The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

ence—" That no such persons have a right to the throne
of Great Britain, and I abjure all obedience to them or
any of them, stating this in the true and ordinary sense
of the word, without any secret or mental reservation,
and on the true faith of a Christian." He said that if
any one came voluntarily into a grave assembly and
made such a statement, such person could only be
looked on as a case for some personal restraint. (Cheers
and laughter.) But noble lords came into that house
and stood at that table—all business being meanwhile
suspended, and his noble and learned friend on the
woolsack assuming additional gravity for the solemn
occasion—and made that statement not voluntarily, but
on compulsion, and called on the Almighty to witness it.
(Loud cries of hear, hear.) To make the matter more
ridiculous, each noble lord signed his name, in order
that this absurdity might be secure of being handed
down to posterity. Surely, hearing all this, their lord-
ships could not sanction such an absurdity for a moment
after it has been fairly brought under their notice.
(Cheers.) In addition to what he had said relative to
what he might call the expansion of the oath of alle-
giance, he would refer to what he had before stated to
show how necessary that expansion was. To continue
it to suit present exigencies, he would propose to strike
out every part of the oath to which he had referred, ex-
cept that part which related to the succession to the
throne as settled by the act, and to the character of the
sovereign in as far as regarded religion. He retained
this latter, because he could conceive no greater cala-
mity that could befal this country, judging not only from
past experience, but from what was daily passing before
their eyes, than the allowing the crown of these realms
to be placed on the head of a Roman Catholic. (Loud
cheers.) Now several unfounded rumours had been
spread abroad respecting the fourth clause of this bill,
among others, that by that clause members of the
Jewish religion might be introduced into either house of
Parliament. Respecting this clause he had been attacked
in various shapes, as if he had introduced the clause with
such an intention. But he could assure their lordships
he should not feel justified in attempting to do that by a
side wind which he dared not do openly. (Loud cheers.)
There was no lawyer who would put such a construction
on the fourth clause as he *had heard applied to it,
namely, that by its provision members of the Jewish
religion might go into the House of Commons, and
make a declaration, or take the oath therein specified.
Why, at that very moment the words " on the true
faith of a Christian," were not in the affirmation of the
Quaker, nor in the oath of a Roman Catholic, and if a
person of the Jewish persuasion were to take either the
affirmation or the oath, it would be a mere nullity, and
he would be just as liable after the oath to be prose-
cuted for penalties as if no such oath or affirmation had
been made. But he admitted that the clause was copied
from a bill which had been laid on their lordships' table
by a noble and learned friend some years since, and con-
tained some general words having reference to the pro-
hibition of aliens and separatists from sitting in the
House of Commons. However, as he had no intention
to alter the classes of persons who were permitted to sit,
he should propose to strike out those general words, and
confine himself to the words used by the Quakers in
affirmation. He would be asked why he did not extend
this bill to the Roman Catholics. The answer was very
short and plain. He was anxious that the bill should
pass, and therefore did not wish to entangle with it any
matter that might render its passage difficult. (Hear,
hear.) That was the simple answer he had to give, and
if any noble lord thought right to alter the oath aken
by Roman Catholics it was perfectly competent
for him to bring in a bill ; but he had not thought
right to encumber this bill with any attempt of the kind.
Further, he had been pressed much more strongly to
strike out the words, " On the true faith of a Christian."
The answer he had given to such applications was, that
he felt bound to respect a decision of their lordships'
house :recently and decisively pronounced. He could
not strike out these words, because if he struck them
out, there would be no chance of passing the bill, and
therefore he yielded to necessity. in the matter. But at
the same time he must be allowed to say, after having
voted in the minority on the former occasion, that al-
though he yielded to necessity it was against his own con-
viction. Perhaps he might be allowed in justification to
state very shortly the grounds of that conviction, so far
as it related to the words to which he had referred. The
introduction of these words was very curious, and it
might not be out of place to detail them to their lordships
in as few words as possible. After the discovery of the
gunpowder plot in the third year of the reign of James
1., search was made in the chambers of a person named
Francis Tresham, one of the conspirators, who had cham-
bers in the Temple. During the search a manuscript
was found, entitled " A Treatise on Usurpation." Tho
manuscript was altered in the handwriting of Garnett,
the superior of the Jesuits, and had the imprimatur of
Blackhall, at that time the archpriest of the Roman Ca-
tholics. It was made use of on the trial of the persons
implicated in the plot, and afterwards found its way,
through the hands of Archbishops Abbott and Laud, into
the Bodleian Library, where it remained for many years,
and was only lately brought to light. It had recently
been reprinted with a suitable preface, and was well worthy
their lordships' attention. It had marginal notes in the
handwriting of Sir E. Coke, the Attorney-General for
the prosecution, and its object was to show how the obli-
gations of an oath might be avoided. It contained many
chapters, and the doctrine was laid down that if a ques-
tion was put to you that you thought in your conscience
you were not bound to answer, you might answer that
question aloud, but might at the same time qualify it
with other words, spoken mentally, so that the whole,
