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

ADMINISTRATION OF INDIA.

Mr. GLADSTONE gave notice that when the Indian
resolutions came once more before the house, he
should move an amendment to the third resolution
to the effect that the present Board of Directors
should, in conjunction with the proposed Secretary
of State for India, be empowered to carry on the
Government of thatcountry until the end of the next
session of Parliament.

TRANSFER OF LAND IN IRELAND.

On the motion for going into committee on the
Transfer of Land tlreland) Bill.

Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD analyzed in detail the
various provisions of the bill, some of which, he com-
plained, were borrowed without acknowledgment
from a measure introduced by himself in a previous
session, and taking exception to others. He moved
as an amendment that the bill should be referred to
a select committee.
The SOLCITOIt•GENERAL defended the bill, giving
various explanations with regard to several points
commented upoti by Mr. Fitzgerald.
Sir K. BETHELL supported the amendment.
The AT lORNEY.GENERAL further explained and
vindicated the provisions of the bill, which be hoped
the Legislature would pass into a law.
Lord J. ItussELL, after commenting upon some
points of detail, expressed his intention to support
the bill.
Mr. MALINS approved of the bill.
Mr. 1. Iturr had no objection to urge against the
principle of the bill, but remarked upon defects in
its machinery, which lie thought could only be re•
moved by investigation before a select committee.
Mr. ADAMS opposed the amendment.
After sonde remarks from Sir C. Pliitiar, Mr. Mon•
SELL, and other gentlemen, and an explanatory reply
by Mr. IVuintapr, the atueudixtegtwaa wiyhdrawu,

144!

Vroct6ings in rarliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS-MONDAY.
ADMISSION OF JEWS.

The reasons given by the House of Commons for
disagreeing from their lordships' amendments to
the Oaths Bill were considered; the fifth clause of
the 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
any 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 used to be said 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 supported 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