The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

Vroct6ings in rarliament. HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY. ADMISSION OF JEWS. The reasons given by the House of Commons for di s agreeing from their lordships' amendments to the Oaths Bill were considered; the fifth claus e o f t h e original bill having been read at the table, The Earl of Luc AN proposed the amendment of which he bad given notice ; it empowers both HOUEV'S of Parliament to modify the form of oath at present required by a special resolution. The House of Commons could thus order the portion of the oath to which the Jews object to be omitted. He had brought forward the amendment without consultation with a ny party, and, believing that the time had arrived when the question must, be settled, he proposed it as a compromise. Since 1833 ten bills for removing the Jewish disabilities had been sent up to their lordships ; the majorities by which they had been carried had constantly increased, and it was impolitic longer to resist a principle so strongly supported. The noble earl said he might be told that in up holding the sentiments which he entertained he was acting in violation of the religious feeling of the country ; but he should wish to know what evidence there was to substantiate that charge. There was no such evidence to be found in the number of peti. tions which had been presented to that house against the admission of Jews to Parliament, inasmuch as the number of those petitions was extremely small. Neither was it to be discovered in the circumstance that at the hustings any member of Parliament had been called to account by his constituents because he happened to have voted in favour of Jewish emancipation, while it was a fact beyond all dispute that nearly the entire press of the country supported the policy of admitting Jews to a seat in the Legis lature. It might, however, be contended that the public out of doors were apathetic upon the subject, because th.y relied upon the House of Lords to reject any measure which had that object in view. That, however, was not the way in which the country was wont to act, and he felt assured that had the people of England felt so strongly upon the question as some noble lords seemed to suppose, they would, as it was their duty to do, have given unmistakeable expression to the sentiments which they entertained. He should now leave his amendment in their lord ships' bands, in the perfect assurance that, whether it pleased them to adopt or to reject it, they would be guided by the dictates of tbeir own consciences and a due regard to the interests of the country. The noble earl concluded by moving / the following proviso:— Provided, also, that whenever any of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion shall be reiuired to take the oath appointed by this act on any occasion other than an application to be admitted to sit and vote in either House of Parliament the words, " And I make this decla• ration upon the true faith of a Christian," shall be omitted ; and that from and after the passing of this act it shall be lawful for the House of Lords and for the House of Com mons, respectively, by resolution of the house, to determine that the form of the said oath, so fur as such oath rests upon or refers to the Christian faith, shall fur the purpose only of such oath being administered to persons professing the Jewish religion be modified, and to make such modi fication accordingly in such manner as to each such house shall seem beat calculated to adapt the form of the said oath to the honest and conscientious scruples of the said persons professing the Jewish religion. Earl STANHoPE admitted that his opinions on the policy of continuing to resist the decision of the House of Commons bad undergone a change. In two years the majority in the House of Commons in favour of admitting Jews to Parliament had trebled, and since 1848 an annual bill had been sent up to the House of Lords. The repugnance shown to the admission of the Jews to Parliament was languid and inert, it evaporated in talk; and it would be difficult to name a single case in which the advocacy of the claims of the Jews by a candidate had in any degree prejudiced his election. When the opinions of this house were thus languidly supported out of doors it became very difficult for their lordships to continue their opposition to this measure. There was another consideration which in popular apprehension had very greatly altered the aspect of this question. When the claims of the Jews to sit in Parliament were first mooted, they were supported by net more than one or two occupants of the Government benches. Since that time, however, a considerable number of the right rev. prelates, among others, had shown themselves favourable to the admission of the Jews : Now, it u se d t o b e sa id of some ultra politicians in the time of Louis XVIII. that they were plus Royalietes que le Roi ; and in the same way lie thought that if so large a proportion of the right rev, bench supp o rted the claims of the Jews while a majority of this house opposed them, the Popular apprehension might be that their lordships were more zealous than the bishops themselves in pre trying the Christian character of the Legislature. The noble lord then alluded to the fact of a Jew THE PRESS, JUNE 5, 1858. having been Lord Mayor of London, and said he doubted whether the distinction between the office of making laws and of executing them was not too " thin and relined " for popular