being taken together, the "aloud" with the " reserve"
mentally expressed, if the whole was true, then you
might, without being considered guilty of taking a false
oath, swear to the truth of the proposition, so that,
while the person addressed, applied only the words that
he heard, the person who took the oath applied the
whole of the proposition,ithe "aloud" and the " reserve."
For instance, if you were asked by a person whom
in your conscience you thought you were not bound
to answer—a magistrate, perhaps, " Were you in London
to-day?" you might say you had not been in London,
provided you added mentally, " For any improper pur-
pose." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The reserve saved
the truth of the proposition. It was remarkable that
in the letters of Pascal, he ascribed to the Jesuits exactly
that doctrine, and here in this manuscript, in the hand-
writing of the superior of the Jesuits, they had it laid
down as a principle of the Roman Catholic Church, or
rather of the Jesuits who formed a part of that Church.
In addition to what he had stated there were some ex-
ceptions, and these went to show that the words, " On
the true faith of a Christian," were used to prevent the
Roman Catholics taking an oath of that description. It
was remarkable that in the year in which the plot was
discovered the oath of allegiance was introduced, and
then for the first time the words " without equivocation,
evasion, or secret reservation, and on the true faith of a
Christian," were introduced. (Hear, hear.) There could
be no doubt that the oath was framed by Sir E. Coke
while in possession of this document, carefully suited to
the occasion, and so worded in order to prevent Roman
Catholics taking it evasively. It was perfectly clear
then that when that oath was framed and those words
introduced, they were not introduced as a test of Chris-
tianity, but solely to make it more binding on Roman
Catholics. It was a remarkable circumstance also, that
when the oath of abjuration was framed, it was framed
on the model of the oath of allegiance, and those con-
cluding words added. To apply those words to persons
of the Jewish persuasion, for whom they were never in-
tended, but for another class, and persons of the Jewish
persuasion being at the time in a state of banishment,
in which they had been absent for 400 years, and from
which they did not return for many years after, was, as
it appeared to him, a misapplication of the most extra-
ordinary description. (Hear, hear.) The case had
been argued at great length in the Court of Exchequer,
and he wished to state to their lordships what was
stated by some of the learned judges on that occasion,
with reference to the point to which he had just been
referring. He would first mention, however, that it was
said that if this oath, although framed for the purpose
which he had stated, namely, that of being binding
on the consciences of Roman Catholics, were not in
existence, some direct act of legislation would have been
passed for the exclusion of members of the Jewish
persuasion. But it was remarkable that during the
greater part of the reign of William 111. no attempt
nwoatshmmgadwe
itmoteivnetrroddourcine
gstuhcaht
taimbeillto,
apnrde prevent there t
Jews
from
taking their seats in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He
admitted that at a subsequent period when the position
of the Jews in this country was not understood, and
when they were improperly considered as aliens, any
person attempting to sit in Parliament while professing
that religion would, in all probability, have been excluded
by an act of the Legislature, but no such an attempt
having been made, they were now solely excluded by the
operation of this oath. The passages to which he re-
ferredd he" should only read one or
two. One learned judge said There was not in the act
of abjuration any tendency to show that the Legislature
were very short, an
wished to exclude the Jews, the
whole strain of the
statute being directed against
persons who held commu-
nion with the Roman Catholics, and
words 'On the true faith of a Christian were inserted in he thought the
the oath, not as a test of Christianity, but for a different
,
object, namely, for the purpose of framing the oath so as
to be most effectually binding on the consciences of the
Roman Catholies." Another learned judge, for whom
he had the greatest respect, a person of great learning,
acuteness, and soundness of judgment (Baron Alderson)
the law, to
come to this conclusion, for lexpound believe
do not that the
expressed himself in these terms :—"ledro m
oost ost sincerely
regret to be obliged as a mere
case of the Jews was thought of by the Legislature in
framing this act. I think it would be more worthy of
this country to exclude the Jews, if they are to be ex-
h I give no opinion—by some
direct enactment, and not merely by the casual operation
eluded—a point on which
of a clause intended to apply toa
different class of the
d "This act excludes Jews
from sitting in Parliaments d
ju g not' by the direct intention
subjects of this countrye."sei(C, 'leers.) And in another
passage the learned
of the act, but by an unforeseen and unintended applies,-
cation of a few words inserted with an entirely different
object. This I do not consider to be consistent with
the practice of the
law of the land." (Hear, hear.)
Lyndhurst)
he went further than what was stated by
agreed, and l
saidthat if
Now in these principles he (Lord entirely
excluded it would be more consistent with the honour
Baron Alderson. when he
of this country to have it done by direct legislation.
He went further than that, and said that it was unjust
without such an express act to exclude them from Par-
liament, that it was contrary to the principles of the
Constitution, and that no natural born subject of this
Crown ought to be deprived of the same rights
as his fellow subjects unless he had been con-
victed of some crime, or unless he was ex-
cluded by some direct act of Legislature directed
specially against him, or against the class to which he
belonged. (Hear, hear.) He stated that as a principle
of the Constitution, and if it were so the Jew could only
be excluded by the concurrent voice of both Houses of

