The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 2G, 1554.

tion. He dwelt with much earnestness upon the question
whether the Christian character of the nation were to be
preserved, and ridiculed the opinion that unanimity
would be promoted by such a measure as this. Bringing
warnings from English history against concessions to
Roman Catholics, and introducing the acquittal of
the seven bishops, the cheers heard at Hounslow camp and
the tears of King James, he expressed a hope that the
House of Lords, the real representatives of the religious
feeling of the country, would make a stand, as they had
previously done, against such a measure. The polioy of
the Government was as unacceptable to the people of
England as was a similar policy in 1688.
Mr. MULL thought they had had too much historical
lore on a simple question. In answer to appeals to dis-
senting members of the house, he said that if the measure
were a just one, it would not be opposed by them merely
because it was acceptable to classes with wham they dif.
fered. He did not believe that the influence of Rome was
increasing, but if it were, political restrictions would not
diminish it. We might as well try to exclude the sugges-
tions of the evil one by shutting doors and windows. He
believed that such remedies served to intensify the mischief
against which it was sought to guard, just as the belief in
witchcraft flourished as long as the law was set in motion
against it. Why should Protestants be so constantly
fearful for their own religion? The Pope had no more
powerful ally than the terrified imagination of weak Pro-
testants. Abolish all religious restrictions, and men would
soon calm down on this subject. He also thought that all
members of that house ought to be able to exercise an un-
fettered and uncrippled judgment in assisting to frame the
laws of the country, and he gave every portion of the bill
his cordial support.
Mr. WHITESIDE considered that while human nature
WAS what it was, oaths were necessary. Lord J. Russell
was-opening a perilous discussion, of which he might not
live to see the end. He entered into an historical account
of the oath which is taken by Roman Catholic ecclesias-
tics, which he considered was an oath of fealty to the
Pope, against which the oath of supremacy was a pro-
test. Ho warned Lord J. Russell that if he announced
that, without any necessity or outward pressure, he
was determined to destroy every Protestant security,
the people of England would hold a different opinion. Al-
luding to Sir R. Peel, he denied that statesman the right
to be called the author of Catholic emancipation, for he
had sat unmoved and heard Plunkett and Grattan, but,
terrified by Mr. O'Connell, had framed a bill which had
been the cause of most of the misfortunes of Ireland. But
the Catholic oath had been framed with great wisdom; and
now those who adopted Sir Robert's policy, and revered
his memory, were going to abolish it without a blush. He
bitterly assailed Mr. Gladstone for ridiculing an oath which
he admitted ho did not understand, and he quoted a ser-
mon which he had heard on the Quirinal, in which, in pre-
sence of the Pope and Cardinals, the preacher had pro-
nounced a enlogium on the University of Oxford for the
number of learned and active men she contained, who were
devoted to the Papacy. Mr. Gladstone showed how well
deserved was this praise. Mr. Whiteside then adverted to
another sermon, by Dr. Pusey, in which he had spoken of
the Revolution as so far from glorious that it was blasphe-
mous. He believed that the Jew question had been
dragged into this debate in order to insure its defeat. If
this bill passed, might not Baron Rothschild be Premier
or Chancellor, and give away Church patronage, or sit as
judge in the Ecclesiastical Court on questions of faith ?
[The Baron was present.] He gave his vote with regret
against Jewish emancipation, but if a bill for that pur-
pose, properly framed, were produced, he would give it
his consideration, though with his present convictions he
should oppose it. (Roars of laughter.) But he (lid not
believe that the Jews would always be alienated from the
faith of God, and he hoped to see Baron Rothschild take
his seat as a Christian, and help to maintain those Pro-
testant safeguards which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
wished to destroy.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I certainly have beheld to-night a
somewhat novel spectacle on the subject of the admission of
Jews to Parliament and to office. The House of Lords
having several times rejected the bill which had passed this
house for the purpose, and the simple and separate purpose,
of the admission of the Jews, I thought it might be as
well to put together the various provisions—(laughter and
cheers)—and to propose to enact that without religious
disability persons elected by the electors of this country
should take their seats by an oath in conformity with the
principle of religious liberty. Hon. gentlemen opposite
seem to think that a very ridiculous proposition. This,
however, is at least apparent, that whereas in every
former debate we have heard that Christians are united,
that there is one characteristic which pervades all denomina-
tions of Christians, that Jews are totally a separate race, that
they are so divided from WI Christians, that it is impossible
to admit them, and that the character of Christianity is a
broad and simple character, which is found in all the
members of this house. Instead, I say, of holding that
language, the Jews have been almost entirely omitted in
the debate of this night, and the differences between Pro-
testant and Catholic have formed the whole staple of the
discussion. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, if facts and history
did not console me I might be deterred from asking the
house to affirm the second reading of this bill by the
denunciations which have been offered by the hon. and
learned member for Stamford, and the hon. and learned
member for the, University of Dublin. The hon. and
learned member for Stamford says, " Here is an act passed
in the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, that wise prin-
cess ; here is an oath framed for the security of Protes-
tantism ; is it possible that you can think of altering an oath
so sacred, and which more than three centuries ago was
enacted by the wisdom of that great princess, and by the
able statesmen who formed her council I" Well, sir, I might
have some hesitation, thus alarmed by the hon. and learned
gentleman's denunciations, from touching that oath, had I not
the consolation of seeing that that oath was totally repealed
by an act which was passed in the tim3 of the revolution, so
that I cannot feel guilty of altering that oath, because another
set of our wise ancestors, namely, King and his ad-
visers, most properly thought fit to repeal it. Then came
the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin,
who says, " Here is an oath enacted by the wisdom of King
William and Lord Somers, you would not propose to alter it !"
Why that might induce me to hesitate and to pause, were it

•
not that by an Act of the 10th Geo. IV., that oath was
entirely altered, and that those very persons whom it was in-
tended by that oath to exclude, were admitted by- the Act of

the 10th Geo. IV., so that the two acts which fain accused
of touching with irreverent hands, the act of that wise Prin-
cess Elizabeth, and the act of that wise Prince King William,
do not exist in the statute book, and therefore they having
been slain already, it is impossible for me to kill them a
second time. Now, this Act of the 10th Geo. IV. seems to
me either to answer the arguments of hon. gentlemen oppo-
site, or to place the debate on a totally different foundation ?
