The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-10 00:00:00

.1,,..),:5.41

Spirit of the Public Journals.;

(From, the Times of this day.)

The bill of Mr. Milner Gibson for the abolition
of the Oath of:Abjuration men more brings us back
t) the question of Jewish- disabilities. It is in an
old statute intended to guard the succession to the
throne the t -the , words 'f.On -the true faith of a
CltriatiauLoccur.- -Tliese3vords-forni-the -sole- bar to
the admission of a Jewish -member of Parliament
to take. his _seat. It Is now nine years since the ques-
tion has been practically brought before the country
by the election-of a Jew to represent the city of Lou.
don. Year e `tei• year bas exhibited the Pune strange
and undignaled spectacle. The lionsie -of Common;
has'invariably affirmed the principle of adinitting
JeWs to Parliament, and has been willing to alter
the terms:of the oath by they were acci-
dentally excluded. The Lords, on the other band,
have persisted in rejecting their claims, but in so
mooing haveavoidel a fair diseiir;Sirirrorth6. real
question. It is evident that if Jews are to be ex-
cluded from being representatives of the people the
objection must be founded either on some hurtle-
_

morial English law which is not to be changed, or
on some natural unfitness. in the- claimants them-
selves. 11sTeree_ on neither of these grounds have the
Lerds argued the matter fairly. As for the histo-
rical question, they have net a word to say. The
st ternene. that the -Jews are--aliens has-been once
or twice feebly uttered, bit only to be proved un-
true by any one who chose to remind the House
that every one born in the realm is a British sub-
ject, and that Jews may- hold land and advow-
sons, fill municipal offices, and receive commissions
in either service, juFil like other Englishmen. It
is not denied that the wends which the Jew cannot
consistently utter were never intended to exclude
him • but, if not merely expletive, were. meant to
guar agents the tendency to
_mental reservation
which CatkolicS were supposed to receive from the
teachings of JestiitiOale asuists. As for any settled
policy of e24uding dews,_fr9m,,puqic functions,
nothing of the kind can be f avid in pnr.llPl4B for
long .before the 'Oath 'of Abjuration' was- framed.
That 1- the: -Jews were :!thettr= n people" living
apart, deeming themselves and deemed by others
a race cut off from the world, is true enough ;
ihat—they' never thought of seeking office or
entering Parliament any more than Gipsies at
the present lime may be admitted ; but no law
or -;ustoin spoke of them as dis inct from other sale-
jecte, and no 'tradition can nos he cited by those
whd .ct their claims. On the other hand,
if it b- right. tbet Jews, as disbelievers in Chris-
tianity, shetild be excluded from the Legislature,
honest politicians are morally bound to argue the
case on its own merits.Jr is admitted that.the
present form ofwords was rot intended to exclude
Jew=,and those who desire to exclude them should
not take advantage of its unforeseen effect, but
boldly bring forward a-measure which should make
Christianity essential to a member of Parliament,
declare the election 'of Baron R )thschild void, and
require the Speaker tOisineitisew writ ft r London.
Mr. Milner Gibson'ebill, thnaecond reading of
which ors carried by a majority of 230 to 195, pro-
poses to abolish an oath framed a century and-a
half since to -tiectire the Protestant succession
against the claims of the Stuarts. By it, as ie
well known, each person who takes .hisneatin Par-
liainerit abjures all allegiance to any descendant of
the_Pretender, and promises to uphold the succes-
sion as provided .in the Act of Settlement. Mr.
Gibson-urged the arguments which must occur to
every thinidieginaiii: The descendants of the Pre-
tender are-all-extinct; and Englishmen in the 19th
century, AR9,- evapelled :to abjare allegiance to
persons who have; no existence. Any one, there-
fore, who looks Olson an oath as a serious thing,
ancl-ennsiderras at-eVil the useless multiplication
of such sacred promises,' must wish to see thia
vain formality at once abolished. This oath, ac-
cording to strict law, has to be taken by a
great number of persons holding various offices,
and even following some private professions, and
