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

J

/ 14-7--14--/,.i-•---
_ --."-<_,-
.
_ .
, .. , . •,- ) - ,
,__i:',,.:- ... , " _i/ /-i--,&e.t,.._
- - 1011111. -
, -
7'; ."'
, -7 . ,
~,..., . - Arig ~,..::,-. ~ A ..2, .. ' .
I I . ,I. 4 N • -. .
at' • 2,t ~,..,A,,,,
, .• fl, '7.,., :. 4 _ -4t. -.„,(i.,-,•are iihtfr _ 1 Spirit _of the Pablio leurasOis;'
Iti 1. , . , _,---, ~...elr - , ' • 4)A
\ A . . -..-A....mt..., • , . .
\ ~., g. ,'.4 ~. / _ 1, ", , , ~ , ~ .
.
~„..
•.' "- ••• Ai ~ , • ,-..
\-......:L.....•,,,,, .. , , '.l--
____,9p c —,0,-t---- 434 ?.., -_ --4P' ~ - '... ,:r4 S., -:-': ltalAti
Ai, -W,J —• , 4 =7. -•--, ,ti,‘..,‘
.{r , --dr- 7.----,-.-,--- . ,4:.• 5,•
' -- '"' tt-1.11 '%4--'4••• s''',', T.' .1.: x 4 , *-.--p.RI 1!. , 44, -- , •
r`'' .
..,,
- " Irs-°'44' , 411 k. -..-- - q —,z- ,
ig.i.. •,- ,
- --i...----..-#.,--- •'' , ,742210,),
..,.. ,:.,,s,„•-.1, . RoIT.t ''' 4 ,/0---- 0.... ‘, -o, =,•,,it .....,. ,..fti fhb--
liinngs pl.,
-‘' It fria

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, WEDNESDAY MORNING.
THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.

The Special Commission will open to-day at
Cavan, for the trial of the persons charged with
the murder of Miss Hinds, and to dispose of seve-
ral other serious cases. The Judges are Chief
Justice Monahon and Mr. Justice Moore. The
Attorney General prosecutes in person, and be will
be assisted by Mr. Jonathan Christian, the Solici-
tor-General. Great interest is felt in reference to
the murder case, as some strange revelations are
expected in connection with the extent of the
Riband conspiracy in the northern counties.
DREADFUL NCRDER.
Letters have been received in town this morning,
stating that Mrs. Kelly, of 63,
Upper Baggot-
street, whose name has been before the public for
some years, and who had been left a sum of money
of nearly half a million by her late husband, Mr. S
Kelly, of Rookwood, county of Galway, was wil-
fully murdered yesterday evening, at 6 o'clock, on
her own lands at Ballinderry, within half-a-mile
of the town of Moate, in the county of Westmeath.
The foul murder was perpetrated by two assassins
dressed in petticoats and black veils. Shortly
after the murder the police were on the alert, and
two persons in respectable station of life were ar-
rested on suspicion of being parties to the murder
and are now in custody.

RESPITE OP THE CONVICT MUSSETT.—ErnMa Mussett,
the woman convicted and sentenced to death at Bury
St. Edmund's assizes, for the murder of her infant, a t
Nayland, near Colchester, hes been respited " until th e
further signification of her Majesty's pleasure."

