The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-17 00:00:00

abolition of the oath ; nor, on the other hand, was he
(Lord Ashley) able to point out any great mischiefs
which were likely to arise from such a proceeding ;
though this application of a false principle might even-
tually lead to very serious evils. If a case of injustice
was made out, that would have a stronger influence on
his mind than any arguments as to benefit or loss to
follow from the passing of the measure. But could the
injustice be greater than that to which were exposed the
hundreds of nations of different languages and colours
within the British dominions ?—(Hear, hear.) If they
once declared that Christianity was not essential to the
legislative character of that House, from that hour the
exclusion of others besides the Jews from that House
would become a real and substantial injustice. Perhaps
his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) intended to admit
everybody.— (Cheers from behind the Ministerial benches.)
His Noble Friend was much too candid to say " no."
Ho would, however, ask him to pause. Tho steps they
had been taking appeared almost incredible. They began
by standing out for a Protestant Parliament.--( Laughter
and ironical cheers.) They now stood out for a Christian
Perliatnent.—(Hear, hear.) They might next have to
stand out for a white Parliament.—(Laughter.) And
the final struggle would perhaps be for a male Parlia-
ment.—(Great laughter.) Let his Noble Friend con-
sider, before he proceeded much further, into what a sea
of controversy, dispute, and fear, he would be launched
if he once avowed to the people of this land, that not
only Jews, but Mussulman, flindoos, and persons pro-
fessing every form of faith to be found in the British
empire, ought to be admitted to Parliament. He would
quote the words of a very hieh authority in England, and
especially on the liberal side of the question, in re-
ference to the subject under consideration. In the year
1836, at a time when the Jewish question was before
the House, Dr. Arnold wrote thus:—" For the Jews
I see no plea of justice whatever; they are voluntary
strangers here, and have no claim to become citizens but
by conformity to our moral law, which is the Gospel.
I would give the Jews the honorary citizenship which
was ao often given by the Romans—that is, the private
rights of citizens, jus commercii, jus commune, but not
jags suffragii and jus honorarium." He went on to say,
"A Jew or a heathen I cannot fly to voluntarily. I only
obey him passively if he has the rule over me." Such
vverfethe opinions of one who admitted no right to im
pose the smallest disability on any who preferred belief
in the name of Christ. The question was, in fact, alto
.gether one of principle. The abolition of the oath
would be a legislative declaration that for all
the purposes of public government, the making
of laws, and the administration of affairs,
Christianity, as such, was altogether needless.--(Hear,
hear, and " No, no.") In trying the principle, he
had a right to push the measure to the fullest
extent as regarded consequences. It was possible that in
this Parliament there would be a majority of persons
of the Hebrew nation—that they might assume and re-
tain the helm of affairs ; but it was perfectly clear that
the course which they were about to take would be a le-
gislative declaration that Christianity, for the purposes
which he had stated, was altogether needless. He ex-
pected to hear it said that he was very inconsistent in
having offered no opposition to the Bill of 1845, which
admitted Jews to corporate offices. No doubt toleration
did involve certain inconsistencies and inequalities ; but
he thought it possible for them to establish a very valid
distinction between executive and legislative functions.
—(Hear, hear.) The Jew, on taking any executive
office, knew exactly the terms on which he accepted it;
he knew that he assumed an office delegated to him by
a Christian people, and that it must be executed for
Christian purposes ; and he also knew that if he did
not rightly administer its functions he would be
-xposed to the same consequences as all other public
non. But, in the case of legislative functions, the
Jew would come into that House perfectly free ; he
night there, in conformity with his own notions, endea-
four to repeal old laws and make new ones, infusing
nto the latter his own spirit, and directing them to his
iwn objects. This would indeed be the natural result
,f the legislative declaration which he had already stated
to be the effect of abolishing the oath. Now, with re-
spect to the oath itself, his Noble Friend had truly stated
that it was not originally framed in order to exclude
Jews. There never had been a period, however, in the
history of this country, except the short period of twelve
years, during which it was possible for Jews to sit in
.hat House. By the Act of Supremacy, the first of
2lizabetb, an oath was enjoined to be taken before the
Lord Steward. That oath was a corporal oath taken
in the Evangelists, the party who kissed the
hook being required to say, " God so help me and
he contents of this book." The oath thus pre-
scribed continued in force- until the first of William
when it was repealed, and in the 13th of the same
-eign was enacted the Act of Abjuration. It was clear,
then, that the oath was not framed for the purpose of
.xcluding the Jews; and he would tell his Noble Friend
nost explicitly, that if the Jews were in that House then,
.f they had always sat there, he (Lord Ashley) would
lot have supported a measure designed to turn them out;
nut there was a wide difference between a measure to
exclude Jews from rights which they enjoyed, and the
-epeel of an oath which had been taken by all parties for
io long a period. He greatly doubted whether, with a
iiew to the morality and happiness of the people, they
could be acting wisely by declaring that Christianity was
to longer predominant in the Legislature.—(Choors.)
