The Press. — London, England, 1856-04-12 00:00:00

in the House of Peers, and was simply designed to efface from the statute-book a formula whose purpose had become obsolete, whose history was far from creditable, and which had, in point of fact, to a great extent fallen into desuetude. He therefore proposed that the bill should be read a second time, and that in committee it should be considered whether the oath should be repealed or whether another oath should be substituted ? If the abjuring clause were taken out of the oath, it would cease to be an oath of abjuration. If the oaths of allegiance and supre macy were taken, there was no need of a third oath, unless it VMS to be made a religious test; and he insisted that if it was intended to exclude Jews or any other religious sect from civil rights, the Legisla ture was bound to do so directly by statute, not by the application of the fag-end of a form of oath intended for another purpose. Sir F. MESMER moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that (lay six months. Replying to the argument that the oath of abjuration had become obsolete by the extinction of the Stuart race, ho contended that the formula in question constituted the only recognition of the great principle of the Protestant succession. The avowed object of the bill was to get rid of the words " on the true faith of a Christian," and this was a direct attack upon the Christian cha meter of that house. He denied that the Jews were excluded by these words accidentally. They had been always excluded as aliens, and, although he admitted that the words referred to were not origin ally directed against the Jews, he believed that the great men who framed the Act of Settlement worded the oath of abjuration so as, first, to have a clear acknowledgment of the right of succession to the Crown by certain Protestants; and, secondly, to bind that acknowledgment up with a solemn profession of Christianity, so that the terms of the oath might be regarded as the expression of the Legislature that the house should be a Christian assembly. Roman Catholic assailants of Protestantism subtly suggested that there was nothing positive in it, and if the words "on the true faith of a Christian " were removed from the oath their suggestions might be reinforced, and weak minds might be made to doubt whether Protestants were not conscious that they had not the true faith of a Christian. The LORD ADVOCATE urged that neither by pre scribing an oath nor enforcing an exclusion was the Christian character of the Legislature to be preserved. That must depend entirely upon the Christianity of the constituencies by whom the legislators were elected, or of the subjects for whom they were to frame laws. Referring to past measures for the removal of disabilities, he contended that the aboli tion of the oath of abjuration was merely a logical corollary from the Catholic Emancipation Act. Mr. NAPIER, in supporting the amendment, urged that the unavoidable result of the present bill would be to leave both the Protestant succession and the Christian religion open questions. So long as Eng land remained a Christian State it was essential to maintain Christianity as the distinctive characteristic of the Legislature which ruled the State, and he hoped the house would not assent to this indirect mode of admitting Jews into Parliament. It was not an honourable way of effecting the object. Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that all the arguments against the bill founded upon the necessity of secur.• ing the Protestant succession were wholly beside the question. The real point was whether or not Jews should be admitted to offices of State and to seats in Parliament. As in till case of the Dissenter and Roman Catholic, the admission of the Jew would simply recognise the principle that political functions ought not to depend upon religious faith. The house had no right to question the private judgment of any man, and to maintain that the Christian character of the house would be destroyed by the admission of Jews was wholly untenable. Had the Christian character of the City been destroyed since the last ninth of November? If Jews were to be excluded from Parliament, let it be by a direct act, and not by a collateral impediment. Mr. WALPOLE said the object of the bill was to do away with a solemn recognition and a continued declaration on the part of the members that the character of the Government was Protestant, and the character of the Legislature Christian. As to the rights of constituencies to elect whom they pleased, it must also be remembered that with rights constituencies had duties, and it was their duty only t) elect such persons as the law and Constitution cbclared eligible. The question was not a question of religious persecution or intolerance, but simply whether it was expedient, wise, or politic to alter the Constitution. A Jew might be a magistrate, because as such he was bound to administer laws made by the Legislature. In conclusion, the hon. member observed that if the bill