Some of the content on this page was edited by or generated with AI. Learn More. See an error? Email Us

Untitled

Newspaper -Three seperate pages...Newspaper clipping in DAILY ADVERTISER (Boston) on the English Jewish Emancipation debates....1848-01-11...found among Leeser papers DAILY ADVERTISER. BOSTON: TUESDAY MORNING, JAN. 11, 1848. ADMISSION OF JEWS TO PARLIAMENT.-In the House of Commons on the 15th ult. Lord John Russell introduced the anticipated motion for the re- moval of the civil and political disabilities of Jewish subjects, with a view to such an amendment of the oath which is required to be taken by members of the House, that it may not exclude Mr. Rothschild, who was chosen at the late election as a member for one of the districts of the city of London. This su- ject has been earnestly discussed in some of the Brit- ish reviews, and it is in various points of view one of considerable interest. We therefore copy the speech of Lord John Russell on introducing his motion, in which he has treated the subject with great ability and skill. We copy the speech from the London Times:- REMOVAL OF JEWISH DISABILITIES.-Lord J. Russell.-As I understand that my honorable friend the member for the University of Oxford means to oppose the motion for the house resolving itself into a committee of the whole house to consider the disabilities at present affecting Her Majesty's Jewish subjects, I feel myself compelled, before making that motion, to state to the house the general grounds on which I intend to rest it. I am, at the same time, given to understand by my honorable friend, that if a majority of the house should agree to go into com- mittee on the subject, he does not mean to carry his opposition to the point of refusing to consent to the committee adopting the resolution which is necessa- ry to the introduction of a bill. That being the case, it will be as convenient to the house to take the dis- cussion at this stage as to reserve it, as was done on former occasions, till the house had resolved itself into committee. In bringing forward this subject I feel that I cannot avail myself of many of the topics which those who formerly proposed the removal of disabilities on account of religious tenets were able to appeal to for the purpose of inducing this house to comply with their propositions. I cannot say-as I did in proposing the repeal of the Test and Corpora- tion Acts-"Here are some three millions of Her Majesty's subjects, engaged in all the pursuits of in- dustry in your cities and towns, forming a most im- portant portion of the community, and distinguished for their loyalty to the house of Hanover, undevia- tingly maintained ever since that illustrious family was seated on the throne of these realms." I can- not, like the great orator who introduced the ques- tion of Catholic disabilities, refer to the state of a neighboring country as a potent motive to induce the house to remove the cause of discontent and dissat- isfaction. I cannot speak, as he did, of the indigna- tion felt by a whole people at the deprivation of their rights; nor can I point to the dangers which would menace the peace and welfare of the country from refusing the claim to relief. I can employ none of those arguments in favor of my proposition. I feel that this is a question which does not affect a very large portion of the people of this country, and does not involve in its acceptance or rejection the momen- tous consequences which were justly apprehended on former occasions. I am prepared to argue this ques- tion as one of principle, not of political expediency- as a question involving, indeed, the political liberties of the country, but involving them only as they con- ern 30,000 or 40,000 people, members of a commu- nity which is not disposed, nor indeed able, if it were disposed, to excite clamor and tumult, to agi- tate the country by means of public meetings, or to produce a social convulsion, if its demands should not be conceded. But, although I am unable to ap- peal to the topics to which I have referred, I must, nevertheless, take the liberty of informing the house that there may be danger, not affecting the public tranquility indeed, but affecting the character and dignity of the Legislature, if the claims of our Jew- ish fellow subjects continue longer to be refused. It may then be said that the Legislature is unwilling to concede the claim of religious liberty, that Parlia- ment has never adopted those just principles of equal- ity which ought to be applied to all the subjects of Her Majesty; but that when the question regarded vast bodies of men, important from their numbers and wealth, or threatening from their dissatisfaction and discontent, the Legislature yielded a reluctant assent to their claims for the sake of immediate peace; and that when an opportunity presented itself of doing an act of justice without any danger, and without inconvenience to public interests, the Par- liament acted on the principle of religious perse- cution, and was determined to show the world that it was not from any willingness to adopt en- larged and liberal principles as the rule of its conduct that it had on former occasions yield- ed to the petitions of its fellow subjects.- (Cheers.) I venture to say, that if such an opinion as that should become prevalent, it must have a very injurious effect on the character of this house. There is, as I have before said, but little risk of danger to the public peace involved in the re- jection or adoption of my proposition. One danger was pointed out as likely to arise from its adoption, many years ago, by my hon. friend who intends to oppose me on the present occasion, but he is not in a position to repeat his warning now. In 1830 my hon. friend took upon himself the character of a prophet, and said "You may depend upon it that if you admit the Jews to civil offices and seats in Par- liament, it will follow that in less than seven years you will have a reform of Parliament." ("Hear," and laughter.) But, without the admission of Jews to Parliament, as the precursor of the so much dread- ed event, within two years of the time when my hon. friend used those words I have referred to the reform of Parliament was effected. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, there is, at least, one danger which it will be unnecessary to take into consideration in dis- cussing this question. ("Hear," and laughter.) I place the question upon this simple, but I think, solid ground-that every Englishman is entitled to the honors and advantages which the British consti- tution gives him. (Cheers.) I state further, that religious opinion of itself ought to be no disqualifica- tion for the enjoyment of those rights. (Renewed cheers.) I found myself on a declaration in one of the statutes of the law of England-"It is the birth- right of the people to enjoy the privileges common to all." I found myself on a declaration made in the House of Lords during the discussions on the Con- formity Bill,-"The Lords think that an English- man cannot be reduced to a more unhappy condition than to be put by law under an incapacity of serving his prince and country; and therefore nothing but a crime of the most detestable nature ought to put him under such a disability." I say, then, that on this ground, unless something shall be proved to disqual- ify Jews, they stand in the position of persons born in this country, bearing all the burdens which are imposed on them, and ready to serve their prince and their country in any capacity in which they may be called upon, and that, therefore, they are entitled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by their fel- low-subjects. (Cheers.) I state this with confi- dence, and I will not attempt to ask your favor by anything which I might urge in behalf of the merits of the Jews. I think this is not a matter of favor to- ward the Jews, but that, unless some strong ground of disqualification be proved against them, it is a matter of right. (Cheers.) I, therefore, will not urge that even those who have opposed the claims of the Jews have admitted their peaceable conduct and their moral character as subjects-that they are gov- erned by that moral law which is adopted by and is binding on us-that there are among them many per- sons distinguished for eminent talents-that in the offices of which they have been admitted they have shown themselves as capable of discharging their duty as any of their competitors; and that in various other capacities, as well as in the pursuit of science and art, they have shown themselves competent, by their intelligence, to undertake the duties of any po- sition to which an Englishman may aspire. (Cheers.) I will not urge these circumstances, because, by do- ing so I might seem to make this a matter of favor and indulgence. No! I ask the Legislature to re- move the disabilities under which the Jews labor, not on account of any peculiar merits belonging to Her Majesty's Jewish subjects, but because, being subject to the burdens of the state, being born in this country, being compelled to fulfil (sic) all those duties which the state imposes on them, I maintain that they have a just claim to be admitted to its honors and re- wards. (Cheers.) I come, then, without press- ing any peculiar merits appertaining to the Jews, to consider the objections which are urged in bar of the recognition of the rights which I claim for them. In the front of those objections this is put-that it is proposed to un-Christianize the coun- try-that it is proposed to take away the Christian character of the country by admitting not only Jews, but every kind of infidel into Parliament and the of- fices of State. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member by that cheer seems to admit that I am correctly stating the objections which are urged to the meas- ure I am advocating. I will not say in answer to such objections that the religion of man is a thing apart from the business of man. (Hear, hear.) I certainly will not say otherwise than that I think that in our private concerns-in our daily occupa- tions-in all those trades and professions which men exercise, religion should have influence and control. (Hear, hear.) Still more, therefore, when I am speaking of the Legislature which has to dispose of all the various interests of the country, should I be disposed to say that religion ought to influence and control its decisions. (Hear, hear.) I do not, therefore, argue this question on the ground that civil offices and seats in Parliament are totally sep- arate and apart from religion; but what I do con- tend for is, that it is entirely a mistake to suppose own means its own purposes. For I would ask where it is that those who use this argument would draw the line? I have told you that in France they hold all offices to which Frenchmen are admitted, and that more than one member of the Chambers has been of the Jewish persuasion. Even in this country we have much relaxed the rigor of our en- actments respecting them. A Jew has been a ma- gistrate, a Jew has been a sheriff. By a late statute, which was introduced by the right hon. member for Tamworth, Jews may hold offices in corporations, and it was but the other day that a Jew was admit- ted to the office of alderman in the corporation of the city of London. (Hear, hear.) I ask you what right or business have you to interpret a prophecy so as to draw the line between an alderman and a com- missioner of customs-between a justice of the peace and a person having a right to sit in Parliament? (Hear, hear.) What enabled you or authorized you to say where the line intended by the prophecies should be drawn, and how can you take upon your- selves to draw the limits of the line the Almighty intended to mark out? (Cheers.) It would be, in respect to the Almighty being, to "Strike from his hand the balance and the rod, "Rejudge