The Press.
London, England, 1857-06-20 00:00:00

THE OATHS BILL.

The house having resolved itself into a committee
upon this bill, to substitute one oath for the Oaths of
Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration,
Mr. DEASY, upon the first clause—which included
a declaration " that no foreign prince, person, pre-
late, State, or potentate bath or ought to have any
jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or
authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, directly or indi-
rectly, within this realm,"—moved to substitute for
" ecclesiastical or spiritual" the words " temporal or
civil." His object, he said, as the principle of the
bill was to abolish all distinctions founded .upon re-
ligions opinions, was that the oath to be taken by
the Roman Catholic subjects of her Majesty should
be the same as that taken by other subjects ; in short,
that all members of the Legislature should be placed
upon the same footing, and that their allegiance
should be tried by one uniform test.
Lord PALMERSTON agreed with Mr. Deasy that it
would be desirable, if it were practicable, that there
should be but one oath (though he thought there
was nothing in the Roman Catholic oath which
could do violence to the feelings of any man),
but the house was called upon to determine whether
it should free this oath from words that were super-
fluous and repugnant to the common sense of Pro-

THE PIIESS.

testants; and he submitted to Mr. Deasy that a
perseverance in his attempt would fail to accomplish
the purpose he had in view, for if he succeeded in
altering the oath as he proposed the change would
entail the ultimate failure of the measure under
discussion.

Mr. Rom:ureic, adverting to the terms of the amend-
ment, preferred the suggested words to the original
adjectives, observing that if members were obliged
to swear that no foreign power had " ecclesiastical or
spiritual authority " in these realms, in the face of
the authority exercised by the I'ope, they denied the
most evident facts, and simply pledged themselves
to a lie.
Sir F. THESIGER contended that the oath did not
state a fact, but asserted a right. It was not sworn
that the Pope exercised no authority over any class
of British subjects, but that, in accordance with the
constitutional system of the country, all such autho-
rity was unrecognised and illegal. The present oath
appointed for Roman Catholics formed a part of the
settlement concluded in 18.29, which he trusted the
house would not consent to disturb.

Upon a division, the amendment was negatived by
373 to 83.

The committee again divided upon an amendment
moved by Mr. ROEBUCK, to insert after the word
" spiritual " the words " by law," which was nega-
tived by 243 to 68.

Sir P. TimmEa then moved the amendment of
which he had given notice,—Jto add at the end of the
oath, after the word " realm," the words " and I
do make this promise, renunciation, abjuration, and
declaration, heartily, willingly, and truly, on the true
faith of a Christian." He argued that these words
were essential ; that they preserved the Christian
character of Parliament, which had subsisted to the
present time; that the onus way upon the advocates
of the right of Jews to a seat in that house to show
that right, whereas they bad never, he said, ap-
proached the vital part of the question. They must,
he contended, maintain either that it was a mistake
t 9 suppose that the house had a Christian character,
or that the time had arrived when it was no longer
necessary to retain that character. He maintained,
on the contrary, that it was impossible to abandon
that bulwark of our Constitution—the Christian cha-
racter of the Legislature of this country.
The amendment was supported by Mr. STANHOPE,
Mr. Wiohxsf, and Mr. WARREN, and opposed by Mr.
KINGLAKE and Mr. EVANS. _ _

Sir J. PARENOTON said that hitherto ho had given
a silent vote in favour of the principle embodied in
the amendment ; but having reflected more anxiously
upon the subject, the result, he was bound to say,
was that he could not conscientiously continue to
vote for the exclusion of the Jews. Ile thought it
would be desit able, however, to retain in the oath the
words "on the true faith of a Christian," and lie was
sorry that the Government had decided to change
the shape of the oath in that respect. It would have
been a better course, in his opinion, to allow Chris-
tians to take the oath with the solemn conclusion to
which they had been so long accustomed, and to
effect the emancipation of the Jews by a bill similar
to that by which Roman Catholics were emancipated,
going directly to the object. But the Government
having decided upon another course, as he had made
up his mind that lie was no longer at liberty con-
scientiously to resist the admission of Jews to Par-
liament, it only remained for him to support that
course. Sir John then argued that, from the posi-
tion of the Jew in this country, his admission into
Parliament could not affect the Christianity of the
house. 11 no man were to be admitted to Parlia-
ment unless he acknowledged the divinity of our
Saviour, how many sitting members would be ex-
cluded! What was the position of the Jew in this
country P

