The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

really the descendants of thou parties, it would be
• matter of great doubt whether they (the House
of Common') had any right to take cognisance of
such • matter. Bat it could not be proved that they were.
After the captivity in Babylon there were thousands of Jews
who urea returned to Jerusalem ; and it might be that the
petitioners at the bar were descendants of those who were
absent at the time of the crucifixion. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped that in the few gm:ovations which he had made lie
had said nothing which could give offence, collectitely or
individually, to the Hebrew people. (Cheers.) Such an
event (said the noble lord) I should most deeply regret, for I
em not ashamed to confer that I regard the very poorest
Israelite with feelings akin to reverence, as one of the the
soendants of the most remarkable nation that ever appeared
on the face of the earth, one of the forefathers of those who
are yet to play the noblest part in the history of mankind.
(Hear, heu.) Sir, I believe very few persons understand
the actual position of Jewish people. They are regarded by
many as • degraded, illiterate, money)-loving race, lit only to
frequent the stock exchange or to take can of orange stalls.
I am perfectly astonished when I &moves, even
in the writings of one of their advocates, such
words as these: " I have ao doubt that a Jew
has great qualifications for the office of an English legislator,
and although I would give him full power to go into parlia-
ment, I would take good care not to vote for him. • • • As
he is likely to have a strong interest in the more material pros-
perity of the country, he is almost certain to value that prospe-
rity above the well-Wog of those who composed it." Su-b is
the language of Professor Maurice, of King's College. Now
lan opponent of the bill, say very nearly the reverse of this.
I say that the Jews are a people of very powerful intellect—
with cultivated minds, and habits of study, which would
defy the competition of the most indefatigable Germans.
Their literature descends in an unbroken chain from the
days of our Lord down to the pretest time. An bon. friend
on my right says it extends beyond that. I conclude that he
intends to throw into their literature the old range of the his-
torians and the prophets of the Old Testament. He would
be perfectly right in so doing ; but I was speaking, not of
the ancient Jews in the palmy days of Jewish history, but of
the Jews as oppressed and despised in the days of their dis-
persion. Under this aspect their literature extends through.
out the lengthened period I have mentioned, and embraces
every branch of science and learning, of secular and religi-
ous knowledge. I am told by • very learned friend of
mine that as early as the 9th century the Jews took the
lead in grammar and lexicography, and that towards the
end of the 12th century their labour. in that respect formed
the basis of everything that has since been done by Christian
dater.. They have a most abundant literature in Freer ie
and German, and especially in Hebrew, and I believe that
the Jews of the prawn day have, in proportion to ,
their numbers, • far larger list of men of genius '
and learning than can be exhibited by any Gen-
tile nation. Music, poetry, medicine, and astronomy,
all 'occupy their attention, and in all they are
more than • match for their competitors. But, sir, the
most remarkable feature in the character of the Jew of the
present day is this, that he has discerded very many of his
extravagant and anti-social doctrines. The hatreds and sus-
picions of the Jewish people are subdued, and they exhibit a
greater desire and a greater fitness to re-voter the general
family of mankind. Now, I know I shall be asked why,
with this belief of their merits, I hesitate to adopt the pre-
met measure. The answer is simply this t lam fully pre-
pared to contribute to every measure which can contribute to
their honour and comfort. I offered no opposition to the
measure for admitting them to corporate offices, and I
should be ready to undergo the charge of inconsistency
again, so that I could exhibit in any way my readiness to do
that which should conduce to their welfare; but when I am
summoned, in obedience to the principle which from my
soul I repudiate, that religion has nothing to do with poll-
tics—when, I say, I am summoned to strike out from the
oath certain words which assert the truth and maintain the
supremacy of the gospel, then I must at once declare that I
cannot give my vote for the admission of any one to the high
and solemn functions of the British parliament, unless he
profess to do so " on the true faith of a Christain."
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said his hon. colleague having that
evening presented a petition from the University of Oxford
against the projected measure, it WWI not without pain,
though, after full consideration, that he announced it to be
his intention to give the measure his support. (Loud
cheers.) Ordinarily the men who sat there to
represent his constituents was supposed to be superior
to them in mental cultivation and in opportunities
of acquiring knowledge ; but he represented • body in IT-
terence to which he gladly acknowledged that its members
were, in these respects, at least equal to himself That cir-
cumstance, however, would not absolve him if he stiffed the
dictates of his own conscience ; and in the present case he
felt that he should be betraying the real interests of his con-
mituenta if he succumbed to their opinions. (Cheers.) Upon
the question of admitting Jews to parliament he eheuld be
brief. It had been asserted as an argument against the
proposed bill, that to withhold a political privilege did
not of itself constitute a grievance. That was a proposition
which he apprehended could neither be affirmed nor denied
in universal terms. The case must be judged of by the cir-
cumstances. If there were strong and adequate causes inca-
pacitating parties for the performance of certain duties, then
to withhold a political privilege did not constitute a griev-
ance ; but if no such causes could be shown, then to with-
hold the privilege did constitute a grievance. (Hear, hear.)
