The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

to India to whom this country and India were more in- I
debted than to that gentleman for his energy and humanity •
I and his extraordinary talent for administration.
Mr. BRIGHT thought it would have been better if Mr.
Ante y had framed his motion so as to recognise the neces-
sity of a full and searching inquiry before the renewal of
the charter, since many would doubt the expediency of
sending a commission to India. lie condemued the ano-
malous constitution of the home Indian government, the
functions of the secret committee, and the power of the ,
president of the India board, and suggested that the use of
the patronage was not quite so pure as might be hoped for.
That India had been misgoverned, he inferred from the ac-
knowledged fact that the labouring classes were in a state
of abject poverty; and he contrasted the small sum ex-
pended
by the Government in improvements with the vast .
sums they had derived from taxation. lie complained of ;
the dilatory character of the Indian government, and the
absence of responsibility, which was de great defect.
Mr. MANGLES replied to several points in Mr. Bright 's
speech, and observed that when such men as Lords Dalhou-
sie and Hardinge were sent to India, practically a royal
eommiseion was sent to that country.
Mr. ANSTEY, in reply, said that after the expression of
opinion on the part of the noble lord, and considering the
feeding of the house, he should ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
The motion was then withdrawn.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.
On the motion of Loral J. ItI•SIIELL, the clerk read the
following resolution of the pith of August in the last session:
—" Resolved, that this house will at the earliest opportu-
nity in the next session of parliament take into its serious
consideration the form of the oath of abjuration, with a view
to the relief of her :Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish
religion."
Lord J. RUSSELL said he row in consequence of the
resolution which had just been read, to move that the
house should go into committee to consider the disabilities
of the Jews. He should not enter into the argument at
any length ; but two circumstances required to be stated,
inasmuch as they hail placed the question in a somewhat
different position from that which it had formerly assumed.
The house would remember that a member for the City
/if London, Sir Lionel de Rothschild, presented himself at
the table of that house—that he proposed to take the oath
on the OM Testament—and that that desire. at least, was
complied with by a resolution of the house. Upon proceed-
ing, however, to take the oaths, when he came to the words
"on the true faith of a Christian," he declared that those words
were not binding on his conscience. Ile was then desired
to retire, and the house came to a resolution that they
could not admit him to his seat as a member
unless he took the whole of the oath. As, there-
fore, it appeared that there was no obstacle what-
' ever to his taking his seat in that house, except his objection
to use those words, it became still more material than it
was before to consider for what purpose those words were
inserted in the oath now taken at the table. Front the
report of the select committee with respect to the
oaths of members, it appeared most clearly that in
the reign of Elizabeth members were required to
take an oath upon the Foly evangelists, and that
the words now in question were first introduced in
an act of Janos I. It was clear also, from the history of
the acts, that the words were introduced, not to exclude
Jews, but to give solemnity to the oath, and in order that
the allegiance of those by whom it was taken might be se-
cured. Ile believed that the words, "So help me God,"
were introduced with exactly the name purpose. Now he
did not mean to say that in thous times a Jew would have
been admitted to a seat in parliament; that was an entirely
different question ; but what he argued—and this, he
thought, could not he disputed—was, that the words which
formed the sole °Wade to Baron itothschild'a taking his
sent as a member of that house, were not inserted fur the
purpose of excluding Jews from parliament, but with
a totally different object. They were inserted to meet
the case of Christians whose allegiance was suspected.
If the meaning of parliament had been different, they
would have adopted a different course, and have required
information as to the religion of each new member. Instead
of merely tacking the words on the true faith of a Chris-
tian " to the end of the oath, a formal profession of Chris-
tianity would have been demanded. 'I his was made still
more clear by the course adopted in the time of the Com-
monwealth, when a formal probossion now only of Christia-
nity hut of Protestantism was required from each member
of parliament. In that time, on the 21th June, 16.57, it
WWI 111,11:11T11 that every person taking a seat in parliament
should take an oath before the regular tribunal solemnly to
maintain the true form of protestant Christianity, :mil by
all means in his power to eneoetrage the profession of the
631111.. It was clear, then, that when the profeseion of
Christianity was required. a regular form of oath was
framed hir the purpose. There was no subsequent legislation
on the subject, down to the time of George 1., nor any isali-
cation of an intention to exclude the Jews from parliament.
