The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-12 00:00:00

and to the form of oath which the Bill prescribed, which
was the same as that propounded to the Roman Ca-
tholics, except" on the true faith of a Christian." But the
oath taken by Roman Catholics declared that they would
do nothing to subvert the Church as established by law.
Why should not the same oath be required of the Jew.
The recognition of the admission of Jews to Parliament,
in common with all free-born citizens, was a modern
principle, since they had been treated as villains, to whom
a certain class of laws were applied, and indeed only us
merchant traders. He was extremely glad that this idea
which had obtained for centuries, was no longer enter-
tained, though it was quite evident Lord Coke had
clearly laid down the law of his day. In later periods
privileges were conferred upon them as merchant
strangers, but in a subsequent reig❑ the Jews, to the
number of 17,000, were banished. They remained so for
300 years, and it was not until after the martyrdom of
King Charles I. that they re• appeared in this country.
Then the Protector allowed them to return as merchant-
strangers, but no new privileges whatever were conferred
upon them. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman having
traced at some length the course adopted towards the
Jews up to the present period in this country, observed,
that one of the strongest arguments against the admission
of the Jews into Parliament was, that such as admission
would be against the Christian religion and faith. The
arguments against that proposition of the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government appeared to him to have
entirely failed, namely, that Christianity was
the fundamental principle of the common law,
and in proof of that the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man adverted to the opinions of Lord Hardwicke and
other eminent legal authorities. They were told that
by the scheme of the present Bill the only impedi-
ment to the admission of the Jews were the words

which lay at-the foot of the oath. The powers of
Parliament extended to a wide scope, but it was
not within the competency of the Legislature to
alter the original bounds of our ancient constitution,
and he did think that it was a Nary strong assumption of
the powers of Parliament to place Jews in municipal,
and official, and judicial offices. At every new
step they were asked to take, they were reminded
• of every one of their previous concessions, and it
was sail that they had only to go a little further, in
order to complete their work. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then went through the gradual abolition of
first; the Test and Corporation Acts, and then of the
several advances which had been made to extend poli-
tical and municipal privileges of those without the pale of
the Church of England, and ultimately to the Jews.
ile was ready to admit that this Bill would not intro- '
duce many Jews into the House, but it would deal a
heavy blow to the character of that House, who, it
Would be said, had,lost sight of their Christian faith, and
afforded the Jews the means of scaling the wall of the
constitution. He denied that the statement was true
• that by the Act of the Ist of William and Mary Jews
might have sat for thirteen years in Parliament, since they
had on record an Act of Council of King William refus-
ing to remove the laws which dealt with Jews as aliens.
During the dispersion of the Jewish race they had the
• command of the money market of the world, and that
was the secret of the attempt to introduce them into
the British House of Commons. He would confirm all their
existing privileges; but he implored the House to pause '
before it took the last step of all, that of breaking.
through the fundamental principles of the British Con-
stitution merely to pave the way for the admission of
Jews into Parliament. It was a question of principle,
and would they break through that principle—would
they break down the bulwarks of their constitution for
the purpose merely of admitting the colleague of the
Noble Lord the Member fur the city of London into
Parliament? To be associated with the Noble Lord,
might add, he would admit, dignity to any man; but
no se would say that association with the Noble Lord
Was to have the effect contemplated by this Bill. With ,
respect to the Noble Lord himself, he did not mean to
say that he had not voted for the admission of Jews to
the Rouse of Commons on former occasions. He did
not mean to dispute the sincerity of the Noble Lord;
but he was so persuaded of the weight possessed by the
objections he had stated, that he should move as an
amendment, that the Bill be read a third time on that
day six months.
Mr. RAPHAEL seconded the amendment. Although
this Bill came before the House under the more refined
aPpellation of a Parliamentary Oaths Bill, it was, in
point of fact, a Bill 'for the emancipation of the Jews.
ne had opposed the former measure throughout, and also
the present one up to this stage, in favour of which he had
net.heard a single new ergument, except that contained
In the speech of the Hon. Member for Leamington, on
whose accession to a seat amongst them he congratu-
lated the House. Theirs was a Christian country,
governed by a Christian Monarch, and a Christian Con-
stitution; and, however they might differ on minor
points, they all hoped to be saved through the medium
of the same Lord or Saviour, and that Saviour the Jews
Nov,nominated a blasphemer and an impostor.—(Hear.) '
he confessed he could not get the better of such
facts as these; and though he did fear that this Bill
Would pass that House, yet he hoped and trusted that
the brave Peers of England would reject it, as they had
done before, and that with such a majority as would
prevent any Government from ever bringing forward
such a measure again. The Right Hcn. Baronet below
him (Sir R. H. Inglis) had designated one measure a
" Godless Bill," now this, he considered a fortiori,
°tight to be called a " Christless Bill;" and it was in-
troduced merely to gratify the vanity and ambition of
some tall-dozen Jewish gentlemen. It was more than
probable that he might not himself ever go to take the
oath of that House at the table; but if he did, and the
words " on the true faith of a Christian" were struck
out, he should nevertheless repeat them, and loud
enough to be heard by every one around him.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) If the Jews wished for seats in
that House, let them turn Christians, and n enter it
without being b ,holden to any one. The Hon. Member
concluded by declaring emphatically that he would op-
pose the Bill, vi et armis.— ((ireat laughter.)