Parliament, and with the assent of the crown. If you
excluded him by the casual operation of a clause which
had been directed against him or the class to which he
belonged, you deprived him of a right in opposition to
the opinions of the other house of Parliament. On
these grounds therefore he said, that although he re-
tained the words "On the true faith of a Christian,"
he maintained them as a necessity, but against his own
decided convictions. He was sorry to have troubled
their lordships at such length. (Loud cheers.) He
passed these points by, and recalling their lordships'
attention to the grounds which he had stated for repeal.
ing the oath of supremacy, and for the alteration of the
oath of abjuration, without repeating the arguments
which he had already adduced, and he trusted that on
these grounds he should have their lordships' concur-
rence to the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.)
The Earl of DERBY had waited for some member
of the Government to address himself to this subject,

but as none had so risen, he must beg to call attention

to a few points in the speech of the noble lord who had

lust sat clown. It was not his wish to offer any oppo-

sition to the second reading of the bill, but in assenting
to that stage he understood himself as assenting to the

necessity of considering certain oaths taken by members
of that and !the other house of Parliament. Further
than that, in assenting to the second reading he did not
understand their lordships or himself to assent to any

specific alteration of the oath, or to relinquish any

opinion which they had already expressed on the sub-

lect. He admitted that a portion of the oath was sur-

plusage and might require change, but he did not go
along with his noble and learned friend in thinking that
the securities to be substituted were sufficient. His
noble and learned friend sought to alter the oath of al-
legiance, and to do away with the oath of supremacy.
All admitted that the oath might require alteration, but
he could not admit the doctrine of his noble and learned
friend, that the admission of the Roman Catholics to
Parliament was a recognition of the spiritual power of
the Pope. He did not mean to deny that the Pope exer-
cised spiritual jurisdiction over the consciences of Roman
Catholics, but Parliament declared that it members re-
nounced such authority, and the law did not recognise it,
nor
sh o u ldgave
be
mostany power
unwilling, t
seeing the it . e
nlie c
ro
a(cLohi
nr dg
spiritDe r b Derby)
the see of Rome, to omit from the oath taken by Protestant
members of Parliament, a solemn protest against the
domination of the see of Rome. With respect to the
oath of abjuration it might be ridiculous to renounce
allegiance to the Pretender ; but he should like to see—
and in this he was happy to conour with his noble and
learned friend—in that oath also a declaration that the
succession to the throne of these realms should be exclu-
sively Protestant. (Cheers.) Now, if he was not mis-
taken, the view he had taken on both these points was
the view still maintained by a considerable number of her
Majesty's Ministers ; and it was a question upon which
Government would no doubt take some united action if
they could agree as to what was requisite and proper.
He held in his hand a bill which had been introduced in
the preceding session by Lord John Russell for the pur-
pose of amending the Parliamentary representation, and
although he found that for the purpose of admitting the
Jews Lord John Russell omitted the words which his
noble and learned friend proposed to retain, yet his lord-
ship introduced a most stringent declaration, maintain-
ing the succession in the hands of Protestants, and re-
nouncing obedience to any foreign prince or potentate
whatever. This bill also abjured in the strongest terms
the belief in any power of the Pope to release subjects
