The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-02 00:00:00

[PRICE SD.

next read to the house the following extract from D.
Raphael's sixth lecture: —" The
or
repetition of the law, was a compilation of the oral law
or transitions which had been transmitted by the Rab.
bins, from 300 years before Christ till 200 years after
his birth; and was composed by Rabbi Judah, of the
school of Hilet, and Tiberias, who was a Pharisee, a
lineal descendant of Gamaliel, whose teaching was ac-
knowledged as law by the Jews all over the world. He
undertook the work when the wars of the Persians
troubled the Jews, because Adrian had attempted to
exterminate the rabbies, who were the sole exponents of
this traditional law, and the rabbies fesred it might
have become extinct with them." The Mishna is the
text-book of the Talmud, and Dr. Raphael says of it :
"He wanted those who supported the present measure to
tell him whether they had compared the Talmud with
the Gospel, and whether they had considered the prin-
ciples laid down in the Talmud." The Talmud laid
down, among other doctrines, that the parties who be-
lieved in it were, if they plersed, to evade implied enact-
ments, and that they could countenance the extermi-
nation of all gentile nations by the sword. Such
being the principles of those who adhered to the
Talmudic system, and which most Jows did, he asked
whether individuals
duly qualified to hold, holding such opinions, were
a seat in that House? If a man
was nut a Jew by religion, be was not recognised by the
measure now before the House, and it was no use saying
that Baron Rothschild did not believe in those doctrines
which he had detailed as being laid down in the Tal-
mud, for he was a member and a great supporter of the
Eastern Synagogue, which held ail the doctrines of the.
Talmud. Such then were the sect and the religion they
were asked to admit into that House, and while it was
said that the admission of those parties would be of
such b.enefit, he did not consider that their admission
into that House would at all be the means of hastening
their return to Christianity. It had been argued that
having been admitted to fill some magisterial offices
throughout the countryt that they should be admitted
as Members of that House, but he considered that there
was a great distinction between the two offices, and a
distinction which that House ought particularly to ob-
serve, It was also said that these Jews were called
as witnesses in courts of justice, and that the oath
they took there was sufficient to show that they
were entitled to seats in that House, as there could
be no doubt but that such oath was binding upon
their consciences. But a witness when he took the
oath in a court of justice, was simply sworn that he
would state facts, so far as these facts came within his
observation, but could that oath be compared with the
oath they took at that table? In the oath they took at
that table, they declared that on the true faith of a
Christian they would conduct themselves in all matters
in conformity with the doctrines of Christianity, so far
as the formation of laws were concerned. Was the oath
of witnesses then before a court of justice to be com-
pared with that? But to show how other countries
considered the matter, he might state, that simultane-
ously with the question being mooted in this country, it
had been agitated in Prussia, for a proposal had been
made to the Prussian Parliament that Jews should be
admitted into that body, but the Prussian Parliament re-
fused, on the ground that it was the duty of a Christian
country to uphold its Christian character. An attempt
had also been made in Prussia to make these Jews avail-
able for municipal offices, but that also had failed. It
was agreed that they should be admitted if they took
the oaths abjuring the doctrines of the Talmud, but
that they would not do, and consequently their appli-
cation to be admitted into such offices was refused.
Now, Baron Rothschild was no doubt a most estimable
man, and according to the lion. and Learned Member
for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), who did not care what
religion a man might be who sought admission into that
House—

