The Express.
London, England, 1856-06-21 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 21.

NOTHING dies so harder intolerance. The interest-
ing old hydra, indeed, is almost at her last gasp, but
there is life left in her still. The result of Mondey'a
debate in the House of Lords will show hew much.
Times, indeed, of late have Fee hard with her. Heresy,
Popery, Dissent are no longer penal—there are no
more fires, no more racks, no whips even, no impel.
sonments, no fines. But the yew, that first and last
of victims, may still be moderately baited and
harassed according to law. A Christian Legislature
is not yet absolutely deprived of the wholesome
luxery of persecution. The privilege, indeed, can
only be enjoyed in the mildest form. We can no
longer banish, or torture, or massaere—we can only
exclude. We cannot grill ROTHSCHILD, nor extract
the teeth of SALOMON', but we can prevent these
famous Hebrews from taking that seat in the British
Legislature to which the votes of two powerful con-
stituencies have called them, by brandishing before
their faces, even as Wombs flourished his buckler
of bacon, the needless wads of a pertly mane-
emery oath ; and this we can do in the name of
Christianity with gravity on our countenances, and—
which anterior to experience would have been in-
credible—with something like a conscientious con-
viction in our hearts. It is much—very much. Can
we bs surprised that the House of Bishops should be
slow to abandon such an inestimable privilege as
this

Sir FREDERIC Thisiont—that eighth, or Parlia-
mentary, champion of Christendom—in the course of
his remarks a fortnight ago on the Oath of Abjura-
tion Bill, was pleased to refer to certain journalists
(not allud;og to ourselves), who on this question bad
assumed to dictate the leading arguments by which
the Bill should be supported. What if we were to
take the opposite line, and venture to suggest—we
should not presume to dictate—a few of the argu-
ments on which it is conceivable that it may be
opposed. Were we the holders of a brief against
the Hebrews, our reasoning, we think, would be
romewhat as follows:

First, as to the repeal of the Abjuration Oath. We
are told that the time is come for abrogating this
oath, on the ground that it has become a mere idle
form. There are no more Bruns, and there is no
longer, therefore, anything to abjure. Bat are we so
certain of this P True, there are no more STUARTS;
but are there, therefore, no more Pretenders to
the British Crown P Think of those Bulls which
have just been republished for the immediate use of
the Council of the Propaganda—Bulls in which
CLuntur XIII. addreseed, in 1780, an existisg
Prince of the STUART line SS "our most dear sou
in CHairr, JAMES* the illustrious King of Great
Britain." Don't talk to me of the extinction of the
STUART race—l want to know why, at this parti-
cular juncture, these particular Bulls have been re-
published by Archbishop Mutts. If not foe the
benefit of the STUARTS, what is to prove to me that
they are not for the benefit of some foreign Catholic
Prince, whose genealogical tree the ARCHBISHOP
keeps in his strong box, ready to be produced at
the proper time, when the abolition of this oath
shall have thrown down all barriers between the
throne of these realms and the invasions of a
rampant Popery P For upon what other foundation can
the Protestant throne of her MAJESTY be so securely
bend as upon an oath taken by each of us in
our legislative capacity "that our Sovereign Lady
Queen Vicroau le laWful and rightful Queen of
these realms!'" What else but the sworn profession
of that belief gives stability to the limes of Bruns-
wick P Let us pause, my lords, ere we tamper with
it. The oath, though no longer neonsery to bind
us to abjure the Pretender, is necessary, not-
withstanding the oath of allegiance and supre-
macy, to bind us to uphold Vicroan. In
this just and necessary oath occur the words, "on
the true faith of a Christian." We are asked to
omit these words. We cannot do so without nn-
Christianising the Legislature of this country, and
proclaiming ourselves a godless nation. Is it not
notorious that the retention of these words as part
of this oath has had the result of excluding
from the Legislature all persons of doubtful or even
wavering faith? Is it not oar just boost that
none except " truly faithful" Christians have ever
since this oath was established represented a British
constituency in the House of Commons ? Does it not
serve as a test and touchstone of evangelical faith ?
Repeal it, and you will see the altar and the throne
undermined by the sudden inroads of infidelity and
atheism. I may be reminded perhaps of GIBBON
and Wnies. My answer is reedy. The test, ft
may be admitted, fated with them, but it succeeds
with the Jew. If we cannot exclude all we would,
let us at least exclude all we can. Historical and
antiquarian people tell us that these words were
meant to exclude the Jews. It is asserted, and may
perhaps be °acceded, that in the days of Jamas 1.,
when the words were first introduced, there were no
Jews in the land—that there is abundant evidence
that this peculiar form of expression was meant to
apply to the Jesuitical authors of the Gunpowder
Plot, when casuists had asserted that any kind of
oath might venially, nay laudably, be paltered
with, except one " on the true faith of a Christian."
Mr. Baron ALDERSON, and other authorities who
have gone into the subject minutely, take this view.
Be it so: it does not in the least affect the argument
fat retaining this form of words in the new oath. All
that can be said is that an over-ruling PROVIDENCE
has converted that which was merely intended as •
security against Papists into an instrument for exclud-
ing the Jews. Imagine • community of Jews imposing,
as • condition of admission into their Sanhedrin), as
oath containing the words, on the true faith of a
Jew." Would they abrogate that form of words at the
request of a Christian P If not, why should a similar
act of mistaken philanthropy be demanded of the
Christian. True, the Jew is admitted to high
office. Sawnoss has been Sheriff—he is the
Lord Mayor of London. Did he not. as such, venture
to appear in St. Paul's Cathedral at the head of the
Corporation, in his robes of aloe, to Worn thanks
for the restoration of peace? What properly ceesti-
tated Christian mind could see such a profanation
without feelings the most painful P A Jewish magi-
strate having the hid/essay to rejoice, like a very
Christian, in the restoration to the world of that
state of thlsgs which the Gospel was sent to pen*
and to approach the House of God in the manner
recommended of old by the Jewish King, irkse he
exhorted the choose people " to eater late His gates
with thanksgiving, sad into Hie marts with preiee
Is ft necessary to say mote! A variety of minor
topic. might indeed be urged, sues of which are
without onside:able weight. De Jews are wealthy