bill of
last year. The introduction of the bill was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis
and the chancellor of the exchequer, as inconsistent with what had
been the constant practice of the legislature; namely, to protect
Christianity under some of its forms in all their enactments. The
proposition could only stand upon the principle that no regard should
be paid to a man's religion. It would therefore apply to Turks and
Mohammedans as well as to Jews; and it would only teach the people
that parliament held Christianity a matter of indifference, though
Christianity was bound up as part and parcel of the constitution. As
for the Catholic relief bill, that was no precedent; there was a broad
distinction between admitting to power in a Christian state, those who
were sworn enemies to Christianity, and those who were Christians of
different denominations. Jews were aliens in the popular and substantial
sense; they had another country and an interest not merely distinct
from, but hostile to that of the country which they might happen to
inhabit. The solicitor-general said, that, according to the law of
England, the Jews had no rights; for when they came back to this country
at the Restoration, after being driven out, no law had passed giving
them the rights of citizenship. But how did they stand at present? Their
religion was protected; their children legitimate; and they had power to
purchase land, and to transmit it to posterity. No man could doubt that
Christianity was a part of the law of England; and this was to be borne
in mind in legislating for those who were not Christians. The question
is, "Will you put an end to all religious distinctions?" There could
never be a thorough community between Christians and Jews; there was a
marked line of distinction between them; a complete individuality in the
Jewish character. The bill was supported by Sir James Mackintosh, Dr.
Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley and Smith, on the ground that it was
persecution to look at a man's religion when speaking of his fitness for
civil rights; and that from the introduction of Jews, no danger was to
be dreaded either to the constitution or to Christianity. To refuse the
bill, it was said, after admitting Catholics, would be an absurd and
inexplicable contradiction. On a division the motion for introducing
the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifteen against
ninety-seven. Before the second reading came on several petitions were
presen