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

not be traced into detail without becoming suicidal. The
Ron. Baronet himself, for the purpose of his argument,
had been obliged to allow the Christianity of certain
• relics which, under other circumstances, he would have
treated with much less ceremony.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
The question as it now stood was by no means one which
concerned so much religious opinions as -civil rights. It
affected the civil disabilities of the people of this coun-
try as well as those of the Jews. The motion of the
• Noble Lord went to remove a great Christian disability
• from the constituencies of the kingdom. The real ques-
tion was the partial disfranchisement of the City of
London.—(Hear, hear.) Had the electors a right freely
to choose the person or persons whom they would en-
• trust with the defence of their interests in that House,
or had they no such right?—(dear, hear.) The City
of London had not its fair share during the present Par-
. liament of the amount of representation awarded to it
• by the constitution of the country. They had, by the
continuance of a form, involved in it as much punish-
Mont as if they had, in a positive enactment, pro-
ceeded against it in a Bill of pains and penalties.
And though this diminution of its share in the privi-
leges of the constitution had continued as yet but a short
time, was ,it to be supposed that the City of London
would confess itself in error, retract its proceedings, and
deny to the Baron de Rothschild the honour which it
bad awarded to him ? He did not understand the City
of London if they did any such thing. He believed
that the exclusion would only _stimulate it to re-elect
him ; and though he knew too well the spirit and tem-
per of that House to suppose that they would be afraid
'to enter into collision with the City of London, or any
other constituency, he begged to remind them that in
the case of the Middlesex election, although the electo-
ral body had not then such a man :or such a case to up-
hold, that they showed a determination, which in the
ead proved very embarrassing ; and he believed that the
lroneedings, of the-House in that matter had been abo-
- Ushea:frora its journals. They knew else _what the re-
salt had been in the case of an Irish county, which re-
, - turned the late Mr. O'Connell. He therefore hoped that a
prudential foresight would prevent them from giving oe-
' elision to stirring up an agitation in which the rights of
• the electoral body were so much involved. The exclusion
• of the Jew was one of religion and of race. These
fixed an indelible brand ripen him. But a Jew he was,
, and a Jew ho must remain. He could not un-Jew him-
, self in order to get rid of the bar to the honour of al
seat in that House. He could no more un-Jew himself
• • than he could unoircumcise the corpses of his forefathers.
.—(Laughter.) He was speaking of differences of race.
Re knew nothing more simple or clear than the declare- ,
tioa of Mr. Van Oven, in the pamphlet which he wrote
On this subject. (The Hon. Gentleman here quoted a
i from the pamphlet, in which the writer ro-
t=feagainst the word "nation," as applied to pthe
Jews.) There was no such thing as the " Jewish
nation," which had long since ceased to exist. He
went on to say that, for himself, and on the part of all
• those who professed the Jewish religion in England, he
acknowledged no other nation than England as his
nation, and that the Jews throughout the world en-
tertained the same feelings with respect to the countries
in which they lived. A curious exemplification of that
was to be found in the hundreds of Jews who fell in the
ranks .of the Prussian army at Waterloo, although
their exclusion from civil privileges had been re-
commended by the man in whose service they fell.
If they were to commence instead of advancing the
treat experiment of toleration, and were disposed to try
how it would work, he did not know any class with
whom it could be so safely tried.—(Hear, hear.) They
were a non-proselytising sect; they could not come into
' • collision with the Protestant Church; they were men of
••• peace, studying the arts of peace. They had no secret
societies, no religious orders, who might be supposed
• Capable of disturbing the good neighbourhood of those
amongst whom they dwelt. They were only the repre-
• aentatives of wise, noble, and illustrious characters, and
- could boast so high an origin in antiquity that, in cons-
pariso% those amongst them who derived their descent
frem the Normans, or those Italians which traced their
• pedigrees to the Catos and the Canine were as of yes-
terday.—(Hear, hear.) Their Bible was our Bible.—
"' (Cheers.) Their ancient saints and patriarchs were ours
also; and if it was asked where the Jewish law of morals
was to be found, they might read it, net in the temples
or in synagogues, but in the table of that law which
•• was placed over the altars of their churches.—(Loud
cheers.) These were of all people those who might
first and foremost, instead of last, claim to come within
the boundaries of the British constitution.—(Cheers.)
Instead of hazarding the Christian character of the
country by such a movement, they would assert it in
every form in which that religion blended itself with the
• highest glory of their country.—(Hear, hear.) It was
not by the enforcement of opinions, it was not by the
putting down of heresies, it was not even in the magni-
ficent attempts after extended proselytism, but it was
• knOcking off the fetters of the slave, in respecting the rights
of poverty and of industry, in measures which, by stimu-
lating a free intercourse between different notions, bound
• - them together in the bonds of peace ; it was not by ex-
clusion, but by expanding their rights, that they would.
" as the poet said, vindicate the privilege of England "to
teach the nations how to live' • And how much more
they would do by removing this stigma, and abolishing
these pains and penalties against the Jews, and declar-
• . jag to them all, in the true Christian spirit, that the
Way in which we desired they should deal with us wa
the way we would act by them, towards an internal
. identification of the Christian constitution and law, that.
could be obtained by all the stern edicts and fierce per
Becutions of the dark ages, how much soccer these migh,
have succeeded for a time in enforcing an apparen.
uniformity l The Hon. Gentleman concluded, amidst
loud cheers, by thanking the House for the attention,
with which it had heard him.