Was not the Jew a recognised subject of the Queen?
Was not the Jew a loyal subject of the Queen ? Did not
the Jew pay taxes ? Did not the Jew hold property?
Was not the Jew permitted to hold every office in the
State except those which conferred political power ? Was
not the Jew allowed to be a magistrate, an alderman, and
had not one of the most respectable members of that body
recently and in the most efficient manner filled the high
office of Lord Mayor of the City of London? Then was
there anything in the argument with respect to the na•
tionality of the Jew which could justify the house in saying
to him, you shall have no voice in imposing the taxes you
are called upon to pay—you shall have no voice in consti-
tuting those laws which regulate your property, and which
we trust to your administration. It had been said that the
Jew had no real right to political power from the fact of his
being called a citizen of this country. But although there
was no legal right, he held that every Englishman had a
moral right to those privileges which were enjoyed by others
similarly qualified, unless t here was some statute to the
contrary ; and that if he was to be debarred from the exer•
cise of these purely on account of his religion, it ought to
be shown that there was something in the nature of that
religion to operate as a disqualification. He had studied
the question to the best of his ability—he had looked at it
as a member of Parliament, and as a I'rotestant—and the
result was that whilst as a matter of feeling and sentiment
he should prefer not to have the Jews in Parliament, be
had arrived at the conclusion that he was not justified in
depriving a considerable, a loyal, and a respectable portion

597

of his fellow•citizons of the privileges of the constitution
under which they lived.

