The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-26 00:00:00

exactly the same, position as the Jews towards the
Christian religion. There was also another ground ler
not considering the Jews to be bound by their religion
to any such hostility to Christianity, as had been in-
ferred by the Most Reverend Prelates to whom ho had
adverted. He found the Jewish historian who had nar-
rated the events which occurred in relation to the Sa
viour, speaking of our Lord as a person who fell a victim
to the cabals of a particular sect of priests. And also
a most distinguished writer, the Jewish philosopher, had
described Christ as one who had advocated a spiritual
religion in lieu of a religion of forms and hypocrisies.
And he found some Jewish writer stating it to be his
opinion that a Jew might become a Christian and yet
remain bound by the Jewish law of ceremonial. There
was ample room for the difference of opinion that ex-
' isted amongst the Jewish and Christian sects without
necessitating the existence of any special hatred to
Christianity such as had been imputed generally to the
Jewish race. The Bill was one most entitled in every
respect to their Lordships' favourable consideration, and
if they rejected it, the grounds upon which they did so
must be of the plainest and most intelligible description.
The country would not be contented with any specula-
tions, though such might, by the ingenuity of some
Noble Lords, be invested for the moment with a seeming
solidity. There Lordships must be reminded that a
great constituency had deliberately made choice of a
Jew for their representative, and that the House of
Commons had shown a willingness to remove the
disabilities which prevented Jews from sitting in the
Legislature. It now remained for their Lordships
to determine whether the: were prepared to tell the
constituency of the metropolis that they should not
hare tho man of their choice to represent them,
and also to declare to the House of Commons that
they were not to be permieed to declare what &asses of
persons were to be permitted to take their seats in that
assembly. Their Lordsh pia had been told that the Bill
was inconsistent with the existence of Christianity, and
that it would prove dangerous to the interests of the
Church. Now, as those Assertions were meant to stand
as reasons for not passirg the Bill, he should like to
know in what the danger to the Church consisted. Was
it because the special prcvince of the Legislature was to
regulate the doctrines ol the Church? Such an asser-
tion could not be seriously made; and, if so, wherein
did the danger consist of admitting a Jew to an
assembly which had ro control whatever over the
doctrines upon which the Christian faith was based?
Would it also be maintained that a Jew would so
utterly disregard the feelings of his constituents as
to offer an insult or attempt an injury to their reli-
gion? It had also been urged that the country would
incur the risk of the Divine displeasure by show-
ing favour to the objects of the Divine wrath. He
would abstain, from obvious motives, from casting any
ridicule upon such an argument, least that which was
meant for the latter should be wilfully or mistakenly
applied to the sacred subject of discussion. But with
respect to the treatment of the Jews, he was quite sure
that the present Generation had, by means of their an-
cestors, incurred a very heavy debt towards the Jews in
this respect, of which he was not quite sure they would
ever be able to acquit themselves. It was his belief that,
upon the common principles of our nature, the interests
of the Church were quite as likely, or more so, to be
assailed by a Dissenter as by a Jew. This was said to
be a question rather of principle than of expediency.
He had fully as much respect for principle as any man
in the House; but he must confess that he could see
nothing of the dignity of a principle in any arguments
which had been used against this measure, and which,
indeed, seemed to him less arguments than sophistical
fallacies, which had over and over again been disposed
of. It had been insisted upon that the measure would
unchristianise the Legislature, whereas the Legisla-
ture would never be unchristiauised to any greater
extent than the country_itself should be unchristianiaed.
It was said that if we admitted to the Legislature per-
sons who (lid not profess the same religion with our-
selves wo should part from the only security we had for
the conscientious discharge of the duties of that Legis-
lature. No one denied the influence of religion over
men's various views of morality; but there was a com-
mon ground on which men of all religions could meet,
and come to a tolerably distinct and unanimous opinion
as to abstract right and wrong. It was equally falla-
cious to assert that the measure would be an innovation
upon the constitution of this country, on the principle
that Christianity was held to be part and parcel of that
constitution. No doubt the principle of the old Eng-
lish constitution waslthat absolute exclusion, which re-
jected alike not merely Jew, Turk, and infidel, but heretic,
and schismatic; hut this principle had long since been
abandoned as a part of the British constitution. The
Legislature had, in the exercise of its undoubted right,
from time to time, modified, and modified still further,
this exclusive principle; and to say now that the Legisla-
ture could not, without a;dereliction of its duty, still more
modify the principle, or destroy it altogether, was the
real attack upon the constitution. Then, as to the
question of Jewish nationality, it was said that the Jew,
as such, was essentially an 'alien, and by that fact ex-
cluded from the privilege of taking part in our legisla-
tion. And Dr. Arnold had been cited as an authority
for the proposition that a Jew had no more right to
legislate for us than a lodger to manage the household
affairs of his landlord. With every respect for Dr.