Lord ASHLEY commenced by saying that on this
question, as far as he could ascertain, there was no in
termediate opinion, There was either great indifference
orgreat earnestness. When his Noble Friend,talked of the
amount of prejudice entertained on this subject, he begged
to remind him that they had most of resemblance to the
personal hostiltty exhibited in the days of the Common-
wealth, or in 1753. The Jews of the present day occu-
pied a higher position in the public respect and in the
affections of the community. There resistance, therefore,
was not founded on personal objections to individuals of
that remarkable community, but solely on a conscien-
tious adherence to the principles which they professed,
and which they dared not surrender.—(Hear, hear.)
• However much the introduction of theology at these dis-
eussions was to be deprecated, some mention of theology
was altogether inevitable. He was not to be blamed
for that, but those who sought to disturb an oath
which for • the last 150 years had been taken at
the table of that House, and this on the prin-
eiple that religion had nothing whatever to do
,• with politics. That assertion put them on their
mettle, for they said religion had a great deal to do
. with politics—(Hear, hear)—and in this he was borne
out by the revealed word of God, which said, " The na
lions and kingdoms that will not serve me shall utterly
Perish." The very fact of the people in whose behalf
this measure was introduced being suppliants at the bar
of that House was in itself a proof that religion was
identified with civil polity.—(Hear, hear.) If religion '
had nothing to do with polity, why exact an oath at the
table of the House ? Why exact it of the Jew ? Why
did the members of the Privy Council take an oath ?
Why make reference to a superintending Providence in
the speech from the throne, and in some of their Parlia-
mentary enactments ? Was it not perfectly clear that
in doing so they made recognition of a moral governor
of the world., who superintended, directed, and controlled
- human actions ? It was perfectly manifest also that
' they recognised the necessity of knowing his will; and
if they recognised the necessity of knowing his will, they
must recognise also the necessity of doing his will as
• set forth in the particular and revealed word.—(Hear.)
That was the case of the opponents of the measure.
. One of the most distinguished writers of the pre-
sent day, and an ardent advocate of this particular mea-
- Sure, whose loss to the present Parliament every one
must deplore—he meant Mr. Macaulay—(Hear, hear)—
' says in his essay, " Government is, by its essentially
indifferent character, interdicted from the contemplation,
sod incapable of the accomplishment of Christian ends."
Now, he recollected hiving heard from the same elo-
quent lips the following passage :—" Everything that
tends to lower Christianity in public estimation is high
treason against the civilization of mankind."—(Hear,
hear.) How, he would ask, could these two statements
co-exist ? What could so much tend to lower Chris-
lianitY in public estimation as to declare that Chris-
tianity was not to preside • over the Government,
• and to be their rule in their intercourse with
otber nations ? It would not do to answer bim
by
by saying
that they would govern themselves
law of nations, because every writer
on the law of nations based his arguments on Chris-
tian principles, and even drew his instances from the.
" Scriptures themselves.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Macaulay,
in the same essay, says, " To seek for an essentially
Christian Government is about as wise as to seek for an
essentially Protestant cook." He thought it was un-
, worthy of the great genius of that gentleman, as it was
• unworthy of his private and personal character, thus to
confound, for the sake of a witticism, the lower opera-
tions of the mind with the highest faculty of the soul—
(Hear, hear)—and to bring down to the same level the
spiritual and material character of man. Experience
told them, it was true, that there was such a thing as a
, Christian Government, and that there was no possibility
• of a comparison between a Christian Government and
• Protestant cookery—as little as there was between Bow
Church and the first of July. If Christianity was not
• to be the rule in public life—if it could not superintend
and control public actions—what could it do? His
Noble Friend said it must prevail in private life, and rule
over the domestic hearth.
Lord J. RUSSELL—And legislation.
Lord ASHLEY could not understand how Christianity
Was to govern their legislation if a large portion of the
Legislature were to be composed of persons whose dis-
tinctive existence depended on constant and conscientious
denial of the name, character,' and precepts of the author
of Christianity.—(Hear, hear.) If Christianity was to
• rule in private life it must break out in public life also;
for he would refuse to distinguish between a man's
public life and his private life.—(Hear, hear.) His
Noble Friend said that infidels of various kinds had
crept into the House. That might be true. Men like
Gibbon sat in the House, and men like Hume might
have done so; but at all events they must have taken at
ape table an oath which recognised Christianity as part
d parcel of the law of the land. And he asked his
Noble Friend whether it was not better to have oven a
nominal Christian than a professor of open in-
fidelity ; just as an external observance of the
rules of decency in a person who internally disregarded
them was better than open obscenity? The whole
argument of his Noble Friend proceeded from first to
last on this—that oaths were altogether unnecessary,
, because they might be broken, and were broken. But
'ffould his Noble Friend abolish the practice of oaths in
courts of justice because perjury was often committed?—
(Rear, hear,) Now he had not heard from the Noble
Lord any advantages which were to be gained by the