Mr. NAPIER said the house began its proceedings
with prayer; but if they admitted the Jews they
could not pray with them, neither could they keep
Christian festivals with them. Every day public
questions were becoming more charged with
Christian principles; and how could a Jew aid in
legislation which recognised these principles?
Mr. HORSHAN remarked that the oath was not in-
tended to prove the orthodoxy but the loyalty of
those who took it. It was the intention of the
Legislature to have a declaration of political alle-
giance, and not of religious faith. The supporters
of the amendment, however, contended for its adop-
tion, on religious and not on political grounds, and
he submitted, under the circurnstano3s, that the
proposition should be rejected.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that judging from the
language used that night he began to think that the
Constitution of England was founded not for
Christians but for Jews. One would almost sup-
pose that the founders of our laws and monarchy
hail asserted principles favourable to Judaism, and
not to an exclusive Christianity. Now, he admitted
that hon. members ought to vote against the amend-
ment of his hon. and learned friend if they came to
the conclusion that the Jew was only excluded from
Parliament by the accidental words of the oath, and
not by the jurisprudence of this country from the
earliest times and by the practice of the Constita•
tion for 1,000 years. But his argument against the
Jew was that Christianity was
,intertwined with all
the institutions of England from the very beginning ;
that it was connected with the landed property of
the country, with the composition of Parliament,
with the monarchy itself ; and he defied a micro-
scopic eye, surveying fairly the edifice of the Consti-
tution, to detect one place] left open for the Jew to
enter in. The hon. and learned gentleman then
quoted several authorities, including Hale, Erskine,
Coke, and Justice Barrington, to show that the law
of the country from time immemorial had rested
upon Christianity, and that whoever disputed the
mission of Christ to gaol, by law, must go. Mr.
Whiteside enforced his legal arguments by cases in
point, and maintained that the Christianity of this
country was its great principle and its great bulwark.
" It was not now to be remembered, and then to be
forgotten, to be here acted upon and there laid
aside ; it was not to be taken up and laid down at
the pleasure or the caprice of an individual, for it
pervaded every branch of the :law and every prin-
ciple of the Constitution ; and it was that which had
invested our law with a grandeur, a simplicity, and a
splendour which no other human jurisprudence
but our own possessed." But what was it, he asked,
iu conclusion, they were now debating ?
It was the great question whether Christianity should
continue to be exclusively the religion of the Senate. It
was the same question taut had been debated in the
Roman Senate 1,500 years ago. What a debate was that I
On one side argued Symmachus, the eloquent leader of
the Paganists, urging the subtle dogmas of his creed ; on
the other reasoned Ambrose, animated with the sublime
arguments of truth. " Look back," said Symmachus, in
effect—" look back upon the wonderful and glorious
history of Rome; see what the old faith has done for this
country in the battles she has gained, the conquests she
has made, the kingdoms she has won, in the splendour of
her literature, the pathos of her orators, the inspiration of
her poets, and the felicity of her fortunes ; can that
religion be so bail which has produced such magnificent
results ? We can't understand your novelties ; why are
you so inveterate and so exclusive ? Must every senator
be a Christian? We will divide with you the power and
the worship, and we will place the statue of your Christ
beside the statue of our Jupiter." Ambrose answered,
" It is not what you admire, but what is true, that we
contend for; if our religion be sublime, and if it come
from above, it must prevail, and it can endure no rival—
you cannot have two antagonistic religions in the same
senate, and therefore you must choose between Christ
and Jupiter." What was the result ? They voted that
Christianity should be exclusively the religion of the
Senate, the temples of voluptuous heathenism were
overthrown, the statues of the false gods were shivered,
the idols and the groves were desecrated, and Chris-
tianity became the religion of the Senate and of the
empire. In its course since that day Christianity had been
triumphant. No doubt, sometimes it had been marred,
perverted, and abused, but still the world showed that its
mission was to civilise, to humanise, to exalt, and to
redeem mankind.
And yet they heard the matter treated with a kind of
indifference in that house, as if it were a matter of email
consequence whether Christianity were to be the exclusive
religion of the Senate of England ! From the date when
the light of the Reformation irradiated the world what hail
been the career of this country? We found the arts and
sciences of life, and everything that could adorn or
humanise man and elevate him in the social scale, each
day improving ; and the intellect of man, having burst the
fetters that enchained it, had exhibited the splendour and
the power with which the Almighty had invested it. The
argument against the Jew was that he resisted the lessons
which the wisdom of Newton, of Pascal, and of Locke in-
culcated; that he was untaught by the divine song that
Milton sang, and that though the sun were darkened,
though the earth quaked, and the graves gave back their
dead to testify to the Creator's triumph, yet, unlike the

598

Centurion of old, Baron Rothschild would not believe.
He came there to triumph over our ancient faith, over our
ancient customs, over our ancient establishments, and over
the principles of our Constitution. And he would add
insult to victory, for after this bill became law no Christian
man, however sincere he might be. would dare to utter at
that table the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." It
was not enough that he should not himself utter the words
"on the true faith of a Christian." No other man was to be
permitted to Jo so. And those were charged with bigotry
who stood up to oppose this state of things, and for the
maintenance of that system that had for centuries pre-
served our common Christianity in the land !
The noble lord at the head of the Government having
shelved all measures of improvement till the next session—
though he had reaped a harvest of glory in China—yet
thought this measure so urgent and so imperatively called
for that he asked the house to pass it without a moment's
delay. It was said the Conservative party was broken up,
but he trusted that that great party would always be able
to distinguish between what was wrong or doubtful, and
what was reasonable and rijht, and to disapprove the one
and yield to the other. The Conservative was the true
party after all, and his conviction was that whenever the
noble lord at the head of the Government attacked the
Constitution, either in that or the other House of Parini.
meta, it would be the duty and the glory of that party to
resist him. The fortunes of the true Conservative party
were interwoven with the best interests of this country,
with the vindication of its religion, its honour, and its
highest glory. Therefore, it was the business of that great
party to stand up now for the principles which it had ever
maintained, to stand up for them in private, in public, in
the Senate, and in the closet, to stand up for the mainte-
nance and supremacy of that faith which they believed bad
been revealed from above. and for the establishment of
which, in its present form among us, immortal patriots
laboured and blessed martyrs died.

