|
London, 3 March, 1848-5608.
The interest in the Jewish Emancipation question
has given way for the present to the all-exciting and absorbing subject
of the French Revolution. And the public journals are too much taken up
with what is now occupying the profound attention of the whole civilized
globe, to spare room for continuing, some their attacks against, and
others their defending of the Bill. Since my last, the second reading
has come off with something like the same result as the first reading.
Sir Robert Peel’s speech in support, is considered to have been one in
every way worthy of his great reputation. The subject may truly be said
to have given occasion to some of the best speeches which have been
delivered this session. Monday evening next, (6th inst.,) is fixed for
going into committee on the Bill, which will be its last ordeal previous
to final adop<<104>>tion by the Lower House. What will be the decision of the
Lords on the question, it is impossible to say as yet. Some of those
best able to form a judgment appear to entertain apprehensions as to its
success. When it is reflected that the new Republic of France has chosen
two Jews as members of its Provisional Government, it may be expected
that some of our High Church Peers will take alarm lest equal
pre-eminence be given to some Jews in this country, so soon as the legal
barrier to their eligibility to high political offices shall be removed.
Would that the English Jews, by reason of their great abilities or high
mental qualifications could give sufficient warrant for that fear; not
but that after we have been upon an equal political footing with our
Christian fellow-subjects for a few years, we shall be enabled to
furnish our quota of statesmen or other great characters consistently
with our numerical proportion. For it has never been denied that
wherever the Jews have been permitted to start fair in any pursuit with
their Gentile fellows, they have rarely been found the last to reach the
goal, and it would be easy to cite many examples where they have been
the first.
That matter concerning the late Mr. Elkin has not
yet been allowed to drop by the secession community, for I find that the
Jewish Chronicle has inserted in some of its late numbers, one or two
letters on the subject, all condemnatory of the Chief Rabbi and
Synagogue authorities. It is surprising with what tenacity a justly
discarded body will sometimes cling to a grievance, in the hope, 1
suppose, that the excess of severity exercised towards them, will induce
so much sympathy from the public as to keep them quite unmindful of the
occasion for any censure whatever. It does not happen in this case that
the authorities have even been unduly severe. The Chief Rabbi had no
alternative under the circumstances, as every dispassionate inquirer
might readily ascertain. From what has come to my knowledge, it is
evident that a grievance was intended to be got out of the matter—since
Burton Street authorities first applied to the Great Synagogue for their
minister to attend the funeral officially, and when that was rejected
and the only conditions for burying the body in the grounds of the Great
Synagogue was named by Dr. Adler, when applied to, which was that the
second officer instead of the first should perform the funeral ceremony,
the seceders stuck to another condition, which they were certain would
not be complied with, and thus of course they secured the grievance[?]
which they wanted. I should not have revived this subject, which two of
my former letters have already referred to, but that it has not yet
ceased to excite attention in the community, and much misrepresentation
and exaggeration has been allowed to go forth, without correction or
contradiction.
<<105>>There has been another attempt made by the
יחידים of the Portuguese Congregation
to de-excommunicate the Portuguese members of the Burton Street
community—by the following resolution: “That every person who may have
incurred the penalty of ‘Herem,’ by an infraction of the old Ascama of
Kaal (resolution of the Board,) No. 1 (now repealed), shall do longer be
considered under that penalty, but subject only to the same pains and
disqualifications, as are in force against the members of the Burton
Street place of worship, under the Declaration of the Ecclesiastical
authorities of the United Congregations.” Though the resolution was most
ably supported by the most influential and enlightened members of the
congregation, it was only carried by a majority of one. And as it will
have to be confirmed by another meeting, the success is very doubtful.
There is so little stirring just now of interest in
the community that I will not protract my letter.
O. |