They say, " Is it possible that, consistently with the Act of
King William, Roman Catholics can be admitted ? Here is
the security of that oath by which ecclesiastical and spiritual
jurisdiction is denied to any foreign prince or potentate."
Well that was intended to exclude Roman C Itholics, but by
the act to which I have referred Roman Catholics are exempt
from its provisions ; and those words, " ecclesiastical"
and " spiritual," for their sakes, for their benefit is in-
dulgence of their scruples, are omitted from the oath.
Why, either one or the other of two consequences must
follow. Either the whole of the declamation which I have been

listening to for hours to-night is totally out of place, or else
this consequence must .follow, that hon. gentleman opposite
are now proposing to reverse the policy of the Emancipation
Act. (Hear, hear.) Are you prepared to affirm that no ono
ought to sit in this house unless they have taken that oath of
King William, and that Roman Catholics ought in future to be
excluded ? (Hear.) Why, the hon. and learned gentleman the
member for the university of Dublin said —" If a person does
not conform to the oaths which are enacted by the Bill of
Rights, he has no business to sit in this house.". Does he mean
by that allusion to the Bill of Rights, this oath of which I have
spoken ? Does ho mean that oath of supremacy so much al-
luded to ? If ho means that, he denies that Roman Catholics
have a right in this house; if he does not mean that, his argu-
ment has no bearing on this debate. Then, observe what lam
accused of doing. We have heard from the hen. and learned
gentleman who has just sat down, that the oath of 1829 was
framed with consummate ability. Now, I have taken those
words which are applied to the Roman Catholics by the act of
1829. I have put them into the oath which I have inserted in
my bill—the oath of supremacy is alt red for that purpose,
and those same words the hon. member for Stamford calls a
" mean andmutilated declaration;" and the right hon. gentle-
man the member for the university of Dublin calls them "weak
and washy words." (Cheers and laughter.) At one moment
it is said that these words have beeff framed with consum-
mato ability, and that it does great honour to the wisdom
of Sir Robert Peel to have framed such words; but at the
next moment they are mean and mutilated, and weak and
washy, and it was exceedingly wrong of M 9 to have thought
of introducing them. (Cheers and laughter.) What I have
proposed to do is, to take words which all the members of the
house could adopt. The persons against whom these words
were particularly framed—the persons against whom they
were iuteuded as a bar and a security, were the Roman Catho-
lics, but you have admitted the Roman Catholics. (Hear,
hear.) Why, then, not take the words which you have al-
lowed to be sufficient for the Roman Catholics, and let the
Protestants, against whom you do not wash for a security, be
admitted by the same words (Hear, hear.) You do not
want the security against the Protestants ; these words,
" ecclesiastical and spiritual," were affirmed as a security
against Roman Cat'iolics. You say you aro ready to give up
these words so far as regards those against whom these words
were a security ; but as regards the men against whom you
want no security, you will take and preserve these words as
the great safeguards of the Cot stitutiou. (Hear, hear.) Con-

side; what the Protestants of this country are as a community.
They don't want to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Pope.
(Hear, hear.) They don't want the Pope's tribunals in this
country (Hear, hear.) They don't refer to the Popo or to
his authority on the subject of marriages, or on any transac-
tions of civil life, and therefore it is quite unnecessary, in ad-
dition to all tbo securities you have in their daily life, in their
worship on every Sunday, in their usual practices on every
day—to ask for any security from them that they are ready
to protest against foreign interference. (Hear, hear.) It
shows that no security is wanting. (Hear, hear.) Here were
a class of persons whom you did not admit, and whom you
said were not to be trusted, and you took security against
them; but you now find that these persons are to be trusted,
that your suspicions, whether well founded or not, are at all
events over ; and you don't think it necessary any longer to

take bail against those persons; but against all persons you
do take bail, and it will be a satisfaction to me that if the
suspected persons are not subject to any restraint, you will
not put the restraint upon those who are not suspected.
(Hear.) The argument has gone so much on the various
statements I have made, that I am obliged to speak somewhat
on the general subject. It appears to me that an oath is a
very solemn proceeding. (Hear, hear, and a laugh from the
Opposition benches.) I cannot think it ought to be taken
which is a stale and lightly. I
seems
(t
Ho
ei na
(Hear.)
)a
Heusi of Lord
cannot think that the peers and bishops in the
come here and declare, in the presence of
Lords and,the members of the House of Commons
ought to
oath 7 It is in God, that
unnecessary proposition. (Hear.) It
degree of levity that ought not to be commit-
thleve,''in my
declare that I these words
:_is the declaration—what is the
the descendants of
of Wales during the rson
and who during hi„ ~vlifetime of.
took upon himself the style
of England, andle
ons
e solemnly
iene e,
thatand not sincerely
one
of
Who claimed to be Prince
the late King James 11.,
andlifetipie pretended to be and
King James titlel of
forth, has any right or title to thei.o ''?
or any of its dominions
any allegiance to him ; so help
whatever,
King James 111.
Scotland and so
of this realm,
me,
God."
of I abjure
of that oath you say " so help me, God," thus tie
end
solemn form of an oath, when every one
of
us
knewusien.f the
well that there was no such person to claim any alio:nal y
from any person in this country. And then, in orderucte
blink the absurdity of it, the hon. and learned gentleman who
last spoke has said that he saw ou the tomb in Rome, where
the last of the Stuart family is buried—a tomb put up, I be_
lieve, at the expense of his late Majesty King George the
Fourth—(hear)--a certain inscription, and the last of that
family having been buried there, he thinks that he is a most
formidable Pretender-:—(laughter)—agaipst whom, you should
keep up this solemn form oath.
this oath be buried in that very tomb in which lies the last of
the Stuarts ? (Hear, hear.) They were a false, a treacherous,
AUd 4 tyrannical race. I am very glad they wore rejected, and

that none of the descendants of James ;the Second ever came
back again, or were allowed to claim any right to govern
this country; but now that they are all departed, it is
not necessary that the members of this house and of
the other house of Parliament, in which there are several
bishops, should go through the form of this oath. (Hear.)
