The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-29 00:00:00

le
the bar of house. (Hess, bear.) He yielded the more
noddy to line Ot proNdure, bemuse le was free to
maw qmi prey& of the petition was not one in the
epedien 6f Pitiieh lie coincided. Having, however, pre •
aided at the melting in titi City, he felt that he should
ileareely dokatice to the strong feelings there exhibited if
he did nelmeke a melt respectful and earnest appeal to
the noble bed at the head of the government, urging him
to prevent any more of that disappointment with which the
electors of the City had witnessed the course he had felt it
his duty to pursue on the Jewish question.
Mr. ANSTEY (amid loud cries of " Oh, oh ") rose to
move that the prayer of the petition of the electors of the
City be takes sate eossideratien—in other words, that the
house would hear counsel at the bar in pursuance of its
prayer. lie thought the City electors had much cause to
complain of the hon. memberwho had just spoken, and
who, though he had presided at the meeting, had taken
it upon himself to dissent from the prayer of the petition.
/is (Mr. Anstey) should press. his motion to a division,
and hoped none of his timid friends would ask him to pnr-
----- -----

- .
sue a contrary coarse.
I Mr. AGLIONBY would advise the hon. member not to
divide ; but at the same time he
felt it his duty to give his
vote for the motion ; and he trusted that the Speaker would
see nothing disrespectful to his authority, and nothing un-
constitutional, in asking the house to reverse the decision
of last session, which was only declaratory of a construction

