The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-26 00:00:00

to-night on the part of the opposers of this bill, to brand
part of our fellow-subjects as unable to take part in the legis-
lation of this country. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRA.ELI—I can assure the house that I have no
intention to trespass at any length on their patience, but I
hope that they will be so indulgent as to feel that I may have
claim to be heard in attempts to express my reasons for the
vote I shall give to-night. We have before us, sir, a bill
which is to substitute one oath for the various oaths that have
hitherto been taken by us when we approach the table of this
house. In considering this bill, a variety of issues have been
placed before the house which were never before mooted when
the subject that is mainly in the mind of the noble lord has
been before us. It has been said that there are three objects
to be attained by this bill. By the omission of certain words
at the end of one oath, the Jew is to be admitted into Parlia-
ment; by the alteration of another oath the views of the
Romanising Protestants are to be advanced ; by the change
and reconstruction of a third oath, the objects of the Roman
Catholics themselves are to be promoted. The house will
see, therefore, that we have to consider three issues, which
are in themselves of a different nature. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord has been taunted in the course of this debate with
having undertaken the Jewish claims in consequence of an
accidental political connection. Such a taunt, I am sure,
the noble lord will not hear from me. I know well that the
noble lord has, during a long and eminent career, consistently
connected his name with the advocacy of the principle of
religious liberty, and it was, I am sure, in withconsistency
te
that principle that he felt it his duty to become the vo
eaelf
of the Jews to political emancipation. I have
re" the
on many occasions, supported—at least by my 79
noble; lord in these efforts, though on the only occa-
sion on which I have presumed to offer my opinions
to the house, I have claimed for myself another ground for
the line which I have taken, and another reasonfor sympathy
in the object which both the noble lord and myself wished to
attain. (Hear, hear.) I respect the principle of religious
liberty, as every gentleman, no doubt, with more or less qua-
lification does who sits in this house, but I cannot say that it
was on the ground of the principle of religious liberty that, in
obedience to an overwhelming conviction, I felt it my duty to
advocate the political emancipation of her Majesty's subjects
who profess the Jewish religion. I have always upheld that
opinion because I believed that the Jewish race was that to
which the human family in general was most indebted—(a
laugh)—and when I am told, as I have often been, and as I
have heard to-night, that by admitting the Jews into Parlia-
ment you are endangering the Christian character of this as-
sembly and of this community, I must say—and I can assure
every honourable gentleman that I make the observation with
the greatest respect for his opinion—it does appear to me
that it is because we are a Christian assembly, and a Christian
community, that the claim of the Jews to enjoy all civil and
political privileges is to me irresistible. (Hear, hear.) Sir,
when I remember how much we are indebted to that people,
of what ineffable blessings they have been the human agents
—when I remember that by their history, their poetry, their
law, our lives are instructed, solaced, and regulated—when
I recall other considerations and memories more solemn and
reverential, to which I will not further advert, I confess that
I cannot as a Christian oppose the claims of those to whom
Christianity is so much indebted. If I look to modern his
tory and the claims they have on the kindness of the House
of Commons, it is my belief that if the Bible had not been
translated and printed, there would not have been an English
House of Commons at this moment ; and I would remind
the members who represent Scottish constituencies how
much the liberties of Scotland are indebted to the Jews,
and that their freedom is owing to " the sword of the Lord
and of Gideon." (Hear.) When I remember these circum-
stances, I think that the claims of the Jews to political
emancipation cannot be, and have not, in my mind, been met
by any argument that has at all influenced my opinion; and
there is also another reason why I more particularly wish
that the grant of these immunities, by which the English
Jews will be put on a level with their fellow-subjects in every
respect should not be denied or delayed. I cannot conceal
from my mind that there is no country in which that people
have been persecuted which has not suffered, whose energies
have not withered, whose political power has not decayed,