Arnold, he must express the feeling that the Reverend
Gentleman's theory on this subject was derived rather
from inapplicable analogies in Greek and Roman history,
than from any view of the actual state of the case, or
the actual circumstances of this country and its present
people. Dr. Arnold's opinions on this particular ques-
tion were carried to an extreme, which he (the Bishop
of St. David's) thought very few of their Lordships
would be di,posed to adopt, for the Reverend Doctor con-
sidered that it would be no departure from justice were
our Government to do with the Jews that which the
Spanish Government of old had done with the Jews and
with the Moriscoes, namely, to expel them the country
altogether. It was urged, further, that not only was the
Jew an alien in this country, but that he was unsuscep-
tible and incapable of the ties which bind an English.
man to the land of his birth. It was assumed that the
home of the Jew must be always in a foreign land--
that his heart must be ever in Palestine. Doubtless the
religion of the Jew was a religion of hope, teaching him
that at some time or other his race would be restored to
their original abiding place; but there was nothing, in
theory ,or in fact, which justified the statement that the
Jew, as the member of a political state, did not take the
same interest in the welfare of that state with his fellow-
citizens. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by earnestly
exhorting their Lordships to pass this measure. As
and power, and in the ultimate triumph
a believer in the unerring course of God's
he was firmly persuaded that
adopting the present measure their Lord-
ships, consulting the interests of justice, would
those of the Christian religion, would
,rirnagther than impeding, its triumph. He
aionbsnhufeoittphhbscoaa.:
tei
mans,
ipnagi
considered that every exclusion which distinguished
the Jews from their fellow-subjects had the effect of
creating an additional fold in the veil which shut them
out from the light of the true faith. Still longer to
irritate the Jews by invidious distinctions was the pre-
cise way still longer to retard the triumph of Chris-
tianity, and to prevent it from accomplishing its high
mission on earth, glory to God, peace and good will
among men.—
The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the Bill. Those
who advocated the measure insisted upon it as giving to
the Jews, our fellow-subjects, rights of which they
were unjustly deprived. Nothing could be more painful
to an henouruble than the idea of such an injus-
tice as this, and he for one, did he believe that the
measure gave the Jews rights to which they were en-
titled, would rote for it, regardless of ultimate consi•
deratione, but ho wholly denied that the Jews were
entitled to the privileges proposed to be conferred upon
them.--(Hear, hear.) He considered that to give
them these privileges would be destructive of the princi-
ple of our constitution and of the best interests of
justhec
re. The jus petitionis was no correlative of the
*eti2tivitetis or the jus suffragii. His Right Reverend
Brother who last addressed their Lordships, and who
had charged all the arguments against the measure as
being sophistical fallacies, said, "It is not the birth-
placethe precis© point,
but their religion." Why, this was
us,
of the Jewe which makes them another nation from
the very thing which gave them a nationality inconsis-
tent a to any other
if he be a real Jew, cannot belong
Jew, itogether with the claim now set up for them. The
than his own ; the distinct injunctions of his reli-
ngrionan
re`that he shall not blend with other peoples ; that
when dwelling with other peoples, he shall ever remem-
berespe-
cially enjoined to to the practice of hispeculiar religious
the purpose that theso may keep up the
observances, to
that he is wholly diverse from them, and he is
be otherwise in daily contact. What
with whom he may
Jewish writer, in a recent work
said Mr. Van seven, a
that the peculiar'preparations
distinction, and preserve him pure from mixture from those
on Judaism?
Jews
twmight remain for ever undefiled by
thiss w: ere desiehed for and
n with the people of another faith.
intimate communication
writer,
the Rabbi Pruhl, empha-
ohfolfyoondataimono,ntght:htVesh:
Another recent
were not Englishmen, for that
born in England,
t elaynd natives, were of the Jewish na-
Jews, of whatsoever 'co-religionists here that, however
tion only, and had no
tested the Rabbi, and such was
Thus,incfu
tically remindedjehwihsis
around them.
feeling the Jews. Infinite examples
the universal
e e the fact. Let him mention
national relation with the people
might be adduced to
Pl:ovmind. When Napoleon desired
two that occurred to
this money? A
was essential to ilia'. /
Russian, national interests would
Russian Jew; yet, as a . .rn
to bring back his
ei from extending this aid.
have effectually kept
England and France raged
tseh.antTenirrehdo army from Russia, money
When war between and money was
with its most her to sustain the
needed by Franco to
d this money? An English Jew,
struggle, who advance
nationality would have forbidden the
in whom English r_.eßight
v. Prelate proceeded
loan.—(Hear, hear.) rh
Jews had no title to the proposed
to contend that,
if
the
d as little claim to it under any
boon as of right, they ha
Noble Marquis who intro-
other consideration. The
n their Lordships; to pass it
internecine fury,
daced the measure called up_9he c
internee
oncession, so far from
as a matter of kindness.T
would be fatal to them.
being a kindness to the Jews,uliarly in danger of at the
Whet the Jews were pee
the result of decaying
present moment NV It s infidel►ty,
For Christians to grant
hope and expiring expectatio
for a Christian community
them the right of legsla"ng- rhos Christians had
to tell them that
would be at once s themselves, and the
ecex-
ample would be instantly :as little faith in revelation a
effective in the destruction of
,ious belief. The Rabbi
what remained to them of
Ire:.
d referred, expressed, in
Pruhl to whom he had awr
which filled his mind when he
his pamphlet, the surprise a
Christian body to eman-
observed the disposition ofdisposition
which he distinctly attri-
butedcipate the Jews, a for
the word of God. The
to a regardlessness
I ouel they were the
spoken of as t
Jews here were
tn the land, wh
Engereas
descendants of Jews long settled
tled i
families_ in land
in point of fact none of the Jewish years. In ad-
were of older date here than twohundred
o e Marquis
dition to the chtiat of right which the Noble