The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-12 00:00:00

Mr. B4OSEOENE.-THowever he might differ fro:1111e
Major part of _ the position laid down by • the hon. and
learned member for Stamford, he certainly agreed with
what he concluded his speech, that it was wholly impos-
sible to produce any novelty in so exhausted a subject.
The hon. and learned gentleman, however, deserved credit
for novelty. He gave a new reading of history, which, he
(Mr. B. Osborne) confessed never to have heard before.
He said that Jews were never heard of in the country till
the reign of Charles 11. (" no," from Sir F. Thesiger). If
the hon. and learned gentleman displayed the same accu-
racy in his history as he had in his law, he would have
known of the remarkable offer made by the Jews in the
time of Oliver Cromwell, to purchase St. Paul's Cathedral
in order to turn it into a Jewish synagogue. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) Had the hon. and learned gentleman been
as correct in his history as he maintained the hon. and
learned gentleman ought to be, he would have told the
house that the Jews in the time of Oliver Cromwell were
numerous enough and rich enough to make an offer for the
purchase of St. Paul's Cathedral. Giving the hon. and
learned gentleman credit for this novelty, for which he felt
grateful, he must confess he addressed himself to the ques-
tion at issue, if not with despair, at least with despondency.
It was no very consolatory thing to the advocates of reli-
gious equality to consider the present state of the question.
In 1830, when it was first brought forward in that house by
Mr. Giant—all honour to him—the question had been de-
bated frequently, and the principle had always been acknow-
ledged by that house—the leading members and statesmen
on both sides, though differing on all other subjects, were
all agreed in their sentiments on behalf of religious liberty.
The wisdom of Mackintosh and Macaulay had been re-
sponded to by the late Lord G. Bentinck and by the pre-
sent Mr. Disraeli. Therefore it was not a consolatory re-
flection to find in 1853 the question "dragging its slow
length along," and the same miserable arguments brought
forward as were used in the 13th century to justify the ba-
nishment of the Jews, to keep them now from their legis-
lative places in that house. The same arguments were now
produced in the same intolerant spirit, and an equal amount
of ignorance was displayed as was the case in the middle ages.
The hon. and learned member for Stamford used nearly the
sane terms and same arguments as were used by one of the
lights of the law, Lord Coke, to do away with the writ
de hiretico comburendo. The hon. and learned gentleman,
despairing of novelty, used the weapon of the hon. member
for the University of Oxford (Sir IL Inglis), who said, " If
you admit Jews to Parliament, you unchristianise it."
Now was the hon. and learned gentleman really serious in
making that declaration ? If such an act unchristiardsed
the Legislature the same consequences must have followed
when the Legislature agreed to admit Jews to civil offices, and
another step in this heathenising process must have been
taken when the House of Commons came to a vote that
Jews ought to be admitted to seats on the bench. Could
any man in his heart think that the legislature was un-
christianised by these concessions to the Jews ? If any one
admitted this argument, he must go further, and say this
was not a Christian country, and that there were only two
Christian countries in Europe—Spain and Portugal ; for
in those countries there was no religious toleration allowed.
They would tolerate no one who refused to conform to the
Roman Catholic religion. (Hear.) But in this country,
where all sects were tolerated, where all modes of worship
were allowed and protected, it was absolutely an offence
to common sense to say that the admission of the Jews to
Parliament would unchristianise the legislature. The
hon. and learned member for Stamford went on to say.
there must be a declaration of Christianity by every mem-
ber of that house. That declaration was taken at the
fag-end of an oath, but there were two great parties—the
Roman Catholics and the Quakers—who were excepted
from that operation. If the hon. and learned gentleman
was sincere in his declaration, why did he not come down
to the house and put a notice on the books to the effect
that a declaration of Christianity shall be made, not at the
tail of a worn-out oath, but made in a separate oath
taking precedence of all other oaths. Let that declara-
tion be, that every member, upon taking his seat, shall
state that he is a Christian. With respect to the common
adjuration to be taken' he could conceive no more solemn
farce than to see an hon. gentleman led to the table
of that house, knowing the folly he was about
to commit. (Oh, oh.) Honourable gentlemen did not
perhaps know that they were required to abjure the de-
scendants of a person who had left no descendants, and
that in doing this they committed a positive absurdity.
He for one—and the opinion was shared by a large ma-
jority—thought that this question ought not to be dis-
cussed on religious grounds, but simply on its political
bearings. If the tenets of the Jewish polity were dange-
rous to the state, and tended to the disorganisation of our
institutions, then he admitted a case for exclusion would
be made out. But, •he said, they were bound to come
down to the house and state that no Jew ought to be
allowed to canvass or to appear on the hustings as a candi-
date ; and not come there, and, by a side wind, attempt to
debar the Jews, when elected, from taking their seats in
that house. e would not assent to the proposition that
it was necessary to make a religious declaration in order to
discharge civil duties. The hon. and learned member for
Stamford referred to one of the most remarkable men of
the present day—the Archbishop of Dublin, and the posi-
tion in which the right rev, prelate placed the question.
