The Press. — London, England, 1854-05-27 00:00:00

I 486 country that the bond of union between the Church and the Legislature was becoming weaker. A division followed this speech of the noble lord, when the house decided on allowing the bill to be brought in by a majority of 129 to 62—.437. The bill was read a first time that same evening. THE OATHS BILL. After many postponements Lord JOHN RUSSELL had consented to bring forward his Parliamentary Oaths Bill for second reading on Thursday at such time as to allow of a deliberate discussion. The discussion accordingly began early, and occupied the entire night, and terminated at past one o'clock in a division by which the measure was effectually crushed for the present session. The debate opened with a vigorous denunciation of the bill by Sir F. THESIGER. He remarked upon the shifting forms under which proposals for admitting Jews to Parlia ment had been presented to that house—of the regu larly.diminishing majorities by which they had passed the Commons, and the as regularly-increasing majo rities by which they were rejected in the Lords. He noticed, also, that public opinion was absolutely dead in behalf of the measure out of doors, while a vast number of petitions had been prepared and pre sented against it. Sir F. Thesiger then viewed the measure in its present aspect, when comprehending not merely the admission of the Jews—though that was its chief and covertly second object—but also changing the whole tenor of the parliamentary oaths, and levelling the defences which had been erected at different times against aggression from the Papacy and other quarters upon our religious libel ties, our Pro testant Establishment, and the royal supremacy. He exposed the inconsistencies of conduct and language exhibited by Lord John Russell, and then, comparing the tenor of the single oath now proposed with the principles heretofore advocated by various members of the Cabinet, drew the inference that a Coalition Ministry had drawn up a coalition oath. Lord John Russell's colleagues, who had opposed his Ecclesias tical Titles Bill, had given up their objections against the Jews, and the noble lord himself had surrendered the supremacy of the Crown. Addressing the non conformist members of the house, Sir Frederick warned them of the danger they incurred in weaken ing any of the securities of the Church, which formed the most efficient barrier against the encroachments of Rome. The little finger of the Papacy would be found thicker than the loins of the Establishment. He concluded by moving as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER prefaced his speech by entering into a vindication of hie noble colleague, whose life-long and consistent advocacy of religious liberty was acknowledged by the present, and would be admired by a future, generation. As the inconsistency of Lord J. Russell was an imagi nary fact, so was the alleged compromise between himself and his colleagues an imaginary conclusion. There were no discordances in the Cabinet on the question of Jewish disabilities, although, he remarked, the Opposition could not boast of equal unanimity. Adverting to the question of the royal supremacy, Mr. Gladstone confessed that the new oath omitted all recognition of the supremacy of the Crown over the Church. But the oath as it stood was equally silent on the subject. In fact, the so-called oath of supremacy had contained nothing relating to supre macy ever since the original oath, framed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, had undergone altera tion after the Revolution of 1688. Subsequently to that time the oath had become one merely abnega ting the jurisdiction of the Pope. For the doctrine of the royal supremacy they must look to the articles of the Church of England. Respecting other omitted phrases, such as that denying the doctrine that princes could be deposed or murthered at the com• mend of the Pope, or binding the taker of the oath to defend the legal settlement of property in the country, Mr. Gladstone declared that all such obli gations were now valueless, and should be removed from the statute book. The Sovereign was defended by the love and loyalty of her subjects ; and property by the principle of moral rectitude among the people. The oath obliging Roman Catholics to respect the Protestant Church Establishment was to be included in the same category. It might, indeed, impose some trifling restraint upon individual action in a few instances, but offered no security that was not far overbalanced by the mischief of the inequalities which it signified, and of the heartburnings which it perpetuated. In its relation to questions of property, that oath constituted a trap to consciences, since it constructively prohibited Roman Catholics from touching subjects trenching on the possessions of the Church, with which, as the anti church-rate vote of Tuesday night sufficiently showed, the Protestant members considered themselves entitled to deal. The opposition to the bill was renewed by Mr. NAPIER, who declared that the measure was dis honest. Instead of openly proclaiming its object, it burglariously broke through the barriers of the con stitution, to enable the Jew to enter ; by Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE, who considered that the protection afforded by the oath of supremacy was still indis- THE PRESS. pensable ; and by Mr. LIDDELL, who could not con sent to disturb the compact made in the Catholic Emancipation Act. Sir J. WALMSLEY energetically supported the bill, and urged the Government to a display of