MOTION FOE REPEALING A FORMER ACT FAVOURABLE TO THE JEWS.

Even this concession of the ministry did not allay the resentment of the people, and their apprehension of encroachment from the Jews. Another act still subsisted, by virtue of which any person professing the Jewish religion might become a free denizen of Great Britain, after having resided seven years in any of his majesty’s colonies in America; and this was now considered as a law, having the same dangerous tendency, of which the other was now in a fair way of being convicted. It was moved, therefore, in the lower house, that a part of this former act might be read; then the same member made a motion for an address to his majesty, desiring that the house might have the perusal of the lists transmitted from the American colonies to the commissioners for trade and plantations, containing the names of all such persons professing the Jewish religion, as had entitled themselves to the benefit of the said act, since the year one thousand seven hundred and forty. These lists were accordingly presented, and left upon the table for the perusal of the members; but as this act contained no limitation of time within which the benefit of it should be claimed, and as this claim was attended with a good deal of trouble and some expense, very few persons had availed themselves of it in that period. Nevertheless, as a great number of Jews were already entitled to claim this indulgence, and as it remained an open channel through which Great Britain might be deluged with those people, all of whom the law would hold as natural-born subjects, and their progeny as freed from all tha restriction contained in the act with respect to naturalized foreigners, lord Harley moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the said act as related to persons professing the Jewish religion, who should come to settle in any British colony after a certain time. The motion was seconded by sir James Dashwood, and supported by the earl of Egmont; but being found unequal to the interest and elocution of Mr. Pelham and Mr. Pitt, was rejected by the majority.

1754