it is only by an annual act of indemnity that
such persons are released from the effect of their
disobedience. Such a condition of • things-Ought
clearly no longer to exist, and it is difficult to con-
ceive what argument could be used in favour of the
law, except that it had been framed by wise ances-
tors, and ought not to be tampered with by us.
In the van, however, of opponents came Sir F.
Theviger who moved that the bill be.read that day
six months -and-urged that;though the Pretender's
line hadianed-, yet the oath was -needful to uphold
the Protestant.. succession.. There was danger -in
unsettling the foundations Qf the present Royal
family's rights.' Lerd' J. Russell and Lord Lynd-
burst had .on former occasions when urging the
abolition of this oath consented to retain the clause
about the Protestant succession, incorporating it
with some other oath. Mr. Gibson had not done
so,.andeberefore the bill should be rejected. In
deference to these objections it was conceded by
the promoters of the measure that the Protestant
succession should receive due recognition in the
Oath of Supremacy; or some other ancient form of
words. But such concession was- little likely to
satisfy Sir F. Thesiger and his friends. In fact,
this bill. was a Jew bill, and their 'zeal for Protes-
tantism and the issue of the Princess Sophia was
promoted only by the fear of seeing the represen-
tative for L radon take his seat after nine years'
exclueion. The repetition of the old arguments
came in due course. The removal of the words
"On the true faith of a Christian" would be-a
direct attack on the Christian cheracter of the
house. . The gee at men who 'worded the Oath of
Abjniatien designed not only to shut out the
Stuarts, but to assure the Christian character of
the Legislature, which would be lost if aJew were
admitted. Mr. Napier warnel the house against
leaving the Protestant succession and the Christian
character of the country open questions. Mr.
Walpole held that Jews might be magistrates, be- .
cause they only administered laws ; but not mem-
bers of Parliament, because they would have to
make them. In fact, all ma said against the bill
that has been said during nearly a decade of ses-
sions. The Premier and Mr. Disraeli, howeier,
both supported ' the motion, which was carried,
and the bill was. read. a second
Nothing has occurred to change the opinion
which we have held during so mans years. Put-
ting aside thequeetiou of. obsolete oaths, we take
the measure as it concerns the claims of the Jews.
Tile case is simply one of right. No vague oratory
about unchristianising theeLeeislatiare,lio palpably
uutree assertions about the Jews being aliense-ean
hive any effect when once the,casq is clearly. un•
derstoode The English Jew:is just as much an
Englishman as the English Ceristian. The country
has long recognised -the right of 'every subject to
share all the privileges which beloneete his fellows.
Religious tests have been abolished in jhe ease- of
every otheir'sect • The law reftises"td recognise any
distinction ef race or religion. Parliament itself
has heretofore, adopted-the principle of complete
equality.' It his alloyed the Independent, the Uni-
tarian,,,a(Kl: the •Jbw .to he ..klderinan''and Lord
Mayor, Sheriff, or Lord-Lieutenant. On the
grounds, therefore, .0 natural right,. of analogy,
and even of positive law, wo assert that the last
restrictioneon•theerights of one Ethet or British sub-
jects should, beetaken away. Can it be believed that
common-sense or public opinion is against such a
concession ? If so, let the opponents of the Jewa
bring forward a bill on the subject. Will' the Lords
4 measure for the: ex=
send down to the commons
press eic'el iieion of ehe Jews ? Would they be equally
zealorrs-if the question were not whether an old
form of oath should he maintained, but Anther a
new one should beestablißhed ? If the words of .the
oath were intendedeto ineledelew-e
or in coetjutibtkin eithe. e,directly
ivith other lietere'd'ox sects, then
it is the dptypf Parliament to pass a leill•declaring
the election of flatottßothschild,void. If they were
not so intended, then it is unworthy of. a great
party and of a branch of the Legislature to make
81494 us9qa dawn to which- circtariStanbeeilliffiire
seen when it was kamedlave giveneen accidental
importation: ‘`.

I