had been merely to remove antiquated phrases from the oath he should not have objected to it, but it aimed at abolishing solemn recognitions and declarations. Lord PALMERSTON briefly intimated his hearty concurrence with the measure before the house. It THE PRESS. was, he thought, most desirable finally to obliterate a restriction which was wholly discordant with the spirit of the times, but he admitted the necessity in committee of retaining the declaration recognising the Protestant succession to the Throne of this country. Mr. DISR kET.I regretted that the question really at issue had not been brought before the house in a form more desirable for its proper solution, by asking the opinion of the house upon the single question, whether legislative power should be in trusted to British Jews. The oath of abjuration in its present form was clearly indefensible:— No one on either side of the question has for a moment pretended that the oath, as it is now framed, is not open to very serious objections. Whether it has arisen from in advertency by the Legislature, or from the great changes that have taken place in men's minds, or from the political circumstances we have had to encounter, I know not; but it cannot be denied that the terms of the oath are most anomalous. In dealing with the question he would not vote for any motion by which it was attempted in an indirect manner to get rid of the obstacles t.) the admission into Parliament of British Jews by simply removing from the oath the words "on the true faith of a Christian." An oath ought to be framed which should be sworn to by members of Parliament on taking their seats : Whether, if we were called upon to frame an oath ab initio, it could with propriety be framed according to its present form, so far as the retaining of those words is con cerned, I will not stop to discuss. That is of secondary importance. But these words at present exist, and, if we now repudiate and reject them from the oath, it appears to me that we should be taking a course which, looking only to the policy of our conduct, and not regard. ing other considerations, would in my mind be greatly detrimental, and be fraught with consequences which all of us might deplore. He had also another reason why this form of oath should not be renounced—viz., that the claim of the Jews to an entrance into Parliament and to the full enjoyment of all the rights which that state could confer upon the subjects of her Majesty mainly and justly rested upon the principle that this is a Christian State, and that we are a Christian commu nity. The claim of the Jew to the respect of the Christian could not for a moment be contested : If the religion of this country were not Christian, if this were not a Christian community, there might be many plausible reasons urged against the admission of Jews as members into this house. But, with all becoming respect, 1 may be allowed to say that this would not be a Christian State or a Christian community had it not been, under Divine impulse and inspiration, for the efforts and exer tions of a Jew. (Hear, bear.) I think that that fact con- . , stitutes a claim to the respect and pathy of this house. (Cheers.) and sym- Uader these he should vote for the second reading of the bill : And for this reason, that when the bill is in committee I shall take the opportunity of proposing an oath in lieu of the oath of abjuration which the bill contains, and in which I shall retain the words " on the true faith of a Christian ;" and I shall subsequently take the liberty of proposing an oath which will meet the case of any Jew who may be elected a member of this house, and which will prevent the necessity of his using those words, which he cannot conscientiously do. (Cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE, amidst many expressions of impatience from hon. members, supported the amendment. The house then divided : For the second reading 230 For the amendment Majority in favour of the bill .. 35 The bill was then read a second time. THE PEACC-REGULATIONS OF THE CUSTOMHOUSE. Mr. WILsoN, on Monday, in reply to Mr. Thornley, said the Government would be prepared on Tuesday to issue orders to the Commissioners of Customs to allow all descriptions of ircn and pieces of machinery to be shipped for the future without bonds. For all kinds of ammunition, however, bonds would still con tinue to be exacted for the present, but it was to be hoped that in a very few days the restriction would be abolished, even in the case of gunpowder, arms, and all such matters. It was not intended to cancel outlying bonds, but to allow them to lapse in the usual manner. 