his justice-be the God of God." I trust that no such presumption will fail to our lot- that we shall do that which we think our duty to our fellow countrymen, and the best for the country ac- cording to our imperfect reason, and rest in pious but humble confidence that the Almighty will accom- plish his purpose by means best known to his wis- dom. (Cheers.) But, Sir, there is that which I can hardly call an argument, but which operates more against those whose cause I have undertaken perhaps than any other thing. There is a popular prejudice against the name of the Jew founded upon various circumstances to which I need not allude-founded upon what I think a mistaken view of Sacred Writ, and the dislike and distrust there is on the part of men of a different religion. But that popular preju- dice which induced the Administration of 1753, after passing an act for the naturalization of the Jews, to come down in a hurry, in the next year, for the pur- pose of repealing it, has, I believe, very greatly died away (hear, hear,)-that it has subsided in this me- tropolis I have with my own eyes a proof, because a gentleman in the city of London, well known in that city by his extensive transactions, by his wealth, his charity and liberality, was elected for that city by nearly 7,000 votes at the last general election. (Hear, hear.) I quote that as a proof that this house would not be safe in saying-"Such is our opinion; we are liberal; we intend well to our Jew- ish fellow-subjects, but there is such a prejudice amongst the people against them that it would not be safe to legislate in their favor" (Hear, hear.)- I warn hon. gentlemen not to rely upon that feeling, I believe that the people are to the full as enlight- ened as the members of this house. (Hear.) I be- lieve that the general opinion, and the right and true opinion, as I conceive it to be, is that religious opin- ions ought not to bring with them any penalty or punishment. (Hear, hear.) I believe that that is the right and true opinion, overbearing any preju- dice that may have existed against the Jews. (Hear, hear.) I have now, sir, stated to you the reasons why I think that the objections which have been made against the admission of the Jews are futile and unfounded. If I am asked what are the prevail- ing reasons for the motion that I propose, I appeal in the first place to the constitution of these realms; I appeal to that constitution which is intended to give to every man those rewards, that honor, that estima- tion to which his character and talents may entitle him. (Hear, hear.) I appeal to that constitution which is the enemy of restriction or disqualification (hear); to that constitution which by the abrogation of the laws existing a few years ago has put an end even to those cases of exception which our ancestors thought, upon the ground of imminent danger to the state and church, they were justified in imposing. I ask you in the name of that constitution to take away this last remnant of religious persecution, to show that you are not influenced by the num- bers or terrors that might make that which was an act of political justice an act of political necessity. (Cheers.) I ask you in the name of that constitution to admit the Jews to all the privileges, to all the rights, of which those who are not excluded from them are so justly proud (cheers); and, let me tell you, that you cannot judge of the feelings of those who are excluded by the number of those who might wish for seats in Parliament, or who might aspire to hold office under the Crown. Many a man who would not seek for either, would be content to pass his days in obscurity, and would wish for no other advanta- ges than those of private life; but he feels the galling degradation, the brand that is imposed upon him, when he is told that men of all other classes, men of the es- tablished church, Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics, may all enter within these walls, may all enjoy those advantages, but that he belongs to a sect which by the law and constitution is proscribed and degraded. (Cheers.) But I would make a still higher appeal. I would make an appeal to the prin- ciples of that Christianity which has so long been the law of the land. (Cheers.) I appeal to you, then, in the name of that religion which is a religion of charity and love, "to do unto others as you would they should do unto you." (Cheers.) I ask you why it is, that when we are taught by examples and parables that we ought to love our neighbors, it is not priests or Levites who are singled out as instan- ces for our approbation and admiration; but it is one of a proscribed sect-one who belonged to what was then the refuge of all nations? I ask why it is that we are taught that all men are brothers-that there is no part of the human race, however divided from us by feelings or color, that ought to be separated from us? but that all belong to the family of man, and ought to be loved as brothers. (Cheers.) I ask you, therefore, in the name of that constitution which is the constitution of freedom, of liberty, and of justice -I ask you in the name of that religion which is the religion of peace and good will towards men-to agree to the motion which I have the honor to make. The noble lord then moved "that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the removal of the civil and political disabilities affecting Her Majesty's Jewish subjects," and resumed his seat amidst loud and continued cheers. A debate ensued in which several members took part, and it was adjourned over to the following day. SIR ROBERT INGLIS, in reply to Lord John Russell said that the question was not one between Christians and Jews, but between Christians and non-Christians. Now, England for years past had not only had a constitution, but also a Christian con- stitution, and he defied Lord J. Russell to produce a single instance in which the oath of office had not always