The Press. — London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

• only given notice of his intention on the day before the recess, and having brought forward his resolution ou the first day after the holidays, It was impossible for any private communication to take place between members either on one side or the other, and we came to the dis cussion of an important amendment without the possibi lity of previous consultation or deliberation. Under these circumstances I took upon myself to suggest to your lord. ships that the question brought forward by my noble and gallant friend was one of too much importance to be decided upon in an accidental discuss•on of an amendment in the last stage of a bill. I suggested to your lordships that, if my noble and gallant friend intended to propose his amendment, it would ha better done by a separate bill than by a mere amendment. I confess that in my opinion it would have been more satisfactory to your lordships and to the country if my noble and gallant friend had been satistied with the expression of his own opinion—wah throwing out a suggestion that each a modification was required. and hal then left the other House of Parliament to send back the bill with the amendments so introduced, to which your lord-hips might then have given your assent. But the course which has been pursued is t h e•. two bills have been brought in—one by my noble and gallant friend (the Earl of Lacer)) and another by my noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst), than whom no one is more entitled to be heard on a subject to which he has devoted so much time and attention. (Cheers.) Upon looking at the two bills there does not appear to be much difference in ticir pro% Wont, but in the framing of his bill my noble and learned friend permits what may be considered an irregularity in the course of parliamentary proceeding, because a bill has passed through all its stages here, and must necessarily be communicated to the House of Commons, with the final decision of. your lordships upon it. The bill of my noble and learned then f , however, takes steps to re-enact all the clauses% that have been already passed in the hill that has been before both Houses of Parliament. The bill of my noble and gallant friend, on the contrary, 'ekes a different course, and deals only with the single question of enabling the House of Commons to deal by way of resolution with the question, and to dispense with some words in this particular oath. I confess that I am disposed to view with every favour the suggestion of my noble and gallant friend to send down such all enabling power to the House of Commons, and I think such a course preferable to tha► pursued by my noble and learned friend. I think it would he far better to send down the first bill as it st inda, and then to send down the bill of my noble and gallant friend, dealing w.th the case of the Jews as a separate measure. I cowess, my lords, that I have lint altered my %iews in regard to the poltcy or expediency of admitting th Jews as members of a Christian Legisla ture, but, having carefully and anxiouly considered the subject. I see that the proposal of my noble and gallant (Hein% is the only possible solution of the difficulty which has existed for a period of ten years. I see nn other practical chance of bringing the two Houses of Parliament into agreement. The measure proposed by my noble and gallant friend is one that certainly maintains the principle adopted by your lordships in dealing with the measure. It maintains the dignity of your lordships' house with regard to that portion of the question which is more immediately subject to your jurisliction. It maintains the law as it stands et the present moment, but it. enables the House of Commons. upon a question that specially relates to persons taking their seats in Una house, to dispense with the words which stand in the way of what appears to be the decided wish of the house. This solution appears to me to afford a practical and not unreasonable mode of settling a difficult and complicated question. And how ever much I regret the determination taken by the House of Commons, and the impossibility of maintaining inviolate the principle for which your lordships' house has ever contended, I confess I think there is less difficult and less practical inconvenience and danger arising from giving a limite I consent to the views of the House of Commons, as embodied in the proposition of my noble and gallant friend, then in persisting in an opposition which all pr re tical experience proves cannot be pushed beyond a certain limit between the two houses. While, therefore, on the one hand, I object to the bill of my noble and learned friend, and while I cannot say that the bill of my noble and gallant friend is not susceptible of and may not indeed require some amendment, I shall be satisfied, if it come to !question of dividing upon the second reading, to give my support to the bill of my noble and gallant friend. My lords, it is with the greatest regret I feel that I may differ upon this question (tom many of those with whom I have agreed for many years. If noon this occasion those who have honoured me with their confidence find it impossible to adopt the course which I have recommended, 1 will only say for my own part that, claiming frotn them that justice which I am ready to give in return, I take the course, which 1 have adopted from no other feeling than a desire to see an amicable settlement between the two houses with reg.n•d to a question of grave interest, and with respect to which I see no other solution. (Cheers.) Lord LYNDHURST expressed his surprise at the