Now there were some other arguments urged against
he Bill, to which] he would only allude for the pur-
)ose of saying how litttle he concurred in them. There
were many conscientious people in this country who
)bjected to the proposed enactment, because they re-
tarded the Jewish people as the authors of the cruci-
won. Now, in the first place, he would say that even
:ould it be proved that the Jews then demanding admit-
tance into that House were really the descendants of
those parties, it would be a matter of great doubt whe-
ther they (the . House of Commons) had any right to
rake cognizande of such a matter. But it could not be
proved that they were. After the captivity in Babylon
there were thousands of Jews who' never returned to
-Jerusalem ; and it might be said that the petitioners
at the bar were descendants of those who were absent at
the time of the crucifixion.—(llear.) He hoped that in
the few observations which he had made he had said
nothing which could giro offence, collectively or indivi-
dually, to the Hebrew people. Such an event (said the
Noble Lord) I should most deeply regret, for I am not
ashamed to confess that I regard the very poorest
Israelite with feelings akin; o reverence, as one of the
lescendants of the most remarkable nation that ever
appeared on the face of the earth, one of the forefathers
of those who are yet to play the noblest part in the his-
tory of mankind.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I believe very few
persons understand the actual condition of the Jewish
people. They are regarded by many as a degraded,
illiterate, money-loving race, fit only to frequent the
Stock-exchange or take care of orange stalls. I say
that the Jews are a people of very powerful intellect—
with cultivated minds, and habits of study, which
would defy the competition of the most indefati-
gable Germans. Their literature descends in an
unbroken chain from the days of our Lord down to the
present time. An Honourable Friend on my right says
it extends beyond that. I conclude that he intends to
throw into their literature the old range of the historians
and the prophets of the Old Testament. He would
be perfectly right in so doing ; but I was speaking, not
of the ancient Jews in the palmy days of Jewish his-
tory, but of the Jews as of ressed and despised
in the days of their dispersion. Under this aspect
their literature extends throughout the lengthened period
I have mentioned, and embraces every branch of science
and learning, of secular and religious knowledge. I am
told by a very learned friend of mine that as early as the
ninth century the Jews took the lead in grammar and
lexicography, and that towards the end of the twelfth
century their labours in that respect formed the basis of
everything that has since been done by Christian doctors.