Then we go on to the oath which is taken by Roman Catho-
lics ; I will come afterwards to the question of the oath of
supremacy. In this oath the Roman Catholics declare that it
is not an article of their faith, and that they do renounce
and reject the opinion, that princes excommunicated by the
Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or
any persons whatever. The honourable and learned gentle-
man has said that I left these words in the bill of 1852
the bill for amending the representation. I did leave the
word " depose," but I left out the word " murder," which I
thought very insulting. (Hear.) I certainly left in the word
" depose," but I really don't think that paragraph is a para-
graph of any use. When we are framing an oath it should
be a mere simple oath, that every member of this house can
take, whatever religious persuasion he may belong to. I
don't think it is worth while keeping up any reference to this
doctrine, which, whatever any gentleman • may say, I do not
believe at this time forms the belief of the Roman Catholics of
this country. (Hear.) Then the oath goes on to say, "And
that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement
of property within this real," as established. On that I will
not attempt to add anything to what has been said by my
right bon, friend near ' me—(hear)—in his eloquent speech,
which, I trust, as the hon. gentleman has said, will go forth
thrOUghout the country producing the effect it was so well
calculated to create. (Cheers.) Then the oath goes on to
say, " I do hereby declare that I will not try to subvert the
present Church Establishment as settled by law within this
realm." Now these words were put in no doubt in 1829 with
the view of their forming a security for the Church Establish-
ment. Let us consider a little in what sense an oath of this
kind ever gives you any security at all. (Hear.) When per-
sons are called upon to do a certain act ; when they feel it is
au obligation upon them which they may be fairly called
upon to perform, the importance of an oath—the calling
God to witness to the truth of what they say, and to their
willingness to perform certain acts, no doubt give a
very solemn sanction to what they declare, and do
I think give a security which the community has a right to
ask, and upon which they may depend. Now, for instance,
a man relating some transaction which may be afterwards the
subject of a criminal process, amongs, t his friends at the dinner
table, may relate circumstances loosely and carelessly—he may
mix up with what he has seen and personally known other
circumstances which he believes from having heard, but upon
which he has no decided knowledge. That same man, when
summoned into a court'of justice as a witness on a criminal
trial, may properly be called upon to swear he did tell the
truth, the whole teeth, and nothing but the truth, and under
that obligation, and in that presence, he will take care to re-
late only that which he is sure that he has seen, and to disre-
gard those circumstances which, in a careless moment, in
narrative amongst his friends, he interspersed in what he re-
lated; thereby showing that he had no objection to depose to
them on oath. (Hear.) So also with regard to'the duty of
allegiance. All persons, I trust, who are members of Parlia-
me, and other persons, who are called upon to take this
oath, are ready to perform their duty of allegiance, and, their
duty being solemnly called upon, to perform the taking of an
oath does not give an ad•litional security for the performance
of that duty. (Hear hear) But it is a very different thing
when you ask men to undertake a duty which is contrary
to what they believe some other duty imposes, and what in
other circumstances they may find themselves unable to per-
form. (Hear.) Now, sir, on looking upon this act, a re-
markable circumstance occurs to me, which is an illustra-
tion of what lam saying. In the beginning of the reign
of Charles 11. our ancestors thought they should frame some
provision by which an insurrection such as had distinguished
the former civil war should be prevented, by which men
bound themselves not to take arms against the Sovereign, and
not to use, as the leaders of the popular party had done in
the time of Charles 1., the name of the Sovereign against his
own person. And accordingly au oath was framed, which un-
derwent, I think, seventeen days' debate in the House of
Lords, in these words, "I, A. 8., declare it is not lawful,
upon any pretence whatever, to take arms against the King,
and I do abjure that traitorous disposition of taking arms on
his authority against his person, and against those who are
commissioned by him." The terms were very much debated,
and during these debates Lord Halifax, with his usual point
and wit, said that which never has been, and could not be
answered; I think. He said,—" An oath of this kind will
give you no security; if every man in this town had taken a
solemn oath not to break into his neighbour's house, and not
to rob it, no man for that reason would leave his door un-
bolted and his house open." (Laughter.) That was the say-
ing of Lord Halifax, as able and witty a man as ever,perhaps
took part in the debates of Parliament; and what happened?
The oath was enacted, the first clause declared that iu the
opinion of the majority that governed at that time it was not
lawful, on any pretence whatever, to take arms against the
King; but it afterwards happened that King James, in the
opinion of this country, of Whigs and Tories, violated the
conditions on which he alone could be allowed to reign.
Both parties took arms against him; the oath was totally dis-
regarded. By means of the arms they had taken against him
they dethroned the King, and in one of the first acts of King
William stands a clause by which that oath is totally repealed.
Such is the security of an oath against that which men feel
to be their duty. The men of that day felt it to be their duty
to oppose King James in arms, and to dethrone him, and they
were not deterred by this oath, which had been framed with
such infinite care after 17 days of discussion in the House of
Commons. The same thing is applicable to this oath with
regard to the Roman Catholics, Ido not know how Roman
Catholics in general understand that oath ; but this I know,
that there are only two exceptions of Roman Catholic mem-
bers who thought it was their duty to abstain from giving
their votes in cases where ecclesiastical questions came under
discussion. With these one or two exceptions, the Roman ,
Catholic members, who thought it would be for the benefit of
Ireland that the revenues of the Church establishment should
be entirely taken away, had no scruple or hesitation in giving ,
a vote for that purpose. (Hear, hear.) How they understood 1
the oath it is not for me to say. (Hear, hear.) I remember
Mr. O'Connell explained that it did not mean revenues,
that it meant doctrine, discipline, and government of the
Church, and that he intended to leave tho doctrine, disci-
pline, and government of the Church as it stands. (Hear.)
