A.D. 1800-1885.
THE JEWS IN ENGLAND—_continued_.
It does not surprise us, as was remarked in the last chapter, that
no step was taken to amend the position of the Jews during the
latter half of the eighteenth or the first quarter of the nineteenth
century. For many years after the struggle of 1753 its memory was
fresh in men’s minds; and to have attempted its renewal would only
have called forth a more bitter expression of hostility. Then
the struggle with America, the horrors of the French Revolution,
the excitement of Napoleon’s wars, the trade riots and domestic
disturbances of the later years of the Regency engrossed men’s
minds, and they had neither leisure nor inclination to attend to the
grievances of the Jews. Even when, in George the Fourth’s reign,
questions of internal policy again became the topic of the day, the
disabilities of the Roman Catholics, a numerous and influential
portion of the nation, naturally took precedence of those of the
Jews. But when these had been removed, and the Test and Corporation
Act had, in 1829, been repealed, the Board of Deputies, already
referred to, felt that their opportunity had arrived. They applied
to the leading statesmen of the day, and among others to the Duke of
Wellington, pointing out that, as he had recently carried through
Parliament a Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics, he was in
consistency bound to do the like for the relief of the Jews. But the
duke answered that such an attempt would raise so angry an outcry as
to render the success of the measure hopeless.
Nevertheless, something was done. The first step was taken in 1828,
when the restrictions were removed which had been imposed on the
admission of the Jews to the Stock Exchange. Up to that time only
twelve Jewish brokers had been allowed there, and the privilege of
entry had to be purchased by the payment of a large sum to the Lord
Mayor.[214] This was now abolished; and in 1830 Mr. Robert Grant,
afterwards Lord Advocate in the Grey Ministry, introduced into the
House of Commons a Bill for the removal of Jewish Disabilities. It
was rejected by the large majority of 163. The Reformed House of
Commons passed it three years afterwards, but it was thrown out in
the House of Lords.
Still the cause of the Jews progressed. In 1830 an Act was passed,
legalizing Jewish marriages, which the law, up to that time, had not
recognised. In 1832 they were admitted to the franchise, and became
free of the City. They were now allowed to open shops there, which
they had hitherto been prohibited from doing. In 1833 a Jew, Mr.
Goldsmid, was admitted as a barrister by the Society of Lincoln’s
Inn. In 1835 Mr. Salomons, also a Jew, was made Sheriff of Middlesex.
In 1837 Mr. Montefiore was knighted by the Queen; and in 1844 the
Jews were declared eligible to all municipal offices. Mr. Salomons
was made an Alderman in 1847, and Lord Mayor in 1856.
About this time a movement was set on foot in London for the
reformation of the Jewish Church there. It is stated that during the
first half of the present century the services in the synagogues
were ill-conducted and poorly attended. Attempts were made by some
zealous members of the community to bring about an improvement,
but for a long time with little success, until, in 1841, matters
came to a crisis. The reformers, among whom Sir Isaac Goldsmid was
conspicuous, withdrew from their brethren, and built what was called
the Reformed Synagogue, now situated in Upper Berkeley Street. The
object of the seceders was mainly to improve the existing liturgy,
partly by shortening it, partly by the removal of certain expressions
in the prayers which do not harmonize with the feelings of educated
Jews in the present day.[215] A good deal of angry feeling was called
forth on the occasion, and the excommunications of the seceders were
freely pronounced. After a few years, however, this began to subside,
and has now, we are told, vanished altogether. Both the Sephardim
and Ashkenazim, indeed, have made considerable alteration in their
liturgies in the course of the present century.
In 1847 an important step was taken by the leaders of the Jewish
emancipationists. At the general election in that year Baron Lionel
Rothschild offered himself as a candidate for the city of London, and
was returned. When the session of 1849 opened, Lord John Russell,
then Premier, brought in a Bill to omit from the Parliamentary oath
the words, ‘on the true faith of a Christian,’ which rendered it
impossible for a Jew to take it. The Bill was carried by a majority
of 66. It was then introduced into the House of Lords by the Earl of
Carlisle, who urged that the Jews were now the only persons excluded
from Parliament on account of their religious opinions. As uniformity
of belief on religious subjects had ceased to be required as the
condition of admission to the legislature, it was obviously unjust to
exclude Jews on that ground. The Bill was opposed by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, who argued that the measure was inconsistent with the
national profession of Christianity; also by the Bishop of Exeter,
who declared it to be a breach of the contract made between the
sovereign and the nation—that ‘the Crown should maintain the laws
of God, and the true profession of the Gospel.’ On the other side,
Archbishop Whately argued that the spirit of Christianity forbids us
to require the imposition of civil penalties on those who differ from
it. On a division the Bill was lost by a majority of 25.
