The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-18 00:00:00

TO CORRESTONDINTS.
/.4•woksyymo Wooded by Teo £.p.' Lembo abeedag mpg, wad by
by do Oleo. 10, lkoeveybNytyyyt. b Tbyy esSedt GS tilk• day epublkotiee.

HIGH well AT LO/01:10/1•1111LD01.
Tan 111.—Ilershas,49 too I: Marmon. 07 .1.70010.
Twllonsaw.-itoralag. 1 ...pest 1 /tuna" Al dam. Ma 11.

LONDON, THURSDAY, NOY .18.

ON the commencement of the first session of the
new parliament, there are few questions which excite
greater curiosity than those which will arise from the
claim of Baron ROTHSCHILD to take his seat as mem-
ber for the City of London. The majority of the con-
stituency which elected him were probably influenced
by various motives. Many of them, taking it for
granted, that a legal disability existed may have
wished to follow the precedent of the Clare election,
by choosing an unqualified candidate, for the purpose
of inducing the legislature to remove the obnoxious
disqualification ; others, perhaps, were influenced by
the pious frauds of the election agents, who, as was
natural, loudly assured the voters that no such dis-
qualification existed. Some surprise, however, must
have been excited in more partially credulous minds
by the discovery, if they remembered the attempts
that have often been made in and out of parliament
to relieve the Jews from a grievance which, at the
City election, was stated to be purely imaginary. It
was clear that both Lords and Commons, as well as all
speakers and writers en both sides of the question,
had assumed, perhaps without foundation, that a
nominal recognition of Christianity was still required
by law before an elected member could take his seat.
Parliament and the newspapers might have been in i
error, but the unanimity and perseverance withwhich
they had adhered to this, were calculated to excite
suspicion. •
The great body, no doubt, as at all elections,
adopted the list of candidates proposed by the leaders
of their party, in the confidence that by so doing they
would advance the general interests of the eases
which they wished to support. Whatever may bass ,
been the special NW/RS for each particular vote,
every elector who voted for Baron RornscitiLn must
be considered to have recorded his opinion that all
disabilities affecting the Jews are inexpedient, and
that, if they exist, they ought to be abolished. The
manner in which the practical decision of this ques-
tion may prove to have been affected by the return d
a Jewish member most be peculiarly interesting te
every person connected with the constituency of the
City of London.
There can be no doubt that at present the retorts
is perfectly good. The personal disqualifications to ,
which Jews were formerly subjected have disap-
peared
by degrees, rather through the influence of
opinion than by means of direct legislation. From
the time when the Jews were expelled from England
by EDWARD 1., till their restoration by CROMWELL,
no question as to their constitutional rights could
arise ; and we may safely assume that for a consider-
able period after their return they would have been
considered incapable of sitting in parliament, even if
no formal religious tests had existed to exclude them.
Lord CHESTERFIELD'S Jew Naturalisation bill (26
G. 2) only gave facilities to foreign Jews for ob-
taining the same rights which were already en-
oyed by native Jewish subjects. Much doubt was
felt at the time as to the extent of the rights
in question ; and BLacwsrose, whose " Commen-
taries" were written shortly afterwards, expressly
declines to give an opinion on the subject. Even so
lately RS in 1833, during the debates on the Jewish
disabilities, it was more than onoe suggested in debate
that the Jews were still by law in the position of
aliens, and were not merely. excluded by religions
tests, as dissenters. There is, however, no doubt
that Jews have long been entitled to all the privilege.
of British subjects, should they consent to take the
oaths and declarations provided in certain cases. They
have for many years enjoyed the right of voting at
parliamentary elections. The declaration required
from sheriffs of counties, which practically excluded
the Jews from the shrievalty, was abolished by an
act passed about ten years ago ; and 17.8 and 9 Vic.,