But what I know is, that this oath gives you no security
against those who are disposed to vote against the revenues
of the Church, and what I do know further, because I re-
member it particularly well is, that Lord Stanley, the present
Lord Derby, rose in his seat, he then sitting on this side of
the house, read the terms of the oath which I have just read
to you, with a few words that come further on in regard to
the Protestant religion, and asked then if gentlemen who had
taken that oath would vote on the question before the house
that night. (Hear.) Ido say it is a great evil and a great
mischief, that When a political question is before the house—
the question whether the Church establishment should have
certain revenues or not—a question upon which members
of the House of Commons should be free to vote as
their sense of what is due to the welfare of the country
dictates—there should be a certain set of members sitting
in this house against whom a member can get up and tell ,
them that they cannot vote in a certain way upon
that question without a violation of their vote. (Hear,
hear.) You may say that the Roman Catholic members
have not asked for a change of this oath. They may
have considered it was a compact at the time, and that they
are bound not to ask for the removal of that oath. But I
say, without any suggestion from them, and without knowing
whether they wish for a change of this oath, that for the sake
of our proceedings, for the sake of giving to every member of
this house that freedom which he should have, for the sake of
not obliging a man to give a vote for which, if he gave it one
way, he may be accused of violating a solemn oath, and for
which, if he gives it the other, he may be accused by nearly the
whole of his constituents of deserting the interests of his coun-
try and the trust committed to him. I do say that you should not
put members of this house iu that situation, and that you
should, by the terms of the oath, leave every man to vote
upon every political question as he thinks it to be his duty.
Be his opinion whatever it may, he should be as free to give
effect to it by his vote on a question affecting the Church esta-
blishment—be it with respect to church rates or any other
matter—as he is on a question with regard to the malt tax or
the Exchequer bonds, Now, sir, I am told that this oath was
a solemn settlement made in 1825, and that it ought not to be
disturbed. My right hon. friend near me has answered that
argument, but I certainly can bear witness that when for
about twenty-five years the country has been kept in agitation
by the discussion of this question and the difficulty of settling
it—when one year there was a majority of five one way, and
the next year perhaps a majority of ten the other way—when
the Cabinet had been for years divided upon the-question, we,
who had no concern in tho Government at that time, but who
were prepared to lend our aid in the settlement of a question
which we had long thought stood in the way of the peace and
tranquillity of Ireland, and of the rights of a great portion of
our feliow subjects, were ready to lend our aid to anything
that appeared to be a tolerable settlement of that question.
I remember perfectly well, and so does my right hon, friend
the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), a meeting of
some of the friends of the Roman Catholics, which was then
held at Sir F. Burdett's. We then discussed the merits of the
proposed scheme and the objections to it. We discussed the
hardship of disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders, the
injustice of excluding Mr. O'Connell when Roman Catholics
were admitted, and the terms of the oath which we are now
considering; and the result was that we wished to support the
Government in carrying that measure, but that there were cer-
tain alterations that we wished to make in it. Lord Althorp was
the bearer of our wishes to Sir R. Peel, and I perfectly well
remember his saying that he was informed by Sir R. Peel
that the measure, as he had introduced it, was the best mea-
sure which he thought he should be able to carry, and that
the success of that measure would bo endangered if the friends
of the Roman Catholics insisted upon any of those alterations.
With that declaration we were content. We supported Sir R.
Peel in all the divisions upon that subject, and we interposed
no amendments. But, sir, Ido think that at the end of a
quarter of a century, it is allowable to take into consideration
some of the forms of the oath then imposed; and to consider
whether some parts of it, which bring on harsh and unplea-
sant discussions amongst the members of this house, are not
unnecessary, and even almost absurd. I own Ido not think
that the terms of that oath are to be removed from the deli-
berations of Parliament; and I think it is a fair subject for
consideration, if we go into committee, whether we shall
k eep that oath as it stands—whether we shall take the oath
in the bill, or whether any other terms shall be adopted. But
this I must say—that I do not think it is fair to keep up as
part of the oath a declaration which puts a man under the
imputation of having violated his oath if he votes one parti-
cular way upon political questions. Now, sir, I come to the
questioh which has been so much argued, and upon which it
is said that no alteration should be made, and that is, the

negative declaration in the oath —" And I do declare that no
foreign prince, prelate, or potentate hath or ought to have
jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." I have already
alluded to the manner in which 1 prapose to alter this part
of the oath ; and I cannot think that the removal of the ob-

ligation to take that-oath at all alters tho laws Of this coun-
try. The common law of this country denies to any foreign

prince or potentate jurisdiction or authority in this country.
If there are any persons against whom you wish to guard, it
is the Roman Catholic body. . Now, with regard to them, you
have parted with tho security you had. In the year 1829
that question was settled so far as regards Roman Catholics;
and with regard to Protestants you need no security. But
with regard' to Protestants the question is not so perfectly
clear and plain as the bon. gentleman opposite seems to think.
The right bon. gentleman the member for the University of
Dublin (Mr. Napier) said that Lord Somers found this oath
perfectly plain. I have no doubt he did, because he under-
stood it as excluding Roman Catholics, and when it was the
law that Roman Catholics were excluded, nothing could be
easier than to take that oath, which denied that there was
priestsrneoc leiiive i.
receiving
any jurisdiction or power upon the part of Roman Catholics
—the whole tendency of the law being to deny them any
power or jurisdiction whatsoever. But since that time very
great changes have been made. What do you say to the Law
of 1791, which allowed the performance of their religious
functions by priests of the Roman Catholic community ; those
so exercised there i s
receiving
his
The
acts
jurisdictiont l
oi their i
tr
hat wper
priest,
withes from,ithen bishop,ac.on
performings econsent
and nf
tdht that hea t"o bishopceremonyp
Pope
of
quiteuexfen irca.letagr e,
that a a. en acknowledged.
oju jurisdiction
d i
cCantio
ay
oo
ru
atubtehno sayrjy that
whatever
by a foreign prince ? You must say that it is not
ttr s9w me remind the house of whp,t eCCIUTQCI ill the
t hacredobety the direct authority find consent of-the law.