An attempt of a different character was now made to obtain the object
desired. On the 26th of July, 1850, Baron Rothschild presented
himself before the Speaker to take the necessary oath; and when the
Clerk presented the New Testament, he said, ‘I desire to be sworn on
the Old Testament.’ Sir R. Inglis rose to oppose this suggestion;
the baron was ordered to withdraw, and a long debate ensued. The
opinion of the law officers of the Crown having been taken, the House
resolved that Baron Rothschild could not take the oath, except in the
ordinary manner prescribed by the law. It was agreed, however, that
another Bill should be introduced for the relief of the Jews in the
ensuing session.
This was accordingly done. The Bill was brought in and carried,
though by a reduced majority, and was then sent up to the Lords, by
whom it was, as before, thrown out. Its rejection was followed by a
second attempt, similar to that of Baron Rothschild in the preceding
year. Alderman Salomons, who had been returned for the borough of
Greenwich, presented himself at the table, and demanded to be sworn
on the Old Testament. He was ordered to withdraw, but refused to
do so, until given into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. He
also voted in two or three divisions, although he had not taken the
oath. The House declared this procedure to be illegal, and an action
was brought against Alderman Salomons in the Court of Exchequer
to recover of him the penalty of £500, which he was said to have
incurred by voting in the House of Commons without having previously
taken the oath. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. Mr. Salomons
appealed, and the case was again heard before six of the judges, but
they confirmed the decision of the previous court.
From that time until 1858 Bills were repeatedly brought into the
Lower House, and passed by majorities, sometimes larger and sometimes
smaller, until the year above named, when, under a Conservative
Government, the Commons admitted the Jews by a resolution setting
aside the standing order of the House, and Baron Rothschild took his
seat as the first Jewish member. In 1860 a Bill was passed through
both Houses, allowing the Jews to omit from the Parliamentary oath
the words, ‘on the true faith of a Christian.’ To complete the
history of Jewish emancipation, it should here be added that in 1873
Sir George Jessel was made Master of the Rolls, being the first Jew
admitted to the English Bench; and in 1885 Sir N. Rothschild was
created a peer, the first who has entered the English House of Lords.
No Jew has as yet been a Cabinet Minister; but it is obvious that,
whenever it shall serve the interest of the party which has for the
time a predominance in the country to make a Jew Lord Chancellor, or
one of the Secretaries of State, or even Premier, there will be no
legal obstacle, and probably no opposition offered to such a measure.
The struggle, in fact, is over. The Jews are fully emancipated.
The history of this protracted strife is full of interest to
the student of Jewish history, because it illustrates in the
most forcible manner the difference of opinion in men’s minds
respecting the Jews, which has existed from the earliest ages of the
Church—which, indeed, still exists, notwithstanding the great change
in their condition which this present century has brought about. Many
sincere Christians still think that the nation, in admitting Jews
to the legislature, has been guilty of a breach of its duty in the
sight of God. There is, first of all, the belief that the Jews are
a people lying under the curse of God, and that to show any favour
to them is to rebel against this decree. We have seen what revolting
barbarities this idea led to during the Dark and Middle Ages. Its
nineteenth-century form—of standing aloof, and withholding civil
rights from them—is less shocking in its results, but equally false
in principle. God has doubtless His own purposes towards them, and
they are a standing miracle, an enduring evidence of the truth of His
prophetic word. But He has not commanded us to be the instruments of
what we may suppose to be His pleasure, and can do His work without
our help. Every faithful follower of St. Paul will regard the Jews
in the same light in which he regards them.[216] Every sincere
believer in the Lord will echo the same prayer[217] that He offered
for them. Again, there are those who, though they would repudiate
the notion above suggested, still think, with Archbishop Sumner,
that the admission of the Jew to the legislature is a repudiation
of our national Christianity; or, with Bishop Philpotts, that it
is a breach of the sovereign’s coronation oath. If this were so,
no faithful believer, no loyal citizen could uphold the measure.