been taken upon some Christian symbol. It might be true that David Hume and Edward Gibbon as infidels would not have scrupled to take at the table the declaration now required by law; but was that a sufficient argument for blotting out of our stat- ute book a solemn declaration that our first duty as legislators was to discharge our duties as Christian men? A Jew could not listen to our form of pray- er, in which we called upon Christ to have mercy upon us, without either committing an awful blas- phemy, or going through a deliberate mockery of religion. He would not withhold these concessions from the Jews on account of the smallness of their numbers if he could believe them just; but as he did not think them so, he thought he had a right to ask whether it was either right or expedient to make them to 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 persons at the risk of exasperating 3,000,000 or 4,000,000. He had called the last bill introduced on this subject a bill to enable Mr. Solamons to become an alderman of London, and he called this bill a bill to enable the Baron L. de Rothschild to become a member of Par- liament. He then proceeded to show that the Jews were a separate nation, with a separate creed, and for that purpose read a letter from a Jewish rabbi, [Page 2] and an extract from the speech of John Duke of Bedford against the Jew Bill of 1753. He called upon the House by every consideration of interest and duty to pause before it changed the Christian constitution of the Legislature, and before it haz- arded the confidence of the people in the Christian institutions of the empire. Lord ASHLEY also opposed the motion. He con- tended that religion had a great deal to do with poli- tics-that the House knew that fact-and that it proved it by every one of its daily actions. Mr. Macaulay in an elaborate essay had declared that Government by its essantial (sic) character was interdict- ed from contemplating and accomplishing Christian ends; but he well recollected that that distinguished writer had in another speech declared that "every- thing which lowered Christianity in pablic (sic) estima- tion was high treason against the civilization of man- kind." He then controverted Mr. Macaulay's doc- trine, that to talk of Christian government was as absurd as to talk of Christian cookery or of Christian cobblery, and passed a heavy censure upon him for having confounded for the sake of witticism the lowest operations of the mind with the operation of the highest influences of the soul. It was true that Gibbon and Hume might as infidels have sat in that House; but they could only have done so by pro- fessing that in their opinion Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land. The House was now called upon to break down all the barriers which prevented the Jews from sit- ting in Parliament. No advantage would be gained by such an enactment-no compensation would be af- forded for the great shock which it would occasion to thousands of honest and conscientious Christians. Lord John Russell rested his case upon justice. Dr. Arnold-whose words he quoted-denied that the Jews had any claim to emancipation on that ground, and his Lordship had not ventured to say a word in refutation of that denial. The present was altogether a question of principle-it was a legisla- tive declaration that for all the purposes of public government, of making laws, and of administering public affairs, Christianity was altogether needless. To such a doctrine he could not assent even for a single hour. If the Jews had been already in Parli- ament, he would not have proposed to turn them out, but it was a widely different question to propose to bring them in and to repeal for their introduction an oath which was a declaration of Christianity on the part of the Legislature. In saying this, he disclaimed any antipathy to the Jews, and gave a glowing des- cription of the knowledge, intelligence, literature, and perseverance of the Jews of the present age, both in this country and other countries of Europe. that by the words of an act of Parliament, by the postscript of an oath or the fag-end of a declaration, you can insure religious motives and religious obliga- tions. (Cheers.) I believe, and I think I can prove, that by those declarations you do not obtain the security which you pretend to obtain-that you do by these means shut out men who are conscien- tious and deserving-men who would execute the duties of civil offices, and exercise the functions of legislators with due regard to religious obligations- and that you do not shut out those whom you profess yourselves afraid of admitting, I mean, that class of persons who, having thrown off altogether the obli- gations of religion, do not conceive themselves bound to fulfil (sic) any of its duties. (Cheers.) I say that it must depend upon the general opinion of the country -it must depend on the state of things therein ex- isting-it must depend on the state of education-it must depend on the religion existing in the country, whether or not you have a Christian Parliament. Let me, for the sake of illustration, refer to two very different times. In the reign of James I. and Charles I. strong religious feeling existed in this country. Men were divided into different sects, but nothing was more remarkable than the deep religious fervor which prevailed, sometimes burning more fiercely in one sect, sometimes in another; but all believed themselves bound by Christian obligations. Imagine that you have before you the assembly in which Falkland, Hollis, and Vane met-men differing from each other in religious views, but all sincerely religious, and professing the doctrine of Christianity;-would the Christian faith have been better secured in that Parliament if no man had been permitted to enter it without binding his conduct by a declaration "on the true faith of a Christian?" (Cheers.) Would it have added in the slightest degree to