__ there is no such thing I think it is very difficult to

case of the Sussex peerage, in the House of Lords. When
the case of the Sus§ex peerage • was heard before Lord Lynd-
hurst and the other law lords, Dr. Wiseman was examined as to
his inactions and his knowledge with regard to thelaw of mar-
riage at Rome. He said ho had considerable knowledge, and
on being asked how he obtained it, he said he was a judge
acting under an authority given him by tho Pope. He said
he bad no doubt that his authority was entirely spiritual, but
he said also that he separated persons who he did not think
were lawfully married ; that the persons ware debarred
from the rites of the chureh if they did not respect his sen-
tence ; and that, under this apprehension they re-
mained separate. Now this is clearly a very con-
siderable civil. consequence to ensue from his sentence.
After he had given his opinion upon these questions of mar-
riage at considerable length, and had declared that he was
guided by the decrees of the Council of Trent, and that his
decisions might be overthrown at Rome, the Lord Chancellor
declared that he was a good witness because he came within
the description of a person possessing certain knowledge vir-
tute ; and Lord Langdale said that he filled a situation
of importance, and was engaged in the performance of impor-
tant public duties, in order to discharge which properly he
was bound to make himself acquainted with the law of mar-
riage. Now, this person so declared by Lord Langdale in
the House of Lords to ..be engaged iu discharging important
public duties was a Roman Catholic priest, carrying into
effect the decisions of the Court of Rome upon the im-
portant subject of marriage. Well, it is true, that he-has no
temporal authority in this country, and that his decrees have
no civil effect; but although we may say that he hAd no spi-
ritual authority, I cannot think the matterso totally clear and
manifest as some hon. gentlemen have chosen to describe
it. I think that now you have admitted Roman Catholics to
this house, it is much better that you should insert in the
oath words than we can all take, and with respect to which
there should be no ambiguity. One beam-treble gentleman
found fault with the words " temporal and civil" and de-
clared that he would rather have no such words in the oath.
Well, I do not think that these words are essential to the
oath. I introduced them- because, being words taken by
part of the House of Commons, and considere I as one of the
securities of the act of 1829, I thought it might be considered
desirable as a security that Roman Catholics should continue
to take them. Another geutlemau has spoken of the oblige--
tion of persons who receive a benefice iu this couutry to take
the oath of supremacy, and has asked -me whether I would
confine this bill to members of Parliament. Well, I was
taunted one year by au honourable member because I
confined the bill to members of Parliament. I have, how-
ever, no objection to confine it to members of Parliament,
and all persons holding office, because that would attain the
object I have in view. I believe I have now gone over the dif-
ferent parts of the oath, and I have now, therefore, only to add
a very few words with respect to the general effect of the bill,
by which Jews will be admitted to seats in this house and to
offices under the Crown. Now I have no new argument to use
upon this subject. But it appears to me that the only argu-
ment ever used against the proposition is, that they differ
widely and entirely from us ou the subject of religion. If the
principle that the house wishes to adopt is that penises who
differ from us in religious opinions should be excluded from
tit a house, they will be quite right in maintaining the pre-
sent exclusion of the Jews; but when, as in the case of the
Roman Catholics, and as in the case of the Protestant dissen-
ters, you admit that differences and varieties of religious opi-
nions are not a bar to the performance of legislative and civil
functione, I then say that the Jewish body are a body well
affected to the Crown—good citizens of the State—and, if
elected as members of Parliament, as able to give you advice
upon all matters that concern the State as any other subjects
other Majesty who might be elected to this house. I call upon
you, then, to remove tlee only bar, on the ground of religious
opinions, which still remaius. I call upon you to remove it
because you must be sensible that it was the influence of the
Protestant dissenters in elections that enabled them to estab-
lish their claim to the abolition of the Test and Corporation
Acts ; and that it was the formidable attitude of the Roman
Catholics in Ireland which induced you to remove the disabi-
lities which prevented them sitting in this house or occupying
office. If the Jews are equally as trustworthy as any other part
of the people of her Majesty, I call upon you not to continue
an act of religious intolerance because they are few in number,
and have neither the political influence of the Protestant dis-
senters, or the formidable attitude which the Roman Catho-
lics assumed in 1829. I call upon you, therefore, to assent
to this measure on the ground of justice, and on the ground
of religious liberty. I call upon you to make the oath which
admits members to this house simple ; and to free it from
the charge of making odious distinctions between members of
different religions, and of endeavouring, as has been done
to-night on the part of the opposers of this bill, to brand
part of our fallow-subjects as unable to take part in the legis-
lation-of this country. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I can assure the house that I have uo
intention to trespass at any length on their patience, but I
hope that they will be so indulgent as to feel that I may have
claim to be heard in attempts to express my reasons for the
vote I shall give to-night. We have before us, sir, a bill
which is to substitute one oath for the various baths that have
hitherto been taken by us when we approach the table of this
house. In cousidering this bill, a variety of issues have been
placed before the house which Were never before mooted when
the subject that is mainly in the mind of the noble lord has
been before us. It has been said that there are three objects
to be attained by this bill. By the omission of certain words
at the end of one oath, the Jew is to be admitted into Parlia-
ment; by the alteration of another oath the views of the
Romanising Protestants are to be advanced; by the change
and reconstruction of a third oath, the objects of the Roman
Catholics themselves are to be. promoted. The house will
.see, therefore, that we have to consider three issues, which
are in themselves of a different nature. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord has been taunted in the course of this debate' with.
