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oath should be repealed or whether another oath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.