Mr. ROEBUCK—How do you know that?
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he gathered such from the
opinions he had heard him express.
Mr. ROEBUCK appealed to the Speaker. whether it
was proper to attack any Hon. Member in thata.kman-
ner? If he had on former' occasions stated whet the
Hon. Gentleman thought wrong, let him contradict him;
but he did not think it was proper to attack him in the
manner the Hon. Gentleman had done.
The SPEAKER said, as tho Hon. Member (Mr.
Newdegate) was only referring to opinions which he said
he had heard the Hon. Member for Sheffield express, he
did not consider him out of order.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was only stating the
opinions he had heard the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
express, which were, that the religious opinions of any
one ought not to exclude them from a seat in that House.
—(Hear.) So far as the non-admission of Jews to seats
in the Legislature of other countries was concerned, ho
might mention Austria, where they were entirely ex-
cluded, and that, in 1848, an application having been
made to the Senate of Hamburgh for their admission,
was rejected by a majority of 21 to 7 of the Members of
that body. There the Jews formed one-tenth of the
population, many of them were the principal merchants
in the place, but, notwithstanding that, the Senate re-
jected their representations. He trusted that House
would do the same, for he could not conceive it possible
for a Christian assembly to admit persous holding such
doctrines; and he would, therefore, move that the Bill
be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. SPOON ER seconded the motion.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, before he went into the ques-
tion as to the characters of those who sought to be ad-
mitted
as Members Of that House under the present
measure, he would, for a moment, refer to what the
Hon. Member who had just sat down had said about the
oaths taken by Jews in a court of justice, and the oaths
Members of that Ilouse were required to take before
taking their seats. There never could be anything more
preposterous and absurd than the interpretation which
the Hon. Member had put upon these oaths. The first
oath Members of that House were rsuuired to take was,
that they would be faithful to the Queen in all the le-
gislative measures they might be called upon to adopt;
the next was the oath of supremacy, and the other was
that of abjuration, which there WZ3 now but little use
for, the Stuart dynasty being extinct. Well, as to the
first oath, that of fidelity to her Majesty, a Jew came to
that table, and he took the oath in the usual form, and
while the Hon. Member, had spoken about the
Bible being superseded in the estimation of the Jews by
the Talmud, and bad stated that a great portion of the
Jewish faith was made up by tradition, of which, by
the way, the Church of England availed herself to a
considerable exients yet the Jew swore that he
would ho a faithful subject of her Majesty,
and that he would give all due obedience to her. By
taking that oath, did he not adjure the God of the
Christian and the Jew—he,might rather say the God of
the Jew and the Christian, for it was from the Jews that
they had received all the Gospel light which bad been
handed down to them; and did he not bind his mind in
the most solemn manner? And why was net such an
oath as binding upcn the Jew as upon the most faithful
Christian of them all? The Hon. Gentleman had said
that, as they were Christian legislators, they ought not
to admit individuals umongat them holding tho earth of
the Jews; but he could wish, while they Were Christian
legislators, that they could show their Christianity by
kindness and forbearance, and not by that intolerant
spirit which had been exhibited by the Hon. Gentleman
and those who supported him in respect to this question.
The Hon. Gentleman, on this question, assumed a sort
of infallibility, for he had said, that while the Jew
might be amiable in character, and talented in the ex-
ercise of the functions of public life, yet, if he did not
think as he thought, as regarded religious matters, be
could not bo admitted as a Member of that House. Now,
for a Jew not to belieie as the Hon. Gentleman did was
no matter of wonder, and in that respect be would be
much of the opinion of the Jew.—(Great laughter.)
He did not agree with the Honourable Gentleman in
his opinions, and because he did not the Hon. Gentleman
said ho did not take religion for his guide. Now,
let the House see what that meant. They lived in the
United Kingdom, consisting of three separate kingdoms,
every one of which observed a different religion. The
Scotch had their religion, which they had maintained in
many cases by cutting each others throats ; the Irish had
theirs, and the people of England had also their system.
That being the case, therefore, how could any rational
man say that any peculiar form of religious belief should ,
prevent a man from obtaining a seat in that House?-..
(Hear, hoar.) But it was said that there was one point
upon which they all agreed, vie., that they were all
Christians. They called themselves by that name, but
m• it did not alter the morality of any one of them. They
agreed amongst themselves that a Jew might be a y
took good man in the various relations of social life, and that"
permitted to swear allegiance to the Queen.
being so, there was nothing to prevent him from being
He took
thatp re
moaacty. oath
B ut accordingly,the
re
wasand he
nnoathlse andoork the
peculiar oatil
ooaithtl.
theoath of abjuration. Let themunderstand_ what it
meant. What was it about? Wh
family called Stuart; they were expelled in 1688, and
were now extinct. Then what was the use of this
oath ? Ho could not say ; but
_et the end of it were
theie words—" on the true faith of a Christian."
Theugh that oath swore to nothing, it was still admi-
nistered, but could not bind a
it not, therefore, a farce frosimngblee beginning being.to Was
end ?
(Cheers.) beem m
He supposed he should answeredn that this
was a Christian Rouse. But let there come to them
man whose conscience this oath could not bind—a roan
who, conceiving that the mind ought not to be bound
by any such absurd forms, did - hesitate to take the ,
• , no,
oethW•
- here had. they got to then, and whom did they
exclude? They excluded the man of sensitive honour
and character, but the unbeliever laughed at their _aob
web oaths and took his seat. They drove away the Jew,
sit whom such a farce had an influence, and they admitted
those who laughed at their religion, but still were able
to call themselves Chrisdans.—(flear.) Where was
their Christianity then ? The fact was, tharlrsh.were 1
only means of injuring end insulting our fea -eitszsns
without any benefit to ourselves.--(Cheers.) No good
accrued by them either to Christianity or to morality,
but they served to make many bigoted men, narrow-
minded and of little knowledge, and to unnlle men of
small mental powers, but of bitter spirit, to spit their
spite against bettor men. They justified and exalted
the power of ignorance and malevolence, and destroyed
the best bonds of union upon which smciety depended.
Mr. WIGRAM said he would state to the House
as
briefly as he could the principle on which this question
rested. This Bill was professedly a Bill respecting
Jews, but if its principles were correct, he could not see