Lord J. RUSSELL argued that the words which pre-
vented Jews from sitting in Parliament were intro-
duced without any such intention, and their exclu-
sive effect was accidental. He controverted the
assertion that by conceding just rights to members
of the Jewish persuasion the Christian character of
the State or of the Legislature would be destroyed.

Mr. NEWDEGATE, in supporting the amendment,
alluded to " apostacy," and expressed his disappro-
bation of such conduct.

Lord PALMERSTON, after paying a tribute to the
"courageous honesty" of Sir J. Pakington, observed
that opponents of Jewish emancipation, by accepting
a new form of oath, had surrendered the argument
founded on precedent, and if they still wished to
exclude the Jews, could only do so by creating a new
disability. This, he contended, was contrary to the
principle of civil and religious liberty, and inappli-
cable to an assembly whose functions were essenti-
ally political :

We are told (said the noble lord) that this is a Christian
country, that this is a Cmristian assembly, and therefore
we ought not to admit Jews within these walls. Well, sir,
this is a Christian country, and this is a Christian assembly,
inasmuch as it represents the nation which adheres to
that creed ; but does the hon. and learned gentleman
maintain that this is a religious assembly ? This is a
political assembly, chosen for political purposes ; and I
say, with my right hon. friend the member fur Stroud, that
you are not entitled to exclude members of this house by
reason solely of their religious opinions. Yon are not
entitled to inquire what a man's religious opinions may
be, except so far as to how those opinions may influence
and sway his political conduct. That is the only principle
upon which religious tests can be justified.
As the Dissenters and Catholics had successively
been admitted to a full participation in constitutional
rights, the Legislature were bound in consistency to
abolish the odious exclusion which still existed in
the case of the Jews.

Upon a division the amendment was negatived by
341 to 201.

On the question that the clause stand part of the
bill,
Mr. War.rot.t inquired whether the bill was to
stand as it was drawn ; because, if so, Jews and
Roman Catholics were put upon a different footing.
lie asked whether the clause in Lord J. Russell's
bill, restraining Jews from holding offices which
Roman Catholics could not hold, would be inserted
in this bill!

Lord l'atAtEnsToN replied that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had no intention of making any alteration
in the bill as it then stood.

Lord K. CECIL moved that the chairman report
progress ; but this motion was negatived upon a
division by 278 to 142 ; majority 130.
Upon clause 1,
_ _

Mr. BENTINCE asked for a distinct answer to the
question whether it was the intention of the Govern-
ment that the Jews should be eligible to the offices
of Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister?
Lord PALMERSTON replied that the hill was not a
bill of disqualification, and therefore, as it stood, it
would not prevent Jews from holdinEr those appoint-
ment. Such appointments did not depend solely
upon "the will of the Minister of the day, or of the
Sovereign, but on the will of the house."

The first clause having passed, an unsuccessful
attempt was made by Mr. B. FITZGERALD to report
progress, but after some discussion the other clauses
of the bill were agreed to.

THE PRESS.

The Sound Dues Bill, the County Cess (Ireland)
Bill, and the Militia (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill
were read a third time and passed.
sAVINOS-BANICS (NO. 2) BILL.
This bill was read a second time pro formd, to
enable the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER at a
future stage to introduce certain clauses.
INSURANCE ON LIVES CONTINUANCE BIM
Leave was given to Mr. WILSON to bring in a bill
to continue the act for extending for a limited time
the provision for abatement of income tax in respect
of insurance on lives.

The bill was read a first time.
LEASES AND SALES OF NETTLED ESTATES ACT AMEND-

MENT BILL.

Mr. IVnITEsiDE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the Act of 1556, to facilitate leases and sales
of settled estates.
The bill was read a first time.
ELECTION PETITIONS. - . .

