|
London, February 4, 1848, (5608.)
The Jewish Emancipation question still continues to
absorb almost the whole of public attention. Indeed since I last
addressed you, “it may be said the plot has thickened.” Public meetings
have been got up in numberless districts among our Christian brethren,
where the strongest sympathy has been manifested on behalf of our cause.
If nothing shall ensue from these manifestations, it must still be
grateful to the feelings of the Jews, to find so much good will
entertained towards them by those perhaps who not many years ago looked
upon that nation as a degraded and an “accursed” race.
I am not quite so sure that our gentile
fellow-subjects know very much more of our national character and our
religious polity even now, if the truth be confessed, and therefore from
some of them the good opinion is the less valuable or acceptable. There
are, however, many intelligent individuals of high standing, who have
given us their support because of their better acquaintance with
us, I am happy to say, and it is from such as these that sympathy and
assistance come the more gracefully. I am told that in the upper house
we are to have the support of the Duke himself (Wellington), which will
no doubt induce many followers. Seven Bishops are spoken of also as
being likely to support the measure, which must have considerable
influence on several peers, who, as it is supposed, make no objection to
the bill on civil or political grounds, but have conscientious scruples
against it on religious grounds. The debate is to be resumed in the
lower house on Monday evening next (the 7th inst.), unless perhaps some
pressing business shall put it off a little later. On the first reading
Sir Robert Inglis declared that he was glad of the necessary lapse of
time between then and the next reading, on account of the recess,
because he thought it would allow of a valuable opportunity of
ascertaining the feeling of the public on the question, who he expected
would be sure to inundate the house with contra petitions. Strange
enough to say, however, the very opposite has been the result: the
petitions in favour have far outnumbered those against. A few nights ago
the “Jewish Association for Removing the Disabilities, &c.,” which I
once before described to you, got up a meeting at Sussex Hall, for the
purpose of having a Jewish demonstration on the subject, Mr. Alderman
Salomons was to have presided, <<56>>but I am told he declined, because it was
intended to be made a mixed meeting, a great number of public men of the
Christian profession having been invited to speak. However, the meeting
did take place, and a Mr. Joseph Mitchell, president of the society,
took the chair. The hall was crowded, and a number of resolutions were
passed, being moved and seconded by Jews only, and the Christian
visitors were invited to speak upon them. There were none of what may be
termed the leading Jews among the speakers, but several very respectable
middle-class men. With the exception of what fell from a Colonel Gauler,
a conservative, who treated the subject on religious grounds only, it
was not at all referred to in that spirit by any one else. Indeed some
of the latitudinarian views which were declared by zealous friends of
civil and religious liberty, would have served as well to justify the
admission into Parliament of a Pagan as a Jew. Of course this kind of
argument rather damages than improves the cause; for I can but think
that the true Jew would rather be emancipated as a professor of Judaism
than as a British subject only. Many of them, unhappily, in their
anxiety for the bill, are disposed to make concessions from Judaism
itself, such as by explaining away our nationality and the like. Luckily
there are very few, however. One or two more pamphlets have appeared
since my last, and amongst the best is that written by Mr. F. H.
Goldsmid, a barrister. The subject is argued with judgment, skill, and
dignity, and the religious bearing is not attempted to be set aside, but
is dealt with, as far as it goes, in a very becoming spirit, and the
work seems evidently accomplished by emancipation at any cost.
On Saturday last שבת יתרו,
Dr. Adler delivered a sermon in which he attempted to define what was
“Judaism,” and his matter was so extremely pertinent to the great
question of the day, that the wardens were memorialized to have the
sermon published, which is being done.
The Board of Deputies has resolved on presenting a
petition from their body, purporting to be for themselves and the
congregations which they represent, on behalf of the bill. All the
Deputies, I am told, are not agreed as to the propriety of the course,
and one or two have refused to sign without an appeal to the
congregations, which is required in such a case, as I believe, by the
constitution. The appeal is therefore being made.
That matter concerning the refusal of a Great
Synagogue to bury the late Mr. Elkin, except with certain modifications
in the customary ceremonies, has led to a correspondence in the public
journals. The Morning Herald has had several letters from some anonymous
writer <<57>>on the subject, who attempts to prove that the Jews are not
fitted for emancipation by reason of their intolerance, as instanced by
this example. The writer is evidently one from our own ranks (a Jew),
and a member of Burton Street Congregation. It appears very
discreditable, as the facts are much distorted, and the thing is
evidently done in ill-humour and spite. Of course the Herald, which is
most earnest in its opposition to our emancipation, accepts and inserts
such correspondence con amore. The excitement that prevailed at the time
of the Rabbi’s refusal to sanction the burial of the late Mr. Elkin, has
somewhat subsided now, being lost sight of in the all-engaging topic of
the day.
Hoga’s work has not continued since the first
number; he was too violent against Christianity to win the honest
Christian by his exposure of the doings of the “London Society,” and too
much a renegade to elicit patrons or partisans amongst the Jews, so that
his project has to all appearance become a failure. He certainly makes a
mistake if he thinks he can reinstate himself into the confidence or
even fellowship of the Synagogue merely by displaying violent opposition
to the Church. The Synagogue only recognises one course for the
repentant sinner, and that Mr. Hoga knows quite as well as the best of
us.
O. |