But let us consider what this ‘admission to the legislature’ really
amounts to. A Jew who enters Parliament cannot, in consequence of
his entry, himself make or alter laws. He has only one voice out of
a thousand in any legislative enactment. It will be said that he
ought not to have any voice at all. But if so, he must not have the
elective suffrage; or he may help to return a member who represents
his opinions. Nay, even if he has not the suffrage, he may, by the
use of his money, his station, his personal character, his tongue as
a public speaker, his pen as a writer, exercise a powerful influence
in the settlement of public affairs, which is, in fact, legislation.
The only mode of preventing him from doing this would be to do as our
forefathers did in England, as Torquemada did in Spain—to forbid him
to dwell in the land at all. They were at least consistent, and could
be so in no other way.
Again, does the sovereign, by giving the royal assent to a Bill
for the removal of Jewish disabilities, violate the undertaking of
the coronation oath, ‘to maintain the laws of God, and the true
profession of the Gospel’? By the ‘laws of God’ we must, I presume,
understand ‘the _commandments_ of God’ to be meant. The phrase occurs
continually in Scripture in that, and no other, sense. But how is the
maintenance of these impaired by the admission to the legislature
of the Jew, who acknowledges these commandments as religiously as
does the Christian? Again, there is ‘the true profession of the
Gospel’—that is, I conclude, the profession of the Gospel, untainted
by heresy or falsehood. But the Jew would have no power of tainting
this, though he _were_ to become a member of Parliament. Parliament
does not determine theological controversies, sit in judgment on
heresies, does not admit candidates for orders, does not ordain or
consecrate. If the Jew were to be allowed, through his election to
the House of Commons, to meddle with any of these things, that would,
no doubt, be a very different matter, which all loyal Churchmen would
resist to the utmost. But notoriously the Jewish member of Parliament
neither possesses nor desires anything of the kind.[218]
There is, in truth, a confusion in some men’s minds between
‘God’s laws’ and Christian dogmas, which misleads them. As Head
of the State, the sovereign upholds the ‘laws of God’—of public
morality, that is to say—which are rightly so called, because
they are primarily of God’s ordering. These, all men, whatever be
their distinctive creed, are bound to support. As the Head of the
Church, again, the sovereign maintains Christian dogmas through the
ministrations of those who hold offices in that Church, and takes
cognisance of denials and perversions of the Faith. To these offices
there never has been any proposal to admit the Jews, nor is there the
least likelihood that such ever will be made.
FOOTNOTES:
[214] Sir Moses Montefiore paid £1,200 for his admission to the Stock
Exchange.
[215] In the twelfth prayer, used by the Jews for many centuries,
in their public worship, occurred the words: ‘Let there be no hope
for those who apostatize from the true religion, and let heretics,
however so many they be, perish in a moment. And let the kingdom of
pride (the Roman empire) be speedily rooted out and broken in our
days.’ In the liturgy of the Ashkenazim this prayer (which tradition
attributes to Gamaliel) now stands thus: ‘Let the slanderers have
no hope, all the wicked be annihilated speedily, and all tyrants be
cut off quickly.’ In that of the Sephardim the prayer runs: ‘Let
slanderers have no hope, and let all presumptuous apostates perish in
a moment. May Thine enemies and those that hate Thee be suddenly cut
off, and all those that act wickedly be suddenly consumed, broken,
and rooted out; and humble Thou them speedily in our days.’—Horne’s
_Introduction_, iii. 474.
[216] Romans x. 1.
[217] Luke xxiii. 34.
[218] Sir G. Jessel would not present to a living, which was in
his patronage as Master of the Rolls, on the very grounds here
alleged—that he had nothing to do, and ought to have nothing to do,
with the Christian Church. No doubt, in the present anomalous state
of things, questions relative to the Church might be brought before
Parliament with which no Jew could with any propriety interfere. But
if he is to be excluded on that ground, then all but genuine members
of the Church ought to be excluded also.