOHR STREET, LONDON.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 , - 
 
 Form L9-S
 
 A 000128227 6 
 
 DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARD 
 
 University Research Library