The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-15 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL

On Lord J. RUSSELL moving that the House go
into Committee on the Bill,
Mr. SPOONER presented a Bill from the Lay Asso-
ciation of Birmingham against it.
Sir R. PEEL had hoped that it was the intention of
Government to place the Jew on the same footing in
regard to civil and military matters, as well as in regard
to Parliamentary privileges, as some other classes.
With respect to Protestant Dissenters and other classes,
an oath or declaration was taken previous to their being
admitted to their offices, but which, containing as it did
the words " on the true faith of a Christian," the Jew
could not conscientiously take. The Noble Lord re-
lieved the Jew so far as his admission to a seat in Par-
liament was concerned, but he left him debarred from
being admitted to any civil or military office, in conse-
quence of the prescribed declaration referred to. He
would not embarrass the measure by introducing any
new clause into it to carry out his intentions, but he
hoped measures would be taken to place the Jew in the
possession of all the privileges, civil and parliamentary,
enjoyed by other classes.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said by the Bill introduced
by him last year, which was lost in the House of Lords,
the Jcw was admitted to all the privileges, civil and
parliamentary, which other classes were. The present
Bill was framed on a different footing, having as its
main object the revision of the oaths taken by Mem-
bers of both Houses of Parliament, Jews as well as others,
and he did not think such a clause: as the Right Hon.
Gentleman referred to could be introduced into it. If,
however, the measure passed, he conceived there would
be no difficulty in carrying through a measure which
would confer upon the Jew the means of admission to
civil offices, and believing that they were entitled to
that privilege, ho should propose a measure conferring
it upon them after the passing of the present Bill,
Mr. BANKES had no objection to the first part of
tho measure, namely, a revision of the oaths taken by
Members of that lions° other than Roman Catholics,
but when in Committee he would support the amend-
ment of the Hen. Member for Surrey against allowing
the Jews to have a seat in that House. As to allowing
the Jews to sit as magistrates and hold civil offices he
had no objection, and already they officiated as sheriffs
and aldermen; but as to giving them a seat in Parlia-
ment he decidedly objected.
Sir R. PEEL, in explanation, said that which he had
stated was with reference to civil and military offices,
and not municipal. In 1845 the Jews were released
from certain disqualifications, and placed upon the same
footing with other subjects as regarded imunicipal
offices.

➢ir. GOULBURN thought the Noble Lord (Lord
John Russell) might give them some explanation with
reference to the course he proposed to be taken by the
Jews in the present Bill. In the former Bill he had
proposed that the Jews should take the same oath as the
Roman Catholics did, namely, that they would not do
anything to injurejthe Protestant Church. In the course
of twelve months the Noble Lord had, however, changed
his mind, and he did Rot now propose to exact those
pledges which were demanded of the Roman Catholics.
After a few words from Sir R. Howard, Mr. J.
O'Connell, and Mr. Law,
The House resolved itself into Committee.
On the question being put that the first clause should
stand part of the Bill.
Mr. VERNON SMITH rose to move the amendment
of which he had given notice, namely, the omission of
the following words in the first clause:—" And that I
do not believe that the Pope of Rome or any other
foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate,
hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdic-
tion, authority or power, within this realm, and that I
will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement
of property within this realm as established by the laws,
and I du make this recognition, declaration, and pro-
mise, heartily, willingly, and truly upon the true faith
of a Christian." As to the first portion of the passage,
which he wished to see omitted, he (Mr. Vernon Smith)
could ❑ot understand why any Protestant or Jew should
be called upon to subscribe to it.—(Hear, hear.) As to
part, making it necessary to say " upon the
the slightest
necessity for retaining the words at all, and ho would
necessity a Christian," he could not see
altogether omitted than retained for
and then omitted in the oath pro-
p Christian Members,b
members of the Jewish perpsua-
posed to be taken y
it would bo much better to
He thought, indeed,
that faith
could be taken by all classes of ro-
rttrhaitel: vet them
trame an oath
Catholic,—(Hear, hear.)
sive to wry high-minded_d
by
moving his amendment.
The Hon. Member concluded
1 arOOd at present,
Lord J. RUSSELL said, as the v
Pro-
testants and Catholics, instead of retaining words Wren-