§ MR. NEWDEGATESir, I beg to claim the indulgence of the House. I wish to correct an error in a statement which I made on the 22nd of March, in 1984 moving the omission of the fifth clause of the Oaths Bill. I have been a Member of this House for fourteen years, and I trust that I have always shown that I would not willingly make any statement that could mislead the House, and that I am ready to apologize for any misstatement into which I may be betrayed. I stated on that occasion that Jews were not admitted to the provincial and municipal assemblies of Prussia, because those assemblies retained that Christian character which had been their attribute for years. I made that statement in 1851, and on inquiry I find it as true with respect to these provincial assemblies now as it was at that time. But I went on to say, that Jews were not admitted to the Legislative Chamber of Prussia. Mr. Davidsohn, a person of the Jewish persuasion, has, in a letter which he has published, pointed out that I was mistaken in having denied that such was the case; not liking to accept the contradiction on the authority of Mr. Davidsohn, who has lapsed into several gross errors with respect to the authenticity of works which I quoted, and in other respects, I wrote to Berlin, and am informed that Jews are admissible to the Chamber of Deputies of Prussia. I beg to apologize for my error in this respect, and I hope the House will accept the apology as an earnest that I would not willingly persevere in maintaining any error of which I am cognisant. I trust the House will allow me shortly to refute a charge brought against me. ["Order."]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member may make a personal explanation, but this is not the occasion to answer observations made elsewhere or at another time.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEA statement has been put into my mouth which I have not uttered. On the occasion referred to I alluded to several matters connected with the Jewish community, particularly with reference to their rabbinical traditions. Statements have been attributed to me which I never made. I will not allude to this further than to show that if there is any privilege of Parliament remaining, the privilege had been but slightly regarded by those who have assailed me. I have seen it stated in the public journals that "at a meeting at Manchester, on the 25th of March, to commemorate the opening of a synagogue, Mr. Theodores, a learned Jew, met the charges brought by Mr. Newdegate against the doctrines of the Jews during the recent debate on the Oaths Bill. 1985 This person said, "that there was not a single assertion accompanied by any historical or geographical datum risked by that hon. Gentleman," that is myself, "the groundlessness of which could not be shown by an appeal to common sense." I do not intend further to notice what was thus said at that public meeting, but cite this passage to show the wholesale nature of the denials and misstatements with which I am assailed. When I spoke on the 22nd of March, I was perfectly aware that whoever dares to lift the dark veil which shrouds the doctrines of rabbinical Judaism will be liable to such attacks. Such wholesale denials of the truth of my statements rendered further comments upon them unnecessary. But another person, while referring to what I said on the occasion in question, has, in another place, made the following statement with respect to myself, which is specific, and which I shall therefore notice; it is couched in the following terms: —
He has asserted that the Jews wore the originators of the Inquisition—that they were the original Jesuits. And what is his authority for these assertions? He does not refer us to Bernard or to Bayle, or to any such high authority, but says, 'I find this in a romance in a popular novel in circulation, the author of which is a member of the present Government. If you ask the name of the novel, you are told it is Coningsby.' "That is the statement which Lord Lyndhurst has made of what he supposed that I said. Had I made such a statement, I feel that my conduct would have been discreditable to myself and disrespectful to the House. In self vindication, I will read to the House from Hansard what I said. It is as follows: —We have been told that the first Jesuits were Jews; and we have it so in Coningsby. [A laugh.] That is indeed a work of fiction. But when I assert that Jews had been officers of the Inquisition in Spain, I assert it on the authority of the rabbi of the synagogue in Birmingham. And I assert, on the authority of the elder Disraeli, that a close affinity exists between the doctrine, the manner of reasoning, the right of absolution, the dictatorial power claimed, and the universal power aimed at, alike by the Rabbin and the Jesuits. He terms such factors of the Pope as the Jesuits the mere mimics of the Rabbins. He says that the Jesuits derived their system, derived their anti social doctrines, derived their subversive tendency, from the Rabbins.I thank the House for allowing me to make this explanation in the presence of those who heard the statement in question. I made these assertions, in the first place, on the authority of Dr. Raphall, Rabbi of the synagogue in Birmingham, a town in 1986 which a number of my constituents reside. The statements I have referred to occurred in lectures delivered by Dr. Raphall, and reported in 1847–48. The second authority I cited was that of the elder Disraeli, in his work entitled The Genius of Judaism. I have, Sir, referred to the statement which has been attributed to me by a noble Lord in another place, although I am prepared to respect the rule which prohibits Members of the House from referring to what is spoken by Members of the other House, because I think there ought to be a reciprocal observance of that rule, and that it would be more decent if noble and learned Lords choose to quote expressions as having been used in this House, that they should refer to the recognized records of our debates, and not, without having thus referred, impute to myself or any Member statements made on fictitious authority, of which I am guiltless.