c. 32, they are enabled to bold all municipal offices on
taking a declaration from which the obnoxious words
" on the trite faith of a Christian," contained in the
act of 9 Geo. IV., are expunged.
The only remaining disabilities to which the Jews
are subject, arise from the operation of the laws
which require the oath of abjuration to be taken by
members of parliament and certain high officers of
state. The provisions in question are contained in
the act of 13 Will. 111., c. 6, confirmed and amended
by 1 Geo. L, c. 13. The oaths and declarations re-
quired by these acts must be taken and subscribed by
every member before taking his seat ; and it is pro-
vided that, on the refusal of any member to take
them, his election shall be annulled, and a new writ
be issued by the Speaker to 'supply the vacancy.
Neither the Roman Catholic Relief Act, nor any
other statute, has affected, in this respect, the state of
the law sa established by the act of Gee. I.
The only question, therefore, appears to be whether
Mr. ROTHSCHILD will consent to take the oaths re-
quired by law. It is a curious circumstance that
there is nothing in the substance or spirit of the dif-
ferent parliamentary tests, to which Jews have any
reason to object. The oaths and declarations were
devised for the purpose of excluding, first Roman
catholics, and secondly Jacobites. Jews were not
thought of as likely to require exclusion. It is still
more curious that the only formula to which they
now object is contained in the oath of abjuration
which was provided as a security against the Jaco-
bites, and not for any religious or sectarian purpose.
It so happened that a renunciation of the descendants
of Lome IL, in which we have no doubt every Jew
in England is ready to concur, ves, not for the purpose
either of excluding the Jews, or of protecting Christian-
ity, but entirely for the sake of emphasis and solemnity,
clenched by an oath, "on the true faith of a
Christian.* The sacred and %violable principle of
the constitution, which makes Christianity an essen-
tial part of it, has at this moment no existence or
security except a casual phrase, intended for an en-
tirely different purpose, and used no doubt in utter
forgetfulness of the existence of any class of persons
to whom it could be obnoxious. We would willingly
' call the attention of Sir ROBERT INGLIS and other
opponents of the Jewish claims to this point of the
case, as it has not, we believe, been pointed out during
any of the voluminous debates which have taken place
on the subject. There is no religious test provided
deliberately as a condition for entering parliament, to
which the Jews object. They are only prevented
from exercising the full rights of Englishmen, be-
cause they object to the terms of a form provided to
guard, not against heterodoxy, dissent, or irreligion,
bat against the Jacobites of the eighteenth century.
Recurring, however, to the actual state of the law, we
are quite unable to discover any existing method by
which Baron ROTHSCHILD can be enabled to take his
seat, if he refusee—as no doubt will be the ease—to
use the obnoxious words, "on the true faith of a
Christian." The relaxations which have been made I
in the law have all had a definite and limited effect ;
and none of them extend to the right of sitting in par-
liament. Although, as we have said, the form of
the abjuration oath was not intended to exclude any
religious persuasion, the effect of, the words, as they
concerned the Jews, was very soon discovered.
As early as the tenth year of GEORGE. 1.,'
the terms of the oath, as far as it was compulsory on
private persons, were modified by a clause in an act,
which enabled Jews to swear without the use of the
obnoxious clause. The same mode of relief was
adopted, when, in the reign of WILLIAM IV., they
were enabled to serve as sheriffs ; and, again, in 8 &
9 Vict., c. 32, when municipal offices were thrown
open to them. A form was provided in each case,
which omitted the phrase to which the Jews objected.
But neither the act 10 Geo. 1., nor 8 & 9 Vict., in
any way concerns the rights or duties of members of
parliament. The obnoxious words still exist in the
parliamentary formula, and will constitute a barrier
to the admission of all persons who object to
them, till they have been removed by an act of the
' legulatan.