But there were two acts, one of George I. respecting per-
sons registering from real estate, and another the 13th of
George 11. naturalising persons settling in the American
colonies. Ily those two sets it was provided that if Jews
came forward and took the oaths, the words " On the true
faith of a Christian " should be omitted, and it had been
urged by the present Master of the Rolls, whom he was
glad again to see in his place—(cheers)--that parliament
hating provided for those special cases, it was evidently
the intention of parliament that without the sanction of an
act the words "On the true faith of a Christian " should
not be omitted. It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell)
that that argument was valid, and that was the sole
consideration which could have preventml the house
in August last admitting Baron Rothschild according
to the manner in which they had admitted Mr. l'casc
the quaker without requiring the use of the words objected
to in his oath. Ile thought that without these acts the
general argument would have been good that every WWI
should take the oath most binding on his conscience. 'that
doctrine, which had been laid down by Lord Ilardwicke
and other eminent authorities, would have prevailed in this
case but fow the acts before mentioned, because it had nut
been originully put in to exclude Jews, but merely to give
a more solemn sanction to the oath. Those acts, however,
being in existence, he thought it must he admitted that
permits professing the Jewish religion could not well take
their seats in that holse unless parliament should relieve
them from the part of the oath to which they objected. The
question, therefore, for the house to consider was whether
they would take away the obligation HOW exist-
ing, and permit persons to he sworn at the table
without the use of the words. That was a question which
he had so often argued ao to render it unneceseary for him
to say more on the presort occasion than that the point
really to be considered was, whether religious opinions
were to be a disqualification from civil and political rights.
With regard to the Jews, there could be no objection made
to the mural laws by which they were governed, nor to the
manner in which they conducted themselves in this country
WI loyal subjects, or as peaceful and moral members of the
comntuuity. On these grounds he thought there would
be no objection to the admission of Jews into
parliament ; for it was well known that they pro-
fessed the KIM allegiance to the crown as other
subjects, and that, as magistrates, sheriffs, and other cor-
porate officers, they had performed their duty us satis-
factorily as any other members of the community. (Hear,
hear.) Neither could it he supposed, considering the small
number of Jews in this country, that such of them as
should be sent into parliament could produce any change
in the character of the legislature. Ours must still be a
Christian parliament, whether or no they were admitted,
as the fact of the admission of two or three Jews could not
possibly alter the character of so large a legislative body.
It then became a bare question whether the difference of
religious faith between Jews and Christians, should deprive
the former of their proper civil and political position in the
country. That subject hail been often argued, and it had
in his opinion been conclusively proved that no such exclu-
sion should exist. It was on that principle he considered
it his duty to move " That the house resolve itself into a
committee of the whole house to take into consideration the
mode of administering the oath of abjuration to persons
professing the Jewish religion."
Sir It. INGLIS said the words proposed to he left out
were of only secondary importance in considering the in-
tentions of our ancestors, as every form of oath known to
our courts was taken on the Christian symbol, and
would be equally objectionable to the Jews. His
noble friend argued in support of his motion that
the number of Jews in England was small, but the
effect of his legislation would he to admit persons
of all religions, or of no religion, into our Christian legisla-
ture. Parsecs, Mahomedans, or Mildew', might come in
with the Jews; but even if that were not the case, he
could not consent to admit into a Christian legislature a
clam of men who looked upon our blessed Redeemer merely
as a crucified impostor. (Cheers.) With these views he
felt it to be his duty to move that the committee be post-
poned for six months.
Mr. M. GIBSON said, that being one of the supporters
of the introduction of the present measure, he did not wish
to delay the motion by any argument ou the question which
had been raised by the hon. baronet, the member for
Oxford Univereity. Ile was surprised that—if the hon.
baronet considered it so important that all the members of the
legislature should be in a condition from their faith to legis-
late, as he called it, for the interests of the church and of
religion—he should be contented with so imperfect a secu-
rity, merely amounting to this, that if a man would only
say be was a Christian the hon. baronet would believe him
and at once admit hint into parliament. (Hear, hear.) But ,
his (Mr. Gibson's) object in rising was merely to call the ;
attention of the house to the position in which they were
placed with reference to this question—a position he would
presume to say somewhat humiliating. (Hear.) In ;
fact, persons out of doors hardly gave them credit for being
in earnest on the question. Let him remind the house that
Baron Rothschild was first elected at the general election of
1817, and then they were in 1851, and in the middle of 18.11 '
bringing in a bill with the view of removing the tests
which prevented Baron Rothschild taking his seat and
representing the interests which had sent him there.
(Hear, hear.) Twice be had been elected, and twice had
a bill passed that house legalising his admission, but twice
had that bill been rejected elsewhere. lie thought it would
have been fitting for the government, in the year 1850,
after the second election of Baron Rothschild, to have again
introduced their bill, and to have ascertained whether the
other branch of the legislature would have a third time
rejected it. All that had been done in the previous session
was the common plan for getting rid of a difficulty,
namely, to refer the matter to a committee to inquire.
lie hoped he might understand front the noble lord that he
was now in earnest in pressing this measure, and that if it
were rejected a third time in another place, some decided
steps would be takes by government to prevent so impor-
tant a principle of civil and religious liberty being set
aside--(hear, hear)—that the noble lord would, in short,
make it a government question, and insist that it was not
consistent with his duty to submit to these repeated refu-
sals. (Ironical cheers from the opposition.)
Mr. PLUMPTRE hoped that the house would show it-
self in earnest bg promptly rejecting the meuure. He