The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-07 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the second reading
of the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS rose to move that the Bill be read
a second time this day six months. He complained that
the real nature of the Bill could not be satisfactorily
traced from its title. None save those who had had an
opportunity of reading the Bill could tell what was its
object, and indeed he thought it would have been more
consistent in the Noble Lord if he had favoured
the House with some statement as to the
exact purpose of the Bill—what the object was that it
had been introduced to effect. If, however, they took
the Bill under what he supposed was its true designation,
the •• Jews' Bill," they should perhaps gather its mean
ing ; but though they had had opportunities every year
of discussing the object it had in view, for the last 30 years,
yet they had never discussed it under circumstances so
likely to effect its success, and therefore the Christian
character of that House, as during the last two
years. Indeed, he apprehended that no Bill
of this nature would have been brought forward
but for the recent election in the city of London.
Though the avowed object of the Bill had been re-
jected by the House of Lords, it had been re-
introduced into this House under a new name.
Now this Bill was brought forward for the second time,
and it proposed in a wholesale manner to deprive the
Crown and the country of one of the safeguards of the
constitution. It proposed to remove altogether those
oaths which had hitherto been held essential for the
maintenance of the constitution; but they had not
heard a single argument to show for what good
purpose the alteration could be made. The oath
to be substituted for those already in existence
ought to contain all the provisions of the present oaths.
The oath of allegiance remained unaltered for six cen-
turies, till the year 1688, when certain alterations were
made in it to give more latitude to the consciences
of those who took it. At that time the words heirs and
successors were left out, but they were retained in the
oath of abjuration. Surely, then, if they were retained
in one they ought to be retained in the other; bat still
be did not propose that they should be re-inserted. This
was a Protestant country; the people in it were
not ashamed of professing Protestantism; aed
so long as the country existed as a Protesant
state there could b© no just ground or reason to change
the Protestant oaths which a Member of either House
of Parliament took on entering his seat.—(Hear.)
A very important element in the discussion was, that
there was no element whatever in the oath which his
Noble Friend proposed to substitute ; there was no re-
ference whatever to the Protestant character of the
Sovereign. It was as a Protestant, and as Protestants
only, that the illustrious family of her Majesty ascended
the throne, and not only as Protestants, but as Pro-
testants of the Episcopal Church of England and Ire-
land. In fact, his Noble Friend had hoisted neutral
colours, simply that he might cover enemies' goods.—
(Hear and cheers.) The fact was that the 13111 was
calculated to take away from the Legislature the essen-
tial portion of its Christian character.—(Hear, hear.)
He was aware that the alteration bad been made within
the last twenty years, but as he had stated on a former
occasion, until that alteration was made there was always
some Cristian rite. The oath was taken either upon the
gospels, upon the crown, or upon some religious relic.
Such an argument might be by some considered irreve-
lant, but irrovelaney by no means diminished its force.
Ho had the opinions of several eminent men of 1773,
and it might be said the opinions of those who lived
a century ago, but it should be recollected that although
abroad power might be vested only in those who were
seated in positions of authority, in this country it was
distributed throughout the whole of the community, and
was especially assigned to those who in that House took
part in the Government of the country.—(Cheers.) His
Noble Friend had last year asked, 'with more of an air
of triumph that the occasion justified, what good the
oath had donei—(Hear, hear.) Why it had at least
done this good, that it had served as a bulwark in the
attacks on our common Christianity.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the
Bill be read a 2nd time that day six months.
Mr. BERESFORD seconded the motion, and said he
had failed to see any sufficient cause, or any just reason,
for hazsrding such a great experiment as the admission
of Jews into Parliament. He supported the doctrine
that those in the possession of the administrative
should show at least an acknowledgment of the Christian
faith in their measures. Upon that doctrine they had
hitherto acted, and under it they had flourished, and he
would not now participate in that which he considered
morally and religiously wrong. It was strange
that the Government, instead of fostering and shielding
their faith should be the first to give offence to it. He
had a strong confidence in the religious feeling of the
people of England, who would struggle and prevail in
spite of every obstacle, and he trusted, that with the
blessing of an all-merciful Being, they would continue
still to be, not a professing, but a faithful and Christian
nation.

Mr. PEEL and Mr. TRELAWNY rose together, but
The SPEAKER called upon Mr. Peel,and immediately
the utmost silence and attention was manifested by the
House.