from their allegiance. Therefore, what his noble and
learned friend proposed to reject, Lord J. Russell re-
tained in his bill of the preceding year, for the admission
of the Jews into Parliament, an object which his noble
and learned friend did not entertain. He was satisfied
that his noble and learned friend had no intention of re-
versing their lordships' decision given on'the subject of
the admission of the Jews. The question had been
solemnly discussed and decided by a considerable majo-
rity, and besides his noble friend retained the words
which effected the exclusion of Jews. But he confessed
that such being the view of his noble and learned friend,
he regretted that he should have prejudiced the chances
of his bill, by introducing a very elaborate argument for
•the admission of the Jews, and by showing exceedingly
good reasons why the excluding words should be struck
out. He certainly must look with suspicion on this bill.
His noble and learned friend said he retained those
words for the sole purpose of facilitating the passing of
the bill. Of course his noble and learned friend referred
only to the passing of the bill through their lord-
ships' house, for th retention of those words could
give no additional facility for passing it through
the other house. Now, he would put this to his
noble and learned friend. This bill was introduced
on the last day of May. The House of Commons
were so overwhelmed with business that they had made
very little progress with legislation ; and what certainty
had their lordships that if this bill were passed by their
lordships and sent down to the House of Commons,
worded as it was, it would not be amended by the omis-
sion of these words in the latter end of July or the corn.
mencement of August, and then brought back for the
assent of the few peers who still remained to occupy their
seats in Parliament ? (Hear, hear.) He was not de-
sirous of throwing any impediments in the way of the
fair and impartial consideration of the object which his
noble and learned friend had in view; but he hoped he
should not be thought unreasonable if, looking forward
to what he deemed not a very improbable occurrence, he
put a plain question to noble lords opposite, namely,
what course they would pursue if such an amendment
were introduced ? (Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that
if at that period of the year the bill were returned to the
house with such an amendment, her Majesty's Govern-
ment would then have absolute control over its adoption
or none adoption. Had the bill been brought in at the
commencement of the session, their lordships might have
exercised a deliberate judgment upon it ; but under the
circumstances of the case, it was absolutely impossible
for them to exercise such a judgment ; and unless her
Majesty's Government declared that they adhered to the
decision to which their lordships had already come, and
would not use their influence in either house of Parlia-
ment to reverse it, then he warned their lordships against
permitting the bill at that period to leave that house for
the consideration and amendment of the other house.
(Hear, hear.) He did not speak from mere suspicion on
this subject. There bad been a very significant intima-
tion by the leader of the House of Commons, given in
answer to a deputation which went to him on the sub-
ject of Jewish claims, that, though he was not prepared
to bring in any direct measure, for the purpose of re-
opening the discussion on a question which had been
disposed of by the House of Lords, yet a bill for the
alteration of oaths was about to be introduced into the
other house of Parliament • and he told the advocate of
Jewish claims that it would be prudent to see how far
that bill might be made available for the purpose of ob-
taining what they asked.
Lord LYNDHURST was understood to disclaim
having had any communication with Lord John Russell
in reference to this bill.