It has been supposed by some plasm that the dial•
culty would be evaded by a vote of the house to en-
able Mr. ROTHSCHILD to substitute some other form
of oath or declaration for that which is enforced on
members in general. It is dear, however, that the
house has no power to dispense with the existing law.
The case of Mr. PEASE, the first quaker member of
parliament, which has been referred to as an authority
for such a course, in no way bears it out. When Mr.
PEASE declined the oath which was tendered to him,
and required to be allowed to make affirmation as a
quaker, he was requested to withdraw till a select
committee had investigated the precedents and law
on the subject Soon afterwards, Mr. WYNN, the
chairman of the committee, moved that Mr. PEASE
should be allowed to affirm, on the authority,
of an act of parliament which authorised the use of
affirmations by quaker' instead of oaths, in all cases
whatever where oaths were required by law. The
right was, in fact, too clear to be disputed, and the
house unanimously adopted Mr. Wyeu's proposition.
It is hardly necessary to remark that no similar
privilege has been allowed to Jews. The late not for
admitting them to municipal offices effects its purpose
by allowing them to take the declaration provided for
quaker!, Moravians, and certain other separatists ; a
sufficient proof that without special enactment they
have no legal claim to exemption from the ordinary
test.
Another case, which will probably be referred to,
is that of Mr. O'CONNELL, when, after the passing
of the Relief Act, he claimed to take his seat
in virtue of an election which had taken place before
the passing of that act. He was heard at the bar of
the house in support of his claim to be admitted to
take the Roman catholic oath provided by the Relief
Bill. In a very able argument he contended—first,
that the act had a retrospective effect ; and, secondly,
that the Act of Union had, as far as regarded Irish
members, repealed the old enactments as to the oath
of supremacy, so far, at least, as to put it in the power
of the house to vote that in the particular case it
should be dispensed with. The existing law, how-
ever, was clearly against him ; and, after a long dis-
cussion, Mr. O'Oorrnstt was formally called upon to
take the oaths, and, on his refusal, a new writ for the
county was hauled by the Speaker.
Mr. ROTHSCHILD may, no doubt, take his choice of
the modes of proceeding adopted in the two cases which
we have mentioned. He may either procure a select
committee to be granted, or be heard b:,- himself or his
counsel at the bar of the house. We have already
stated our reasons for thinking that neither course
could be of any service to him. The committee in one
case, and the house in the other, must necessarily
come to the conclusion that he cannot legally take his
seat 'without first taking the oath of abjuration.
The only remaining method of preserving his seat
would be the passing of a bill through parliament with
a retrospective clause, substituting, in the case of Jews,
for the existing formof abjuration, a declaration similar
to that which is now made the condition of their
serving municipal offices. We have some reason to
believe that the party which supports Sir ROBERT
PEEL is disposed to concur with the government in
admitting Jews to the full privileges of British sub-
jects. If this is so, the only remaining difficulty
would be found in the House of Lords. At present
we are tot disposed to think that success in the upper
house would be impossible. We shall, however, have
further opportunities of discussing the general ques-
tion. For the present we have only endeavoured tc
point out the existing state of the law ; and we have
little doubt that our conclusions will be found to k
correct.