Mr. PEEL said, he should be sure on the present
'occasion to express his sentiments upon the
Antastion tinder consideration, and almost had already
occupied so much the attention of the House; and he
felt not the interest that he should not duly show his re-
spect to the House, which had so mach considered that
subject if he did not confidently rely upon that indul-
gence which the House was always disposed to extend
to those who had occasion for the first time
to express their sentiments.—(Cheers.) Indeed he
stood much in need of that indulgence, because he
had the misfortune to follow a Bight lion. Baronet
well known in that House, and whose personal character
entitled him to its respect ; and the more so because
he had arrived at a conclusion directly opposite
do that which he had come to on the facts which pre-
sented themselves for their consideration—(Hear,
hear)—ho had come to the conclusion to vote for the
second reading of the Bill, under cover of which
it was sought to relieve the Jews from these disabilities
which attached to them as subjects of this realm, and
which, let the House recollect, attached to no other sub-
ject of the realm. He wished, by the
permission of the House to state some of the grounds.
He supported the Bill on the broad fundamental principle
of our constitution, that all its privileges ought of right
to belong to every natural born subject of the realm—
they belonged to them, not because they were communi-
cants of a particular sect, but because they fulfilled all the
obligations which devolved upon the cit'zens of a state.
Indeed, Parliament had recognised the rights of the
Jews by conferring upon them all the offices of the
state—civil, military, and judicial. As a magistrate
he ought to administer the law judicially, and
ministerially as a sheriff. Almost every
office of trust and authority which he
could name were open to the few. They had given him
votes at elections, both parliamentary and municipal, but
nevertheless he was disqualified from sitting in that
House. The constituencies might elect him, at d the, re-
turning officer re• urn him as a Membtr of Parliament. yet
he could not take his seat in that House and voices a Mem-
ber of Parliament. It was true a distinction had been
drass n between the holding of the two offices. The Act of
Charts H., on which much stress had been laid, did
not prevent Protestant Dissenters from sitting in that
House; yet these cases appeared in no wise different
from the case of the admission 'of the Jew. The law
to which he would note call attention affected the Jew
so as to prevent his admission into the House, as he
was callei upon to take the on-h " One the
true faith of a Christian." In the reign
of James the F.rit an oath was required to be
taken by Members of the House of Commons previous
to entering the House, and no further legislative mea-
sure 3 were made till the reign of Charles 11., when a
more st ringeu t measure was yelped requiring
Members of both Houses of Parliament to
take the oath of allegiance, abjuration, and
supremacy, and to sign a declaration against trap.

LONDON,

substantiation. These oaths did not at all contain the
words " upon the true faith of a Christian," and there-
fore, as far as the legislative disabilities of that period
went, the Jew was not disabled from taking his seat in
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Louis XIV., however,
having recognized the pretender, an Act was passed
imposing upon the members of the Legislature an oath,
which declared that King William had lawfully suc-
ceeded to the throne, and no one else had any right or
title to it, and then it was that the words " on. the
true faith of a Christian" were introduced into the
oath. The design of the oath, however, was not to ex-
clude the Jew, and it was not the oath which now ex-
cluded him, but the fortuitous circumstances which led
to the introduction of these words. Upon political
grounds, therefore, the Jew ought not to be ex•
eluded. Bat it might be argued upon political
grounds that it was important that before any
man was admitted to Parliament that his con-
science should be first bound before ho entered
upon his legislative functions. Well, the Jew did
not object to that, nor did he object to take the
oath provided they permitted him to take it in a different
shape.—(Hear, hear.) That they could bind the con-
science of a Jew was generally admitted. and as the
words "upon the true faith of a Christian," were parely
of a ceremonial character, intended no theibt to give
greater significance and solemnity to the taking of the
oaths, he could see no reason, either in a religions or
political point of view, why the phraseology should not be
changed so as to enable the Jew to subscribe to it.
These expressions showed how strongly the county y was
divided upon the subject ; but when the terms acre
considered attentively, it would appear that there
was contained in them no degree of danger.—
(thee, hear.) It was by some others supposed that, as in
the olden time the State was in subssraienco to the
Church. It was not to be denied that there were per-
sons who desired that the Charch should bo in subser-
vience to the State. But there were facts which could not
be denied, and among them was this, that they had
deliberately, and after a sufficient view of the ch cum-
stances of the case, already in two instances altered the
oaths taken by Members of Parliament, and departed
from the old rule which had prescribed that note should
be members but those who were in communion with the
Church of England.—(Cheers and lend cries of "Hear."
They had first altered the sacramental in 1825. and
again they had altered the terms of the oath in 1828;
and why should they depart from this rul.tt of
progress on the present occasion, and depart
from that principle which had al ways been
the distinguishing mark of the Bri:ish constitution.
Another argument of religious expediency advanced
against the further progres of this measure ivas,
that the influence which this Bill, if passed
into law, might introduce into ;the con3p )si, ion
of Parlisment would unfit it for the discharge
Of that branch of its functions which concerns d the
interests of the Church. Ho thought it wnnld hp scl r+itc.a
that there was a community in Parliament, cons itt,ted
as it now was, which dealt with the affairs of the clitarch.
At the same time it should be borne, in
mind that Parliament dealt only with the temporal
affairs of the Church. A short answer to an objecrion
of that kind appeared to him to be that the c on-
gruity which already existed was introduced
when the Members of that House ceased to be
exclusively composed of conformists to j the
church. He did pass on to another argument.
He referred to the value which was set on the
nominal profession of christianity on the ?Inert
of the members of the Legislature. That • outw and
union was represented as part of the law and
practice of Parliament and the Constitution; but
when was it, he would ask, when that had bee a a
gnarantee of the Christianity of the nation? Tire H on:
Member concluded by saying he would give his cori lial
support for the second reading of the Bill.—(Louti and
prolonged cheering.)
Mr. TURNER followed, and was