and where there have not been evident proofs that the divine
favour has been withdrawn from that land. (Hear, hear.) I
refer now to the cases of Spain and Portugal, as well as to
those of Italy and other southern countries. I cannot say
that in England an accusation of that kind can be made
with any justice. The Jews of this country have not been
long settled here, and never were here in great numbers, yet
at memorable periods of our history they have been treated
by eminent statesmen with great favour. The Lord Pro-
tector himself was a decided favourer of the Jews —he appre-
ciated their character and position, and his religious feelings
assisted him in that appreciation ; but in more modern times,
during the most aristocratic period of our Government, in the
middle of the 18th century, under the administration of
Pelham, measures were introduced and passed in favour of
the Jews, which I think did credit to the discrimination
and genuine piety of that eminent statesman. I need not,
therefore, say that the noble lord, so far as his persistence
in the course he has pursued for obtaining the political
emancipation of the Jews, would have found in me an humble
but faithful supporter; and when I look at what has been
the effect of the efforts already made in their behalf, I can
see no ground why the noble lord should complain of want
of success in his exertions. This question of the political
emancipation of the Jews, though it may have been formally
introduced to the notice of the house more than twenty years
ago, has been really and seriously discussed in Parliament only
within the last seven or eight years. And how has it been
received ? The noble lord has succeeded on many occasions
in carrying the question in this house by a decided majority,
whilst is the other house the measure, if not carried, has at
least been supported by large numbers, and by men of great
. distinction and weight in the country. The Jewish claims
have been received with much more favour than were those of
.the Roman Catholics, and certainly the agitation in favour of
the Roman Catholic claims at the end of seven years did not
obtain the success achieved by the noble lord in the much
briefer time in which he has brought the claims of the Jews
under the notice of Parliament. If we for a moment leave the
sphere of Parliament, and attempt to ascertain the temper of
public opinion with regard to their claims and general condi-
tion, I should say that the opinion of the public out of doors
was even more favourable to them, and more progressive, than
that of Parliament. No man can pretend that the present
position of the Jews in England is for a moment to be com-
pared with what it was twenty or even ten years ago. They
are infinitely more commiserated, the prejudices of which they
were victims have rapidly and considerably diminished, the
debates of Parliament and the writings of literary men out of
the house have thrown much light on a question in no small
degree complicated and involved, and it may be expected that
the last relics of ancient antipathies will disappear before the
influence of research and the spirit of charity and philosophy,
so that I think it no exaggeration to say that there never was
a body of men subjected to political disqualifications who, in
so short a time, have influenced public opinion so powerfully
in their favour, and made apparently such considerable ad-
vances towards the object they wished to attain. Feeling, then,
that the question was advancing in the most legitimate way,
and approaching a satisfactory issue, I did lament that the
noble lord should have mixed it up with others which appeared
to me greatly to embarrass it and impede the solution he had at
heart. We must remember that the race for whom the noble
lord is, we are informed, peculiarly interested, is not a race
which cannot afford to wait. They are not a new people who
have just got into notice, and who, if you do not recognise
their claims, will disappear. They are an ancient people, a
famous people, an enduring people, and a people who in the
end have generally attained their objects. (A laugh.) I hope
Parliament may endure for ever, and sometimes I think it
will ; but I cannot help remembering that the Jews have out-
lived Assyrian kings, Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Caesars, and
Arabian Caliphs, and therefore I think we need not precipi-
tate their claims, to their ultim ,te prejudice, and against
public feeling, but that we may freely leave them to their
own course, sure that argument and fair discussion will facili-
tate and accomplish it. (Hear, hear, and murmurs.) But
let us see what the noble lord has done. Here is a bill in
which the word "Jew" never appears, iu which a person not
versed in political tactics could not for a moment divine that
the object of the noble lord lay concealed. (Hear, hear.)
