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

abolition of the oath ; nor, on the other hand, was be
(Lord Ashley) able to point out any great mischiefs 1
hieb 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 ti
fellow from the passing of the measure. But could the
injustice he greater than that to which were exposed the
hundiesels 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
ever ebody.— (Cheers from behind thellinisterial benches.)
His -Noble Friend was much too candid to say " no."
He would, however, ask him to pause. The steps they
had been taking appeared almost incredible. They began
by standing out for a Protestant Parliament.—( Laugh ter
and ironical cheers.) They now stood out for a Christian
Perliament.—(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-
eider, 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 Mussulinan, Ilindoos, 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 high authority in England, and
especially on the liberal side of the question, in re-
ference to the subject under consideration. In the year
1e36, 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 so often given by the Romans--that is, the private
rights of citizens, jus commercii, j 11,7 commune, but not
jus sulfragii 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
were the 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•
;ether one of principle. The abolition of the oath
would be a legislative declaration that for all
die purposes of public governthent, 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
,f 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-
eeislative 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
lid 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;
ee knew that he assumed an office delegated to him by
a Christian people, and that it must be executed fur
Christian purposes ; and he also knew that if he did
not rightly administer its functions he would be
exposed to the same consequences as all other public
;nen. 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.
eour to repeal old laws and make new ones, infusing
into the latter his own spirit, and directing them to his
awn 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
hat 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
veers, during which it was possible for Jews to sit in
that House. By the Act of Supremacy, the first of
Elizabeth, an oath was enjoined to be taken before the
Lord Steward. That oath was a corporal oath taken
en the Evangelists, the party who kissed the
book being required to say, " God so help me and
he contents of this book." Tho oath thus pre-
scribed continued in force until the first of William
1., when it was repealed, and in the 13th of the same
reign was enacted the Act of Abjuration. It was clear,
then, that the oath was not framed for the purpose of
excluding the Jews; and he would tell his Noble Friend
most explicitly, that if the Jews were in that House then,
if they had always sat there, he (Lord Ashley) would
not have supported a measure designed to turn them out;
but there was a wide difference between a measure to
exclude Jews from rights which they enjoyed, and the
repeal of an oath which had been taken by all parties for
so long a period. He greatly doubted whether, with a
view to the morality and happiness of the people, they
would be acting wisely by declaring that Christianity was
no longer predominant in the Legislature.—(Cheers.)
Now there were some other arguments urged against
the Bill, to whichi he would only allude for the pur-
pose of saying how litttle he concurred in them. There
were many conscientious people in this country who
objected to the proposed enactment, because they re-
earded the Jewish people as the authors of the cruci-
fixion. Now, in the first place, he would say that even
could 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
take cognizance 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.—(Hear.) He hoped that in
the few observations which he had made he had said
nothing which could give 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 ono of the
descendants of the most remarkable nation that ever
appeared on the face of the earth, one of the forefathers
of those who aro yet to play the noblest part in the his-
tory of inankind.—(llear, 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 opressed 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. lam
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 bo 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 has discarded very many of
his extravagant mid anti-social doctrines. The hatreds
and suspicions of the Jewish people aro 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
hesitate to adopt the present measure ? Tho answer is
simply this:—l am fully prepared to contribute to every
measure which can contribute to their honour and com-
fort. I offered uo opposition to the measure for admit-
ting them to corporate offices, and I should be ready to
undergo the charge of inconsistency again, so that I
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 assort the truth and maintain
thelsupremacy 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 Hon. 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 he 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 ho felt that he 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 he should be brief.
Now, how then stood the case of the Jew with re-
gerd to those points which told in their favour? His
Noble Friend (Lard 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 argu-
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
P°
grievance Rectirriug to his own position,
lie felt a great reluctance )
i to withhold from the Jews an
honour which be himself possessed, and he also felt a still
greater reluctance to be instrumental in placing the uni-