of the law.
Mr. R. CURRIE threw himself on the indulgence of the
house while he made a few remarks in reply to the observa-
tions in respect to his conduct on this question.
'At the meeting, while considering the rules and the
order which it would be his duty to impose, he had
' bean somewhat surprised and alarmed by the apparition
near him of that hon. and learned gentleman, the member
for Youghal, of whom and whose career in that house it
was and would be so frequently recorded "left
speaking." (Laughter.) The honourable and learned
gentleman presented himself in all his pristine
vigour, eager for the fray, and anxious for the manifesta-
tion of that energetic rhetoric in which he excelled. He
(Mr. Currie) had scarcely recovered from his astonishment
at the sight of the hon. and learned gentleman when ho
perceived, on the other side of him, the hon. member for
Cockermouth who, it was notorious, also carried large
oratorical guns, of extensive range and not inconsiderable
bore. (Great laughter.) The two hon. gentlemen regarded
the assembly with the joy which warriors are supposed to
feel at sight of focmen worthy of their steel. (Much laugh-
ter.) lie (Mr. Currie) had felt certain that there would be a
collision with the meeting, and he was gratified when he found
the hon. member for Cockermuuth, the unexpected "Dens
ex nsachina," resorting to diplomacy to calm down the hon.
and learned member for 1 oughah and announcing that
great political panacea, a compromise. (Renewed laughter.)
Under the circumstances that compromise had been adopted
by the meeting; and he put it Many practical man whether
such a meeting, at such a time, would be very careful in
its verbal criticism? (Hear, hear.) The petition, as
amended, had been adopted unanimously ; but the ad-
dition made by the hon. and learned member for Youghal
had not been altogether approved of. The addition had
been begutten (to us, the strict law and Latin
phrase) upon the corpus of the petition by the
liOnouruble and learned member for Youghal, in
' conjunction with the hon. member for Cockermouth.
(Great laughter.) The first prayer of the petition pro-
. ceeded legitimately from the resolutions; but the latter
prayer did not flow legitimately from them: lie (Mr.
Currie), therefore, thought he was not to be charged with
having deserted his duty as chairman of the meeting, be-
' cause he refused to join in the extraneous prayer. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought it was perfectly clear that
the meeting in the city of London had but a very imperfect
idea of what it was about. (Ilear, hear.) Which was the
amendment, and which was the resolution, nobody
could say.
Mr. It. CURILIE.—There was no amendment.
Mr. ANSTEY.-1 beg pardon; there was an amend-
ment. (Much laughter.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought this contradiction only
confirmed what he had said ufthe confusion. (Hear, hear.)
But the meeting of the city of London was not to decide
this question. (Hear, hear.) Whatever might be the
opinions popular ist the city of London, or in the borough
of Greenwich, hon. gentlemen opposite must be good enough
to remember that this question had nut yet been sub-
mitted to the people of England at a general election.
(Cheers.)
Mr. U. OSBORNE protested against the language
used by his honourable friend the member for Northamp-
ton. His hon. friend wield be a very good chairman of a
meeting, hut he took leave to say that his hon. friend was a
very bad advocate of a cause like this. (Cheers.) When
his lion. friend attempted to throw odium upon an hon. and
learned gentleman who, however he might excite the risible
faculties of that house, he (Mr. Osborne) believed to lie
~ superior to very many in that house in learning and in
moral courage, and who had done good service on this
question—(laughter, cries of " Oh, oh," and load cheers).—
his hoe. and learned friend must see that he was not advo-
cating the cause which he as well as the lion. and learned
gentleman had at heart. (('heers and laughter.) He (Mr.
Osborne) would venture to tell those hon. gentlemen on the
opposite side, who confined their oratorical powers to yells
of "hear, hear," and "oh, oh!" and who delivered them-
selves of noises more fit for a poultry yard than for a de-
corous assembly—(interruption, laughter, and cheers)—
that had it out been fur the hon. and learned gentleman
this question would not have occupied the position in which
it was placed at that moment. (Cheers.) lie (Mr.
Osborne) begged to tender his thanks to that
1 honourable mud learned gentleman for the able,
manly, and independent stand which he had taken
'in these discussions. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and
: ironical cheers.) lie (Mr. Osborne) hoped the no'ile
lord at the head of the government would bring iu
' a bill to abolish all religious tests whatever. Ile hoped
; that this farce would not go on session after stssiou, and
I that they were not to get for next year a mere " promise to
pay," which was neser to be honoured. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir J. Tyrell, Mr. llobhouse,
and Mr. Anatey, the house divided :
For the motion
Against it
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. ANSTEY having recapitulated the course he had
taken of moving tan amendment in the earlier part of the
evening, and then moving an adjournment, because he saw
' the house were too impatient to give him an impartial hear-
ing, said that if the house agreed to the resolution, he should
propose that it be with a salvo, contained in certain words,
which he would mote in addition to the words moved by the
noble lord. The amendment would be in these words—
That this house, having regard to the religious scruples of
the hon. gentleman the member for Greenwich, would use
' its undoubted privilege, and make such an amendmeat by
resolution in the form of the oath of abjuration, as would
enable the hon. member to take and subscribe to it. That
would not be altogether satisfactory to him, but he would
rather take it than that the seat of his lion. friend in parlia-
ment should be szquestrated, and the addition was intended
to give effect to the words of the noble lord. The pro-
posals that buil been male had one by one been rejected, and
could nut be renewed, and the resolution of the noble lord
must therefore be aces pied, but some resolution ought to be
adopted expressing that the house had regard to religious
scruples. sty this amendment he only called upon them to
do that which parliament had already dune in the ease of
Mr. Pease. Suppose Mr. S.domons had taken the abjura-
tion oath in the form " upon the faith," not of " a Chris-
tian," but of " a Jew," what objection could there then be
made to him ? Now on the argument of the hon. and
learned Attorney-General, who said he would not object to
the change of one word fur another, in that case the hon.
member for Greenwich would obtain his seat upon the pro
fission of his renunciation of Christianity. He referred to
the conduct of Lord Stanley as a Privy Councillor, who
sanctioned the removal of the disabilities of the Jews in
Canada. To show this he quoted is letter of Lord Stanley
(now Earl of Derby), dated the 28th of August, 1833. The
noble earl was right in 1833, and wrong in 1831. It was
because he did not wish to reduce the question to such a
fearful contingency as that of a collision between a branch
of the legislature and a court of law, that he asked the
house to pause, and if it would not desist from prejudging
the questsua, at least to do something to mitigate the blow
by adopting his amendment. He felt, however, that to
address any further argument to it worse than %odes. in
the present disposition of the house. He had done his
dot , and should press his amendment to a division.
(" Hear." and " Divide."
Mr. HEADLAM thought that it was not possible
to exaggerate the inconsistencies which existed under
' the present law, and that the oath of abjuration was
unsuitable to the present times, and that it was not
for any reason desirable that it should be continued.
It was quite true, as had been observed that evening,
that the oath had served its purpose, and that the
necessity fur it had ceased; and it could not be viewed
otherwise than as detracting from the importance and the
solemnity of an oath to compel members, on entering
the house, to swear a form of words which hail been
enacted to meet the peculiar circumstances of by-gone
times. It appeared most inconsistent to allow a person to
' be sworn on the Old Testament, thereby recognising his
I denial of Christianity, and then afterwards to call upon
i him to pronounce the words "on the true faith of a
' Christian." (Hear, hear.) It was most unfair and on-
' generous to retain an obsolete formality, not fur the put..
pose for which it had been created, but to make it the
means of precluding a portion of our fillow.subjecte from
the exercise of their just rights and privileges. (Hear,
bear.) For his part, however, although the evils and in-
consistencies connected with the present state of matters
were ten times as great as they were, he did not think they
would be justified in so far violating the constitution as to
take upon themselves the power of deciding the question
without reference to the other branch of the legisla-
' tare. When the statute enacted that the oath
I should be taken, it did not prescribe whether it
'should b.:. taken on the old or the new testament,
but left that to be decided according to the common
law. When they referred to the common law they found
i that it was quite as much a portion of that law that the Jew
' should be sworn on the old testament as that the Christian
should be sworn on the new testament. (Hear.) This had
been decidedly the view taken and acted on by Lord Hard-
! wicke. He was of opinion that the oath should be taken in the
! form presented bey the act of parliament, although he ad-
-Itedmit that it led to an absurdity. (Hear, hear.) Then
the question arose whether they were to submit, and to
issue a new writ for the city of London, after the question
having been five times decided in favour of the admission
of the Jew*. lie was not prepared to adopt any such
course. The electors of the city of London had exhibited a
1 steady perseverance in this question, and they would not
' be doing their duty towards them or toward, themselves ii
they submitted any longer. (Loud cheers.) He believed
that if the government took up the question next year in
as masa and shame spirit success would attend their