From the debate of to-night, we find that the noble lord has
made propositions which have excited great controvesy and
very acrimonious feeling. Deeply anxious as lam to advance
the cause of the Jews, I want to know why the noble lord has
prejudiced their cause by mixing up with it other matters
which must appear to the people of this country of infinitely
greater importance, and are attended with far greater po-
litical difficulties. (Hear, hear, hear.) I deeply regret the
course he has thought proper to take. I am afraid that
he has thrown back that cause. I cannot think the noble
lord has taken a course of which I entirely approve ; but
I felt he had very great difficulties to deal with, and that
it was not for me to cavil with him, considering the great
purpose he had in view. (Hear, hear.) I would rather that
the noble lord from the first had made a plain, straightfor-
ward appeal for the object which he wished to attain.
I could not have expected Om the noble lord that he would
have made that appeal on the ground which would have in-
fluenced me in the vote I should give on this question. I
would rather from the first that the noble lord had, on a con-
sideration of the great principle of religious liberty, which he
represents, recommended the repeal of the Jewish disqualifi-
cations, than that he should have attempted that repeal by
proposing the omission of a few words at the end of an
oath. What are these words, "On the true faith of a Chris-
tian 7" In my mind, additional odium has been created
against the Jews by their cause being associated with this
matter of the oaths, and by their introduction into this house
being sought through the omission of the words in question.
I do not see why the words " on the true faith of a Chris-
tian" should not be retained in every oath. I can conceive
no nobler words, nor words which a man coming to the table
of this house to be sworn to the performance of his duty as a
member of this house could more appropriately use. Why
was it necessaryt to propose the emancipation of the Jews by
e °mission of these words ? On the contrary, i
means
of h if
their emancipati
religious ?been sought on the broad principle of
plified, and liberty,would
think the case would have been much sim-
prejudice. (cheelersq. have been divested of much unnecessary
with more reverence) 01 was glad to find the noble lord speak
late in this house. I an oath than has been the fashion of
would implythat an oath am not suprised at the fueling which
ancestors,
oless binding with us than it would
have been with our
oaths have been multiplied for
when I remember how much
sanctity
and other kindred pur-
poses. In my mind the Lot an oath cannot be more
properly invoked than at the
ward in this house, in the service oef when a man comes for-
face of his Creator vows that he will do hirdauttyrYto, and in the
his coun-
see the day
try and his Sovereign (bear )—and I hope to
arrive when, by the free will of Parliament, a Jew
his seat in this house, and will take it, not byth:ill take
omission of the words on the true faith of a Christiano(. .11c17ut
by the free declaration of a creed of which he ought on every
account to be proud. (Hear, hear.) Now, having touched
on this subject—the first issue raised by this new ap-
proach the two important ones which are also raised by this
bill, and which are raised
by the peculiar plan which th
noble lord has followed. The noble lord—whether it was to
attain his purpose with respect to the Jews, or for any other
purpose, it is not for me to inquire—has dealt with the great
subject of Parliamentary oaths. I must look for a moment
to the nature of those oaths and to the
.circumstances and
the period at which he proposes this startling change. With
regard to the oath of supremacy I have little to say ; but I
would state with respect to this pr, jested alteration of the
oath of supremacy, that I think it unwise and unstatceman-
like at this moment to propose an alteration of that
aonw ath. It
is very difficult to take up an ancient document ofkind,
and, if subjected to the analysis of verbal criticism, not to he
able to make out a case that if it were the oath which you
had originally to frame, that that should be the form you
would propose. But you are to consider the associations of a
country,with political oaths. (Hear.) You must remember
that the oath of supremacy in its present form does not merely
denote that which its expressions may legally and strictly im-
port, but is associated in the minds of the people of this coun-
try with one of those great political facts which they look
upon as the fundamental element of their political constitu-
tion ; and the very fact that Parliament is altering the oath
of supremacy when there has been no necessity to moot the
point whatever—(hear)—is in my mind an indiscreet and an
imprudent act. Unquestionably, it will be associated every-
where with a limited though influential class of the commu-
nity, who have particularly directed their efforts against the
oath of eupremacy. I have no particular sympathy with those
int 1 on COUGOLTEMOLing Dpro unwise at the pre-