the security of Parliament, and would you have believed more strongly than you do now that those men were Christians, because they had stated the fact at the end of a declaration? Let us take another period and another country. Let us imagine a Parliament assembled in France towards the end of the last century, at a time when many among the aristocra- cy were the disciples of Voltaire, and among the democracy of Rousseau-let us suppose Mirabeau, Condorcet, Robespierre, and other men of that de- scription, returned to that assembly; can you believe that any security would have been obtained by com- pelling every one of them to pledge himself to ob- serve the oath which he took "on the true faith of a Christian?" (Cheers.) I will refer to another illustration, which our own country furnishes me with. The complaint against the Jews is that they are revilers of Christianity-that they make a mock- ery of the Christian religion-that they hold up Christ as an impostor, yet was there ever a man who more sneered at Christianity-was there any Jew of the last century who used such language with the view of depreciating the doctrines of Christiani- ty and destroying the belief in it in the minds of the people, as Gibbon? (Cheers.) Yet Gibbon took your declaration. (Loud cheers.) He came to the table and swore "on the true faith of a Christian." (Cheers and laughter.) He held office under George III.-he sat on the Treasury bench, under a Govern- ment which was more of a high church government which was more disposed to raise the cry of "Church and King," than perhaps any government which ever existed during the reign of that monarch. (Loud cheers.) Take the case of Mr. Hume. (Hear, hear.) He did not, it is true, have a seat in Parliament; but he held an office under Govern- ment, and I believe that he held office for a short time at the Court of Paris. The right hon. gen- tleman the member for the University of Oxford must well know that there was no man in the last century who wrote essays so much calculated to undermine religion as Mr. Hume; and yet, if he had been returned to Parliament, and had to make the declaration "on the true faith of a Christian," he would have taken the oath with a smile or a sigh, as the case might be, but he would have taken it, and the cobweb would have been swept away. I hold that it is not by a declaration of this kind that you can obtain security. You say that the Legis- lature ought to be a Christian Legislature; that the Parliament ought to be a Christian Parlia- ment; but do you not say that the nation is a Christian nation, and that the British people are a Christian people? Why, in the same sense in which you say that the nation is a Christian nation, though there may be 30,000 Jews among them, you might say that the Parliament was a Christian Par- liament, although among the 656 members of the House of Commons there might be six persons pro- fessing the Jewish religion. I therefore wish that this ground of argument were not taken by those whose object it is to prevent the Jews entering into Parliament, because the general character of the Parliament must depend now, as in former times, on the sentiments of the people at large, and on the sentiments of those who represent them; and it is not be inserting seven words in an act of Parliament -it is not by a mechanical contrivance of this kind -that you can secure religious obligation. But I have heard it said that, although there might be such instances as those of Mr. Gibbon,-instances of persons sitting in this house and subjecting them- selves to the required declaration,-yet, that this Parliament has been from time immemorial a Chris- tian Parliament, that Christianity is acknowledged to be part and parcel of the law of the land, and that it would be a portentous innovation if we were to quit that safe and secure ground of obligation. It appears to me that great mistakes are made by those who thus regard the history of this country. In the early history of this country the Jews were perse- cuted in every mode and by every contrivance which cruelty could suggest. At one time they were forced to surrender all their property, at another time they were sent to prison, at another time they were tor- tured, and at another time they were banished the [Page 2] realm by a general act of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) Such was the treatment of the Jews. But, with respect to the theory under which this law was adopted, that theory was, not that the Le- gislature should be open to all classes of Christians, but that every member of it should belong to the church which was then universal, the Roman Cath- olic church. It is stated by Bracton, that the statute De Haeretico Comburendo was supposed to be as ancient as the common law itself. Every heretic was committed to the flames at once; and I will read to you the words of an ancient author (Lvnde- wode) to show what sort of a person a heretic was: "Haereticus est qui dubitat de fide Catholica, et qui negligit servare ea quae Romana ecclesia statuit se servare decreverat." He thought that every man was a heretic who did not adhere to the Roman Catholic church, or who departed from it in any particular. Such was the common law of this coun- try, which was not framed in favor of Christianity, but for the protection of what was then the estab- lished church of the realm. But in the course of time the Reformation came; various sects arose; the Reformation was triumphant, and the church of England became a Protestant church. But heretics still continued to be punished, and in the reign of Elizabeth, I believe, persons were sent to the flames on account of heresy. But at another time there arose a new distinction-a distinction foun

Associated People/Businesses

No associated people or businesses listed.

Geography

No geographic information available.

Subjects

No subjects available.

Physical Location

Arc.MS.56, Box 10, Folder 10