They have a most abundant literature in French and
German, and especially in Hebrew, and I believe that
Jews of the present day have, in proportion to their
numbers, a far larger list of men of genius and learning
than can be exhibited by any Gentile nation. Music,
poetry, medicine, and astronomy, all occupy their
attention, and in all they are more than a match
for their competitors. But, Sir, the most remark-
able feature in the character of the Jew of the
present day is this, that he bas discarded very many of
his extravagant and anti-social doctrines. The hatreds
and suspicions of the Jewish people are subdued, and
they exhibit a greater desire and a greater fitness to re-
enter the general family of mankind. Now, I know I
shall 'be asked why, with this belief of their merits, I
I hesitate to adopt the present measure ? The answer is
simply this:—l am fully prepared to contribute to every
measure which can contribute to their honour and com-
fort. I offered no opposition to the measure for admit-
ting them to corporate offices, and I should be
so that eready to
I
undergo the charge of inconsistency again,
could exhibit in any way my readiness to do that which
should conduce to their welfare; but when I am sum-
moned, in obedience to the principle which from my soul
I repudiate, that religion has nothing to do with politics
—when, I say, I am summoned to strike out from the
oath certain words which assert the truth and maintain
the'supremacy of the Gospel, then I must at once declare
that I cannot give my vote for the admission of any one
to the high and solemn functions of the British Parlia-
ment, unless he profess to do so " on the true faith of a
Christian."—(Hear. hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said his lion. Colleague having
that evening presented a petition from the University of
Oxford against the projected measure, it was not with-
out pain, though, after full consideration, that he an-
nounced it to be his intention to give the measure his
support.—(Loud cheers.) Ordinarily the man who sat
there to represent his constituents was supposed to be
superior to them in mental cultivation and in opportu-
nities of acquiring knowledge; but he represented a
body in reference to which be gladly acknowledged that
its members were, in those respects, at least equal to
himself. That circumstance, however, would not ab-
solve him if he stifled the dictates of his own conscience;
and in the present case he felt that ho should be betray-
ing the real interests of his constituents if he succumbed
to their opinions.—(Cheers.) Upon the question of
admitting Jews to Parliament be should be brief.
Now, how then stood the case of the Jew with re-
gard to those points which told in their favour? His
Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) had admitted their remark-
able qualities and great capacity ; and he could hardly
fail to perceive that what he had set forth greatly en-
hanced the force of the arguments in favour of the fur-
ther extension to them of civil rights.—(Hear, hear.)
There was one point as regarded the Jews which his
Noble Friend forgot to mention, namely, their success
in all material and industrial pursuits.—(Hear, hear.) It
must be confessed, then, that the civil and political argil-
ments`were in favour of admitting Jews to Parliament;
and if they were obliged to withhold from the Jew, on
account of interests peculiar to themselves, those civil
privileges to which he thought he had a natural claim,
the grievance would, in his case, mount as high as any
grievance possibly could. Recurring to his own position,
helelt a great reluctance to withhold from the Jews an
honour which he himself possessed, and he also felt a still
greater reluctance to be instrumental in placing the uni-

versity which ho represented in conflict with the
civil rights and privileges of any portion of his fel-
low subjects. The policy which had been too long and
too uniformly pursued by that body was one with the
results of which he certainly did not feel satisfied. His
Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) contended for the mainte-
nancs of a long-established. and tincient system, but he
reminded them also that for many generations they had
been in a state of perpetual conflict and of progressive
movement in one and the same direction.—(Hear.) His
Noble Friend said that they had had to contend first
for a Protestant Parliainent.—(Hear, hear.) He ought
to have begun earlier.—(Hear, hear.) He should have
told them that between the periods of the restoration
and the Hanoverian succession, the conflict was for a
Church Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Tho contention
was next for a Protestant Parliament, and in both cases
those who were contending for what was sought were
not defeated unawares, but owing to a profound and uni-
form tendency associated with the movement of the
human mind, wi:h the course of events, and, perhaps he
ought to add, with the providential government of the
world. On the same principles that they regarded Magna
Chaste and the Bill of Rights, as a portion of the British
constitution, were they bound to consider all other Acts
of the Legislature in accordance with their spirit. After
two or three generations, in which the contest had
been for a Church Parliament, and two or three more in
which it had been for a Protestant Parliament, in both
