The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-23 00:00:00

Lord Campbell's Speech, Last Evening, on

the Amendment of Oaths.

The following is a fuller report than is given

elsewhere, from our Third Edition of yesterday, of
the excellent speech delivered last evening, in the

House of Peers, by Lord Campbell :

The NOBLE LORD said that the difficulty of engaging
he attention of the house to the subject of his notice, after

the much more interesting topics they had recently debated,
was so great that nothing but a sense of duty would have
led him for a moment to attempt it. To guard himself in

some degree against the charge of rashness and presump-
tion, he might mention that since the general election of

1847, which had forced the question of-the oaths on the

public and on Parliament, his attention had happened to he
vtry much directed to it, He should ask the house to read

a bill for the first time, and give, as rapidly as posible, au
explanatory statement of its objects, having no intention or
desire to proceed to any further stage during the session,
The uncertainty of being able at any future time to offer

such an explanation alone induced him now to trespass on
the goodness of their lordships. There were only

:lime points on which it was essential that

he should 'gain the concurrence of the house—

first the necessity of revising and amending the arrange•
ment of the oaths formed in 1858, where they were last
adjusted; secondly, on the principle which ought:to govern
such revision and amendment ; thirdly, on the safest and
the most convenient application of the principle. And it
was only on the first of these three points that it was re-
quisite to dwell, not with length, indeed, but with anxiety.
If a clear and obvious case for further legislation was estab..

[shed, an imperfect and erroneous scheme would not be re-

ceived with harshness or severity; if no sufficient reasons
were advanced for agitation of the subject, a bill, however
perfect it might seem in principle and detail, would very
justly be resented by their lordships, inasmuch, as the
great and the established principle of quiete non novere
would then have been improperly departed from. It was
difficult for noble lords to summon the year 1858 to their
memory, intercepted as it was by the size and splendour of
the object which had since then demanded the attention of
the world. But if we had imngination to revive it, if noble

lords could suddenly transport themselves into its discus-

sions and its conflicts, no argument would be necessary

;o show that the conclusion then arrived at on the oaths

was temporary and provisional. IVl3at was the arrhnge-

lent? Two Acts of Parliament were carried by Lord J

Russell and Lord Lucan. The first created a new oath

with a profession of Christianity appended to it. The

second gave both houses of Parliament the discretionary
power to exempt Jewish members (no one else) from mak-
ing the profession appended to that oath, but not to any

other. The arrangement was substantially unchanged,
although two further Acts of Parliament—one in 1859. one
in 1860—had immaterially modified it. How did it arise ?

Lord J. Russell carried through the House of Commons a

bill by which Jews would have become admissable to Par-
liament. The House of Lords amended it in such a way
as to exclude them. Much controversy arose between the

houses, and much excitement in the country. Mr. T.
Duncombe, suddenly relying on a precedent, persuaded the
House of Commons that Baron Rothschild might sit upon

committees without subscribing to the oaths. So great
was the perplexity that a solution
.then appeared to be es-
sential, no matter how crude, or hurried, or anomalous,
provided it would give at once and for a reason to compel
the discord of the legislature, Lord Lyndhurst and Lord

Lucan Loth came forward with proposals. That of Lord

Lyndhurst was withdrawn, that of Lord Lucan was
amended, and in a great degree transformed at the request

of the noble earl who then led the Government. The bill
wh ch the Commons had sent up and that which their

lordships had originated were at last so interwoven as to be
essential to each other, and in that way reached the statute-
book. Ho had given the outline of what took place in
1858, in order to explain that the result did not represent

the mind or judgment of any one who took part in the dis-
cussion in Parliament or out of it. It was not the plan of
Lord J. Russell or Lord Lyndhurst, or Lord Lucan, or the
Opposition, or the Government. It was rather a fortuitous
conclusion emerging from a multiplicity of counsellors, an
exuberance of profits,a rivalry of objects,and a chaos of ideas,
and from such elements of birth it was not to be expected

that a sound or final system would present itself. .But

what language was employed by those who gave their sanc-
tion to it. It was one of reservation an,: of protest. Every
one accepted it as a temporary exit from a difficult emer-
gency. Every one condemned it as a lasting settlement of
a long agitated problem. He would not quote the Parlia-

mentary debates, but he would refer to what might be re.

