The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-27 00:00:00

trines of the Roman Catholic Church to be
"damnable, idolatrous, and blasphemous," the
famous Act of Emancipation was passed, restor-
ing all their civil rights and immunities to those
who were subservient to the Papacy. Link

link the chains of intolerance have been broken
asunder. Bit by bit the code of bigotry has been
torn to pieces, and seatterEd to the winds of heaven.
One link of that cruel chain remains—one shred of

that atrocious code has still to be destroyed ; and in
demanding its destruction from the Legislature the
Premier might with justice encourage its Members to
this last manifestation of tolerance by remind-
ing them that the proposed relief of the
civil disabilities upon the Israelites, is only the
revival of a truth already avowed by Parliament.
For it is a matter entitled to our remembrance that
in the commencement of the reign Of GEORGE I. a
Bill was passed suspending the laws formerly
enforced against the Jews, and that the
benignant provisions of that Bill continued in
operation for three years afterwards. Shall a Parlia-
ment of GEORGE I. display more tolerance than a
Parliament of VICTORIA I.? Shall the example
which was afforded in the instance of Mr. PEASE go
for nothing, and the still more brilliant course pur-
sued towards TUE LIBERATOR and his eo religionists
be in this instance null and fruitless ? What PEASE
was to the Quakers, and O'CONNELL to the Catho-
lics—shall not ROTHSCHILD be to the Jews ? Can

we remain impassive when we are conjured by an
earnest clergyman of the Church of England • to
allow Israelites to participate in the fabrication
as well as in the enforcement of the laws—to add
their intelligence to the national councils, as well as
their obedience to the aggregate loyalty of the
people ? The question is a short one, but it is
. .

one pregnant with most eloquent meaning—Are we,
in truth, advocates of taerance in things ethical and
political : is our motto of " Civil and Religious
Liberty" a truth or a hunting ?

We cannot object to Ulu nature
,of the measures
which the Chancellor of title Exchequer introduced
last night with respect to Railways, although we by
no means concur in the agguments adduced by the
Right Honourable Baronet in support of his views.
These measures relate to 'companies which have al-
ready received the legislative sanction to their pro-
jects, and to those whose schemes are still before
Parliament, either standing- over from last year or
low about to be brought feet-ward for the first time.
rhere is to be no compulsory interference with the
:onlpanies that have already obtained their Acts.
'such a course would ialvolve a breach of faith
towards those who bad invested their capital in these
undertakings without then slightest reason to suppose
that the representatives oif the people could ever be
;nduced to violate the c4ontract into which they, on
the part of the nation, Ir id entered with the several
companies. Such an imputation should not be en-
countered if the benefits: 'to be attained by the total
cessation of the works we re less problematical than
we believe them to be. Toese companies are divided
into two classes—viz., th 013 e which have already com-
menced their operations, whose roads are actually in
course of construction ; :and those which had not
commenced their works tap to the day of the intro-
duction of the Bill. Th era is no power or authority
of which they are at pre sea it possessed taken away
from the former class, tia ey may still proceed as
rapidly as they may think i roper ; but if they should
be desirous of suspending c r retarding their opera-
tions, they are to be autho rised to do so for a limited
time, without forfeiting any right or privilege.
whatsoever. For this purpose they are to be al-
lowed an extension of times for the completion of
their works, and for conclnarling the purchase of the
lands they are empowered to take under the pro-
visions of their several Ac ts. The exact period of
this extension is not yet sottled—the Right Hon.
Baronet leaving it to be', decided in Committee
whether it should be for t oor three years beyond
the times limited in their r. pective Acts. This pro-
position is fair and equitaible, and no person can
object with reason thereto._ It would, perhaps, be
better if the time were eal ended even beyond the
maximum of three years, 4:gested by Sir CHARLES
Noon. It is manifest the no general rule can be
applicable to every case ; e a c.,41 must be judged ac-
cording to its own peculi r circumstances, and we
cannot see any objection_ to permit the share-
holders to decide on the -period of extension, the
anrobation of the Rail May Board being essen-