equal vigour by making it a Cabinet measure. Mr. NEWDEGATE refused to unchristianise the Legislature. The last attempt to dispense with the oaths of allegiance and supremacy was designed, he remarked, to pave the way for making England Papist, and resulted in the abdication and exile of the Sovereign who hazarded it. Mr. MIALL was convinced that political restric tions were utterly inefficient to avert a spiritual danger. To this argument Mr. WHITESIDE replied that mankind could never be governed by abstractions : they required some more positive and material restraints. He proceeded to describe the nature of the securities which the bill would abolish, and enforced the necessity of maintaining them in full operation. The proposal to abolish the Roman Catholic oath reopened the whole question of emancipation, and violated the promises given with so much solemnity by all the advocates of the act of 1820 at the time it was passed. Adverting to the speech of Mr. Gadstone, he declared that Rome looked with hope and expectation to Oxford Uni versity, and the incidents of the present debate had justified the anticipation. Lord J. RUSSELL remarked the measure had been discussed almost entirely as a Roman Catholic question. The case of the Jews had been almost overlooked. He then pointed to the precedents which bad been set in former times of change in the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, whereon he had been so heavily impugned for laying an irreve rent hand : " His object had been to concentrate and simplify the expressions used in the various forms of obligation pre scribed to the members of different faiths, and to form them into a single oath which should be offered to all alike, and contain only those propositions which all could accept. The present forms comprised much that was obsolete, impossible, and ridiculous, tending to imbue a most solemn act with levity. There were only certain matters that could be made fit subjects for an oath. No obligation, however stringently framed, could restrain men from performing what they thought their duty. Under the last Stuart Sovereigns an oath was drawn up with great care, and exacted from the whole population, binding them not to take up arms against the King. Yet the oath availed nothing when the great mass of the people be lieved that King James had forfeited the crown, and it was their duty to dethrone him. With respect to the Roman Catholic oath, the Whig party and the friends of the Catholics generally had accepted it in 18'29 as a palliative to their Protestant opponents, but without ad miring it, and they contended that now, after a lapse of twenty-five years, it might be expediently abolished." Lord J. Russell then examined the oath set forth in the bill before the house, which was founded on the old oath of allegiance, and embodied all the obligations it was desirelle to retain. On behalf of the Jews he had no new argument to offer. The Legislature had adopted the principle that reli gious distinctions should not be marked by political disabilities, and he urged them not to deny its advantages to the members of a single faith merely because their numbers were too few to render them formidable. Mr. DISRAELI drew distinctions between the three separate consequences which the measure was calcu lated to evolve—the abrogation of Jewish disabilities, the concession of ampler licence to the efforts of Ro rnanising Protestants, and the promotion of Roman Catholicism itself. Towards the first object be had on former occasions contributed his vote, and now urged the claims of the Jewish people to full political privileges on account of the vast debt which all other branches of the human family owed to them:— " I cannot say that it is on the ground of religious liberty that I have felt it my duty to advocate the political emancipation of those who profess the Jewish religion. I have always held that opinion, and advocated their claims, because I have believed that the Jewish race was the family to which the human family in general has been most indebted ; and, when I am told that by admitting Jews into Parliament we shall destroy the Christian cha• racter of this assembly and community, I must say that it is because this is a Christian assembly and community that the claim of the Jews to be admitted to all political and social privileges appears to me to be irresistible. (Hear.) When I remember how much we are indebted to this people—when I remember the ineffable blessings of which they have been the human agents—when I remem ber that by their writers of history and of poetry, and their laws, that our lives have been instructed, solaced, and regulated—when I recollect other considerations more solemn and reverential, to which, at this moment and in this place, I will not advert, I confess that I cannot as a Christian oppose the claim of those to whom Christianity is so much indebted. (Hear, hear.) If, in regarding their claims to be admitted to this house, I look to modern history, it is my belief that, if the Bible had not been trans lated and printed, there would not have been an English House of Commons at this moment—(Hear)—and I may remind hon. members who represent Scottish constituen cies how much they are indebted for the liberties of Scot land to the Jews—how much they are indebted for their SATURDAY, liberties to the sword of the Lord and of Gideon. (Hear.) There is another reason why I more particularly wish that the granting of these immunities to English Jews, which will place them on a level with their fellow subjects in every