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

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 admitting 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

contrary, was speaking with the people perfectly
apathetic as to the judgment which that house had
given. But, if their lordships were to change their
opinion, he would venture to say that he preferred
on every ground the bill of his noble and learned
friend behind him (Lord Lyndhurst) to that which
they were now discussing. Instead of limiting the
licence to Jews it should be extended to ail non-
Christians. It was a mere delusion to say that the
concession should be made to Jew., and yet to with-
hold it from Mahomedans and Hindoos. In many
respects the Mahomedans were nearer to us than
the Jews, for the latter regarded our Divine Re-
deemer as an impostor, while the Mahomedans
allowed him to be an inspired prophet. It surely
would be more creditable to act consistently on this
matter, and to declare that no profession of Chris-
tianity should be required from any one as a preli
mtnary to sitting in Parliament. He would prefer
to see the question dealt with in the manner pro-
posed by the bill of the noble and learned lord rather
than the mode in which this bill disvosed of it. He
begged to ask whether their lordships had considered
what would be henceforth, if they passed this bill,
the relations of the other House of Parliament to the
Established Church ? Was it intended that we were
to start upon an entirely new system? Or, was it
still to be the theory that matters affecting the disci
pline, the doctrine, and the standing of the Estab-
lished Church were to be debated freely in either
House of Pariament, and that Parliament, to a
certain extent, should be re:pried as the internal
legislature of that Church ? Or were noble lords
prepared in future to withdraw from discussion, in
one house at least, all matters atlecting the Estab-
lished Church, and to provide some other means of
internal legislation ? He begged their lordships
seriously to consider those points before giving their
votes upon the present occasion. By yielding to
pressure of expediency their lordships' house could
not stand higher in public estimation, nor would
their authority be increased if, on a simple threat of
political difficulty or appearance of expediency, they
yielded too readily to the wishes of another body a
point which down to the present time had been re-
garded by a majority of their lordships not as a matte!
of political necessity, but of religions duty.
Lord Dostoraitios and the Earl of CARDIGAN re
gretted that on this question they could not support
the Government.
The house then divided. The numbers were—
Cootent—Pr"sent 79

Pi oxies

.. .. .. 64

-143
Not content—Present 64
Proxies .. 33
—O7

Majority for the second reading 46
The bill was then read a second time.
The consideration of the reasons fur insisting on
the amendments to the original bill was fixed fur
Tuesday next.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tnuasnw.
At the morning sitting, the New General Post-
dike (Edinburgh) Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The house then went into committee upon the
remaining clauses of the Universities (Scotland)
Bill, and was engaged in the consideration of them
during the sitting.