2ILLETING IN SCOTLAND. On Monday, on the motion that the house go into a Committee of Supply, Mr. COWAN commented upon the grievance which resulted from the operation of the billeting system in Scotland, and moved as an amendment a resolution enjoining upon the Government the propriety of taking means permanently to abolish this g rievance. The amendment was seconded by Sir A. AGNEW, and supported by Mr. BAXTER. SATURDAY, MI Mr. PEEL remarked that by the conclusion of peace the great cause of the hardship com plained of had come to an end. The grievance was chiefly occasioned by the proceedings relating to the embodiment of the militia, and the Government had sought by every means in their power to alleviate its pressure. The subject was pursued by Sir J. Fergusson, Mr. Ewart, Mr. J. Macgregor, and other members, who enlarged upon the losses and sufferings which the inhabitants of various towns and districts in Scotland had suffixed under the present system of billets. Lord PALMERSTON, while confessing that much hardship had been sustained, pleaded that the con• tinuance of the billeting system was unavoidable until a sufficient amount of barrack accommodation had been provided, which was a matter requiring much time and expenditure. With the cessation of war the pressure would in a great measure cease, and if the matter were left in the hands of the Govern. ment, measures would be taken to prevent a renewal of the inconveniences lately sustained by the Scotch householders. The resolution was supported by Mr. Duncan, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Laing, Mr. Crauturd, Mr. Spooner, and Mr. Alexander Hastie ; and opposed by the Lord Advocate, Lord Ebrington, and Sir G. Grey, who hoped :hat the house would not pledge itself to a hasty vote on a mere abstract resolution. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the house must see that the question resolved itself into one of finance. That the system was inconvenient it was admitted, but would the house sanction an increased expenditure for barracks, the only efficient remedy ? _ _ Mr. DIERI.EII said he bad been struck by the ob jections, which seemed to Lim to be inconsistent. The Secretary of State said that it was a mere ab stract resolution which would produce no effect, whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was one essentially practical, which assumed in reality the shape of a financial vote. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman that, if the house should arrive at that vote, that it would be a mere abstract resolution. But even if it were, ho could not admit that it would be barren of result. It would be one which would counsel the Government to take a particular course, leaving to the Govern ment to decide the best means of carrying that resolution into effect. The resolution did not call upon the house to interfere with the matter of barrack accommodation for soldiers, or to declare that the system of billeting should be suddenly and completely put an era to, but simply that this par. ticular great and acknowledged grievance should be terminated. After some further discussion, the house divided, when the numbers appeared— For the resolution Against Majority against Government .. 23 Lord iPALMERSTON then moved that the house resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, such a motion, he remarked, not being, he believed, at variance with precedent. Mr. DISRAELI was totally at a loss to understand or explain the reiterated assertions of those expe rienced right hon. gentlemen opposite that, if the house arrived at that just and politic conclusion at which it had just arrived, they should be precluded from proceeding with the business of the country, and that it was not in the power of the house to go into Committee of Supply : - • - - I congratulate the house (continued the right hon member) upon the discovery that, although we have accomplished an act of policy and justice, Wu are still able to carry on the business of the country and go into Committee of Supply ; but, at the same time, I must express my regret that those who are responsible for the conduct of public business and for guiding the opinion of this house should be so profoundly ignorant of their position—(", Hear, hear," and laughter) — for they cannot have condescended to misrepresentation ; and I congratulate the house, not only upon having de feated the Government in their opposition to a wise and just resolution, but upon having been able to arrive at a certain and accurate result with regard to the conduct of public business. (Hear, hear.) The house accordingly, in committee, resumed the consideration of the Civil Service Estimates, and various votes were agreed to, after discussion. _ _ On the vote fur the National Gallery, Mr. OTWAY moved the reduction of the vote by the travelling expenses (6501.) of Sir Charles East lake and Mr. Mundler, the travelling agent, contend ing that Sir Charles was altogether unfitted for the duties of director, as was well shown in his recent " miserable " purchases, as well as in his own admis sions before the select committee of the House of Commons. With regard to the travelling agent, there was no evidence of his qualifications for the duties to which he was appointed. Mr. GRANVILLE VERNON spoke of the recent pur chases as unfortunate, but expressed a hope that Sir Charles' Eastlake would, by his subsequent proceed ings; regain publio confidence. The vote for travel-