Mr. KEOGH said that the position of the Hon. Mem-
ber for St. Albans, that the Jews should not have
their seats unless they turned Christians, went to this
extent, that the moment a Jew became unconseientiuuc
he would be worthy of a seat in that House; but so long
as he acted up to the dictates of his conscience he should
not be considered fit to sit among them. To show how
devoted he was to " the true faith of a Christian," the
non. Member said, that although the House might strike
out those words from the oath, he would still repeat
them himself; but the Hon. Member being a Catholic,
had never yet repeated the 'peels in which those words
occurred.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The chief argu-
ments which were now used against the admission of the
Jews to seats in that House were, first, that they were
• .aliens; and, secondly, that by their admission to rarlia-
Mant the constitution of the country would be unchris•
tlauised• With regard to the former, why was a Jew
u,"owed to shed his blood in our cause, and to be subject
!CO all our fiscal and financial laws, and yet not be ac-
knowledged as a fit subject of the realm when he sought
admission to a seat in Parliament? With respect to the
"mid objection, was a Jew to be considered inferiur to
other classes of religionists, when it was remembered
that even Roman Catholics were once looked upon as
idolaters? The Legislature of this country was a
Christian
Legislature, acting on Christian principles—
on the principles of brotherly love, and toleration to all
mankind. To those principles he believed they would
acting up by admitting the Jew into the pale of the
constitution; and on that ground he should give his vote
In favour of the Bill.— ( Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the Hon. Member who
had just sat down, being a Roman Catholic, had rebuked
Ills lion. Member for St. Albans, because, being also a
onaau Catholic,
l' he would preserve the Christian cha-
r.acter of that ouse• but he (Mr. Newdegate) con-
fessed that it appeared' to him to be rather anomalous
that Roman Catholics—that those who were themselves
°PPosed to the foundation of constitutional liberty atißome
`the very centre, as it were, of their religion—should
appear in that House as the advocate of a lax morality.—
Wear.) lie had, however, risen principally for the pur-
pose of recalling to the recolletion of the Noble Lord the
Member for London, the words which he had used on
the occasion of this Bill being introduced. The Noble
Lord then said, that "ou this subject he must ,
again maintain that they had no right to exclude from
that House any subjects of this realm who should be
elected, except on the ground that soma of their doctrines
and opinions were such as to render them unfit Members
of that House, or unfit to discharge its duties." Now, at
that time it occurred to his (Mr. Newdegate's) mind,
that a learned rabbi had lately been giving lectures at
Birmingham on the history and religion of the Jews.
That lecturer, Dr. Raphall, after giving an account of
the history of the Jews, proceeded to give also an ac-
count of the modern dogmas as now inculcated. Amongst
them were the following:—First, a Jew was bound to
exact usury from the uncireumcized, or non-Jew, with
whom he had money dealings, to do him all possible in-
jury, aad not to lend a helping hand to him in case of
need or emergency. Secoudly, a non eTew was not
held to be a competent witness in a matter
relating to any monetary transactions in any
Jewish Court. Third, a Jew was prohibited,
under pain of excommunieation, from appearing
against a brother Jew who was sued by a non-
Jew for the restoration of property, or the repay.
'tent.t of money lent. Fourth, the marriage of a non-
"w was considered null and void, and no crime of
adultery could, therefore, be committed with his wife.
The religion of the Jews was a mere religion of faith,
but it contained within it a civil code, which, with the
religion itself, the Jews were bound to obey. A book
on this subject had been written by a learned professor
of the University of Heidelberg, devoted to the style of
rabbinical literature, in which he expounded the dogmas
of the faith, and in that work he found ample authority
ttr the statement of some of those which he had made.
There was another point to which he must call attention,
viz , that on the eve of the grand festival, the congre-
gation was solemnly absolved by the high priest, by a
Prayer delivered before the altar, from all oaths, vows,
and promises. These, then, were a people not only be-
liying in the power of absolution, but amongst whom
t e
he operation of that right was enjoined by the priest, to
whom they owed implicit obedience. These were con-
, siderations which ought to exclude °such a people from
sharing in tha legislation of a Christian country.
The course taken by the House on this question was
somewhat inconsistent; because,
new proper qualification they tnhaetiroe
drew the
on a question of
tighter, on a question on which thew perhaps
shsatpilsl
nstrfeieltjpo
more respect than on any other, theywere
ex-
tent indifferent. He did not wish to
d to a great
but he felt it to be his duty to enter histain the House,
this measure as a measure of mistaken lerality. He
protest agasnst
made a wide distinction between such a measure
.and
that which admitted the Roman Catholic to a
tion in the bles,ings of the Constitution; and 11a:talcs' participa-
tion
he admired their Christian institutions, and -be-
cause he would preserve them from such innovations as
that now proposed, that he opposed the measure. Black-
stone, he might add, had laid down that Christianity was
part and pared of the institutions of their country, and
it was upon those grounds that he felt himself called upon
to reeiet.4 measure which would admit the Jews t 9