That right rev. prelate said it was not a question of Jew-
ish disabilities, but a question of Christian claims. Were
Christian men to be debarred from selecting men whom
they might think fit, provided they selected those who
would do no mischief to the state? It was not so much
the claims of the Jews as the rights of the Christians
which were at issue. They were disfranchising some of
the most wealthy persons in the world. The city of Lon-
don had three times sent a representative to that house,
but the house had refused to receive him, and had
thereby virtually disfranchised the City. Let the house
take care that in excluding Jews they were not debarring
Christians from their rights. (Hear.) He would now
turn with pain to what had fallen the other evening from
the hon, member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), whose
observations were, from peculiar circumstances, worthy of
attention. But he had heard the speech of the hon. bart.
with regret, for he endeavoured to lower the question from
one of public principle to an attack on an individual. The
question had nothing to do with the merits of Baron Roths-
child, and when the hon. baronet made use of the invidious
reflection on Baron Rothschild, in relation to usurious
loans, the hon. baronet, in the remarkable sense of the
words used by the hon. and learned member for Stamford,
had stated only half the truth. (Hear, and laughter.) The
hon. baronet; With the cry of religious liberty on his lips,
but with penal restrictions in hi:heart, had endeavoured
to lead away the house from the question, by a reference
to vulgar prejudices; but when the hon. baronet came to
facts the hollowness of his case was seen. The hon. baronet
quoted the case of juvenile offenders. He (Mr. Osborne)
had been searching the report, and could find no mention
of the invidious crimes attributed to the Jews. The charge,
he believed, rested on the assertion of Mr. Serjeant Adams,
who was alleged to have said that certain Jews were re-
ceivers of stolen goods. The hon. baronet endeavoured by
his statements to induce the house to believe that the
Jews were reckless from their crimes and of bad morals.
He would turn from the eccentric fallacies of the hon.
baronet to the pure wisdom of his late father, who, speak-
ing on the subject of religious disability, said, " it was not
right to inflict a penalty for religious error, civil disabili-
ties being in the nature of a penalty ." lii his opinion
keeping men from the just object of their ambition in the
country was a persecution which differed only in degree
from torturing and burning. He believed in ex-
cluding the Jews they were putting again on them the
yellow badge they were formerly required to wear. Let
the house remove that badge by admitting the Jews to
their rights. The hon. and learned gentlemen quoted from
a pamphlet by Hollingsworth, in which it was stated that
the Jews intended going in a body to Palestine. Now at
this moment emigration was very rife, and yet he found
the only people who did not emigrate were the Jews. In
the constitutional countries of Belgium, Sardinia, and Hol-
land, the Jews enjoyed the same privileges as Christians.
In France and Austria there were no disabilities on account
of religion. And when the hon. and learned gentleman
asserted that the Jews were a different and separate nation
who never amalgamated with the people with whom they
dwelt, he was as wrong as in his Oliver Cromwell history.
The evidence to the contrary was to be found, first, in an
extract from the report by the Minister of Public Instruc-
tion in France, which stated that since the Jews had been put
on the same footing as other citizens, they had become equal
partakers of the glory and the misfortunes of France, that
their blood had flowed as freely as others' and that they
had adopted the same principles and had become equally
good citizens. In Prussia, so far from the Jews
being a separate nation about to emigrate to Palestine
a document from the Council of Hamburgh to Prince
Hardenberg stated that the history of the last war
against France proved that the Jews rendered them-
selves worthy of the state in which they were incorporated,
that the. Jewish youth were brethren in arms, and
afforded examples of heroism and contempt' for the dangers
of war, and that they were always ready to make sacrifices
for their common country. These were historical facts
which ought to be placed against the quotations from a
pamphlet which nobody ever heard of. He would quote
the words of Baron Alderson when delivering judgment in
the case of Mr. Salomons. That learned judge said it was -1
impossible the law could remain as at present ; that it
would be more worthy for the country to exclude the Jews
from privileges, if they were to be excluded at all, by a
direct enactment rather than by the indirect operation of a
clause intended to apply to a totally different class of cases.
To this conclusion there could hardly be a dissentient.
Was it right the house should take advantage of a pam-
phlet corrected by Garnett the Jesuit, to exclude the
Jews? The phrase in question was intended not as a
weapon of offence against the Jews, but against the Je-
suits. It was not right to take advantage of an ambi-
guous phrase to exclude the Jews in 1853. We ought at
once to simplify the oath in order to carry out the recom-
mendation of the commission of 1845, and have one form
of oath for all members. There ought not to be a theolo-
gical brigade in the house. The hon. member appeared
horrified at the idea of a Jewish brigade, but the hon.
member was taking the very course to effect that purpose.
He contended that the house ought not to be split up into
theological brigades. If they wished to show the faith of
Christians, they were bound to do as they would be done
by. And as the hon. and learned gentleman had quoted
Hollingsworth, he would quote a higher authority, that of
Bishop Newton, who said it was more fitting we should
strive to dispense the mercies of Heaven rather than to