The Earl of DERBY said he had no intention to cast
the slightest reflection on his noble and learned friend's
good faith, being perfectly convinced that he had brought
forward his bill solely for the purpose which he had
stated ; but the words of the present leader of the
House of Commons led him to infer that the bill
might possibly be perverted from the purpose for which
it was introduced. (Hear, hear.) Now he had stated
before that he did not intend to offer any opposition to
the second reading. He had doubts with regard to the
wording of the proposed oath, but that was matter for
consideration in committee. He was ready to admit
the propriety and expediency of making some alteration
in the oaths at present administered ; but he must re-
serve to himself perfect liberty to take any course that
he might think proper on the next stage. He trusted
that her Majesty's Government would not hesitate to
give an assurance that both in that and in the other
house of Parliament they would resist any attempt to
amend the bill so as to pervert it from the avowed object
of its framer. If they would give that assurance, then
they should meet with no obstruction from him in carry-
ing it through the house ; but if they declined to give
that assurance, he must be permitted to look at a pos-
sible and probable contingency, and, entertaining a sus-
picion as to the danger which would be incurred by pro-
ceeding with the bill, he must tell their lordships that he
thought it would be infinitely better to postpone its con-
sideration until the early period of the next session.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said—My lords, with re-

ference to the alteration in the oaths proposed by my
noble and learned friend, I must confess that I think his
speech, like all the most powerful eloquence, was marked
by great good sense—(cheers)—and I think it is impos-
sible for your lordships to reject the proposal which he
has made. It is of course quite unnecessary for me to
add a word to his statement, which must have carried
conviction to your lordships' minds. With respect to
the suggestion of the noble earl opposite, I must say that
it is one of a most unusual description, one which I have
never heard made in this house before, and one to which
I should conceive it impossible for any Minister to give
an answer. In the first place the noble earl has totally
misrepresented—unintentionally, of course—the state-
ment of my noble friend the member for the city of
London. The noble lord tLord J. Russell), lam in-

formed, stated to a deputation who addressed him on
the subject of relieving the Jews from the disabilities
under which they labour, that he was waiting to see
what was the nature of the bill which was to be intro-
duced by the noble and learned lord (Lord Lyndhurst),
of which at the time he was entirely ignorant, but the
object of which, according to common report, would affect
the condition of the Jews. The noble lord said, and said
only, that he would wait to see what were the provisions
of that bill before he gave any advice or pronounced any
opinion on the subject. (Hear, hear.) Now I have
only one regret to express with reference to the speech
of my noble and learned friend, namely, that lie did not
deliver the latter part of it some time ago ; for I think
there would at least have some chance of its diminishing
the majority with which your lordships rejected the
proposal which I had the honour to make. But as, not-
withstanding the desire which I then expressed, and
which is now entertained by her Majesty's Government,
of relieving the Jews from those disabilities, I am cer-
tainly prepared to make no proposition on the subject at
present. Ido not wish to interfere with the progress
and success of a measure so manifestly consistent with
reason awl common sense as the bill proposed by my
noble and learned friend. (Cheers.) I therefore ab-
stain entirely from interfering with any of the provisions
of this bill, and such will be the course of her Majesty's
Government. As to what we shall do in consequence of
any amendments being introduced in the House of Com-
mons, I most unquestionably decline to give any pledge
on that subject. (Hear, hear.) I think it most unrea-
sonable for the noble earl or any noble lord to expect
that we should fetter our discretion in any such manner,