of which the parties contending for the object were
defeated, they were now called upon to decide the ques-
tion whether or not they did contend for a Christian
Parliament.—(Hear.) And here he must say that his
Noble Friend had made assumptions with regard to the
views of the promoters of-the measure which were en-
tirely inconsistent with the statements of the Noble
Lord by whom it was introduced.—(" Hear, hear,"
from Lord John Russell.) His Noble Friend said what
was asked was a declaration that for all the purposes of
government and of making laws Christianity was need-
less. The question really was, whether under all the
circumstances of the case, and with the present position
and temper of society, it was necessary to exclude the
Jews from that assembly?—(Hear.) Now this was the
question, whether, under the circumstances under which
we live, we might open the door to the Jews, who might
enter by ones and twos? The question was not whether
Christianity was needless. His Noble Friend had said
how could the principle of Christianity govern the
Legislature if the Jews constituted a large proportion
of it, or an equal majority? But that was not a fair
assumption, because every one must believe that there
could not be more than a few Jews in Parliament, leav-
ing the residue exactly as they were. The connexion
between religion and politics was not only not denied by
the Noble Lord (J. Russell), but asserted. But the
question with regard to Christianity was this : his
Noble Friend appeared to attribute too much substance
and efficacy to the bond which was constituted by the
name of Christianity, which was defined by each man
for himself, and not by the law, and which did not in-
volve any body of fixed views. His Noble Friend as-
sumed too much when he said that all who took that
name were fit for political duties, but those who did not
acknowledge it were unfitted for those duties. It would
be difficult to prove the unfitness of the Jew for the
duties he would have to discharge in Parliament, with-
out also proving many who already sat there, not only
as individuals but as classes, were also unfit for it. He
(Mr. Gladstone) knew that by adopting this measure
they gave up the exclusively Christian character
of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) In saying this,
ho made a larger concession to the opponents
of the measure than perhaps he ought; but could it be
said, because they did give that up, that of necessity un-
Christianiwed Parliament ? It might be true in name,
but was it so in substance? He was amused by the in•
dignation expressed by his Hon. Colleague when he re-
buked Dr. Van Oven, that we were not a Christian
nation, because there were a few Jews in it, and yet
what was now proposed was to admit a few Jews into
Parliament, the whole body being Christian ; and no
doubt his Hon. Colleague would be as angry with any
one for asserting that this was not a Christian Parlia- i
went as he was with Dr. Van Oven for denying that we
were a Christian nation.—(Hear, hear, _and laughter.)
When the Noble Lord (J. Russell) spoke of the oath as
affording an insufficient security, he (Mr. Gladstone) did
not understand him to signify that they were altogether
worthless, but that they should not place exclusive reli-
ance upon them, but depend more on the qualities of the
men of whom Parliament was composed. He (Mr. G.)
could see grave objections to the measure, and a practi-
cal grievance to them (the present Members), if the
Noble Lord had proposed that their position should
be altered. He hoped that he meant them still to '
discharge their duties under the sanction of the oath,
and that they who were Christians would give solem-
nity to it by, contracting their obligations on the true
faith of Christians.—(Hear, bear.) Nothing was more
idle that to anticipate, as some persons appeared to do,
that by the admission of two or three Jews into Parlia
went, the devout and seemly custom by which the
Speaker and all those Members who were present with
him offered up their daily supplications to Almighty
God for a blessing on them, would be endangered. If
this were so, it would be a consideration affecting a few
Jews on the one hand, and a large number of Chris-
tians on the other. He had thus endeavoured to deal
with the assumptions of his Noble Friend, and to show
that, as regarded the real meaning of the law they
were about to pass they were unfounded. But thtre
were others who stated their objections to the measure
in language still stronger. If they had not been told,
they must expect to be told, that this was an unchris-
tian measure, and one which would call dawn the judg-
ment of God upon them. He admitted it would be diffi-
cult to deal with such arguments in the tone befitting
such subjects, but if it was true that civil justice required
the admission of the Jew into Parliament: and if there
would be no great practical evil to the Legislature, or
grievance to any other class, then he said that this was
not a question of expediency, but of principle; and in
proceeding to render justice to any class of his fellow-
subjects, he had no fear of drawing down the vengeance
of the Almighty; but be should feel more fear if, from
the dread of clamour or yielding to prejudice, they re-
frained from doing justice.—(Hear, hear.) It was too
late to use that argument now. They had gone too far
with the Jew to take that ground. When he (Mr.