moral of
r_ospect, Tryruan's Apol ivy for favouring
Jewisha Policy of
:.as bearing . .. A cTh---t----______
onthe ptohaettiloine-
this clear and 1.4. the ' Church of E I d " .
England." au . Ia
,e
the
yr _ p In- spoken tat i
ords of Viet H I phlet, the author has (to
question boween h. or u .
,o ) taken the difficult
y cf the
face. The to
from the shortest oft.t two hc au Is and exit •
t.h, pu a phleteer
" The argumeti)tosasthie q 4 atati(in•
liarne g "nat
nt, on the grounttatiha
religious error, is untenablic. -
he must think that the mined it face to
Tiaeyr b 9 estimated
admitting jewe is One:—
the State u ill thB
s 4424-,by the Church
already in the Romanist s„d tVZ"iges
But the most amiable
is raised agahist this to Parlia-
nsuasnrecognise
plent bofecause
nna
In 3 e Protestant Assene
tor rrosr
parzit
uptes;tamblees objection Which
State, by allowing a Jew to alit , in Parlialnuerne is, that the
the House of Commons cease, to be a Christian willerav,aki e
and will deprive itself of t! sos character of assembly,
a Christian
State. But do not Unitari iris sit in Parliament? and
can they, in a strict and 1 #.oper sense, be considered
Christians by Churchmen? Ido not wish to say any-
thing harsh; but Colerid „re, Arnold, and other great
philosophers, deny that ' ‘Thitafians can correctly be
called Christians."

among not the least worthy of the emancipators of
the population. It is well that the vigour of
a newly elected House of Commons should
be employed in proclaiming the equality
of all classes of citizens ; and it is especially
well that the Legisib\Nli:lls upon the popular
rep&sentatives 't KinetiemVareounce
that glorious declaration is a statesman such as Lord
JoUN RUSSELL—by whose genius, and eloquence,
and patriotism the Test and Corporation Acts were
expunged from the book of imperial statutes. The
combination of persons, dates, and interests, is most
propitious.
When the experiences afforded by the past are re-
membered, the removal of the Jewish disabilities be-
comes, to every impartial mind, a matter of neces-
sity rather than of choice—the completion of what has
been long ago commenced, rather than the initiation of
a novel scheme of politics. We must recollect
this, that according to the law as it at present stands
a Jew is not disqualified by the doctrinal belief of his
religion from any other office but that of a Member of
Parliament. An Israelite may be an elector; he is
only prohibited (and that even only accidentally) from
taking a seat in the Lower House at Westminster.
He may exercise the prerogative of the franchise ; but
a casualty prevents him from participating in the de-
liberations of the Senate. An Israelite may be de-
clared a sheriff—for that right was admitted during
the reign of WILLIAM IV.—but he cannot be de-
clared a burgess of the Commons. An Israelite
may become a municipal councillor—for that right
has been admitted during the reign of her present
Most Gracious MAJESTY—but he cannot become an
occupant of the Ministerial or Opposition benches—
he cannot sit below the gangway—he cannot pene-
trate further than the lobby. Every disability has
been removed—excepting this. Every barrier has
been levelled—excepting the barrier which excludes
the children of the creed of Palestine from the interior
of the Chambers of Parliament. And the obstacle—
let it be borne in recollection—is one which, as we
have already remarked, has merely an acci-
dental existence. That obstacle is in the
formal wording of the Oath of Abjuration,
—the phrase—the incidental expression—" On the
true faith of a Christian." It is almost ludicrous
to reflect that the only thing which precludes a Jew
from taking up his position within view of the official
chair of Mr. SPEAKER is a casual formula like this—
" On the faith of a Christian "—language which was
merely introduced to give some sort of emphasis to a
renunciation of all allegiance to the house of STUART:
and that this Oath of Abjuration (imposed by an Act
of WILLIAM 111., and confirmed by another of
GEORGE I.) was solely drawn up with reference to
Catholics and Jacobites, the Legislature giving no
more thought at the time to the unfortunate Israelites
than they did to the worshippers of the THREE PRE-
CIOUS BUDIIAS.
Besides this, it must on no account be forgotten
that when Mr. PEASE refused to be sworn in, because,
as a member of the Society of Friends, he enter-
tained certain moral objections to an oath, he was
permitted to make a solemn affirmation. When
Mr. O'CONNELL refused to take the Oath a
Supremacy because he did not conceive the doe-