THERE is an anomaly in our bankrupt and insolvency
law which the advocates of reform in that branch of
our legal system, who are to meet on Monday under
the presidency of Mr. MASTERMAN, will do well not to
overlook. The de facto insolvency of one great
landed proprietor in Scotland is already announced,
and a list has been forwarded to us of landowners
(titled and untitled) in that country whose inability
to satisfy their just and lawful creditors will aeon be-
come equally notorious. Surely the merchants of Lon-
don, at a time when so many magnates of their order
have been subjected to the operation of the bankrupt
laws, will inquire whether there is any valid reason
for exempting land-owning defaulters from the same
ordeal.
In April, 1844, Lord CorreNHAst introduced a bill
in the House of Lords, by which he proposed, inter
alia, to have frauds on creditors tried as criminal
offences, before a juiy, and to provide for the compul-
sory distribution of the property dell debtors unable to
pay their creditors, without any distinction between
traders and non-traders. On the 30th of the
same month Lord LYNDHURST supported the bill.
The measure, therefore, introduced by the first reform-
ing lawyer of the day, in respect of professional rank,
received the approbation of the only, living conserva-
tive lawyer who has occupied the same position.
Lord Clorresiztsa will be accused by no one of any
undue propensity to innovation, and Lord LYND-
HURST is the great champion of anti-innovation ; yet
both of these distinguished men, eminent both by
station and talent, declared that it was just and expe-
dient to deal with all defaulting debtors, of whatever
class, in the same way.
This view, however, did not prove agreeable to our
hereditary fended legislators. Suspicions began le
arise that so equitable a measure might be incom-
patible with the preservation of cherished
immunities. Lord BROUGHAM was accordingly
employed to prepare a safe measure, one which the
Lords might gain credit for passing, without running
any, risk of subjecting their indebted brethren to
awkward investigations, or a rateable distribution of
their property. Lord LYNDHURST, by this time
aware of his precipitancy in giving in his adhesion to
' Lord COTTENHAM'S bill on grounds of expediency
and justice alone, irrespective of the sinister interests
of his order, was too decidedly committed to abet
Lord BROUGHAM directly. But he sought to shuffle
out of his inconvenient position, by moving
that the rival measures be referred to a
select committee. And in the speech with
which he prefaced this motion he made the
amende honorable to his " order." He called the
attention of the house especially to one provision of
Lord COTTENHAM's bill. It wan, " that if any in&
vidual had a judgment for debt entered against him,
and had not the means of immediately satisfying it,
whatever might be his rank or station in society,
whether he were a peer of parliament or prince of
the blood—in short,
realm except the sovereign—he might be
cited before one of the commissioners of
bankruptcy in town or country to be inter-
rogated and have his answers taken down in
writing; and if they. were not perfectly satisfactory,
the commissioners might immediately commit him to
prison, there to remain, without bail, until he had
given answers to the entire satisfaction of the oom-
missionen before whom he was called for the pur-
pose of examination."
Lords CAMPBELL and COTTENHAM were too wary
to be caught in this trap. of their super-subtle adver-
sary. They plainly designated the proposal of Lord
LYNDHURST a proposal to reject the original
bill. Lord Corrercitsm reminded the peers that
there had already been ample iossury, ,
utterly repudiated the distinction between re-
ferring this bill to a select committee and reject-
ing it. To have rejected it would have been the
more manly course." And thus the real, earnest law-
reformers in the House of Lords compelled their W.
leagues avowedly to reject this moat just and expe-
dient measure, for the reason assigned by Lord.
LYNDHURST :—" He had, in the course of his profes-
sional career, known many persons of the highest
rank who might have been pLad in the unfortunate
situation he had described."

It is not our purpose, at present, to re-tread
a field we have often gone over, and show
the fallacy of all the arguments by which the
immunities of the land-owning class, in cases of bank-
ruptcy, are supported. Our object is to remind the
gentlemen now agitating for the reform of the bank-
rupt and insolvency laws, that the land-owning mag-
nates of Scotland to whom • -.ye alluded, with, PP.-
-.
haps, the solitary exception
have been publicly --
curred their er•o-

rantably extensive
have, in fact, inc
the payment of i
evade as landowners•
days the distinction
trading capitalists hr
Earl of LEIN:STIR •

improvements; the
beat and closest driver
markets of the north.
was as extensive a r-
in railways. Why
empted from the
monied means ?

.fo whom we have alluded, wiiit, pei,
xception of the one whose difficulties
I proclaimed, have one and all in-
s:comments by rash and unwar-
re railway speculations. They
incurred as traders th•,
d which they 0* etitr,"• '
.I. ...
41
sets. The truth ity_eigli-1 • ; AI
chop between lando • ' '''' A
i has ceased to exist.. IP- Id
, was an extensive &kr Bit • • g 5/
e late Earl of GALLOWIT it .
iver of a bargain in tilei, . •' vs
rth. The late Earl of ' . Ca
speculator in canals (e)'!/$
y are traders of their c tgllketo
liabalities of untitled
Should it be necessary, we may