Now, how then stood the ease of the Jew with
regard to those points which told in their favour ? His
noble friend (Lord Ashley) had admitted their remarkable
qualities and great capacity ; and he could hardly fail to
perceive that what he had set forth greatly enhanced the
bees of the anniments in favour of the further extension
to time of civil rights. (Hear, hear.) There was one point
as regarded the Jews which his noble friend forgot
to meagre, namely, their success in all materiall
sea ledastrial pursuits. (Hear, hear.) It must be
spalkassi, then, that the civil and political argue
nosh were in favour of admitting Jews to parliament;
cad if they were obliged to withhold from the Jow, on se
Moat of interests peculiar to themselves, those civil prief.
loges to which he thought he bad a natural claim, the
grievance would, in his case, mount as high as any grievance
possibly could. Recurring to his own position, he felt a
great reluctance to withhold from the Jews an honour
Width he himself possessed, end he also felt a still
imam reluctance to be instrumental in placing
Ole university which he represented in conflict with
the civil rights and privileges of any portion of his fel-
low subjects. The policy which had been too long and too
uniformly punned by that body, was one with the results of
which he certainly did not feel satisfied. His noble friend
(Lord Ashley) contended for the maintenance of a long-
established and ancient system, but he reminded them also
that for many generations they had been in a state of per-
petual conflict and of progressive movement in one and the
same direction. (Hear, hear.) His noble friend said
that they had had to contend first for a protestant parliament.
Hs ought to have begun earlier. (Hear.)'He should have told
them that between the periods of the restoration and the
Hanoverian succession the conflict was for a church parlia-
ment. (Hear, hese.) The contention was next for • pro-
testant parliament, and in both cases those who were con-
tending for what was sought were not defeated unawares.
but owing to a profosnd and uniform tendency associated
with the movement of the human mind, with the course of
events, and, perhaps he ought to add, with the providential
government of the world. On the same principles that they
regarded Magna;Charta and the Bill of Right', as a portion of
the British constitution, were they bound to consider all
other acts of the legislature in accordance with their spirit.
After two or three generations, in which the contest had
been for a church parliament, and two or three more Ia
which it had been for a protestant parliament, in both of
which the parties contending for the object were defeated,
they were now called upon to decide the question whether
or not they did contend for a Christian parliament. (Heir.)
And here he must say that his noble friend had made ramp-
lions with regard to the views of the promoters of the ma:
sure, which were entirely inconsistent with the etateessats of
hi noble lord by whom it was introduced. (" Hear, hem,"
from LordJ. Russell.) His noble friend said what was asked
was a declaration that for all the purposes ofgovernment and
of making laws Christianity was needless. The question
really was whether, under all the circumstances of ilie cue,
and with the present position and temper of society, it
was necessary to exclude the Jews from that assemrVr
(Hear, hear.) Now this was the question, whether, u
the circumstances under which we live, we might open the
door to the Jews, who might enter by ones an twos ? The
question was not whether Christianity was needless. His
noble friend had said, how could the principle of Christian-
ity govern the legialature if the Jews constituted • large
proportion of it, or an equal majority But that was not a
fair assumption, because every one most believe that there
could not be more than • few Jews in parliament, leaving
the residue exactly as they were. The connexion between
religion and politico was not only not denied by the noble
lord (J. Russell), but asserted. But the question with re-
gard to Christianity was this. Ills noble friend appeared
to attribute too much substance and efficacy to the bond
which was constituted by the name of Christianity, which
was defined by each men for himself, and not by the law,
and which did not involve any body of fixed TIM". His
noble friend assumed too much when he said that all who
took that name were it for political duties, but those who
did not acknowledge it were unfitted for those duties. It
would be difficult to prove the unfitness of the Jew for the
duties he would have to discharge in parliament, without
also proving many who already sat there, not only as indivi-
duals but as chases, wore also unfit for it. lie (Mr. Glad-
stone) knew that by adopting this measure they gave up the
exclusively Christian character of parliament. (Hear, hear.)
In saying this, he made a larger concession to the opponents
of the measure than perhaps he ought; but could it be said
because they did give that up, that of necessity unchristian.
iaed parliament. It might be true in name, but. was
it
substance. He was by the indignation
pressedex-
by his hon. colleaguamusede when he rebuked Dr. Vanoven,
that we were not a Christian nation, because themeer
few Jews in it, and yet what was now proposed o ad-
mit a few Jews into parliament, the whole body being
Christian; and no doubt his hon. colleague would be as
angry with any one for asserting that this was init& Christian
parliament as he was with Dr. Vanoven for denying that we
were a Christian nation. (" Hear," and laughter.) When
the noble lord (J. Russell) spoke of the oath as affording an
insufficient security, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not understand
him to signify that they were altogether worthless, but that
they should not pleas exclusive reliance upon them, but de-
pend more on the qualities of the men of whom parliament
was composed. He (Mr. G.) could see grave objections to
the 'immure, and a practical grievance to them (the present
members), if the noble lord had proposed that their position
should be altered. He hoped that he meant them still to
discharge their duties under the sanction of the oath, and
that they who were Christians would give solemnity to it by
contracting their obligations on the true faith of Christians.
(Hear, hear.) Nothing was more idle than to anticipate, as
some persons appeared to do, that by the admission of two
or three Jews into parliament the devout and seemly
custom by which the Speaker and ail those members who