Eli

(Front the Times of this day.y-
The bill of Mr. Milner Gibson,for the aboia. Ay
of the Oath of Abjuration once more brings us-ba
t) the question of Jewish disabilities. It is is
old statute intended to guard the succession to the
throne that the words " On the true faith of a
Christian" occur. These words form the sole bar to
the admission of a Jewish member of Parliamenb
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 Lon-
don. Year after year has exhibited the same strange
and undignified spectacle. The House of Commons
has invariably affirmed the principle of admitting
Jews to Parliament, and has been willing to alter
the terms of the cath by which they were acci-
dentally excluded. The Lords, on the other hand,
have persisted in rejecting their claims, but in so
doing have avoided a fair discussion of the real
question. It is evident that if Jews are to be ex-
cluded from being representatives of the people the
objsction must be founded either on some imme-
morial English law which is not to be changed, or
on some natural unfitness in the claimants them-
selves. Now, on neither of these grounds have the
Lards argued the matter fairly. As for the histo-
rical question, they have not a word to say. The
statement that the Jews are aliens has been once
or twice feebly uttered, bet 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 advaw-
sons, fill municipal offices, and receive commissions
in either service, just like other Englishmen. It
is not denied that the words which the Jew cannot
consistently utter were never intended to exclude
him ; but, if not merely expletive, were meant to
guard against the tendency to mental reservation
which Catholics were supposed to receive from the
teachings of Jesuitical casuists. As for any settled
policy of excluding Jews from public functions,
nothing of the kind can be found in our annals for
long befora the Oath of Abjuration was framed.
That the Jews were then a people living
apart, deeming themselves and deemed by others
a race cut .off from the world, is true enough ;
that they never thought of seeking office or
entering Parliament any more than Gipsies at
the present time may be admitted; but no law
or custom spoke of them as distinct from other sub-
jects, and no tradition can now he cited by those
who would reject their claims. On the other hand,
if it be right that Jews, as disbelievers in Chris-
tianity, should be excluded from the Legislature,
honest politicians are morally bound to argue tha
case on its own merits. It is admitted that the
present form of words was cot intended to exclude
Jews, 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 Rothschild void, and
require the Speaker to issue a new writ fi r London.
Mr. Milner Gibson's bill, the second reading of
which was carried by a majority of 230 to 195, pro-
poses to abolish an oath framed a century and a
half since to secure the Protestant succession
against the claims of the Stuarts. By as is
well known, each person who takes his seat in Par-
liament 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 thinking man. The descendants of the Pre-.
tender are all extinct, and Englishmen in the 19th
century are compelled to abjure allegiance to
persons who have no existence. Any one, there-
fore, who looks upon an oath as a serious thing,
and considers as an evil the useless multiplisa.tion
of such sacred promises, must wish to see this
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.
Thesiger, who moved that the bill be read that day
six months, and urged that, though the Pretender's
line had failed, yet the oath was needful to uphold
the Protestant succession. There was danger in
unsettling the foundations of the present Royal
family's rights. Lord J. Russell and. Lord Lynd-
hurst 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, and therefore 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 a 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 London take his seat after nine years'
exclusion. The repetition of the old arguments
came iu due course. The removal of the "words
"On the true faith of a Christian" would be a
direct attack on the Christian character of the
house. The great men who Worded the Oath of
Abj nration designed not only to abut out the
Stuarts, but to assure the Christian character of
the Legislature, which would be lost if a Jew were
admitted. Mr. Napier warned 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 was said against the bill
that has been said during nearly a decade of ses-
sions. The Premier and Mr. Disraeli, however,
both supported the motion, which was carried,
and the bill was read a second time.
Nothing has occurred to change the opinion
which we have held during so many years. Put-
ting aside the question of obsolete oaths, we take
the measure as it concerns the claims of the Jews.
The case is simply one of right. No vague oratory
about unchristianising the Legislature, no palpably
untrue assertions about the Jews being aliens, can
have any effect when once the case is clearly un-
derstood. The English Jew is just as much an
Englishman as the English Christian. The country
has long recognised the right of every subject to
share all the privileges which belong to his fellows.
Religious tests have been abolished in the case of
every other sect. The law refuses to recognise any
distinction of race or religion. Parliament itself
has heretofore adopted the principle of complete
equality. It has allowed the Independent, the Uni-
tarian, and the Jew to be Alderman and Lord
Mayor, Sheriff, or Lord-Lieutenant. On the
grounds, therefore, of natural right, of analogy,
and even of positive law, we assert that the last
restriction on the rights of one sect of British sub-
jects should be taken away. Can it be believed that
common sense or public opinion is against such a
concession ? If so, let the opponents of the Jews
bring forward a bill on the subject. Will the Lords
send down to the Commons a measure for the ex-
press exclusion of the Jews! Would they be equally
zealous if the question were not whether an old
form of oath should be maintained, but whether a
new one should be established ? If the words of the
oath were intended to include Jews, either directly
or in conjunction with other heterodox sects, then
it is the duty of Parliament to pass a bill declaring
the election of Baron Rothschild void. If they were
not so intended, then it is unworthy of a great
party and of a branch of the Legislature to make
such Use of a clause to which circumstances unfore-
seen when it was framed have given an accidental
importance.