exert ourselves to diffuse the punishment of man. That
was a great sentiment, and he hoped the house would echo

it by passing this measure by a majority worthy of them
and the time in which we lived. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DRUMMOND admitted that, on political grounds,
there was not a single argument in favour of the exclusion
of the Jews. But this was essentially a religious question,
and upon this ground he opposed the bill.
Mr. E. BALL argued in favour of the measure from the
character of the Jews, and from the obvious injustice of

excluding them when infidels were admitted. If the pre-

sence of -a
Jew in Parliament could unchristianise it, his

appearance in the jurybox must unchristianise a jury. He
had given the subject great consideration, and believed
that he carried out the principles of Christianity by voting

for the bill.

Lord A. VANE denied that the Jews, who did not be-
long to the nation, had a right to enter the Legislature,
and he trusted those who had been returned to uphold
Protestant institutions would not be led away by argu-
ments, however specious and subtle, to vote for a measure
which, he insisted, tended to unchr!stianise the Legislature.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the question was, whether the
sole restrction upon religious liberty ought to be continued
The exclusion of the Jews was now admitted to be acci-
dental, as in the case of the Quakers ; in respect to the
latter, the bar had been removed, and why should it
be retained in the former case? It was said, on ac-
count of his nationality, and his not being an English-
man ; but, if not an Englishman, to what nation did he
belong? There was no Jewish nation. Jews were ad-
mitted to civil offices, but it was said they had not politi-
cal rights ; whereas, according to Lord Bacon, natural-
born subjects were entitled to all political benefits, He