course taken by Lord Derby. When the subject was last discussed Lord Derby had clearly stated his view of the course necessary to take to put an end to the difference between the two houses. Those suggestions he had made the foundation of his bill, and he had every reason to suppose Lori Derby w . ntild hive supported it. He was sorry he had been !lwappointed in that expectation ; but he had no ob .lomtion to the principle of Lnrcl Lucen's measure. lie had no personal object in the matter; if the public purrme could be attained, whether it Wel by Inc hill or the other was to him a matter of perfect indifference. There was a defect of detail in Lord Ltican's bill. It dealt only with part of the goes ton; the abjuration of the descendants of the Pre tender would still remaia. Tbat might be remedied THE PRESS, JULY 3,1858. in committee; but then it would be exactly con formable to his own measure. However, to secure the main object, he would postpone his measure, that the one proposed by Lord Liman, having the support of the head of the Government, might be passed. The Earl of LUCAN said he had endeavoured as far as possible to make his bill acceptable to their lordships. The object he lied in view was to allow the admission of Jews into the House of Commons; and, if the bill passed, Jews would be admissible into the other house by a resolution of that house. Betore, however, such a resolution could pass it would be necessary under his bill that Jews should present themselves at the table of the house and there object to the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," when it would be in the power of the house to omit those words from the oath. That was a compromise which lie ventured to hone their lordships would be disposed to accept, and after a conflict of twenty-five years it was time for them to consider whether the question was not one which ad mitted of a compromise. This subject had been before their lordships for six weeks during the present session, and he could not but express a san guine hope that it would be settled by them on the present occasion once for all. He knew he had to contend with a violent opposition. He knew that on that side of the house on which he sat there were many among his noble friends with whom he had the honour of acting, who thought so keenly an this subject, and were actuated by such strong religions feelings and conscientious obligations as to bold that it was not one which admitted of any com promise. He trusted, however, that other noble lords would be disposed to concur in the view he took, and in the mode by which he sought to give it effect. He believed that there were many noble lords on his side of the house who agreed with him that this was a question that ought to be disposed of: but he feared they would not support him, be cause he believed they had an idea that to allow a separate action on the part of the other house was unconstitutional, and might lead to mischievous consequences. He could not for the life of him see how it was possible that a resolution so restricted and so guarded could lead to any mischievous results. He could well understand that it might form a precedent for a similar course ; but if they supposed that it would in time to come justify the House of Commons in assuming an independent and separate action, that, lie thought, was not warranted by the provisions of the bill. He had said on a former occasion that he believed there was the most perfect apathy and indifference in the country in reference to the admission of Jews to Parliament. It had been said that apathy and indifference arose from the country relying on the resistance to their admission of their lordships' house. There could be no doubt that for the last six weeks the country had been well aware that this question was on the point of being settled. Could the country, then, rely on the continued resistance of their lordships? It was certain they could not ; and yet, during that time the question had scarcely been mentioned in the country, and he did not believe that half a dozen petitions had been presented to that house on the subject during those six weeks. There was a bill before their lordships' house for the abolition of church rates, which would come on for discussion to-morrow (Friday) evening. That bill excited very strung religious feelings in the country, but was the same silence observed out of doors with respect to it? On the contrary, he found that in one day there hail been no less than two hundred and thirteen peti tions presented to their lordships' house in favour of the Bill for the Abolition of Church-rstes, a fact which showed that when there was a strong feeling in the country on any subject the people would make themselves hearth. From the entire silence, then, that had prevailed for the last. six weeks in the country on the subject of the Jew Bill, he was led to say that the people were perfectly indifferent about it. But, notwithstanding that, was the conflict be tween the two houses to go on for ever? Ho main tained that it could not go on for ever ; that the position of their lordships was not tenable ; and therefore he trusted that the matter would be satis fectorily disposed of that very night once for all. The noble earl concluded by moving that his bill be read a second time. The Earl of CLANCARTY opposed the motion, be cause the bill embodied the very principle the house bad formerly rejected, and moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord BERNEItS denounced the bill as dangerous, both to the peerage and the monarchy. Earl GRANVILLE supported the bill, but not with unmixed satisfaction ; he did not