Gladstone) opposed the Bill for the admission of Jews
into municipal corporations, he said that it involved the
principle of the admission into that House. His Noble
Friend (Lord Ashley) drew a distinction between exe-
ecutive and legislative functions. Yet, municipal offices
involved the functions of the magistracy, the adminis-
tration of the judicial office, and the administration of
laws which were Christian laws; he could not
find any ground for saying that the Jew was
fit for the administration of the laws and for the
administering of oaths to Christian men, and yet was
not fit to come into that assembly.—(Hear, hear.) But
it was not only to executive offices that the Jews were
admitted. What did they say to the franchise ? Who
were the makers of the laws ? Was it not from its
periodical return to its mother earth that that House
received its vigour ? It was not the fountain of power,
but the organ of power. The fountain was the consti-
tuency, to which the Jew had been admitted. It could
not be contended that the constituency was not Christian
because a few Jews were admitted to the franchise ; and
how could it be contended that Parliament was un-
Christianized if a few were admitted there ? His Noble
Friend had referred to the authority of Dr. Arnold. He
was an able and excellent man, who had some favourite
theories, and one of them was to embody the general
ideas of Christianity, apart from what was held by parti-
cular denominations, and he endeavoured to carry out
that idea in the establishment of the London University.
His notion was that the Church and State were one. It
followed from this peculiar view that he was
compelled to reject all who did not acknowledge
themselves to be Christian, and his authority must be
present time the constitution did not require that men
notweighed
the bwye i gibh te
o f his personalpracticability c h aorf h
a c teis idea,
d
r. Ue,and
Up to th e
should be Christians, but that they should make a pro-
fession on the true faith of a Christian, and that oath
was the same in all cases, " on the true faith of a Chris-
tian." But they must read that oath by the light of
history, and see what successive Parliaments have done.
They began by requiring that all Dissenters should
take this oath. Concessions were made one after
another granting toleration, and among others to the
Unitarians. Whatever was the original meaning of the
oath, the Unitarians acted on the spirit of the constitu-
tion when they took it ; and it must be admitted that
the constitution had ceased to adhere to any fixed body
of truths as the test of admission into Parliament.
There was, however, a real difficulty in the admission of
Jews into the Legislature, arising from the mixed nature of
the functions of Parliament. So long as these matters
relating to the Church and religion were liable to be dis-
cussed it was a real difficulty so far as it went. Now
what was its amount, and what was the proper mode of
solving it ? With regard to its amount, he hen no
fear on this head of the admission of Jews into Parlia-
ment, because, to a great extent, the good feeling of
individuals and the force of public opinion would retain
them from interference in matters relating to the
Church. This had been much the case since the Act of
1828 and 1829, and it was usual to see gentlemen rise
and say that they thought it more fitting to leave such
questions to those who had a natural interest in them.
But he should be sorry if he were obliged to say, that
because a portion of the duties of Parliament were of a
religious character, he must stand between the Jew and
all civil and political duties. This was a question which
excited great interest among the clergy, as might be
seen by the letter addressed to the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government, by Mr. Trower, who expressed
the difficulty he felt at the infusion into Parliament of
elements which had no sympathy with the Church. He
(Mr. Gladstone) had in his hand a petition of Arch-
deacon Wilberforce, the brother of the Bishop of Oxford,
who said that he could understand the necessity for
Jews sitting in Parliament, and in the present state of
the country he was not prepared to offer any objection
to it, but he feared that the Parliament, by that act;
would cease to be a Christian Parliament. They would
repeal the 25th Henry VIII., c. 19, by which the mode
of appointing bishops was provided for.—(Hear, hear.)
It required caution to prevent the effect of the change
they were about to make, being to produce in the coun-
try and among the clergy and the zealous members of
the Church a desire for an organic change in the rela-
tions between the Church and the State. There might
be some in that House who contemplated such a change;
but he (Mr. Gladstone) was not one of them. lie con-
fessed that the real difficulty which pressed on him was
the conviction, on the minds of churchmen and the
clergy, of an increasing want of sympithy between
Parliament
and the Church. His solution of the diffi-
culty was this : he did not desire an organic change in
the
Church, and in saying this he begged not
to be understood to allude to recent events. He
said, on the part of the Church, that now they were
about to admit into Parliament those who had
no sympathy with the spiritual interests of the
Church, they were bound, while recognising that psi''-
, ciple, to show that a regard for the feelings of those con-