having undertaken the Jewish claims in consequence of an
accidental political connection. Such a taunt, lam sure,
the noble lord will not hear from me. I know well that the
noble lord has, during a long and eminent career, consistently
connected his name with the advocacy of the principle of
religious liberty, and it was, I am sure, in consistency with
that principle that he felt it his duty to become the advocate
of the Jews to political emancipation. I have myself,
on many occasions, supported —at least by my vote—the
noble lord in these_ efforts, though on the only occa-
sion on which I have presumed to offer my opinions
to the house, I have claimed for myself another ground for
the line which I have taken, and another reason for sympathy
in the object which both the noble lord and myself wished to
attain. (Hear, hear.) I respect the principle of religious
liberty, as every gentleman, no doubt, with more or less qua-
lification does who sits in this house, but I cannot say that it
was on the ground of the principle of religious liberty that, iu
obedience to an overwhelming conviction, I felt it my duty to
advocate the political emancipation of her Majesty's subjects
who profess the Jewish religion. I have always upheld that
opinion because I believed that the Jewish race was that to
which the human family in general was most indebted—(a
laugh)—and when I am told, as I have often been, and as I
have heard to-night, that by admitting the Jews into Parlia-
ment you are endangering the Christian character of this as-
sembly and of this community, I must say--and I can assure
every honourable gentleman that I make the observation with
the greatest respect for his opinion—it. does appear to me
that it is because we are a Christian assembly, and a Christian
community, that the claim of the Jews to enjoy all civil and
political privileges is to me irresistible. (Hear, hear.) Sir,
when I remember how much we are indebted to that people,
of what ineffable blessings they have been the human agents
—.when I remember that by their history, their poetry, their
law, our lives are instructed, solaced, and regulated—when
I recall other eonsideratioas and memories more solemn and
reverential, to which I will not further advert, I confess that
I cannot as a Christian oppose the claims of those to whom
Christianity is so much indebted; If I look to modern his
tory and the claims they have on the kindness of the House
of Commons, it is my belief that if the Bible had not been
translated and printed, there would not have been an English
House of Commons at this moment • and I would remind
the members who represent Scottish constituencies how
much the liberties of Scotland aro indebted to the Jews,
and that their freedom is owing to " the sword of the Lord
and of Gideon." (Hear.) When I remember these circum-
stances, I think that the claims of the Jews to political
emancipation cannot be, and have not, iu my mind, been met
by any argument that has at all influenced my opinion; and
there is also another reason why I more particularly wish
that the grant of these immunities, by which the English
Jews will be put on a level with their fellow-subjects in every
respect should not bo denied or delayed. I cannot conceal
from my mind that there is no country in which that people
have been persecuted which has not suffered, whose energies
have not withered, whose political power has not decayed,
and where there have not been evident proofs that the divine
favour has been withdrawn from that land. (Hear, hear.) I
refer now to the cases of Spain and Portugal, as well as to
those of Italy and other southern countries. I cannot say
that in England au accusation of that kind can be made
with any justice' The Jews of this country have not been
long settled here, and never were here in great numbers, yet
at memorable periods of our history they have been treated
by eminent statesmen with great favour. The Lord Pro-
tector himself was a decided favourer of the Jews—he appre-
ciated their character and position, and his religious feelings
assisted him in that appreciation ; but in more modern times,
during the most aristocratic period of our Government, in the
middle of the 18th century, under the administration of
Pelham, measures were introduced and passed in favour of
the Jews, which I think did credit to the discrimination
and genuine piety of that eminent statesman. I need not,
therefore, say that the noble lord, so far as his persistence
in the Course he . has pursued for obtaining the political
emancipation of the Jews, would have found in me an humble
but faithful supporter ; and when I look at what has been
the effect of the efforts already made in their behalf, I can
see no grollud why the noble lord should complain of want
of success in his exertions. This question of the political
emancipation of the Jews, though it may have been formally
introduced to the notice of the house more than twenty years
ago, has been really and seriously discussed iu Parliament only
within the last seven or eight years. And how has it been
received ? The noble lord has succeeded ou many oeeasions
in carrying the question in this house by a decided majority,
whilst ha the other house the measure, if not carried, has at
least-been supported by large numbers, and by men ofegreat
distinction and weight in the country. The Jewish claims
have been received with much more favour than were those of
the Roman Catholics, and certainly the agitation iu favour of
the'Roman Catholic claims at the end of seven years- did not
obtain the success achieved. by the noble lord in the much
briefer time in which he has brought the claims of the Jews
under the notice of Parliament. If we for a moment leave the
sphere of Parliament, and attempt to ascertain the temper of
public opinion with regard to their claims and general condi-
tion, I should say that the opinion of the public out of doors
was even more favourable to them, and more progressive, than
that of Parliament. No man can pretend that the present
position of the Jews in England is for a moment to be com-
pared with what it was twenty or even ten years ago. They
are infinitely more commiserated, the prejudices of which they
were victims have rapidly and considerably diminished, the
debates of Parliament and the writings of literary men out of
the house have thrown much light on a question in no small
degree complicated and involved, and it may bo expected that
the last relics of ancient antipathies will disappear before the
influence of research and the spirit of charity and philosophy,
so that I think it no exaggeration to say that there never was
a body of men subjected to political disqualifications who, iu
so short a time, have influenced public opinion so powerfully
in their favour, and made apparently such considerable ad-
vances towards the object they wished to attain. Feeling, then,
that the question was advancing in the most legitimate way,
and approaching a satisfactory issue, I did lament that the
noble lord should have mixed it up with others which appeared
to me greatly to embarrass it and impede the solution he had at
heart. We. must remember that the race for whom the noble
lord is, we are informed, peculiarly interested, is not a race
which cannot afford to wait. They are not a new people who
have just got into notice, and who, if you do not recognise
their claims, will disappear. They aro an ancient people, a
famous people, an enduring people, and a people who in the
end have generally attained their objects. (A laugh.) *I hope
Parliament may endure for ever, and sometimes I think it
will ; but I cannot help remembering that the Jews have out-
lived Assyrian kings, Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Crews, and
Arabian Caliphs, and therefore I think we need not precipi-
tate their claims, to their ultim ite, prejudice, ajed against
public feeling, but that we may freely leave them to their
own course, sure that argument and fair discussion will facili-
tate M, id accomplish it, (Hear, tear, and murmurs.) But

let us see what the noble lord has done.. Here is a bill in
which the word " Jew" never appears, in which a person not
versed in political tactics could not for a moment divine that
the object of the noble lord lay concealed. (Hear, hear.)-
From the debate of to-eight, we find that the noble ford has
made propositions which have excited great controvesy and
very acrimonious feeling. Deeply anxious as lam to advance
the cause of the Jews, I want to know why the noble lord has
prejudiced, their cause' by mixing up with it other matters
which must appear to the people of this country of infinitely
greater importance, and are attended with far greater po-
litical difficulties.. (Hear, hoar, hear.) I deeply regret the
course he_ has thought 'proper to take. I am afraid that
ho has thrown back that cause. I cannot think the noble
lord has taken a course of which I entirely approve ' • but
I felt he had very great difficulties to deal with, and that
it was not .for me to cavil with him, considering the great
purpose he had in view. (Hear, hear) I would rather that
the noble lord from the first had made a plain, straightfor-
ward appeal for the object which he wished to attain.
