§ Mr. R. Grant, in presenting a Petition from the Jews of London, in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews, stated that he should, on Thursday, the 17th of February, bring forward a motion on the subject. But that notice was to be subject to the passing or not of the bill for abolishing the Oath of Abjuration. That bill, if it passed, would, he believed, affect the condition of the Jews, and, with some slight modification, would accomplish all that he sought. Should that be the effect of the bill, though he did not affirm that it would, his motion would be unnecessary. He should rather, however, that the matter were considered above board than collaterally and incidentally.
§ Colonel Cradocktook the opportunity of asking, as it had been stated that the Jews were outcasts in the land, if a Jew, whose father, grandfather, and great grandfather were born in Monmouth-street, would be considered as a native of this country, and if he were taken with arms in his hands, fighting against this country in the service of a foreign State, would he be punished as a native-born subject? Would his plea that he was a Syrian be admitted? If it would not, then it was hard to deprive the Jew of civil rights, and extremely hard to recognize his birth only to make it a pretext for punishment. He would certainly support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir R. Ingliswould not answer the question; but when the subject came before the House he would discuss it.
§ Mr. R. Grantwould be prepared to explain the situation of these people, naturalized in this country, when the question was discussed.
§ General Gascoynewould watch the Oath of Abjuration bill, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. R. Granthad given no opinion as to the legal construction of the Oath of Abjuration Repeal bill.
§ Petition to be printed.