apprehension. Moreover, when this bill was brought before their lordships two years ago, it involved the question of the Roman Catholic oaths, and thus raised difficulties which did not now present themselves. Indeed, it was owned in the other house by one of the most conscientious oppenentslof the admission of the Jews that this proposal had never yet been put forward in a manner so free from collateral objections as in the present measure. He was also swayed in his opinion by the fact which bad been adverted to by the noble earl who had moved the amendment—he meant the consideration of what course might be pursued by the House of Commons if their lordships persevered in rejecting this bill. They had been reminded by the noble earl that at the end of the last session of Parliament a committee was appointed, on the motion of a statesman of great weight--Lord John Russell --and the noble earl had adverted to some of its pro. ceedings. He (Earl Stanhope) confessed that when he looked at those proceedings he entertained great doubt whether their lordships, do what they would, could continue to exclude Jews from Parliament. He was afraid that if continued resistance were offered by their lordships, their lordships' house would be passed over, and Jews would be admitted to Parliament in spite of them. Why did he say that ? In the present session the House of Corn• mons had—not without resistance and discussion — by a very large majority named as a member of the committee to conduct the conference the very gen tleman who had given rise to this controversy—a gentleman who was himself a Jew. The noble earl who moved the amendment expressed a doubt whether the gentleman in question could act. He (Earl Stanhope) was told that gentleman had been present at the conference. The question was what the majority of the House of Commons intended to do, and if they did seat this gentleman by resolution, all their lordships' doubts as to whether such a course was constitutional or legal would be of no avail, but considerable difficulty and controversy would neces sarily ensue. The noble earl bad adverted to certain proceedings which took place in the committee of the other house on the 10th of August last. He (Earl Stanhope) found, on reference to the pro ceedings of the committee, that a resolution declaring that the House of Commons was within the meaning of the Bth sec. of the sth and tith William IV., cap. 62, and was therefore authorized to administer or receive any oath, received the support of Lord J. Russell, and that the Attorney-General of the late Government, Sir R. Bethel!, and Mr. Disraeli, who *as the leader of the present Government in the other house, had voted in its favour. He thought, then, when their lordships found such names in favour of a proposition of this nature, they would pause before they stigmatized the proposal as uncon stitutional. At the same time he (Earl Stanhope) doubted whether the questicn could be satisfactorily settled in the manner proposed by the noble earl. For his own part he intended, with regard to the amendment of the noble earl, to be guided by the advice and example of the noble and learned lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst). If that noble and learned lord objected to the amendment, and adhered to the original proposition, he Earl Stanhope) would give him his support ; but 'if, on the other hand, the noble and learned lord meant to adopt the amendment, he would vote with him. His (Lord Stanhope's) desire was to see the question settled, even at the expense of some personal feeling, and he wished to give such a vote as the noble and learned lord might deem best calculated to effect that object. The noble lord then quoted the authority of the Duke of Wellington in favour of concession, and stated that he should give his vote with Lord Lynd hurst in favour of the settlement of the question. The Earl of CLANCARTY opposed the object of tire bill. The Earl of DERBY thought the amendment con tained a novel and important principle, which could not be properly dismissed without longer notice and more deliberation. The reasons given by the House of Commons for rejecting the amendments to the Oaths Bill contained nothing that had not been often repeated and answered in former debates. He then examined the reasons in detail, briefly stating the several arguments so often used against them. He recognized the difficulty of the subject, arising from the repeated large majorities of the House of Com mons ; and, if it were a mere question of expediency, he should think it their duty to waive their own opinion upon it., but he denied that those increased majorities indicated any increased feeling in the country. The admission of Jews to Parliament had never been made a public question ; it was not put forward at the last election by any constituency ; be believed the great mass of the nation was quite apathetic upon it, and even the Jews themselves had not evinced any deep interest, in it. He hoped the House of Commons would never engage in any unconstitutional course of proceeding, or attempt by 543 a mere resolution to break through the law of the land. Be the resistance of the House of Lords long or short, ho felt confident the House of Commons would never do themselves and the country such an injury. Alluding again to Lord Lucan's amendment, he said : My noble and gallant friend has brought forward a reso lution which, although I see that it is open to great and serious objections, J shall not advise your lordships hastily or without full