Leave was given to Mr. ADDERLEY to bring in a
bill for regulating the presentation and withdrawal
of election petitions.
The bill was read a first time.
The house adjourned at half.past one o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS—..TCESDAT.
The Duke of Grafton, the Earl of Suffolk, the Earl
of Clare, and Lord Kilmaine took the oaths and their
seats.

THE IRISH DEEM

The Earl of DONOI,OHMORE asked if anything had
been done with regard to the expenses incurred by
Irish peers in proving their right to vote for repre-
sentative peers, with a view to relieve them from the
charges to which they were subject ?
The Lord CHANCELLOR thought that an Arrange-
ment could be made without introducing a bill, and
promised to consider the subject.

INDIA.

Lord MONTEAGLE asked if it was the determination
of the Government to consolidate the two courts in
India, as had been promised ?
The Duke of ARGYLL said that no promise bad
been given that these courts would be consolidated,
though the noble lord had on a former occasion
charged the Government with a distinct breach of
faith in reference to the subject. The project, which
was attended with much difficulty, would be consi-
dered by the Legislative Council of India.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE asked whether the
responsibility was imposed upon the Governor-
General of making regulations with respect to the
chief and other tribunals in India; if so, a more
unfair responsibility was never thrown on a high
functionary.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH suggested that a
reference to the last Charter Act would show that
the Governor General bad no power whatever, with-
out the assistance of the Legislative Council, of
dealing with the supreme courts.
The discussion then dropped.
REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS BILL.

The Earl of CARNARVON moved the second reading
of this bill.

Lord BROUGHAM supported the second reading,
but could not express his approval of the whole
details of the measure without further consideration.

Earl GRANVILLE approved of the objects contem-
plated by the measure, but suggested the desirability
of leaving the conduct of legislation on the subject
to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
He suggested to the noble earl that he could propose
to introduce the main provision of his measure, in
the shape of a clause, into Sir George Grey's bill,
when it came up from the other house.
The Earl of DERBY did not think they should
reject the motion for the second reading because a
similar measure was before the other house. If the
Government agreed to the second reading, he would
recommend Lord Carnarvon not to proceed further
with it until the bill of the Secretary of State came
up from the other house.
Earl GRANVILLE declined to accede to the sugges-
tion, because he could not do so without affirming
the principle of a portion of the measure to which he
objected.

Some discussion followed, in which the Marquis of
LANSDOWNE, Lord KINSAIRD, and the Earl of Powts
took part.
The Earl of CUINARVON agreed to adopt a sugges-
tion made by Lord Brougham, that the debate should
be adjourned, and the bill thus kept alive until
Sir George Grey's bill should come up from the
Commons.

The debate wag accordingly adjourned.
THE BATHING BILL.

The Marquis of WEsrmeArtt moved the second
reading of this bill, which was introduced for the
prevention of indecent exhibitions at bathing-places
on the coast of Kent.

Earl GRANVILLE remarked that powers were already
possessed by the authorities in the corporate towns
on the coast to make bye-laws on the subject re-
ferred to, and they were the proper persons to deal
with it. He also conceived that it was quite impos-

SATURDAY,

Bible to adapt the measure to country districts, and
really did not see the necessity for it.
Ti►e bill was negatived without a division.
The house adjourned at twenty•flvo minutes past
seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TVESDAT.
THE PAPER DUTY.

Mr. Dtt.t.wvN asked the Chancellor of the Eacbe•
quer whether it was the intention of Government to
levy the paper duty on materials capable of being
written on and printed on, but made from animal fibre ;
or to leave such materials exempt from duty, as
parchment is now.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER understood
that a company had been formed for the purpose of
manufacturing a substance resembling parchment
from animal fibre. The matter had been considered
by the Board of Inland Revenue, and the opinion
given by their solicitor was that this material, though
partially resembling parchment, which was not sub-
ject to duty, came' nevertheless, from the mode of its
manufacture, within the legal designation of paper,
and was therefore liable to the tax.