garded in the light of history, the fact, namely, that Lord
Palmerston on one side, Mr. S. Walpole on the other, both
clearly intimated, in assenting to it, that the question could
not be considered as disposed of, and that further legisla-
tion was inevitable. What defects did it contain to bring
about that general conviction of its being inadequate and
temporary ? To give a special class exemption from a
statute by resolutions or by standing order, by many
had been deemed unconstitutional, and by all was said

to be invidious. It was a dispensing power such as the
Crown had not formerly pretended to. The peremptory

power established by Lord Lucan's bill was confined to the
oath established in Lord J. Russell's bill. Lord J. Russell
had declared that that oath contained some things which
ought not to be there, or at least ought not to be perpetu-
ated. But in order to correct it Baron Rothschild must be
driven out of Parliament, and all the former agitation
brought again into existence, since the discretionary power
to admit him vanished with that simple oath. So long as
the scheme of 1858 remained there would always be a dis-
position in the House of Commons to amend it, and bills
might reach the House of Lords which they were not in-
clined to accept. In 1860 this had happened. But far
more grave was the objection that debates in the House of
Commons may occur at any moment on the standing
order by which the Jewish members were admit-
ted. And they inevitably would arise if parties
happened to be evenly divided. For the last 20 years
we had not seen the results of a c. ntention between two
parties of equal strength and equal aspiration. Let
anyone recall the close of Sir R. Walpole's Government
about 1740, when the sick and dying were brought down to
the floor of the House of Commons to divide, and ask him-
self whether at such moments no attempt would have been
made to rescind a standing order which gave half a dozen
votes to one party or the other. Let anyone recall the time
when Mr. Pitt came in a second time about 1805, when, on
the impeachment of Lord Melville, 216 voted for, and 216
against him, and the Speaker took a quarter of an hour to
decide his casting vote and consider whether at the begiL-
ning of the Parliament no attempt would have been made
to rescind a standing order which might give to Opposition
or to Government the triumph each was eagerly pursuing.
Or, if those illustrations were too distant, let anyone recall
the latter years of Lord Melbourne's Government, when
power turned on a majority of two or three, and
ask himself whether, at that time, the standing order
would not have been questioned by whichever
party it might injure. Whenever, therefore, a condition
always possibly arose, the whole question would revive
which in 1858 men felt so anxious to get rid of. It would
be admitted on the grounds that the legislation of that year
required to be amended. On what principle, however, was
a juster settlement attainable ? Lord Campbell:was anxious
to repudiate the principle which belonged to the bill of 1858
when it just left the Commons, and was first presented to
their lordships. A profession of Christianity appended to
the oath clearly had no value unless universal in the obli-
gation to subscribe to it. It could not be a test if those
who disbelieved in Christianity, were exempted from the
action it would have upon them ; nor could it stamp the
character and colour of that faith, upon Parliament, when
only taken by a portion. On the contrary, in such a case
it would exhibit and define the case that Parliament, on
that vital question, was divided. So far from adding a new
sanction to, it disparaged to some extent the daily service by
which, in both Houses, business was preceded—revealing
with the practice and solemnity of the law the fact that a
class of members differed from the faith implied in such a
mode of worship. They were thus naturally led to the
alternative, viz., that the oaths should be so framed as to
be available for all whom the law admitted in Parliament,
if no necessity exist for the exemptions of the privileges by
which an action was enabled to avoid the forms imposed on
the remainder of the legislature. Lord Campbell then dis-
cussed the different forms in which that principle was ap-
plicable. The oath of 1829, passed for Roman Catholics.
contained no phrases or positions which could debar the
Protestant or Jewish members from subscribing to it. If
adopted as the single oath religious lines of demarcation
would vanish from the legislature. In the judgment of
Lord Campbell, as expressed in 1858, they ought to do so.
The oath of 1829, however, was modern in its character
—and the value of such forms depended in some degree en
that duration of ambiguity. The Roman Consul, who
when Corinth fell into his power, and when rare and valu-
able sculpture had to be transmitted to his country, explained
to the contractors for its passage, that should damage take
place new figures would be rigorously called for, illustrated
the type of intellect which overlooks vital truth—viz., that
no modern form of words can have the solemnity and dignity
of those who have already linked ages, generations, and par-
liaments together. The proposition he had ventured to
embody in the Bill was, leaving the oath of abjuration in
the grave to which it had been sentenced, to re-enact the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy to supersede that of 1854.
These oaths of allegiance and supremacy were established
in the first Act of William and Mary ; again in the Bth
Act of William and Mary; again in the Bill of Rights,
meant as an eternal monument of freedom,—were never
altered or disturbed till 1858 , wore then altered and dis-
turbed for no purpose except to remove the complication on
Jewishquestions which existed. The complication which yet
remains will disappear if we re-enact, them. They are
known to be available fcr all members of the Legislature,
whether Protestant or Jewish, and Roman Catholics will
Will continue to subscribe the oath of 1829. Lord Campbell
then referred to a bill which Lord Lyndhurst had introduced
in 1855 to repeal the oath of abjuration, and which, had it
been carried, would have led to the exact position which his
bill designed to accomplish. He had the shelter, therefore,
of that venerable lord, as well as of the Bill of Rights and
the innumerable Parliaments in which the oaths he wished
to re-enact had been accepted. The clauses were so framed
as to supersede the oath of 1858, to revive the oaths ho had
referred to, and to maintain in the House of Lords it in-