consideration to reject. But, on the other hand, I should advise your lordships not hastily nor without full consideration to decide this matter, nor as a mere amendment to a bill to dispose of a question of the deepest importance, not only as to immediate results, hut also an to the principle involved. It has been sugvested by a noble and learned lord that proceeding by resolution is not un constitutional, provided such resolution is founded upon the provisions of an Act of Parliament. I am not altogether prepared to deny the principle thus laid down, but, at the same time, before your lordships adopt such a proposition, you should weigh carefully the precedent you will be laying down. (Hear, bear ) It may be, and I think it is, a very obvious and plausible solution of the difficulty, and I do not say I altogether reject it without fuller consideration. The question is whether this house shall pass an amendment to a bill giving the House of Commons power to do that by resolution which it has had no power hitherto to do. That involves the further question whether it is expedient to leave to this, or the other house, the course of proceeding by resolution and adopting different conclusions as to the mode of admitting their members. There is something plausible, and I will not at present say altogether unsound, in the argnmer'.. that by a provision in an Act of Parliament each house may lay down such restrictions, within certain limits, as it chooses in regard to the admission of its members ; but then I think those limits ought to be very carefully and accurately defined, and, however carefully and closely de fined they may be, I cannot shut my eyes to the danger of the precedent that would be introduced by enabling each house to legislate by resolution for itself, and to rescind on one day the determination arnved at upon a former day, and thus be constantly altering at its own pleasure its organization and construction. (Hear, hear.) My noble and gallant friend in his amendment goes to a very great extent, but 1 could better understand it had he introduced into the latter portion of the clause the same provision which is to be found in the first part, and provided that in the case of any person presenting himself at the table (for I can't see why the restriction should only be re moved in the case of Jews), and having been duly elected, declaring that he was willing to take the prescribed oaths, but that the words "on the true faith of a Christian " were not binding on his conscience, each house should be em powered to omit those words and to allow the substantive oath to be taken in the form which might he most binding. I do not pledge myself to that view, but there is much to be said in its favour, and by adopting it it is possible to a great extent to get rid of the very painful subject of difference between this and the other house. But the noble earl's amendment goes further, and says that as to those parts of the oath which rest upon Christian principles it shall be competent to either house to modify or alter such form as it may think fit. That is a much more extensive question, which I am not prepared hastily to decide upon. While I shall vote against the latter part of my noble and gallant friend's amendment, I shall be quite ready to support the first part if it really be thought necessary, and in voting against the latter portion I desire to reserve to myself and those with whom I act the oppor tunity of considering upon some future occasion whether any compromise framed according to such principle as I have oo entioned may not he adopted to terminate the in conveniences arising from, I fear, the permanent difference of opiLion between your lordships and the other house. I regret that I am compelled now to vote against the latter portion of my noble friend's amendment, but, not having seen any reason to change the views I expressed upon former occasions, and not feeling myself justified in calling upon your lordships to sacrifice your deliberate convictions and to allow the constitution of this as well as the other house to be altered at will in this manner, I am with reluctance bound to take that course, and to ask your lord ships to insist upon the amendment you have introduced into the bill which was sent to us by the House of Com mons. (Hear, hear.) Earl GREY was ready to concur in any compromise on this question. The amendment involved a novel principle, which would be better discussed if em bodied in a distinct bill. If the debate were ad journed for a fortnight such a bill might be drawn up, founded on the principle of the amendment, and sent down to the House of Commons with the Oaths Bill. He moved the adjournment of the debate to that day fortnight. The Earl of DERBY was not prepared to waive their amendments to the Oaths Bill. A long discussion ensued on the question of ad journment, which was supported by the Duke of NEWCASTLE and Lord CAMPBELL; Lord LYNDHURST assented to it ; but Tho Earl of MALMESBURY hoped Earl Grey would not press his motion. He had not changed his opinions on this subject, but be believed they were approaching a solemn moment in their political history : It is impossible not to feel persuaded (said the noble lord) that sooner or later—and rather soon than late—this question will be settled by the admission of Jews to Par liament. That is my conviction, although I have not changed my mind Rs to the principle involved and the merits of the discussion. What comae, then, is it my duty as au independent member of Parliament to take ?a