respect, should not be denied or delayed, and that is because I cannot conceal from myself that of the coun- tries in which the Jews have been persecuted there has not been one that has not suffered; whose energies have not been withered ; whose political power has not decreased ; end in all this there is to my mind evidence that Divine favour has been bequeathed to this people." In England, Mr. Disraeli proceeded to remark, the Jews had received more liberal treatment and Eng. land had become free and flourishing. At present he noticed a great change in their favour in public opinion, and, although their claims to the full mea sure of political privileges had not yet been allowed by the Legislature, the aspect of the question gave them no cause for discouragement. Compared with the Catholic claims, those of the Jews had advanced much more rapidly towards a satisfactory solution:— "No one can pretend that the position of the Jews in England is to be compared, as far as public opinion is con cerned, with what it was twenty or even ten years ago. They are infinitely more considered, and the prejudices of which they were the victims have rapidly and considerably disappeared. The discussions and debates of Parliament and the efforts of literary men out of the house have thrown much light on the question, which was at first, of course, complicated and involved from the unhappy confusion which has existed as to their general condition ; but this will, to my mind, disperse and disappear before the influence of research and the spirit of charity and philosophy—(Hear) —and I think that it is no exageration to say that there never was a body of men, or a body of her Majesty's subjects, who have been subjected to prejudices and political dis qualifications who have in so short a time inclined public opinion to their favour, or made such considerable advances to the ultimate object to which they wished to attain. I confess I have always taken—and taken naturally—a deep interest in this question, and 1 have always felt confident that the course of time and of discussion, and the human ising influences of 1 iterar y research and public debate, would bring opinion about in their favour—(Hear, hear)—re. membering that they belong to a religious country deeply interested in their religous creed ; and that between the Jew and the Christian, whatever race the Christian may be of, there must be intimate relations of sympathy and pious sentiment. (Hear.) I must say, feeling myself that this was a question which was advancing in the most legitimate way, and approaching, as I thought, to a most satisfactory issue, I deeply deplore that the noble lord hos mixed it up with questions that must greatly embarrass the solutionof that which he had at heart, and which may postpone and throw back the accomplishment of the purpose he wished to achieve. (Hear, hear.) Because I must remember that the race fur whom the noble lord is peculiarly inte rested is not a race that cannot afford to wait—that they are not a new people who have just got into notice, and who, if you do not recognise their claims, will disappear. (` Hear, hear,' and a laugh.) They are an ancient people, a famous people, an enduring people—a people who, in the end, do generally attain their objects. (Laughter.) lam sure I hope that Parliament may endure for ever, and sometimes I think they will ; but I cannot help remem bering that the Jews have met Assyrian kings, Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Caesars, and Arabian caliphs , and, there fore, I have thought we need not precipitate their claims in the face of public feeling, but that we might fairly lease them to that result which argument and the spirit of fair discussion would facilitate, and which they would not only facilitate but accomplish." Passing on to the other objects of the bill, Mr. Disraeli observed that it contemplated startling changes, which there was no necessity to warrant. The oaths it was designed to abrogate should be ap preciated, not by their phraseology, but their associa tions. They were bound up in the minds of the people with religious liberties and with national in dependence. Against these a great Papal conspiracy was still organised, rendering it most unwise to re linquish any iota of our Protestant securities. Vin dicating his consistency as an advocate of Jewish rights, he felt compelled to perform a painful duty in opposing the present measure. --- . - Two brief speeches, uttered amidst impatient cries for a division, followed from Mr. MUNTZ and Mr. GOULBURN. Both opposed the bill because it violated the solemn compact of 1820. The latter right hon. member spoke most energetically in defence of the Roman Catholic oath included in the Emanci pation Act, having himself aided in its preparation. The house divided and threw out the bill by a majority of 4, the votes standing 247 against 251. Great excitement and cheering accompanied the pro clamation of this result. SCOTCH SCHOOLMASTERS. Replying to the Duke of Buccleuch, on Monday, The Earl of ABERDEEN stated that the salaries of schoolmasters in the Scotch national schools would now be reduced to a maximum of 271., the bill by which their incomes would have been increased having been rejected by the House of Commons. The Government would, however, at the earliest Op portunity take steps for restoring the schoolmoters salaries to their former amounts. A bill was in pre paration for that purpose. After some conversation between the Marquis . of Breadalbane, the Earl of Eglinton, Lord Kinmurd, and the Duke of Argyll, . I\