I could not have expected from the noble lord that he would
have made that appeal on the ground which would have in-
fluenced me in the vote I should give on this question. I
would rather from the first that the noble lord had, on a con-
sideration of the great principle of religious liberty, which he
represents, recommended the repeal of Jewish disqualifi-
cations, thanthat he should have attempted that repeal by
proposing the_ ()Mission of a few words at the end of an
oath. What are these words, "On the true faith of a Chris-
tian ?" In my mind, additional odium has been created
against the Jews by their cause being associated with this
matter of. the oaths, and by their introduction into this house
being sought through the omission of the words in question.
I do not see why the words " on the true faith of a
tiau" should not be retaiued in every oath. I can conceive
no nobler words, nor words which a man coming to the table
of this house to be sworn to the performance of his duty as a
member of this house could more appropriately use. Why
was it necessary to propose the emancipation of the Jews by
means of the omission of these words ? On the contrary, if
their emancipation had been sought on the broad principle of
religious liberty, I think the case would have been much sim-
plified, and . would have been divested of much unuecessary
prejudice. (Cheers.) I was g'ad to find the noble lord speak
with more reverence of an oath than has been the fashion of
late iu this house lam not suprised at the feeling which
would imply that an oath is less binding with us than it would
have been with our ancestors, when I remember how much
oaths have been multiplied for fiscal and other kindred pur-
poses. In my mind the sanctity of an oath cannot be more
.properly invoked than at the time when a man comes for-
ward in this house, in the service of his country, and in the
face of his Creator vows that he will do his duty to his coun-
try and his Sovereign (heAr) —and I hope to see the day
arrive when, by the free will of Parliament, a Jew will take
his seat in this house, and will take it, not by the odious
omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," but
by the free declaration of a creed of which he ought on every
account to be proud. (Hear, hear.) Now, having touched
on this subject—the first issue raised by this bill—l now ap-
proach the two impel-taut ones which are also raised by this
bill, and which are raised by tie peculiar pl in which the
noble lord has followed. The noble lord—whether it was to
attain his purpose with respect to the Jews, or for any other
purpose, it is not for me to inquire—has dealt with the great
subject of Parliamentary oaths. I must look for a moment
to the nature ,of those oaths and -to the circumstances and
the period at which he proposes this startling change. With
regard to the- oath of supremacy I have little to say ; but I
would state with -respect to this pr. jected alteration of the
oath of supremacy, that I think it unwise and unstatesman-
like at this moment to propose an alteration of that oath. It
-is very difficult to take up an ancient document of any kind,
and, if subjected to the analysis of verbal criticism, not to bo
able to make out a case that if it were the oath which you
had originally to frame, that that should be the form you
would propose. But you are to consider the associations of a
country with political oaths. (Hear.) • You must remember
that the oath of supremacy in its present form does not merely
denote that which its expressions may legally and strictly im-
port; but is associated in the minds of the people of this coun-
try with one of those great political facts which they look
upon as the fundamental element of their political constitu-
tion; and the very fact *that Parliament is altering the oath
of supremacy when there has been no necessity to moot the
point whatever-s:(hear)—is in my mind an indiscreet and an
imprudent act. Unquestionably, it will be associated every-
where with a limited though influential class of the commu-
nity; who have particularly directed their efforts against the
oath of supremacy. I have no particular sympathy with those
individuals, but I can conceive nothing more unwise at the pre-
sent moment than to revive those dissensions that seem some-
what mitigated and allayed. But all the objections that have
been taken to this projected alteration of the oath of supre-
macy sink into insignificance when compared with the objet-'
tion which I have to the alteration of what. is called the Ro-
man Catholic 'oath. • (Wear.) And I object to that alteration
because it appears to me that no course could be pursued by
a minister at this moment more calculated to aggravate
animosity, or more calculated to revive and strengthen those
politico religious dissensions which have been too prevalent in
this country, than the course which' the noble lord has recom-
mended to-night: But, sir, there are other considerations of
a graver nature connected with the alteration of these Parlia-
mentary oaths, and especially the Roman Catholic oath. Now
I have a respect, and more than a respect for the Church- of
Rome, as I have for all Christain Churches. Popes have
always treated the Jews exceedingly ill—(a laugh) --and I
believe the present state of their dominions is much to be at-
tributed to their ill-conduct in that respect. (Laughter.) But
sir, I make a great distinction between the Pope and the
Papacy. It is worse than' idle to pretend at the present day
that the Papacy is a declining institution, or that it is in a
state of decrepitude and decay. There is no doubt that the
Papacy is one of the greatest inventions of human intellect—
(laughter)—and I am not at all prepared to say that at this
moment its influence is not as considerable as it has ever
been in the history of this world, if you take it in relation to
the increase of population, and to circumstances which could
not have existed in what are called the darker ages. We have,
therefore, to encounter no common power. (Cheers.) It is
a vulgar and false idea that would speak of the power of the
Papacy with contempt. It is but three or four years ago
that on onc'of the most solemn occasions of the meeting ,f
the British Parliament the Prime Minister• of this country
came down and informed the most crowded house that I aver
recollect within these walls, that it was his opinion that there
existed, and had' existeel for some time, a vast conspiracy
on the part of the Papal influences against the 'Protestant
liberties of this country in particular. (Mar, hear, from Lord
J. Russell.) Now; the noble lord says " hear, hear," and he
nods assent, because, of course, he would not have made a
declaration of that kind without due and deep cousideratien.