think it the best mode of settling the question, or that the course adopted was the only one consistent with the dignity of the house. But he admitted the difficulties the Government had to contend with, and if the present measure would secure the support of Lord Derby's political friends, it was the best termination of the controversy that could be effected. • 641 The Duke of CuVELAND spoke briefly in favour of the bill, and the Duke of RUTLAND against it. 141 rd REDESDALE pointed out what he thought a constitutional objection to the bill ; it would enable the House of Lords, at some future time, to admit a Jew, suddenly, and by resolution, without the discus sion required to pass a bill. Lord BROUGHAM said the cbjection was ground less; the resolution need not apply to any particular individual, but be a general one. The fact that a Jew might now sit and vote in committee, performing nine-tentha of the duty of a member of Parliament, without taking any oath whatever, had materially altered the circumstances in which the question came before them. The Bishop of OXFORD said he never rose to trouble their lordships with greater reluctance than on the present occasion ; but he could not give a perfectly silent vote that night. He did not intend to enter again into the whole question, which had been so often argued, as to the admissibility of the Jews into either House of Parliament, but he wished to state why it was that he must give the same vote that night that he had always given before. The reason was briefly this. His vote had been given oti the conscientious conviction that a man repu diating Him who was the central point of the whole Christian revelation, and declaring Him to be an impostor, must in the whole tone of his thoughts and in the whole series of his principles be so at variance with the principles and tone of thought or a Chris tian community that he could not safely be trusted with the discretionary power of making laws for that community. He had never been one of those who would wish to exclude from any civil privilege those from whom he conscientiously differed on religious grounds. On the contrary, he had always advocated the admission of the Roman Catholics to Parliament ; but it did appear to hire, as it appeared to others, and among others the late Dr. Arnold, that a man who denied the fundamental point of Christianity it was impossible to trust with the discretionary power of legislating for a Christian nation. The case dif fered from that of a magistrate or a member of a corporation, and he repeated he could not believe it to be right for a Christian people to give that discre tionary power to the professed antagonists of their religion. His noble and learned friend (Lord Brougham) had said there were many persons in Parliament just as hostile as the Jew was to the national religion. That might be so. It was not his (the Bishop of Oxford's) business to fix those shades of dissent ; but it was material to remember that no such man had ever been admitted to Parlia ment on the profession of his hostility to our faith. On the contrary, it was only on his coming and pro fessing to hold the common basis of a common Christianity, whatever might be his own internal feelings on that subject, that such a person was qua lified to sit in the Legislature of thie Christian land. But his noble and learned friend also said further, in answer to the noble duke (the Duke of Rutland), that there was at that moment this great novelty in reference to this question, which justified a change of view in those wiio opposed the admission of the Jews, that on taking no oath at all—not the oaths either of allegiance or of altjuration—a person could take his seat in a parliamentary committee. But he was sure that his noble and learned friend, with his acute, logical head, would see at once that that was not an argument for admitting the Jews into Par liament, and that if it went for anything, it was an argument for admittin g an unworn man—a man who had taken no oath at all of allegiance to his Sovereign—into the Legislature. Another point had been urged. It had been said that the time had ar rived when this question should he settled by a re• ference to the reason, and not to the feeling, of the house. It was because he believed it was the hardest and simplest logical deduction from facts that he said ho saw no reason for their lordships changing their views under any of the changed circumstances which at that moment, it was said, beset them. Was there any one thing which any one reasonable man could look forward to as certain to happen if their lordships gave the rote on this occasion which they gave at an earlier period of this session "What had changed since that time? He contended they wet e precisely in the same position as they were when they last voted in that house on this question. He believed that on this matter the other House of Par liament did not represent the feelings of the people of England. Their lordships were asked to yield their opinion on this question to tho opinion of the other branch of the Legislature ; and why ? With the same voice, they were told by the advocates for the change that the people of this country were absolutely apathetic on the very point which their lordships were urged to yield. He contended, therefore, that this was a question on which their lordships were not constitutionally called, as had been argued by a noble friend of his on the cross benches, to yield to / the other House of Parliament, because, on the admission of those who argued for the change, it' was a question on which that house was not speaking the voice of the people, but, on the ..Ail