It must have been no common information, and obtained by
no common means, and from no limited circle, that could
have induced or caused au English Minister, under such cir-
cumstances, to have made such a declaration. Do you believe,
sir, that the Roman Papacy is a power that commences great
conspiracies and gives them up ? (Laud cheers.) What right
have we to believe that that great power has renounced that
object which the noble lord, in his duty to his Sovereign
and to his country,' nformed her Parliament that her watch-
ful Minister had discovered and denounced I Do you think
that the Papacy is a power as changeable in its opinions or its
policy as an English Minister. (Loud cheers from the Op-
position.) That was the most important declaration that has
been made for a great number of years -- a most imp etant
political declaration—and nothing that the noble lord has
done or said since, or can do or say, can remove the impres-
sion of that declaration, not only throughout this country,
but throughout Europe. (Hear.) But what is happening at the
present moment ? Are the events of the present day not
such as to justify the opinion of the noble lord which he
communicated to Parliament three or four years ago ? Has
the Papacy again become decrepid— -again become weak
and contemptible ? Has it renounced its ancient and ener-
getic ambition, appropriation, aggression, or whatever else
you may call it? Has the Papacy, which hag for so long a
period enjoyed such supremacy—has it, I say, at the pre-
sent moment, indicated by its conduct that it has at all re-
linquished its ancient policy, or renounced it for aught that
is new or novel ? Lcok at the position of Sardinia at this
moment ! We find there the ambition and the ability of the
feudal ages, and the Papacy exercising au authority, influ-
enced and directed by an intellectual ambition before which
everything seems to bow. I am telling yon that you have
alarmed the Parliament and the country with these views of
the power of the Papacy, that in various parts of Europe you
will find its domination increasing in spite of your old system
of exclusion and restriction. But I tell you this—and I think
I have aright-to say this, even if I were as warm a friend of
religious liberty as the noble lord—that this is not the time
nor the occasion when you should publicly intimate to the
world that you are relaxing the securities you already possess,
and weakening the bulwarks that have been built up before
you. (Cheers.) The noble lord takes the Roman Catholic
oath and analyses it, like an historical grammarian. He says
" Here is a reference to historical personages that are de-
funct ; and there is another passage mere business-like, be-
cause it is an insult to suppose that an English gentleman re-
quires an oath to control his conduct." Then hqu tes Lord
Halifax, who was a wit, and who said, " What is the use of
an oath ?" But Ido not think that wits are the best judges
of oaths ; and, with great admiration for Lord Halifax, who
was a most charming and brilliant personage, I do not think
he was a statesman adapted to the w ants of the present age.
(Laughter and cheers.) We look upon this question in a much
graver mauner. Here is au English minister proposing to
Parliament that England should relax and renounce those se-
curities which Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington
revised at the- time of the Roman Catholic emancipation.
What do the noble lord and his colleagues think will be
the effect of the news when it reaches the Vatican? They
will say, " This is another great surreuder, another great
movemeut of this mysterious Oxford party, (elheers and
laughter.) It is quite clear," they will say, because they will
not examine the question like grammarians or critics, " that
the British Parliament has relinquished its Protestant secu-
rities." (Hear.) But this attempt would be attended with
another influence. By adopting this course, you are not
only inflaming-and falsely inflaming the passions and pros-
pects of Rome, but you are exciting the Protestant fears of
your own fellow-subjects, (Hear.) You aro exciting as much
alarm iu England as you are exciting anticipatory triumph at
Rome, and at a moment when you are making tile Papacy
believe that they have increased advantages for renewed as-
saults you are exciting between the Roman Catholics and Pro-
testants of Great Britain feelings of disgust and dislike from
the course which you are pursuing eto conciliate and blend
them in unison. (Hear, hear.) The- nouse may not give
a membercredit for these wards, and may believe-them to be
only phases of debate, but I declare that I never took a course
which gave me more pain than that which I take on this occa-
sion, and which Ffeel it my duty to take. I could have left
the house, or I might have said, " lam for the political eman-
cipation cif the Jews, and indirectly this bill may have that
effect, and I am justified so far in supporting it ; while on
the other hand, I think, both for the sake of my Roman
Catholic as for my Protestant fellow subjects, nothing can be
more unwise than the course which the Government are
taking with respect to this subject ;" and as I cou'd not con-
sistently, or with any conscience, support the bi11,,1 might
have absented mys If from the house. But I have felt it my
duty to be present, and, with the kind indulgence of the
house, very imperfectly, at this late hour, -to express my
general views on this subject. If the noble lord will retrace
his steps, and go on with the subject which I thought he had
near to his heart, I shall adopt the course which I have uni-
formly taken. The noble lord has on previous occasions
taunted me with being silent in debate when the question
has been before the house ; but as my views were peculiar
views on' the question, I had no wish to obtrude them upon
the house. I have never been false in those principles.
(Loud cheers.) Not lamely in this house, but by other
modes, even at great sacrifices, I have endeavoured
to advance that which- I believed to be a sacred cause.
I trust' the house will not set down to egotism
these views and opinions, but as there have been unfair in-
sinuations of attempted influence on my c?mluct in respect
wt to tehmi s
is ut
ibsj cyt ah
at
pvpairni oe us
ss ttiom ease
tbry t
ehaons e
truly politicalsay ftrhi eantd sa
tw h
noI
time, and under no circumstances, has a single word ever

escaped from any gentleman near me which would tend to
control or influence my conduct in that respect. (Hear, hear.)
They knew from the first, and all must have known it who
would have condescended to inquire into my opinions, how
profound and fervent were my convictions on this great ques-
tion. They knew that at all sacrifices I would uphold that
cause, and though I deeply regret the course which the noble
lord has taken—though I believe it to be one in -vhich ho
not only increase the difficulty with which the Jews have to
contend, but will create in this country betweeh considerable
classes 0 her Majesty's subjecto migundentaaadings which at